Austrian Minister Calls For a Constitutional Right To Pay In Cash 188
New submitter sittingnut writes: Bloomberg reports that Austrian Deputy Economy Minister Harald Mahrer has called for a constitutional right to use cash to protect their privacy. According to the report, Mahrer said, "We don't want someone to be able to track digitally what we buy, eat and drink, what books we read and what movies we watch. We will fight everywhere against rules," including caps on cash purchases. EU finance ministers at a meeting in Brussels last Friday urged the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, to "explore the need for appropriate restrictions on cash payments exceeding certain thresholds," " to crack down on "illicit cash movements."
Smart! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Smart! (Score:5, Insightful)
"this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
We'll see if that saves us.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Austria totally used the US dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It totally does when the STORY is about AUSTRIA banning (or not) cash payments.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, that's true. If I owe you $5, and hand you the fiver in my pocket, you are paid in full. If I eat a meal in a restaurant, and get a bill for $20, I can hand over a twenty-dollar bill and I've paid. That doesn't mean cash money can buy anything that's for sale.
That doesn't mean anyone has to sell anything to you for cash. A sale does need to involve compensation, but the seller can specify any terms he or she wants (and the buyer is free to walk away without making the deal). In particular,
Re: (Score:3)
"Legal tender" means it's legal to use, and quite specifically NOT that anyone is required to accept it. Otherwise stores would have to accept 10000 pennies, and convenience stores couldn't put up signs saying "no bills over $20 accepted."
Re: (Score:2)
Legal tender means it must be accepted for debts. Many countries make small coins legal tender only for small debts but as I understand it the USA has no such rule.
In most purchases money is directly exchanged for goods without there being a debt so legal tender doesn't apply and the merchants can be as picky about payment methods as they like.
common mis-conceptions (Score:2)
There is a difference between a debt and payment for services yet to be rendered. The legal tender argument is/was aimed primarily at taxes, tariffs, rent and such to prevent corrupt governmental bodies or landlords from demanding payment in land or other mediums. There is no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash un
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It won't. Most purchases are not debts.
All purchases are debts for the buyer until paid in full.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been instances where a government entity refused to take cash........personal anecdote.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And when they refused to take cash, you were no longer required to pay and could have, in fact, taken them to court over it.
IF you offer to pay any debt to any entity with cash, our current laws require them to take that cash or absolve you of the debt.
Not saying your anecdotal evidence is not true - just that there were larger ramifications to what occurred than perhaps you were aware.
Re: (Score:2)
Like most such laws, the government excluded themselves from the law. Just try to pay the IRS in cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
I'd not thought of it before...and I may look into this, but I would have thought for sure, if you showed up at an IRS office in person to pay your taxes, you could easily do that with cash...?
I would have a hard time believing they'd refuse that...?
Re: (Score:3)
You can, you just have to go to an IRS office [irs.com]. They don't accept cash through mail, likely because of how hard it'd be to keep track of it/make sure it isn't stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
That particular business got some luck and is getting a refund of the fines. [denverpost.com]
At the time, the IRS refused to say whether the deal would be extended to other shops.
Re: (Score:3)
And when they refused to take cash, you were no longer required to pay and could have, in fact, taken them to court over it.
IF you offer to pay any debt to any entity with cash, our current laws require them to take that cash or absolve you of the debt.
Not saying your anecdotal evidence is not true - just that there were larger ramifications to what occurred than perhaps you were aware.
This only applies to debts, but not to fees. For instance, to file up for a homestead exception, I needed to file up a note of residence, and that requires a $10 fee, to be paid with a check to the county clerk. Cash won't be accepted. Great, I'm in not obligation to pay, but if I don't then I don't get my homestead exception and shit, it's $3K more on real estate taxes.
The same thing with fines. Can we consider these debts owned to the state? Most fines can only be paid with a check or credit card. One c
HA! GOTCHA! (Score:2)
"this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
You notice it only says that on bills, not nickles, dimes and pennies.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise there are plenty of instances where you don't get a bill until after services rendered (restaurants, auto work, etc.) in which case the business is required to accept cash payment. If they really don't want to, they can always offer a discount for other payment forms, but given that credit cards typically carry a small f
Re: (Score:2)
No. Legally, it's not a debt until the transaction has already occurred. If a person grabs an item and brings it to the checkout counter and hasn't paid yet, then it still belongs to the merchant. Now, if the merchant offers the person 10 second interest-free financing on the item, then that's another deal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a debt until you have taken possession of the goods or services.
Until then, it's just a pending transaction, and there is no debt.
If you go to a restaurant, eat. That incurred a debt.
Going to a checkout at a store, at the time you hit the cashier, you have not incurred a debt.
Re: (Score:3)
Meh. Aldi stores around here do that if you try to pay with a credit card or check. They have a large sign in the entrance saying that they don't accept those payment methods, but it doesn't stop people from trying. And the constant, low-volume stream of abandoned carts isn't enough to make them change the policy.
Of course, as you say, there are good reasons for a store to prefer cash. My point is that when stores restrict the forms of payment they accept, it upsets some potential customers, but that may no
Re: (Score:3)
I can imagine many gov't entities that may choose to not accept 'cash', because accepting cash requires additional security that checks, CC, and money orders don't, requires you to keep sufficient change on-hand, make bank deposits, etc.
No, government agencies cannot refuse to accept cash for anything which is mandatory, and they can't refuse pennies either. On the other hand, if you think pissing off your local government with a shitstorm of pennies is a good idea, you've got another think coming. The definition of legal tender is that you can use it to settle a debt. If someone doesn't want your pennies, they have to tell you before you incur the debt that they won't accept them, same as how a gas station has to post a sign saying no 100
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, what "personal anecdote" are you referring to? I've tracked all the way back to the root of this subthread, AND read the summary AND the article, and I can't tell what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
IF there was an actual store that did that I would go in there once a week, fill my cart up, have the cashier ring me up, bag the groceries and then flip out and storm out when they refused to take the cash
And you could do that once. The second time you'll get banned from the store. The third time they call the cops on you for trespassing.
Re: (Score:2)
I've drove all over the country and while I have been pulled over for speeding or some silly thing, I have never once had an officer even suggest that they want to search me or my vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Most purchases are not debts.
"How much do I owe?"
Re: (Score:2)
This surprises me. Austria is not known for defending individual freedoms and privacy. I do have one possible explanation: Corruption and moonlighting is rampart in Austria, and those only work well with cash.
Re: Smart! (Score:2)
If only THIS politician were running for American president, he'd have my vote.
But that would destroy the economy! (Score:4, Funny)
If people can store cash in their mattress, you can't jack up negative interest rates and force consumers to spend like they should! The flow of money to the 1% would decrease slightly! Won't anyone think of the 1%?
Re:But that would destroy the economy! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Power investors buy physical gold. The only problem with this is when an investor takes his gold with him on a fishing trip and suffers a boating accident. This happens far, far more frequently than you might expect.
Boating accidents - they're not just for guns!
(For those not in on the joke: when the government starts ignoring the Second Amendment and tries to disarm the citizenry, they will discover that millions of high-end rifles with duly registered sales were tragically lost in boating accidents and so cannot be turned in).
Re: (Score:3)
If people can store cash in their mattress, you can't jack up negative interest rates and force consumers to spend like they should! The flow of money to the 1% would decrease slightly! Won't anyone think of the 1%?
No, you just print more money, and hand it to the 1%. That keeps the money flowing that direction, and devalues the cash in mattresses.
Re: (Score:2)
You’re on /., you are likely in the 1% QED
Tell that to my bank account, because it certainly doesn't know that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
New black markets (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't help but to see where a cashless society will only raise new black markets and increase crime. Nearly every form of prohibition brings additional criminal elements with it and a cashless society is a prohibitive society. Hopefully this gets real traction among other nations as well.
Re:New black markets (Score:5, Insightful)
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
-- Someone not popular here. Consider the message, not the messenger.
Re:New black markets (Score:4, Insightful)
But I bet she didn't expect this to happen under a government favoring corporations and trying to reduce the liberty of everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
But I bet she didn't expect this to happen under a government favoring corporations and trying to reduce the liberty of everyone else.
That book was about the merger of government and corporations! Bailouts and protections of failing companies was most of the plot. FFS, while it's hard to recommend it as the writing isn't great, you shouldn't complain about it if you won't make the effort.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly do you think drug laws are. Or seatbelt laws. Or traffic cameras. Or, or, or....The fact of the matter is that irrespective of the general idiocy of objectivism, the book was dead on regarding laws.
Re:New black markets (Score:4, Funny)
Well if it all goes to pot we can still use tide.
http://nymag.com/news/features... [nymag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course it will bring crime. All those who don't conform are criminals. If US code were strictly enforced the entire population would be criminalized. There are laws against everything and laws that require you to do things and most people don't even know about them. I'd like to see all the victimless crime laws gone. Who cares if you don't wear your seatbelt, it's just another hundred dollars in the city kitty. All kinds of stupid ass laws meant to micro-manage our daily lives.
Why only privacy? (Score:2)
"Them terrists pay in cash? Let's ban cash! Dem terrists breathe air? Let's ban breathing! And air!"
paypal is not a bank and they can take your funds (Score:2)
paypal is not a bank and they can take your funds at will. Now do you really want that to happen to you? to your store? to your business?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can reach into your personal bank account and take what they want. you grant them that permission. I have yet to find a real bank that will allow me to have a one way street with paypal.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, the banks will side with their own customers... at least in my experience. Having once been the victim of an online scam around 15 years ago, I was ultimately very happy with how quickly and efficiently my bank resolved the issue.
Re:paypal is not a bank and they can take your fun (Score:5, Interesting)
paypal is not a bank
That's not what I've been told when I worked at eBay/PayPal (years before the recent corporate split). Although not a bank per se, PayPal does fall under banking regulations. What that meant for the IT department was that we had to keep eBay assets and PayPal assets separate from each other. (Assets being anything with an asset tag such as laptops and monitors; cables, keyboards and mice were interchangeable.) Also, if you worked for PayPal directly and not eBay/PayPal, your credit record has to be much cleaner than average, no bankruptcies in the last ten years, and any adverse downward changes in credit score can result in immediate termination when your credit report gets periodically reviewed.
Re:Why only privacy? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just great -- it's those kinds of people that just suck the air out of a room.
That's a great idea (Score:5, Insightful)
What about prepaid SIM? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you need to show identification to purchase them?
It depends on the country. I've had to show a passport in Athens and I've paid cash, no questions asked, in Munich. All within the last 5 years (so laws may have changed more recently).
Re: What about prepaid SIM? (Score:3)
In the UK they get handed out in airports - no ID is required. Spain is very different (as far as I know) since the Madrid train bombings.
I'll by that for a dollar! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good. And, more specifically, the right to pay for things anonymously, much like you have the right to speak anonymously.
It isn't about thwarting justice. It is about forbidding government the tools of tyranny, including the ability to filch through your stuff and activities at will until they find something they can tag you, uppity person, with.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. And, more specifically, the right to pay for things anonymously, much like you have the right to speak anonymously.
It isn't about thwarting justice. It is about forbidding government the tools of tyranny, including the ability to filch through your stuff and activities at will until they find something they can tag you, uppity person, with.
For me, paying cash is about reducing the amount of money I have to pay for things. When I pay in cash instead of credit, I reduce the costs the merchant has to pay their bank by between 2 and 6% That means a merchant can charge me less and make more of a profit in the mean time. It's a win-win.
For small amounts, cash. For large amounts (I.E. $2,500 to my mechanic) I will do a bank transfer or direct debit. Having run my own business and experienced the sheer joy of being bent over sans lube for acceptin
Epiphany!! (Score:3)
Though even a bag full of cash can be traced to a fair degree by the serial numbers on the bills.
Austrian economics minister supports... (Score:2, Insightful)
Austrian economics minister supports Austrian economics, film at 11.
Truth be told... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Truth be told... (Score:5, Informative)
There are laws against this. For example, in my country (an EU member), you are not allowed to pay in cash for anything above 2564.1 euros. Otherwise you are presumed to be laundering money. The limit was higher until recently. And it will only go down, despite inflation...
Re:Truth be told... (Score:4, Interesting)
I once paid 12,000 dollars in cash for a car. The guy wanted 15,500 but I kept counting 100's until he folded at 12G's. Nowadays they'd take it away and make me prove I got it legally. I wish George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and all those guys could see what these fuckers are doing nowadays. They'd spit on 'em before they slid hard cold steel through their guts.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd spit on 'em before they slid hard cold steel through their guts.
History shows they'd just shoot em and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would this mean no electronic only? (Score:3)
While I generally agree with him (less for privacy purposes and more for not paying a transaction fee to a credit card ever time), making it right would add a lot of potential problems to it. For example, what about online only transactions? Would Ebay or Spotify be required to somehow accept cash payments? I am all for companies not being forced to go electronic only, but I also wouldn't want to try and force every company to have to accept cash either.
Re: (Score:2)
They have this thing called Western Union.
This would be fairly radical actually (Score:2)
I'm not sure about Australia or the US or EU or wherever someone might live, but in Canada no-one is obligated to accept Cash for anything. A Constitutional Amendment so stating would actually mean a fundamental change in how business and debts are settled.
Which is why I don't believe this Amendment will get anywhere at all in Oz.
Re: (Score:3)
Austria not Australia.
Re: (Score:3)
Growing Trend (Score:2)
It's been a growing trend for politicians and society in general to view cash transactions as the realm of illicit trade. Take news reports of people having their money confiscated by state police in Tennessee because they were carrying so much. And there's no reason to carry that much money except to buy drugs or some other illegal good.
Payments exceeding certain thresholds (Score:2)
If you exceed this threshold, you must be a drug dealer or terrorist and will be charged with money laundering then investigated.
If you fail to exceed this threshold, you must be a drug dealer or terrorist and will be charged with money laundering then investigated.
See also: "structuring [wikipedia.org]"
What of political contributions? (Score:2)
In the USA there is (or at least was) a cap on how much a person could contribute to a political campaign. If there is a law that all transactions must have the option of payment in cash then what happens to the caps on political contributions? I suppose there could also be a law that any payment to a political entity must have record keeping to prevent... what would you even call this? Is it "abusive" contributions?
Personally, I do not believe there should be a cap on political contributions. I suppose
How private are your cash transactions? (Score:2)
The cash register was invented by a saloon keeper who grew tired of bartenders tapping the till and not the keg.
The downside to doing business in cash has always been the need the need to embed expensive physical defenses against fraud and theft. The merchant will need a safe or a vault. Alarm systems. Video. Perhaps an armored courier service.
Every transaction leaves a trail.
Given time and patience all but your most mundane purchases can be traced.
NIRP is the real reason TBP want to ban cash NOW (Score:2)
If the price of storing your value in a bank is 5% of the stored value per year then you will likely reject that "service" - unless you do not have a choice. This is the real reason the fascist union is pushing for the eventual total removal of cash. They can't just announce a ban of cash without a real risk of protests and even riots. This is why it's done in small steps.
Re: (Score:2)
Its just words unless its enforced. Which is isn't. Try paying in cash for some online services. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks good. On paper at least.
Re: (Score:2)
What is so hard about this to understand?
If you too much cash in your wallet, the police might accuse you of being a drug dealer, confiscate your cash, and let you go without giving your cash back.
Re: (Score:2)
How would the police have probable cause to even know how much money I have in my wallet?
When it comes to asset forfeitures, probable cause is optional. All the police have to do is accuse you of being a drug dealer. The law allows them to keep the cash even if they don't charge you for a crime. If you insist on getting your cash back, the district attorney will tell you to take a walk or face a criminal complaint. For some local jurisdictions, asset seizures is the quickest way to juice up the budget. Far more easier than asking voters for a new property tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's currently closer to 88 Eurocents for the Dollar. But at least it's closer to the "twice as much" as the 60 cents for the dollar we had in 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the 1.33:1 USD:EUR - made shopping in the US nice and cheap :P
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it makes exporting really a pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me about it - had a contract with a US company, in Euros .... When the US dollar dropped, the hourly rated in USD went up by a lot and the customer started whining about having signed the contract in Euros :)
Re: Switch to the USD (Score:2)
On the other hand it is pretty much on par with the Canadian dollar. What it will buy you locally is a whole different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beware this practice as the landlord can still come after you if they didn't get the full amount from your roomate; and the roomate can say 'nope didn't get the money'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I have certain bills that clearly state that they do not accept cash as well. I always have to go and get a money order to pay that bill... stupid.
Luckily, my landlord allows cash payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My landlord accept neither cash nor money orders. It's quite annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but rent on a lease sounds to me like an actual debt due at a certain time, and cash is legally good for that. Is there some sort of legal work-around? Or is it a matter of specifying acceptable payment methods in the lease?
Re: (Score:2)
No, rent is usually paid up front. The month or two up-front charge is what establishes that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the majority of US states, a person is justified in assuming that an armed assailant is always going to take a life or cause great bodily harm if you were to choose not to cooperate. Since preventing death or great bodily harm is a valid legal reason to use deadly force so if said landlord reacts before the money is taken then deadly force would be justified. Some states also allow the use of deadly force to stop an in progress felony so shooting someone that has already grabbed the money might be consid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the state you live in.
I believe TX allows you to blow someone away if they are stealing your property.
I remember a bit before Katrina, there was a case in New Orleans Eas
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I said "in general".... Yes, I know you can do that in Texas, and of course, in all jurisdictions that I know of you *ARE* allowed to use lethal force against someone who is armed or you had reason to believe was armed, and there was some reasonable basis to conclude that they would cause harm to you if you did not surrender your property.
But if the person is not armed, or in particular has just tried to grab and trying to escape with some stolen property without ever actually threatening to
Re: (Score:2)
I want a constitutional amendment to be able to pay for my purchases in bottle caps and pre-war money.