I wonder if we are going to reach a sort of singularity with regard to encroachment on privacy in western countries where we both take it for granted that privacy is a right, and live in societies where <i>actual privacy</i> is clearly trending somewhere just above zero.<p>I don't think this is really about cryptocurrency particularly. This is about electronic transfers generally. My read on this was that the government is basically saying "big transactions can't be in something we can't feasibly track."<p>Australia seems quite aggressive in this regard; also openly banning encryption.<p>I used to be up in arms about this stuff. Now I am older and mostly trust (for my threat model) off-the-shelf end to end encryption for basically anything I consider private.<p>But I also don't <i>care</i> about the privacy thing anymore. I kind of hope the people 10+ years younger than me still care about that stuff. Google reading/mining the dick jokes I've been sharing back and forth in a dying g-chat window for the last 10 years? Whatever. I'd still keep the conversation there just for intertia's sake; even though I also assume its adding to google's model about me.<p>I don't think, at least in countries culturally similar to the US (the one I know the most), any populous will embrace the idea of "let the experts of the government see everything so you can all be safe"; but, it also seems that we will just trend toward that and kinda pretend like its not happening.
My issue with removing cash is that in a way you are moving from public money (printed by the government) which you are free to use as you want to a private money issued by banks who generally have lots of ability to charge you money for payments and block your account.<p>Banks in Canada have been fighting for removal of cash and cheques (which are regulated in terms of fees).
Who is lobbying for this? Who wants this legislation to pass, and why? (American here, not sure how things work in Australia, but these are questions I often ask in my own country)
> Transactions equal to, or in excess of this amount would need to be made using the electronic payment system or by cheque.<p>Does Australia have a law that guarantees access to a bank account? Or would this proposed limitation imply that people who can't get a bank account for various reasons aren't allowed to transact anymore?
It think it is bad. Payment in physical cash should not be restricted. Otherwise the system will fail and then you will not be able to make a payment at all.<p>I use cash for all payments anyways. And if cash will not work, then we will pay by barter.
How would this bill work in practice? People who use cash for tax dodging aren't reporting true values anyway. (have not read any of the documents)<p>I guess in the past they could have had a job quoted at $500K. Paid "in cash" with $400K and reported only $200K to the tax office.<p>Those businesses could still just have $200K paid by electronic transfer (reported to ATO) and the rest in cash. It does mean the tax dodging responsibility is somewhat pushed to the other party too which might make some people/businesses uncomfortable and avoid it entirely.<p>I am all for more fairness and having people pay the right tax. Too many builders and tradies sort things out in cash. The unfairness then extends further where people then become eligible for government subsidies because on paper they earn less - but really have just reported less.<p>edit: reworded for clarity.
Isn’t cash the only thing preventing banks from offsetting the negative interest rates to the general public?<p>For the time being people would just get out of their deposits but if cash gets banned then things become more complicated.
Digital currency is currently exempted but will apparently be kept under close scrutiny (Section 9).<p><a href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/exposure_draft_-_explanatory_materials_currency_restrictions_on_the_use_of_cash-excepted_transactions_instrument_2019_2.pdf#page=6" rel="nofollow">https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/expo...</a>
Recently, I was eating at the same taco place pretty much the same day, twice a week. I was paying with my debit card and on a whim while checking my account, I noticed they were charging me on days I wasn't eating there, for the same amount when I would stop and eat there.<p>It actually happened three times where I had to have my card replaced so they couldn't keep running fraudulent charges on my card. Third time I just switched to cash and haven't had any issues since.<p>I can understand having a cashless society, but then I think about how many times cash has saved me from dealing with fraud and my cc# leaking out on the internet. Or dealing with shady people from craigslist.
Don't worry about chasing down large multinationals who owe billions in tax revenue, best to just crack down on pot dealers and bricklayers paying for stuff in cash.
Slightly off topic, but why isn't a one dollar bank note worth more than one dollar in a bank <i>today</i>?<p>I have a very basic understanding of how bank works, so please correct me. If banks can only lend based on the reserve, it seems bank note should have more value to the banks.
It's clear that cash is going to disappear, it's only saved by 50+ year old people that refuse, on average, to stop using it, which means we have at best 30 years left of shrinking financial freedom.
Cashless society with perfect surveillance is going to mean confiscatory taxes and behavior control on a level never thought possible in the Western world.
Some countries like Italy already have a much smaller limit in place - €1000 max [1]<p>It's going to mean currently "absurd" and "extreme left" ideas like maximum wealth cap. The idea that "no person should have more than $10M" would be easy to sell even today in most countries, the only reason it doesn't happen is because it's impossible to enforce - such a country today would only see an enormous capital outflow and rise in cash deals.
With nearly perfect global surveillance, which is already in an advanced stage of construction - FATCA, CRS/AEOI, ban on bearer shares - escaping with capital would be impossible.
Either the next or the previous stage would be of course maximum income - eg. "no person deserves to earn more than $150k a year".<p>After that, individual limits on "productive" and "not productive" spending are going to appear, amounting to another form of taxes - an individual annual limit of eg. $1000 per year on video games, $1000 for "unhealthy" soda drinks. An illegal barter market would emerge, fought in the same way drug trading is fought now.<p>The inevitable end of this system is a tiny global elite class of bureaucrats, not "legally" owning any significant wealth but controlling enormous amounts of it (Putin and Chinese Party style), and billions of serfs for whom it's illegal to even try to get wealthy. A return of aristocracy in all but name - with serfs better fed and healthier, but with less personal freedom than even Russian peasants under tsar.<p>Cryptocurrencies with anonymity, getting too big to squash before that happens, are the only hope left.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.italy-uk-law.com/new-restrictions-on-the-use-of-cash-in-italy/" rel="nofollow">https://www.italy-uk-law.com/new-restrictions-on-the-use-of-...</a>
I wonder how this really will work in practice. Tradesmen are often paid in cash, and a business might quite reasonably take out a large amount each week to pay the workers on the job site. In some industries such as mining and oil work it is not uncommon to get the pay packet in cash, though perhaps less in Australia these days.
The submitted title was "Australia to make bitcoin payments above $10k illegal", but a moderator changed it to the article title, in accordance with the site guidelines: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a>.
Big Brother is monitoring your transactions.<p>The worse our world runs into the digital rabbit hole, the less I participate in it. As much of my life as feasible is now transacted in cash, and I no longer even own a smart phone.<p>This is not progress.
On one hand this is just codifying common sense; cryptocurrencies aren't even good for payments and everybody already assumes that only criminals use large amounts of cash. OTOH I predict that innocent people will get tripped up by this law while criminals mostly won't.