You can be barred from flying (is that still true?) and now banking, without trial or evidence.
It's already highly anti-democratic, but imagine what an aggressive, oppressive government will do with this power.
It's already highly anti-democratic, but imagine what an aggressive, oppressive government will do with this power.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-gla...
With some luck ten years from now there may be a bill in the US trying to fix some of the worst aspect of KYC/AML (like regular people getting their bank accounts closed for no reason and without any explanation).
Never answer with any info, never consent to searches.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-g...
It’s particularly bad in some cities. Rather than enforcing access to the special hell that is US retail banking, just prohibit businesses from ripping out their existing cash infrastructure.
Even with a bank account, your ability to transact is subject to surveillance and seizure/freezing without evidence or probable cause. Cash has none of these problems.
Good idea to decline those
This has been going on for a very, very long time: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/drug-search-trekies-s...
Driving with any amount of cash above a few hundred will get you robbed by the police in asset forfeiture. It happens everyday around the country to small business owners that deal with a lot of cash.
It's reasonable to demand that your employer make your whole pay (less withholdings) available to you, and if you are unable to maintain a bank account, and their bank charges a fee to honor checks, that's not really reasonable if you are paid by check.
[1] https://www.mybanktracker.com/news/check-cashing-fees-top-ba...
New Zealand doesn't have cheques any more. Banks here totally phased them out a couple of years back.
The USA will also make checks obsolete over time.
Plus cash is disliked at many retailers and cash is not acceptable at some locations (e.g. my skifield only accepts cards - I was told it is because the nearest small-town bank won't accept cash deposits from the skifield). I suspect our government will slowly discourage cash 1. to prevent tax evasion (cash jobs), and 2. to prevent illegal purchases (e.g. weed). Those are the main uses for cash that I personally see others use cash for (I use cash because I like using it and I like privacy).
New Zealand is a small country way out in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean 2.5K miles (or over 4K kilometers) away from its nearest neighbor and with a population smaller than NYC. The United States is 50 stubborn ass States plus the Fed’s occupation in southern Maryland. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has an address in Wellington, is owned by the New Zealand government and answerable to Parliament. The Federal Reserve system isn’t even a single bank with a single board of directors, isn’t wholly owned by the US Government and isn’t directly answerable to Congress.
There’s no easy way to make a lazy comparison between us and have it be convincing. Parts of the Federal Government would likely love to see the United States become a cashless society but they don’t always get what they want.
Australia has a population bigger than NYC and "Australia is set to be a cheque-less society by the end of the decade, if the federal government has its way."
Zealand has a population and land area similar to Oregon. Might as well say NZ has a much bigger population than Wyoming - NYC is irrelevant.
Cheques have slowly disappeared because of economic reasons: the transaction costs/risks involved, and because electronic transfers have benefits. The economic forces are likely similar in the states. I believe the change has little to do with the NZ government nor the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
What the United States lacks is the kind of central control that a Westminster-style of government can exercise, even over cash money and checks, and there are a lot more institutions with some say over the continued prevalence of cash so even as its usage declines it is unlikely to completely disappear even in our lifetimes. Even if Chase stops giving their customers checkbooks, it doesn’t mean M&T will, and even if M&T does, it doesn’t mean there won’t be a bank that makes it a point to offer free checkbooks as a value add to small business owners that want to continue issuing paper checks to their employees. The form money takes here tends to be additive, and it is rare for a system to ever completely disappear. I mean next on the chopping block is probably Zelle followed by ACH of all things now that we have FedNow, and even that’s not necessarily going to happen.
AFAIK it was economic and convenience forces that caused the disappearance of cheques over a couple of decades. Banks discouraged chequebooks by making the accounts and books expensive. Retailers at most risk of receiving bad cheques started not accepting cheques (e.g. gas stations). Handling fees for cheques. Chequebooks not available to people with credit risk. Businesses stopped paying using cheques - instead they needed a bank account. New Zealanders got more familiar with cards and direct debits, so fewer New Zealanders (individuals and businesses) used cheques.
AFAIK it wasn't a top-down activity in New Zealand. Australia's move seems to be more government based but I would guess Oz is part way down the tracks of discouraging cheques.
The last time I remember handling a cheque in NZ was back in the 2000's (dividend payment). I remember thinking cheques were quaint when I worked in the US in the 90's: we have been slowly discouraging them in NZ for decades.
It is just like how we are not paid in cash at the end of the week no more - systemic change happens slowly.
Especially since they would likely assume that the person earned this punishment and thus is a risk to employ.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/employers-gold-silver-pay...
Canada has laws[1] intended to ensure access to banking, with $10M fines for violations. Not familiar with them myself and wondering how effective they are, and whether anyone has sued and won. It's maybe a bit ironic considering how the government here improperly locked a lot of people out of their funds during the trucker protests (the inquiry found collateral damage where people completely uninvolved were affected).
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/...
Pretty sure it's a global agreement around terrorist funding.
The solution to the problem is not to force retail banks to extend their terrible customer service to all of society, it’s to ensure the utility of cash. Cash works great even if the banks (or the state) hate you.
I believe it's optional for you, but not for the great majority of people. Lack of access to banking services specifically holds back a lot of people (look up 'unbanked').
Where are you supposed to hold your cash, under a mattress?
Banking is definitely not optional. Certain transactions, specially those done online, require digital payments that cannot be done with physical cash. It's increasingly a required part that's needed if you want to participate in modern society, and the lack of access to such banking systems forces people to adopt subpar services as a replacement.
In the ideal case, banking should be a utility like power & water: A necessity for modern life, without which certain daily routines would not be possible.