The answer to this is very simple: none of your business.
I take strong issue with the word "need." Why do you need that car? That television? That four bedroom house? Why do you need that bow and arrow? For sport, you say? Why not play some ball game instead? Why do you need a chess set when you can play digitally online without killing a tree? Why do you need those fancy clothes? Why does your family need that Disney World vacation?
Let's limit your life choices to what someone else decides that you "need" and then ask if life is still worth living.
The fact is that freedom and liberty comes with it the ability to not have to explain or justify our life choices to others. Will bad people abuse it and do things you don't like? Yeah. That's the risk that comes with it and we have a legal system to identify and deal with those bad actors. A legal system that ought to exist to serve and promote liberty for the innocent, rather than eliminating it and destroying it for everyone out of fear and suspicion that some people might be up to no good some of the time.
So unless there is evidence of wrong-doing, it really is no one's business who they associate with, who they trade with, what they trade, how much they trade and why. And "need" has absolutely no relevance. "Because I want to" ought to be good enough.
There's way too much fraud around, government unfortunately cannot blindly trust everybody.
The "none of your business" doesn't work in the long run.
Well, it should.
An anecdote: The 500 euro bank note was originally created because Germans had the habit of paying in cash, even for large purchases like cars, and they had a DM1,000 bank note (which is about EUR500).
It kinda is. Paying something $10,000 cash strongly suggests you’re buying something illegal, or you got this money illegally (not necessarily unethically, but still illegally).
That the only argument you can find is « it’s none of your business » doesn’t exactly play against this ruling.
Since when?
Maybe I just want to buy a handsome dog that won a show?
> Since when?
Drug deals, money laundering schemes, theft, ransoms, etc. I fail to see non illegal way to obtain $10,000 cash. And if you can get it legally, just do bank transfers instead
Furthermore, they don’t need the details. What if I just don’t want the government or bank to even know that I spent $10K at “Smucks Sex Store Co.”?
Anyway, I hope you’re starting to see the importance of privacy and cash. Even if they’re ridiculous and silly to someone else.
The argument for reporting is equivalent to "you have nothing to hide" and privacy. This is another aspect of privacy.
It feels like the entire continent is one big HOA, deciding what color you can paint your house, or what flowers you can plant outside, to “preserve congruency in the neighborhood”.
It’s honestly a bit concerning seeing how pacified and apathetic people become about government overreach when it doesn’t affect them directly (yet).
I guess it comes down to perspective: is it fair to force everyone to pay their taxes?
Americans hate laws like this in the US because we've already sacrificed liberties for security with things like The Patriot Act, and all it got us was our own government spying on it's citizens communication. Expanding the scope of how the government is allowed to forcibly direct or interfere in your life is generally a bad idea, even if the people you support politically make it look sexy and cool.
People get on the soap box for a passionate gospel about personal freedoms, facism and unalienable liberties - but actually they’re mostly mad that they gotta pay taxes for their nails & gardening now
Governments worldwide have been trending towards being more authoritarian, and I see outlawing cash purchases of any amount as an incredibly easy way to begin clamping down on the use of untraceable fiat currency.
Not all of us! Please trim your paintbrush. Europe comprises dozens of countries, with hundreds of millions of people.
My personal divorce from "banking with will-you-think-of-the-children-and-oh-all-the-nasty-criminals" here in CZ happened when I went to withdraw ~14k USD in cash. My Fio bank, that I've been with for 10+ years, asked me, "what do you need the money for?"
After collecting my jaw from the floor my answer was of course "none of your business". But the clerk claimed to be "just following the law" (maybe true, I wouldn't know on the spot), that they cannot give me my money without a valid reason.
So I said "I want to withdraw it in order to keep it in cash" (doh!). They made a face and said that's not a valid reason.
So I asked what is a valid reason then? Is there a list that I can see and choose from?
They made a face again and said no, but suggested – trying to be helpful – that most people say "I want to buy a car". Yet I wasn't buying a car and having to lie about this – being advised to lie so a bureaucrat can tick some children-saved-criminals-thwarted checkbox – felt quite surreal. A Kafka-esque exchange. Especially when everybody knows the real money laundering is done by government officials & government-adjacent crooks – in CZ and in every other country under the sun.
In the end I got angry and said I'm about to buy a lot of dog food and refused to budge. They backed down, and I learned a very important lesson about "my" money that day.
The problem is that things like cryptocurrency are largely designed to circumvent the financial and legal system entirely, which becomes a threat to regulated markets once fraudulent actors become large enough to inevitably become a burden to the legal system (see FTX). The government is spending a lot of money cleaning up the FTX mess and they have an interest in ensuring that it doesn’t happen again.
https://www.axerve.com/approfondimenti/insight/limite-pagame...
For their own personal reasons. Purchasing a business, a vehicle, a property or other real/tangible asset, hush money, avoiding a lawsuit, and so forth.
> Where does that cash come from?
It doesn't matter. Why do you care where people get their currency from? Do you have a rash of mint or bank robberies or something?
These purchases are already so bound up with red tape that making the actual payment via bank transfer is hardly an inconvenience.
> hush money
Extortion is a crime. You are listing a person’s attempt to placate a criminal as a reason the state shouldn’t get involved?
> avoiding a lawsuit
Few places are so litigious as the USA, and such concerns hardly register for the people living in the subject of this HN post.
That's a separate problem that allowing overeager regulation of currency utilization enables.
> Extortion is a crime. You are listing a person’s attempt to placate a criminal as a reason the state shouldn’t get involved?
Correct, extortion is a crime in some locales. Note, I said hush money, not extortion.
> Few places are so litigious as the USA, and such concerns hardly register for the people living in the subject of this HN post.
Few as litigious as the USA _so far_.
-------
A better set of questions here: who benefits, and by how much, with regulating currency so tightly?
Now it seems like you are resorting to the libertarian fantasizing that used to be so common on news-for-nerds sites.
> Note, I said hush money, not extortion.
Threatening to go public with a story when the other party might feel compelled to pay hush money, is already viewed as extortion.
> Few as litigious as the USA _so far_.
The special litigiousness of the USA is due to a number of longstanding factors including its inherited common-law system that differs from most other developed countries. It is not clear why you would expect other countries to become as litigious anytime soon.
> A better set of questions here: who benefits, and by how much, with regulating currency so tightly?
The general public who can be sure that taxes are being paid fairly and they are receiving the services they should. Again, not all countries are as culturally forgiving of tax evasion as Americans, let alone the countries with even less controls over the flow of cash than the USA.
> Now it seems like you are resorting to the libertarian fantasizing that used to be so common on news-for-nerds sites.
As I see no reason it is a fantasy, I'll continue "resorting" to the reality that, frankly, the entity able to put me to death legally probably doesn't need to know my reasons and justifications for every action I take, respectfully. If that makes me a left-libertarian, then so be it. Respectfully, sounds like you might have some hangups with discussing points that have overlap in classical liberal philosophies, throwing out legitimate discussion with the baby and bathwater.
>> Note, I said hush money, not extortion.
> Threatening to go public with a story when the other party might feel compelled to pay hush money, is already viewed as extortion.
Payment for private services, like sexual services, are common in Europe and likely preferred to be kept private. I believe you would view this as legalized extortion.Yet, the desire for discretion exists even when the "threat" of information being public isn't necessarily blackmail.
> The general public who can be sure that taxes are being paid fairly and they are receiving the services they should. Again, not all countries are as culturally forgiving of tax evasion as Americans, let alone those places with even less controls over the flow of cash than the USA.
That's a weird way to spell "banks and financial institutions." There are plenty on controls already on the impoverished and middle class. A blunt hammer like this gums up transaction processing and allows for additional regulatory capture by banks and financial institutions.
The country that is the subject of this HN post does not have the death penalty.
> That's a weird way to spell "banks and financial institutions."
’Cause I wasn’t spelling that. Within welfare states, public will to minimize tax evasion is widespread. In Europe steps are already being taken to improve transaction processing and democratize this area of the banking industry, so there isn’t necessarily the “gumming up” of the works and regulatory capture that you assume. If things don’t look so good in your country, I’m afraid that’s your problem to sort out.
> The country that is the subject of this HN post does not have the death penalty.
Fine, lifetime imprisonment on trumped up charges. Please don't be disingenuous, coercion is coercion whether the loss of liberty is death or imprisonment.
They are definitely perceived high enough.
In Europe salary earners are taxed on the income as they receive it through Pay As You Earn and similar and it is difficult to avoid. The public wants it as difficult for all others to find it as difficult.
Whilst FAANG pay very little tax.
Even in the US Warren Buffet says he pays a lower rate of tax than his secretary.
The basic rule is that tax is progressive and rich people should pay a larger percentage than normal workers.
For example: if and when your country goes to pot, and you have a moral obligation to get your family out because we have this perceived notion of borders and sovereignty based on history we didn't agree to, a $3k block on transactions may well block you. We don't have to imagine very hard -- the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is a recent prime example. Social order is delicate.
As a more mundane example, perhaps I purchase an item at auction, art or contents of a storage locker. Reporting burden should be on the records of the facility and subject to occasional audit, not on every single transaction that goes through. That'd be like implementing a carbon toll for every mile that I use a bus, walk with shoes, ride a bike, or use any form of motor vehicle. There are much better ways to do that.
Road pricing will come in so there will be a tax on every mile you use a bus or use a motor vehicle.
Further, implementing a road tax would require cumbersome monitoring generally (and especially if making it progressive) or, if equally treated, would be horribly regressive.
The use of petrol etc needs to be cut.
I admit I do live in a city and can get to shoips, pubs or the railway station within a 15 minute walk.
There are not transactions that avoid paying cash - they are reported to the tax authorities - so tax payers pay less.
Hush Money - these means something is being covered up - this would be better in the open - what ios the difference to balckmail.
While we can indeed discuss whether it makes sense in most case to pay large sums in cash, this is not the issue. The issue is whether this should be illegal.
Some people hoard gold and jewellery, should that be illegal? Maybe I am hoarding cash and maybe that's not a great idea but in a free society people should be free to make their own decisions on this.
If you have $10,000, then you have $10,000.
If you deposit $10,000 in a bank, then you have $0 and a promise from a bank that has $1,000 and a promise (from somebody else) for $9,000.
Money you deposit in a bank is guaranteed by the state up to a certain limit (often 100 000€ per person per bank).
Source (french) : https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/educational/explainers/tell-me...
> Selon la réglementation européenne, ces systèmes assurent 100 000 euros par déposant. > (DeepL) According to European regulations, these systems guarantee 100,000 euros per depositor.
> If you have $10,000 then you have $10,000.
Playing devil's advocate: that's as long as the denomination doesn't change. Once it changes (for instance Cr$ -> NCr$ -> Cz$ -> NCz$ -> Cr$ -> CR$ -> R$, and I lived through most of these changes), and you're outside of a conversion grace period (when you can take your cash to a bank and exchange it for new notes), your cash is worthless; if I find an old Cr$ bill stashed somewhere (I probably still have some), they're not worth much more than the paper they're printed on. If your money is in a bank, on the other hand, it will always be converted automatically and transparently.
(On the other hand, I also lived through the infamous "confisco da poupança" which froze most of the money in everyone's bank accounts, so I can clearly see the importance of having money outside of the reach of banks. On a third hand, I also lived through the hyperinflation times, and know that having too much of your money not deposited in an interest-bearing bank account or other similarly good investment means it will lose its value quickly.)
Because I pay cash and keep the bankers out of the transaction it costs me less and it costs the seller less. I negotiate this ahead of time. Most people in business would rather have cash in hand than wait on the bank and pay their fees.
In EU you could pay for all those things with a quick and free bank transfer for any amount, so you wouldn't even need to withdraw and travel with all that cash on you. There's no "bank fees", there's no "bankers" to keep out of the transaction, because they don't take any fee.
Other way around (in the Netherlands, which is the subject), bank transfers are free but depositing cash as a business costs money. Paying cash costs the seller more and holding it has a risk of robbery.
Cheaper than handling cash though.
That ridiculously wrong. If you got a huge stash of cash and can’t justify where it comes from… well yeah, it screams undeclared work or illegal business. Do you have other legit explanations?
Please provide your reference.
I don't know about your experience, but I'd like to limit the amount of PII I give to the type of folks I buy used vehicles from. With cash, you both go on your way with the title. Its not to say they were criminals, but I also don't have much reason to trust them beyond the transaction.
For example, I was helping a friend buy a motorcycle. The seller arrived on the bike, we checked it out, paid, etc. He had a shirt on that said something like "stop domestic abuse". Then when his wife/gf/partner showed up to pick him up, he immediately started throwing verbal abuse at her. The guy was unstable but it wasn't immediately obvious. We already had the bike, the title, and we were on our way.
The online payment system via bank transfers (iDeal) works so well I’ve heard it’s going to become a european thing, and I’m legit excited about that.
By the way, you're still allowed to use cash for private transactions, so you can still pay whatever amount of cash you want to a private party to buy an item.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Num...
You trust some entity you have never personally audited, to produce some pieces of paper that you are supposed to trust...
And let's not start with some fetish fantasy about "because an oppressive regime could do so any time"
The car is a variable for anything you can think of, but I will give you a hypothetical example with the car then. Imagine in 20 years where owning a gas car is frowned upon, the government introduces a new law that one can no longer purchase gas cars - used or not, maybe this government was even lobbied by some electric car conglomerate. Am I allowed to worry about that or is that a fetish fantasy too?
The bank, at its discretion or under order by government, can and will prevent the transfer of funds, so it's really just a case of Murphy's law.
I don't know why there has to be appeal to "fetish fantasies". Is it so hard for you to imagine a scenario where you or others might unjustly be the target of nefarious actions by public or private parties who would wield the bureaucracy of banking system against you? This isn't a hypothetical, one of things opposing counsel does in a lawsuit involving money is to attempt to freeze or restrict your accounts.
You may have never been in a situation where a bank prevents you from moving money, but it happens, and the worldview you are espousing doesn't survive first contact with such a situation.
But you don't have to take my word for it. There's a reason the market for gold ingots exists, and it isn't just to guard against inflation.
Apologies if that sounded rude but Its often that I see people claiming to be EU citizens or sympathizers dropping the most arrogant takes. To the point I prefer to browse this website after 7PM in my timezone to avoid "the EU-only HN time".
Why would someone need to pay for 10k in cash? Where does that cash come from? 60% of the times, it's money laundering every time.
edit: I suppose since I'm in EU and I'm only 30 I'm "used" to the 1k limit, while non-EU (or specifically USA) people might be grabbing their pitchforks.