Australia plan to ban cash purchases over $10,000 looks like it may soon become law

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by kazenatsu, Mar 1, 2020.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    4,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is what it looks like when a government begins to head towards authoritarianism.


    Plan to ban cash purchases over $10,000 set to become law as Senate inquiry gives thumbs up

    The Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019 passed the House of Representatives last year, but was referred to a Senate inquiry for further debate.The Senate committee recommended that the bill be passed contingent upon several changes, including that the start date is extended to give businesses sufficient time to comply, and that the Federal Government review the penalty provisions to ensure they are not "overly harsh".

    The law was due to take hold on January 1, but Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has given the Senate committee an undertaking that the law will not be applied retrospectively.

    The bill has caused a stir among the Liberal Party, with some members arguing it is antithetical to the party's values.

    The inquiry received 2,659 submissions by early December, with the majority of submissions opposing the bill, and many arguing the Government should not interfere with their legal right to spend cash how they wish.

    But the Federal Government has consistently argued the measure is intended to fight the black economy, by stamping out tax evasion, money laundering and other crimes.

    Some critics are complaining this could be the start of the government banning cash purchases altogether, where cash payment limit might eventually be reduced below the proposed legislated amount of $10,000.

    The committee also dismissed concerns raised about the bill's impact on privacy and civil liberties, noting, "this must be balanced against the concerns raised by other stakeholders who described the negative impacts of criminal activity and tax evasion".​

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...o-pass-after-senate-inquiry-approves/12011488
    ABC News Australia, Nassim Khadem

    The government wants to be able to track all big purchases and make them have to go through a bank, and severely punish all those who do not comply and try to pay cash for big purchases.

    also from the article:

    "By criminalising the use of legal tender … this government is blithe to the fundamental freedoms provided by hard currency, and is instead laying down a path towards surveillance capitalism and negative interest rates," Senator Whish-Wilson said.
    That's another issue. One of the other points that conservative critics complain about is that this this is all part of a plan that will allow government to have negative interest rates. That is, where people actually have to pay a percentage of money to keep their money in the bank. Many policymakers want the option of being able to institute negative interest rates to stimulate the economy, but of course once interest rates go below zero percent it creates a lot of complications.

    Huge huge problem with civil liberties here.
    I honestly can't fathom why the critics are focusing so much on the worry of future potential for negative interest rates. Not that that's not a legitimate worry, but that worry seems to pale in comparison to the other concerns.
    Seems like a classic cases of, on the conservative side, wealthy elites caring more about their money and wealth than individual liberties.
    In my opinion, the politicians who aren't opposing this don't deserve to be called "Liberal".
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  2. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    13,569
    Likes Received:
    9,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why?
     
    Moi621 likes this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    4,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why what? You don't have a long enough attention span to read the opening post?

    Because they want control. They don't want you to be able to buy something without them knowing about it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
    Eleuthera likes this.
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    13,569
    Likes Received:
    9,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was hoping to hear from a supporter on the issue. Get 'the other side' so to speak.

    Surely they're at least trying to rationalize this somehow...?
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    4,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They're going to tell you everyone uses banks and credit cards today, and very few people have a legitimate reason to make a large $10,000 cash purchase unless they are involved in criminal activity.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
  6. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,919
    Likes Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Banks supposedly don't lend out their reserves.
    They are able to lend out the deposits which are leveraged to ten.
    If a depositor deposits say $1000 then the Bank can lend that $1000 out ten times.
    If interest rates reduce, then no-one will deposit their money, therefore banks cannot lend it out.
    They instead will make money by charging on the deposits they do have eg say 1% for each
    withdrawal. If people withdraw their money before negative interest rates occur, then you have what is called a run on the banks. Small banks will fold first, as larger banks will not help them.
    Large banks will seek help from Central Banks, and Central Banks will refuse.
    Then you will have a bail in of depositors funds to bail out the banks.
    This will occur in Australia as APRA have the legal right to either activate a bail in if a bank
    is in trouble, or activate instead a government guarantee which would protect depositors
    funds. The latter wont occur as the Bank would go under.
    This has all been made possible by Hockeys legislation some time ago, introduced
    in the middle of the nite when only seven persons were present.
    If you contact a Bank to enquire about the grubberments guarantee they will tell you all about
    it....BUT it doesn't exist...they really are just parroting what they have been told to parrot….
    Whilst this all happens, digital currency will slowly be introduced and there will be no
    fiat currency to withdraw. We will all be at the mercy of the banks, as, if there is no
    physical money to withdraw, the banks simply keep it in the form of digital currency.
    As I have always said...believe what you want to believe....
     
    kazenatsu likes this.
  7. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,268
    Likes Received:
    2,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know nothing about this but that was right there in the quote; "But the Federal Government has consistently argued the measure is intended to fight the black economy, by stamping out tax evasion, money laundering and other crimes."

    That sounds like a perfectly reasonable intention so it should really just be a question of balancing the benefits and risks of implementing it. That would require understanding some of the technical details though, not just political rhetoric.
     
  8. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,919
    Likes Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately the grubberments reasoning for this legislation is just a load of horseshit wrapped
    in dogshit.....
     
    Dispondent and modernpaladin like this.
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,268
    Likes Received:
    2,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it? Like I said, determining that would require understanding the details, not just political rhetoric.
     
  10. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,919
    Likes Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh I understand the details....fully....
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
  11. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    12,535
    Likes Received:
    1,283
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    4,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Also to add:

    In Australia there are already reporting requirements on many types of business services, applying to banks and certain other services including car dealerships, financial services, gold/silver bullion, digital currency, and gambling.

    Reporting transactions of $10,000 and over: Threshold transaction reports (TTRs)
    A 'threshold transaction' is the transfer of physical currency of A$10,000 or more (or the foreign currency equivalent) as part of a designated service. A transfer can be either receiving or paying cash.

    As a reporting entity, you must report these transfers to AUSTRAC in a threshold transaction report (TTR) within 10 business days.

    TTRs help us detect, deter and disrupt criminal and terrorist activity.​

    https://www.austrac.gov.au/business...es/reporting/cash-transactions-over-10000-ttr


    The new proposed law would be a vast expansion of those reporting requirements, and now they would criminalize the individual making the purchase.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
  13. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    4,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This was posted by one person commenting on this story in another forum:

    First they require a form.

    Then they require a form that must be approved.

    Then they deny approval.

    Then...you're at the mercy of the electronic algorithm bureaucracy, able to be turned of, for fair reason or foul, at the flick of a switch and the whim of a bureaucrat.

    Your movements will thus be recorded. EVERY movement. Every purchase you make - what food you eat, what entertainment. Where you are. All electronically filed, to be pulled up with a few keystrokes, when you become inconvenient to the likes of Lisa Page and Peter Strozk and John Brennan.

    MOREOVER. No cash permitted, means "Negative Interest" can be charged by banks. This is part of their plans to continue manipulating the purportedly-free capital markets. Interest rates have hovered near zero for a decade, and haven't done what the Masters Of The Universe wanted them to. So, of course they want MOAR - like true Keynesians, they never, ever admit their god Keynes was WRONG.

    So, NEGATIVE interest, CHARGES savers, PAYS borrowers. To incentivize immediate, complete, spending, and then borrowing on credit to spend moar. Savings be damned - banks with borrowers, can go to the Central Bank to get moar printed-up fiat to lend out.

    Trouble is, those obstinate Deplorables just put money in the cookie jar, to avoid Negative Interest. Hey, that messes up the PLANS! We have to MAKE it work! So we'll BAN CASH!

    These people are full-on insane.
    another comment:

    Carrot and stick. They're being pressured to "encourage" all these "electronic transactions" (by the banks, who're being encouraged by the Federal Reserve) to get the sheeple conditioned to it.

    Soon comes the stick. Large bills removed; then, low limits on cash; then, cash disallowed at retail outlets, and finally, no cash at all. THEN, comes the negative rates. And our whole economy is turned on its head, punishing thrift, encouraging reckless debt.


    Look at China with their 'social credit score' attached to each citizen.
    Say something the party does not like? No money for you. No travel for you. At the touch of a button. Not a damn thing you ca do about it.
    That's the future a 'cashless society' will bring.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
    roorooroo likes this.
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    4,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Give us more control, so we can prevent criminals and terrorists"

    The end game is they are not going to want people to legally be allowed to make any purchase, without the government knowing about it, and it going through a bank or credit card financial service company. No paper money, no payment allowed in gold coin.

    Anything that has power, the people could misuse, so government doesn't want to allow them to use it, if it can be helped.
    The fact that so many people these days make all their big purchases on credit cards just makes that force change over all the more convenient.
    There was a time, not so long ago, where the idea of banning cash purchases would have been seen as totally absurd.

    And I also have to wonder if banks and credit cards want to be able to start charging fees for their services, so by getting the government to do away with cash, they are getting rid of the potential competition. Now it will cost people a percentage of money to make any transaction, and there may not be any way out of that. More profits for banks and financial industries.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
    roorooroo likes this.
  15. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,400
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    BECAUSE

    This is about the National Security of Australia.

    And the opposition is more globalist in thinking.



    Those who conduct business in Australia owe some
    "social considerations" to Australia and those who made a system
    where their profits could be amassed.



    And Australian economic political thinking has become emasculated to
    serving eunuchs to them or the others.

    GET IT OR NOT!
     
  16. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    13,569
    Likes Received:
    9,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are they going to ban gold transactions? If not...

    *buys more gold*
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    4,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No doubt transactions in gold or any other foreign currency equivalent to over $10,000 in Australian dollars will be banned.

    Keep in mind that the Australian government did have severe restrictions on the personal ownership and trading of gold before 1976, so there is very clear precedent for this.

    As an example to get a glimpse into the undoubtedly likely future here, there have already been cases in the US where people were imprisoned for pulling too much money out of their bank account in multiple separate withdrawals to try to get around the $10,000 reporting requirement.

    So it's a near certainty, if this law in Australia passed, they would consider you to be violating the law if you made two separate payments to someone in gold coin that, combined, went over the $10,000 A equivalent amount.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2020
  18. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    21,088
    Likes Received:
    5,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The idea is to force all transactions into the corporate banking system where they can be controlled and monitored.

    As for their argument that this will "stop crime", I am sick to death of government punishing the many for the sins of the few.
     
    kazenatsu and Red Lily like this.
  19. scarlet witch

    scarlet witch Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    6,276
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Honestly who pays for goods $10 000 in cash... drug dealers and Crime bosses. Before you now yell and scream at me.... at least be someone who pays for his high dollar value goods in cash. In that case you're right I'm wrong... please don't kneecap me.
     
  20. billy the kid

    billy the kid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,919
    Likes Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The $10K is just the beginning....
    Don't forget they can reduce it to say $2K if they want without going to Parliament. The Treasurer
    has the legal right to reduce it which is conveyed to him in the Regulations under the Act.
    A cash ban and -4% interest rates works delightfully for the grubberment, and gives the
    elites more power and control over the peasants...particularly when the bail in is required...….
     
    scarlet witch likes this.
  21. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    21,088
    Likes Received:
    5,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do. I pay almost exclusively in cash. Obviously I can't pay Netflix with notes and coins, but most else I do, including big purchases.

    For small transactions, I feel like I am more thifty when I actually have to reach in, glance what I have left and hand over a mint $50 note.

    For large transactions I find I am more easily able to negotiate a discount if I pay in cash. Every car I've ever owned I've paid for in cash, some over $10,000 in value.

    Additionally, I don't accept the view that it's okay to restrict 25 million innocents to prevent the 77 cases of money laundering in Aus over a 5 year period.

    Finally, there are legitimate reasons to not want banks or governments to know what you're spending on, both now and into the future. Banking data breaches, sensitive religious or political purchases, evolving threats like China's social credit system, etc.
     
    scarlet witch and Red Lily like this.
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    3,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There has long been talk of doing the same thing in the US.

    I'm against it, but Big Brother rules.
     

Share This Page