No. Just no.

Rights are not a for-profit balance sheet, such as when Google support provides crappy service, or ghosts you, in the name of profit.

Rights are rights. Entrenched, untouchable, everlasting. And each loss affects us all, for the next right taken, is from you.

Telling people they must use private enterprise, a third party and pay a fee, to conduct commerce between them, is a fascist act.

And guess what. 30 years from now, when that 10k is like 500, what then?

Because limits like these are never raised.

the right to use large amounts of cash is a fictional right.

By forcing the use of 3rd parties, to be able to trade, for people to sell goods they craft and create, there is an abridgement of multiple rights.

This will be overturned.

The Cold War days seem so nostalgic; it seems there was a shared camaraderie between Europeans and Americans as "Westerners", all on the same team, etc. Now as an American I feel increasingly like Europe and the U.S. are drifting apart, and policies like these are additional wedges driving the split.

Inflation will take care of that. Also, you can't convert that money to Gold or Crypto and a house is too damn expensive to buy. So someone with 20k Euros will end up with 2k euros in value.

There are many non-constitutional rights (such as this one) that are not everlasting and laws can also be adapted.

I really don't understand the value of your post as it sounds like speculation based on wrong preconditions.

Removing rights can be a good thing.

Shall we bring back the right to have slaves? Shall we bring back the right to murder those we don't like? Removing those rights from people has only made the world a better place.

As you say, rights are rights.

Removing those rights from people has only made the world a better place... ...

If it’s illegal then it’s just going to go off the books, at a small cost to taxes and accuracy of records, for some people; but for others it will force them to end this traditional practice, and I can imagine that might cause hardship.

But yeah, Russians under the bed, sure.

They will succeed? With or without this limit, you're fucked.

You want to avoid problems? Get involved in local politics, or start a media publication or literally any one of a thousand things you could do right now which is going to be a lot easier then "become an off the grid fugitive dissident".

It isn't as easy as you are saying. If it was this easy, there would be no issues, no poverty, no refuge etc.

I guess you would have an underground economy for a while by those that are willing to be old-cash only, but good luck paying tax and other items that require the new currency/notes.

We as society are spending literally billions to make our cities and infrastructure accessible for people with disabilities. Their number also very small, but we decided it is well relevant.

With medical breakthroughs increasing the age of life too, this is only likely to increase with time

That's not how we deal with minorities

Citation required.

It would be like asking me to prove that not many people have done the calculation of 15435 divided by 12.5 in their life. I can just tell you from basic logical thinking, that it's not likely that many people have.

A lot more people have used large quantities of cash for non-criminal activity. The few times I have used huge quantities of cash, it has been for stupid reasons: someone doesn't take credit cards or bank transfers, and won't trust a check until it clears, so it's easier to just use a pile of cash. By the way, I keep plenty of cash around so I can still pay for stuff even if the internet goes out regionally.

Also note that this does not really stop criminals or rich people from moving money around: there are plenty of ways around these laws.

1. Isn’t easy to provide provisions for.(which is how cash payments can be made legal). 2. Doesn’t require criminal activity in Europe.

I think a lot of people are thinking about this with the US tax system in the back of their minds.

The tax system in many European countries is very different. We pay WAY more income tax. That means that the incentives for tax avoidance are much greater. As a result tax avoidance is a European pastime.

I think that a more transparent financial system is a great thing to strive for. Less financial privacy is is likely to lead to. 1. less money going toward lobbying. 2. Less tax avoidance 3. Less hidden wealth. 4. Less/more expensive money laundering.

It might someday even lead to successful taxation of wealth instead of income.

That will change with this law, finally. Or put them out of business. That's a good thing, don't you agree?

> so I can still pay for stuff even if the internet goes out regionally

If you having to pay transactions >10k frequently enough that network outages block you, I'd wager you're doing exactly the kind of something this law should prevent.

> there are plenty of ways around these laws.

Sure, but now there's an instrument in the toolbox which wasn't there before. Or are you arguing that outlaws gonna outlaw no matter what, so why even try?

Or here's a novel idea: Try not to support coercive laws and rules that seek to stamp out the possibility of people having unorthodox or somewhat unusual voluntary payment preferences, just because you don't personally like them.

>If you having to pay transactions >10k frequently enough that network outages block you, I'd wager you're doing exactly the kind of something this law should prevent.

Because somebody has cash and payment needs, or levels of preparedness that your own narrow thinking doesn't digest isn't a good reason to automatically assume that they're probably a criminal who should be targeted by invasive and authoritarian controls. Frankly, it's something of a sick mentality to immediately treat with suspicion of criminal activity those who support or personally prefer conducting their financial affairs differently from how you do.

As for your final comment, People wanting to transact privately aren't nuts and bolts to be removed from the scene by some nasty, dirty little toolbox of edicts by politicians who regularly protect corruption on larger scales. It's absurdly malicious, or at least plain ignorant to think that way. There are much more fundamental and obvious reasons underpinning the fight against parasitic, invasive financial laws. Read a little about both modern politics in much of the world and modern history even in Europe itself to at least slightly understand the basis for resisting these rules on cash.

Germany initially wanted there to be 10,000EUR notes for this very reason.

There are a whole lot of people there that want to pay cash for everything, including things like cars and houses.

Moreover there are some countries (like Germany) where people routinely use a lot of cash to (say) buy a car or a business.

It's actually pretty common to need to buy things over $10k. It's pretty common for vendors to not take checks. It's pretty common to not have high enough credit limits to cover these types of purchases.

There still isn't any way to do this other than cash.

It's unusual to carry around this much cash every day, but it's totally normal to carry this much cash sometimes for specific large purchases.

That's a very USA-centric comment. Checks are virtually unheard of in Europe and no one would pay so much money in cash. You would do a wire transfer or a card payment for that.

Payments in cash to a professional from a French citizen have been capped at 1000€ in France for years with virtually no impact. I have never seen or heard of someone attempting to use that much cash.