Discussion in 'Currencies' started by ozcopper, May 8, 2018.
I resemble that remark!
I bought a car for cash last year. I could only take out 10,000 at a time from the bank so I had to visit it a coupe of times and I had to order it the day before.
Depends on the branch AFAIK
E.G. Was at the local Combank (no vault bank, only those teller machine things) and was behind a lady who said she wanted x amount of cash. Dunno how much she wanted, but was clearly over 10k as the staff member said they don't have that much available. But she then mentioned to try the Combank 2 suburbs over as they still had a vault and could therefore facilitate a larger cash withdrawal.
Yeah that's happened to me with Commbank too - you just need to give them a call/pop in a day or so prior to give them the heads up, and then they can make sure they have the amount you need on hand
of course, how could they even stop you
no, except that at certain times a branch may not have enough cash to give you, and they are within rights to charge a cash handling fee to do so. Check your banks fees and charges booklet - that fee does exist.
MYOB calls for future without cash to end black economy
LOWERING the government’s $10,000 cash payment limit to $2000 “would be justified” to crack down on the so-called black economy even if it inconvenienced law-abiding citizens, Treasury has been told.
In a submission to a consultation paper seeking input on the implementation of the $10,000 limit announced in May’s Federal Budget, Big Four accounting firm KPMG said the proposal didn’t go far enough.
“We believe that a future cash payment limit of $5000 or even $2000 would be better suited to achieving the desired ‘crack down’ on black economy dealings,” the submission said.
“Although we do acknowledge that such a limit would further restrict the scope for Australians to conduct legitimate transactions in cash as a matter of personal preference, we submit this would be justified in light of the rationale underlying the proposal and the considerable public benefit that could be achieved.”
KPMG said it favoured a “low limit, high penalty” approach.
“An effective enforcement and penalties regime will be paramount to achieving the desired outcome, especially given the principal targets of the proposal are already deliberately avoiding the law,” it said.
To prevent attempts to circumvent the limit by splitting cash payments into smaller amounts, the accounting firm proposed applying the limit on a per-supplier basis over a specified time frame.
“For example, cash payments to a particular supplier would not be able to exceed $10,000 in any rolling 60-day period,” it said.
KPMG further recommended an “integrity measure” banning part-payments in cash for any sale over $10,000. “This would mean, for instance, that cash instalment payments or partial cash payments made as part of a transaction with a sale price of more than $10,000 would constitute a breach of the limit,” it said.
The firm said it could not think of any industries or transaction types that legitimately operate in large cash transactions that were unable to be made through the electronic payment system, nor were there any specific types of businesses or groups of individuals that should be exempt.
“We acknowledge that particular groups, including the elderly and those living in remote regions may be more reliant on cash, and may have less access to technology,” it said.
“However we think given the relatively limited number of transactions that exceed $10,000, it is reasonable to expect purchasers to pay by cheque, or another method, in light of the potential public benefit of the proposed limit.”
Yet another step for the government to slyly ban cash all together. They can't just keep printing money, so why not make it all electronic so there literally won't be any limit to the money supply. At least the impending economic crash won't completely be on their watch...
Yes, controlled THEFT is their aim, where the sheople are all herded into the shearing pens to be shorn at whatever rate the Government & Banksters decide is enough.
They have stated that they want a 2% inflation (official) rate of theft openly.
In my country, since 4 or 5 years I think, the cash transaction limit is 3000 euro.
Btw, the limit only applies to payments to businesses, as is the one of this topic.
I asked a hypothetical question at the ANZ (in NZ) about withdrawing large sums in cash. They said it's 'my' money and I can take out as much as I like but to give them some warning if it was an extremely large amount because they don't always have a lot of cash in the vault. Now I just need an extremely large amount in my account to test it. We don't seem have a cash transaction limit yet, no doubt it's coming.
I don't think the transaction limit applies to taking money out of or putting into the bank, as it's not a commercial transaction for goods or services.
I can still take my $100k cash and buy a flash car or boat with it without the seller having to declare it - I believe
At the moment yes, as long as physical cash still exists, it should be possible to withdraw $100k in cash (even if it takes a couple of trips) but it is highly possible in the future that countries may do away with physical cash so you cannot "withdraw" cash because cash don't exist.
When this happens, if there's a bankrun, you can't even take out your money out of the banking system in the form of cash to stuff into the security safe. The only way is to spend it away, or buy gold, but wait, all the gold and silver bullion has run out! As we have seen recently, 1kg bars in Australia is in shortage, even without a bankrun!
If you guys ever go to high end fashion stores and you see the kind of people with neck tattoos paying tens of thousands with rolls of cash, you think ATO would crack down faster.
I myself can't see the big deal about cash payments of 10k or more being banned. I mean I'm an old fella and in all my years have never carried more than 2k ever and that was when I got paid cash for something and I was going to the bank to put it in. In the past when you bought a big ticket item you either wrote a cheque or if the seller was adamant you would get a bank cheque. So really who cares, no one ever really needed 10k cash or more to pay for anything. Now of course you can do it all online, no more writing cheques, so it's even better. I can tell you this as a fact. I have had $200 in my wallet for the last 6 Months and I have not touched any of it. It is my back up only for people who don't have eftpos. I even use my credit card to buy a loaf of bread, yes at the Woolworths self checkout, it is faster than cash.
When I recycle my plastic and glass bottles I scan my bar code that's on my phone at the machine and the collection returns from TOMRA go straight into my PayPal account, how good is that? No vouchers, no queues, no wasted time to pick up your money at the supermarkets 1 counter.
The only time I've really used cash in the last couple of years is f2f trades for bullion. This is ok and was only for a couple of kilos of silver or similar but that doesn't amount to tens of thousands of dollars.
I concur with Ipv6Ready, was in a bullion shop in Sydney earlier this year to pick up some gear I bought online. Man, some real rough looking bullion buyers in there, I'm talking they looked like gangsters swapping cash for bullion. They weren't buying silver, they were buying gold. Glad they left by the time I got served.
If the aim of the government is to stop money laundering then I'm all for it. To much crime and drugs around, dirty money from criminals. If you got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
Cash is important when shit hits the fan because in the event of economic crisis, you want the option to hold cash instead of deposits.
Another reason for me is the ability to withdraw cash from the bank will save me transaction fees that can be up to 1% if it involves different currency. For example, let’s say I want to withdraw from my USD account, but if the bank don’t allow cash withdrawal, I have to transfer the amount to a local currency account. Some banks will charge on a transfer out to another bank. The bank will also take a cut from the foreign currency conversion. While 1% might not look like a big amount, but if you’re talking about bigger deposits of 50k to 100k, 1% is $500 and $1k.
Of course cash problems would not exist if one doesn’t have deposits. All assets in property or insurance/mutual fund for example.
as you can now use Mobile to buy $200k worth, scan the QR code
oh the Pokemon game is draining the phone battery, not sure you can take the train home, can't scan or tap bep bep
really need the power bank all the time !!!
very much doubt money laundering can be stop in any way shape or forms, there is exploding washer like Samsung, you name it
Now Huawei is added to the banned list, not sure the government can stop foreign tourists from carrying their home mobile, as they would need them like We-Chat Pay etc to shop in the stores
PayNow is also going to be accepted in growing number of countries, just scan and your bill is paid
you can also PayNow with your PM transactions, since you already has the contact mobile of the person you are dealing with
many food stores can take PayNow, supermarkets take them too, dash pay...virtual Visa etc ...
if the cash usage is going down, may be the banks would just switch off the ATMs in the future, as the rental spaces are costing too much
this all are for conveniences, but there is still the need for cash
This is a real problem. The percentage model for transaction charges is quite unfair. What has the bank done to earn more money on a transaction just because there are more zero? Does it really cost more to process a $50 transfer than to process a $5,000 transfer? To me it is just plain gouging. If I was doing a $5,000,000 transfer I could pay a security firm far less than $50,000 to have someone physically show up, collect a physical item and take it to the recipient.
^ The impact of default/fraud on the bank is bigger for bigger transfers?
Cost banks much more to insure $5,000,000 against fraud and stupidity than $5,000 or $50, even if self insuring
Think of it this way most people will take the risk of sending $50 note inside Christmas card to nieces and nephews without blinking an eyelid, very few would send $5,000 without insuring, I doubt anyone would post $5,000,000 in regular parcel mail
Have you ever asked a security firm to pick up $5,000 or $5,000,000 cash from a bank and deliver it to your house, doubt it would be cheaper than bank transfers.
Two biggest risk for banks in money transfers are...
1. Stupid customer who transfer money to wrong accounts and than want the bank to sort it out. (Note: banks will usually work to get your money back but it isn't insured) This work isnt free, it cost time and wages.
Unlike Credit cards in bank transfers, which is usually completed from a transaction/saving account customer, it is the themselves sending money to wrong "saved" accounts is the number 1 issue, and the bank having to deal with it.
Separate names with a comma.