4 ms·

> This doesn't work if your income doesn't show up in the government's system. For example, if your income comes from illegal activity. It's not a government s

by Aaargh20318 3y ago

> This doesn't work if your income doesn't show up in the government's system. For example, if your income comes from illegal activity. It's not a government system. Banks will typically ask for a payslip. > For example, if your income comes from illegal activity. You think banks are going to give you a loan if your income is from criminal activity? That's cute. Banks are required to report suspicious activity and the last thing they want is even the appearance of being involved in money laundering. It's a problem for certain professions, like sex workers (which is a perfectly legal occupation here) as they mostly get paid in cash and often deposit large amounts of it they are an obvious channel for money laundering and as such they have a hard time just getting a bank account, never mind getting a loan.

ryukoposting 3y ago
> It's not a government system. Banks will typically ask for a payslip. I admit to misunderstanding but I fail to see how this diminishes my point. > You think banks are going to give you a loan if your income is from criminal activity? That's cute. That's exactly what I'm saying. The above approach systemically blackballs anyone who lacks a better avenue to a reliable income. That's a failure that exists in both the American system and the Danish one. My point is this: In the American one, it's a byproduct of AML law, which could easily be changed to allow banks to ignore small-time cases (with conditions, of course). In the Danish system, the blocker is inbuilt - it can't be regulated away without fundamental changes to the design of the system. Adding a "proceeds from criminal activity" box doesn't work great. Ask Al Capone. Petty criminals don't pose enough of a threat to society for it to be worthwhile to block them out of basic, low-risk financial services like checking accounts and debit-backed credit cards. Barring them from those services doesn't discourage the illegal activity. It does more to lock them into their current socioeconomic status.

ryukoposting 3y ago

> It's not a government system. Banks will typically ask for a payslip. I admit to misunderstanding but I fail to see how this diminishes my point. > You think banks are going to give you a loan if your income is from criminal activity? That's cute. That's exactly what I'm saying. The above approach systemically blackballs anyone who lacks a better avenue to a reliable income. That's a failure that exists in both the American system and the Danish one. My point is this: In the American one, it's a byproduct of AML law, which could easily be changed to allow banks to ignore small-time cases (with conditions, of course). In the Danish system, the blocker is inbuilt - it can't be regulated away without fundamental changes to the design of the system. Adding a "proceeds from criminal activity" box doesn't work great. Ask Al Capone. Petty criminals don't pose enough of a threat to society for it to be worthwhile to block them out of basic, low-risk financial services like checking accounts and debit-backed credit cards. Barring them from those services doesn't discourage the illegal activity. It does more to lock them into their current socioeconomic status.