[HN Gopher] Israel bans use of cash for purchases larger than NI...
___________________________________________________________________
Israel bans use of cash for purchases larger than NIS 6k (~1700
USD/EUR)
Author : triyambakam
Score : 21 points
Date : 2022-07-29 19:57 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.jpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.jpost.com)
| lsiq wrote:
| Everything is going as planned.
|
| One store credit to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
| przemub wrote:
| That sounds awfully totalitarian.
| contingencies wrote:
| A global trend. Australia has a $10K AUD (~$7K USD) limit
| introduced in 2020. China just introduced 2022 documentation
| requirements for cash withdrawls and deposits over 50K CNY
| (USD$7400) and are trialling e-renminbi (CN govcoin). Essentially
| the whole of Chinese society already pays most bills through
| Tencent's WeChatPay and the now-apparently-nationalized Alibaba's
| Alipay, so they have an effective govcoin by proxy already.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| "...ban payments of large sums of money in cash and bank checks."
|
| What's acceptable? Alternate means. Such as...
|
| "digital transfer or a debit card"
|
| The better to see you with, my dear.
| sschueller wrote:
| That's less than 2 bills here (Switzerland) . Absolutely insane.
| Why even print cash at that point?
|
| I doubt this brings in any more money in taxes and I would bet
| it's so small of an amount compared to the legal tax loopholes
| which the "big guys" use that it only hurts the general public
| than solve their tax issues.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| It is not about taxes. It is about surveillance. If you don't
| use physical cash they can more easily track you.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| You have >EUR850 bills in Switzerland!?
| deejaaymac wrote:
| bitcoin solves this.
|
| In an age of the modern computer and internet, cash has to
| evolve. People deserve the right to privacy with their money.
|
| I know a lot of people are anti BTC, even here on HN, and I get
| where people are coming from, but do you not also think that
| people deserve privacy?
|
| "Only criminals use it"
|
| I use/trade BTC all the time for legit reasons because most
| people I know also have BTC. I firmly and will always believe in
| peoples right to privacy.
|
| INB4 "BTC is not private"
|
| If used correctly, it is. SO rather than just stomp on BTC, why
| not help the cause?
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > INB4 "BTC is not private"
|
| I am curious. What are some of these mysterious on/off-ramps
| which do not record your private information?
|
| > If used correctly,
|
| PGP is also secure but the burden of using it "correctly" is
| higher than most regular people are willing to put up with. So,
| at least for the time being, it effectively is not private
| MBCook wrote:
| This is an anti-money laundering law. It doesn't ban
| transactions that size, just in cash.
|
| You know what still works? Debit cards. Credit cards. I'd
| assume checks. Possibly other apps (though I'd be afraid to put
| so much money through them personally).
|
| BTC does nothing good special here _unless you're trying to
| launder money_.
| deejaaymac wrote:
| I believe that people deserve the right / ability to spend
| their money as they see fit regardless of transaction size,
| anonymously.
|
| Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm
| spending my money?
|
| I'm already taxed when I'm paid every month, I pay my
| property taxes. This is not about tax evasion or money
| laundering for me.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| > Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm
| spending my money?
|
| Because they need that information to identify and trace
| tax evasion and money laundering.
|
| > This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me.
|
| Oh, since you said so, I guess it must be true. No need for
| the government to actually check using information.
| bavell wrote:
| > Because they need that information to identify and
| trace tax evasion and money laundering.
|
| Isn't that what IRS audits are for?
|
| This discussion reminds me of the automatic CSAM scanning
| on phones (Apple iirc?). Seems like a noble cause but you
| sure are handing over a lot of power.
| ilammy wrote:
| > _No need for the government to actually check using
| information._
|
| But do they _need_ to check that for every citizen
| without a warrant in close to real-time? Is panopticon
| the only way for it to be effective? Is this what
| citizens want?
| jollybean wrote:
| ??? Credit Cards take 2.5%.
|
| Can you imagine the government forcing 2.55 of entire swaths
| of the economy over to VISA?
|
| Debit transactions also have fees.
|
| If the government really wants people to switch to digital,
| kill VISA fees.
|
| VISA is the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' that has a
| stranglehold on the entire digital economy.
|
| Gov. can't do it because banks/visa practically own them.
|
| It would take a Jimmy Carter or Bernie Sanders for that.
|
| Institutional Dems. won't ever do it.
| sonofhans wrote:
| This is an excellent point and should be more visible. One
| effect of this is business model support for payment
| processors.
|
| It's clearly not the only intent of the law. Bu when a
| government does something to benefit large and entrenched
| players in the market, we can all be forgiven for thinking
| that the fix is in.
| salawat wrote:
| Keep in mind this also implicitly waives 4th Amendment
| protections for financial activity. As soon as you have a
| payment processor involved in a transaction, it's 3rd
| Party Doctrine all the way to the bank. Kiss expectation
| of privacy goodbye.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| That's kind of the point.
| MBCook wrote:
| A law like this doesn't seem like a bad idea to me (though I'm
| sure many will disagree). At a certain point carrying so much
| cash just gets very risky.
| dieselgate wrote:
| I don't disagree with you outright but the denomination seems
| incredibly small with (unless I missed something) the only
| intent to reduce the supply of cash in circulation. If they
| capped it at something like an order of magnitude more I could
| maybe feel differently. Not sure why you're getting downvoted
| as you present a valid opinion.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| JohnFen wrote:
| > At a certain point carrying so much cash just gets very
| risky.
|
| Why should I not be allowed to take that risk?
| yesbut wrote:
| But why should the state get to decide that for the citizen?
| The citizen should decide for themselves what they feel is too
| risky.
| rafale wrote:
| At a certain point driving a motorcycle gets very risky too.
| henrydark wrote:
| There's also regulation on driving motorcycles
| [deleted]
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| This isn't about carrying cash, so much as spending it without
| an electronic trail. They want more data.
|
| At a certain point, carrying so much data just gets very risky.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| I, for one, welcome our new privacy destroying overlords.
| ipaddr wrote:
| This is the test case other countries will try to copy.
| ciupicri wrote:
| The limit in Romania is already ~1000 or 2000 EUR (USD) depending
| on a few factors: individual or business, business type etc.
|
| If I'm not mistaking it's similar limit in Italy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-29 23:02 UTC)