4 ms·

I think your second sentence/paragraph points out exactly why this restriction is needed: the only people who would ever in their right mind transact in that mu

by dangus 3y ago

I think your second sentence/paragraph points out exactly why this restriction is needed: the only people who would ever in their right mind transact in that much cash are very likely to be either avoiding taxation (a.k.a. stealing from the common taxpayer), or keeping money off the books to hide illegal activity. The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction. They can easily hide all their daily transactions from the scrutiny of government and surveillance capitalism just fine. This regulation only impacts the wealthiest people and/or the organized criminal.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
Do you believe that someone is stealing from you when they don’t allow you to take something from them?
Shocka1 3y ago
> The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction. "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
Loughla 3y ago
I purchase, restore, and sometimes sell old woodworking machinery as a side gig to subsidize my own purchase of woodworking equipment for my shop. I have had multiple cash transactions above $3,000 every year that I've done this. Not to avoid taxes, not to keep them off the books, but because one of the parties has either the unwillingness or inability to take electronic payments. Elderly people, those located in rural or otherwise isolated areas, those with a natural distrust of government for whatever reason, or those with a distrust of banks in general. These are all valid use cases. This law would make it nearly impossible for me to do what I do (on the side).
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Yea, assuming you're in the USA, I don't think a similar restriction would be workable here in America. Too many people are unbanked or for other reasons transact mostly in cash. And even for those who do have bank accounts, we don't have the nice, bank-based money transfer solutions that are commonplace in the rest of the developed world--we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal. I wouldn't say I routinely do large (>$3000) cash transactions, but I do them often enough that I guess I'd be a criminal in the Netherlands.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    > we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal. Hopefully not for too much longer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow
- systems_glitch 3y ago
  A mechanic we used before moving had a strict no checks policy. He had a bad check for the repair of a church bus, from a church, framed in a fancy gold-painted frame, with "IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS PAY CASH" below it.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    But that's because you still use checks over there :)
    - frumper 3y ago
      A stolen credit card isn't any different.
      - systems_glitch 3y ago
        Considering that the last time one of my CC numbers was stolen, it was used to pay for air conditioning service, I'm sure that is also a concern for tradespeople!

by dangus 3y ago

alphanullmeric 3y ago

Do you believe that someone is stealing from you when they don’t allow you to take something from them?

Shocka1 3y ago

> The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction. "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

Loughla 3y ago

I purchase, restore, and sometimes sell old woodworking machinery as a side gig to subsidize my own purchase of woodworking equipment for my shop. I have had multiple cash transactions above $3,000 every year that I've done this. Not to avoid taxes, not to keep them off the books, but because one of the parties has either the unwillingness or inability to take electronic payments. Elderly people, those located in rural or otherwise isolated areas, those with a natural distrust of government for whatever reason, or those with a distrust of banks in general. These are all valid use cases. This law would make it nearly impossible for me to do what I do (on the side).

ryandrake 3y ago
Yea, assuming you're in the USA, I don't think a similar restriction would be workable here in America. Too many people are unbanked or for other reasons transact mostly in cash. And even for those who do have bank accounts, we don't have the nice, bank-based money transfer solutions that are commonplace in the rest of the developed world--we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal. I wouldn't say I routinely do large (>$3000) cash transactions, but I do them often enough that I guess I'd be a criminal in the Netherlands.
- tekknik 3y ago
  > we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal. Hopefully not for too much longer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow
systems_glitch 3y ago
A mechanic we used before moving had a strict no checks policy. He had a bad check for the repair of a church bus, from a church, framed in a fancy gold-painted frame, with "IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS PAY CASH" below it.
- nottorp 3y ago
  But that's because you still use checks over there :)
  - frumper 3y ago
    A stolen credit card isn't any different.
    - systems_glitch 3y ago
      Considering that the last time one of my CC numbers was stolen, it was used to pay for air conditioning service, I'm sure that is also a concern for tradespeople!