You can't ban $100 bills because huge number of those circulate in countries all around the world, most of them poor. Some families' fortunes consist of a few such bills in countries of Africa or Central Asia.
What's your plan here?
What's your plan here?
When there is a new design for any banknote, which happens every now and then (new security features added and so on) the issuing authority usually puts and end date to the old version a few years into the future. Otherwise it becomes very hard for the central bank to know how much money they have in circulation, and also they don't get the full benefit of the new security features if a lot of "old" money circulates along side it. As an example, I don't think any of the paper money I have in my wallet is of a design that has been valid for 15 years, or will be valid in 15 years from now. I have lived through the retirement of at least 10 different designs over the last decade, and at least three denominations were removed entirely.
That said, the use of US dollars outside the US might not be too sensitive to changes. I remember german D-marks still being a thing in the balkans even after the germans themselves switched to Euro!
The banks will stop giving that money out and start sending it back to the gov to be removed from circulation once you turn it in, but there is no date a discontinued note in the USA has to be turned in by.
Here's a source, there are many others. http://www.littletoncoin.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Displ...
For instance, I live outside the US and I have roughly $300 in older US $100 bills that was given to me and my wife as a gift for our wedding. No over-the-counter currency exchange or bank will accept the notes. I could probably find someone here to trade me something for the notes, but the effort/hassle is probably not worth it for such a low number of bills.
What are you talking about?
> the issuing authority usually puts and end date to the old version a few years into the future
Not in the US.
Apparently, how money works in most places but not in the US... I can't imagine it would be very controversial however, if US authorities announced that "in 10 years, banknotes older than the 1960's will be invalid, you can exchange them for new notes before that". Why would it be controversial? It would be a big change after having so old money being legal tender, but it would be understandable not least because old money without modern features is likely much easier to counterfeit than new.
In any case: banknotes expiring completely or being made invalid/replaced by new editions with the same denomination isn't anything strange, even if it would be news in the US. So in that light, removing some denominations of Euro notes wouldn't be controversial. Remember: all the EU countries already quite recently had ALL their original banknotes made invalid (after period of conversion, which I believe has ended a long time ago in the original EUR-countries).
That depends on the issuing country. I'd guess it's related to whether they expired their banknotes before the Euro.
French and Dutch banknotes are now invalid, but German Deutschemarks are valid for exchange at any Bundesbank indefinitely. The same applies to Austrian and Estonian currency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Mark
I would even be okay with getting rid of the $100 bill. Let's face it, people who deal in VERY large amounts of cash $100,000+ are not good people. Drug dealers or politicians (same thing in my opinion) don't use $20 bills as amounts that high get very cumbersome. If you find yourself in a situation with so many $20 bills that you physically can't carry them around, I have literally zero sympathy for you.
Slippery slope? Maybe, but as it stands I have no issue.
Having limits on transactions over 1000 euro (like France) does forces law-abiding citizens to handle transactions in a way that can be monitored by the security services (the non-law abiding citizens of course just ignore the damn law or wash the money through a front).
It's yet another attack on privacy, if I want to buy a bike from someone legally and pay in cash for it what business is it of the governments, it's a private transaction between two parties for a legally owned and sold item.
I'm rapidly coming to the view that Orwell wasn't far of the mark with "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." except instead of an actual jackboot we just have the complete removal of privacy, fear of the boot stamping on your face instead of an actual boot.
That's the bare faced lie masquerading as an excuse. The reason they want to get rid of it all of a sudden is to cut down on cash hoarding in a negative interest rate environment.
>If you find yourself in a situation with so many $20 bills that you physically can't carry them around, I have literally zero sympathy for you.
I lack sympathy for the banks that would see a deposit flight to cash in the event of negative interest rates they lobbied for.
But Apple Generation does not care. We are used to being watched and patronized.
The number of things wrong with this statement. I don't like most politicians, but those two are very different. I'll just leave it there, because I don't even know where to begin to refute this.
Also, anyone that uses +$100,000 in cash is a bad person? This makes no sense. I run a charity, and if I choose to give cash to the organizations beneficiaries, is it evil? If I do the same thing personally and find $100,000 to give to charity or a family in need, am I evil now? Generalizing people who spend a lot of money (to you anyway, it's a very subjective and arbitrary definition of a lot of money) is just illogical.