Not sure why someone downvoted that. In France it's limited to 1000€ currently.
"The payment in cash between individuals (purchase of a car or a painting for example) is not limited. A writing is necessary beyond 1,500 € to prove the payments ."
In fact, even below it, where it mentions the 1000 euro limit for professional transactions:
"Note: this limit does not apply to people who have no other means of payment or no deposit account."
Link to a news piece commenting the new Spanish law: https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20210630/congrso-aprueba-ley-pr...
It's useful if electronic systems go down. It's useful in an emergency situation. It's useful for donations. It's useful for instant settlement.
You're more than happy to give away your financial sovereignty and to take away your optionality because you think they'll collect more taxes from it?
In my country, privacy doesn't include hiding financial transactions from the state. I think they have the right to know everything on this topic, even though cash obviously makes it harder for them (and more expensive for them, so for the tax payer). I don't really see how I benefit from that except that I need to pay more taxes to make up for those who use cash to hide their taxable transactions.
Absolutely agree on the fallback in case of downtime from the payment systems. We'll have to find a good solution to that probably before dropping cash completely. (Note that I never said that cash can/should be dropped right now. They are other missing things, like garantying that anyone can get a payment mean for free)
Privacy is a universal human right. Your ignorance of that fact and your state's refusal to accept that is another issue entirely. But history is quite clear about what happens to countries and citizens thereof that continually encroach on private human rights.
You don't necessarily want everything under the control of government because government has a repeated history of going really bad, very fast.
Some recent examples: Nazi Germany, Islamic Iran, Communist China, Vietnam, Pol Pot & Cambodia, Soviet USSR, Burma, etc
As I said in another comment, I think cash is also controlled by the state, so a totalitarian regime which would have issues with it could probably make it worthless anyway, don't you think? (You could smuggle cash from other countries, but cash from your own country wouldn't help too much). Also I'm pretty sure totalitarian dictators are some of the main benefictors (is that a word?) from the lack of traceability of cash.
In Iran, cash still worked and people used it to get smuggled out of the country, even when you were given 5 minutes to get out of your house and see it burn in front of your eyes, or neighbors would steal everything without consequence because you were now parted of a hated minority, you could still get cash via the minority community and family and get out.
If the revolution happened in 2040 vs 1979 iran or 1930s germany, and all finances were controlled by the centralized state via digital accounts, with your minority affiliation tags matched fairly well through a vast adtech apparatus, would those people really have that much to stand on? No, not nearly as much.
In germany during bismarck's time, they created the first welfare state in the 1880s. 30-50 years later the weimar republic, hitler and the holocaust happened. Just because the state is giving you something of value for your money TODAY, does not mean they will continue to do so TOMORROW in your lifetime.
I feel like you don't need %100 total financial surveillance to properly fund a welfare state about honestly minor amounts of cash, but governments are slowly trying to get there. It's very dangerous, and governments are always at risk to go full genocide. The rich use other methods and frauds and almost never use actual cash, other than businesses with a lot of small cash transactions (drugs). I don't think the current surveillance regime is very good for that purpose either.
Large scale criminal behavior is usually enabled by some other governmental policy. The US war of drugs basically funding the narco gang states of northern mexico and creating instability there is a great example of this.
I'd be curious to know how cash helps people in china for example. Is it common to have people flee the country with bags of cash? Are there things that you can only buy with cash in order to avoid problems with authorities?
My point is: nowadays, do they need to monitor every financial transactions to be able to control everything you do? If they can know everything you do anyway, what is cash protecting you from?
It's the same elsewhere, be it UK, US or Germany - illegal immigrants rely on cash to survive, as they usually can't just open a bank account with a card. And yeah, some people will always say that it's actually great that illegal immigrants can't access those facilities, after all they are illegal. But I think that's a very cruel view of the world, people in various hardships will always exist and cash is the only fallback that exist if the official banking system rejects you or is inaccessible for you. And it's not just illegal immigrants - people have had their bank accounts closed and placed on some kind of black list by mistake before, how is that going to work if cash is removed entirely? It's already a big problem in most societies, as for instance employers in a lot of places aren't allowed to pay you in cash - so even if you are 100% legit and work a normal job, you suddenly can't be paid legally, even though cash itself still exists and is legal.