Now it really begins by stealth...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Shaddam IV, Nov 5, 2019.

  1. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    Yep, i normally get cash out from supermarkets these days. Though there seems to be less and less self serving machines that allow it.
     
  2. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    How do you balance a right to privacy with making sure it's difficult for the black economy / tax avoidance to thrive? What is a reasonable limit on the size of cash transactions or should we just assume everyone is doing the right thing?
     
  3. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,993
    Likes Received:
    862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Firstly. Tax avoidance is a completely legal strategy in tax planning. Tax evasion is illegally avoiding tax by breaking the law. There is a difference. Everyone should be avoiding as much tax as possible.

    Are there any stats to show that there is a thriving 'black economy' or tax evasion? The government's own stats and reports show it isn't such a big problem, and that it is declining.

    People shouldn't be assumed guilty because they prefer to retain their financial privacy.

    [​IMG]
     
    Jislizard, jultorsk and 66rounds like this.
  4. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'm good with a $50k limit. Though considering the vast majority of tax evasion and criminal activity happens within the electronic banking system, i don't see why cash has to have any limit.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
    66rounds likes this.
  5. 66rounds

    66rounds Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    495
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Problem is once they set a limit, even if its a million dollars, you will find it creeping downwards. Bit like a frog in slowly boiling water.
     
    jultorsk and leo25 like this.
  6. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    12,684
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    This is disgusting. The fact that a gaggle of meatheads can threaten that man without any basis other than that he has too much money on him for a poor person is appalling.

    Mindless thugs.
     
    Oddjob and willrocks like this.
  7. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Cherry picking words out of my sentences to take issue with isn't going to get anyone very far. I don't see the point in arguing whether $10B+ spent on illicit drugs each year, etc is thriving or not. A lot of the activity wouldn't show in stats for obvious reasons.

    Do you think the government should be required to provide you with a monetary asset which allows for unlimited financial privacy?

    You could transact through barter to maintain privacy.
     
  8. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,993
    Likes Received:
    862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not cherry picking. You were associating a legitimate tax planning strategy with an illegal activity.

    You seem to be implying that there's something wrong with wanting 'unlimited financial privacy'?

    Of course I want unlimited financial privacy, and so should anyone who has any common sense.

    I think you know barter doesn't work.
     
  9. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    You know what I meant. You are simply cherry picking a word I wrote incorrectly while jamming out a message over mobile in 30 seconds. You then cherry picked 'thriving' to take issue with. Pointless.

    You are avoiding my question though (which is a yes or no question). Do you think the government should be required to provide you with a monetary asset which allows for unlimited financial privacy?
     
  10. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,993
    Likes Received:
    862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Despite a 10,000 GBP declaration limit. Apparently in UK airports the officers routinely take amounts over 1000 GBP where the holder doesn't have bank withdrawal receipts and income records. Thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of private banks, and the illegitimacy of private cash savings.
     
    Oddjob likes this.
  11. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,993
    Likes Received:
    862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about I ask you. What is the minimum limit where financial privacy should be allowed? A cup of coffee? There should be no upper limit to financial privacy.

    If there's legitimate crime involved, as you seem to imply. The crime should be dealt with on a case by case basis, not criminalizing everyone, or criminalizing cash itself.
     
  12. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    I will start answering your questions once I've ascertained whether or not you think it's a human right that government provides you with a monetary asset in which you can transact privately in unlimited quantity. The fact that you won't answer says a lot though.
     
  13. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,993
    Likes Received:
    862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you work for the government?
    Why are you so hung up on the amount? Whether it's $5 or $5,000,000 is not the point.

    I believe that privacy is a basic human right. That financial privacy is just as important as any other privacy.

    One of the last remaining privacy rights in Australia is privileged communications with a lawyer. Should there be limits on that? Why should financial privacy be any different?

    The fact is, very wealthy people can afford financial privacy by hiding behind shell companies and offshore tax havens. Like what was uncovered with the Panama Papers. So placing any type of amount limit on financial privacy is probably pointless.
     
  14. madaw1

    madaw1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Great Western Country
    The most corrupt organisations in the world already have control on many governments around the world-this way they /to some extent/ some have control over us. Cashless society is much easier to control-checking by Big Brother your spending with your income etc. It is easier to live using Visa but at the end of the road will became the prisoners of our destiny. Our freedom will be taken away from us. If the cash is no available why the Government should know for example -how much I pay to my gardener or someone else . I don't want them know-they don't tell me everything as well.
     
    66rounds and willrocks like this.
  15. SilverDJ

    SilverDJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    You don't balance it, privacy and liberty come first.
     
    willrocks and 66rounds like this.
  16. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Do you think the government should be required to provide you with a monetary asset which allows for unlimited financial privacy?
     
  17. Silver260

    Silver260 Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Queensland
    Interesting question / perspective, and a trick question at that ;). Which ultimately there is only one answer... No.

    Because surely, if that was the case you would have to cease all government services?

    I say this, because under such a system taxation would become purely voluntary. And I'd give the government about a month before it ran out of money.... Lol.

    Only solution would be to return to the feudal system of taxation, based on how many windows your house had, or horses( cars ) you own.

    Edit : My only concern with cashless relates to control, not privacy. Most of us forfeited our privacy years ago...
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
    leo25 and Bullion Baron like this.
  18. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    I'll admit it's a bit of a 'gotcha' question, but it is also a completely reasonable way of looking at things in my view.

    @willrocks says we should have complete financial privacy, but also seems to think this right should be facilitated by the taxpayer (not that he'll answer the question and admit it). Ironic, no?

    I would take a more pragmatic approach.

    Cash is 'public infrastructure', in the same way that public roads facilitate our transport from A to B, cash facilitates financial transactions from A to B.

    Being a public service, I think it is reasonable to impose limits and monitoring on both of these infrastructure services in a way that reduces the likelihood that they are used illegally.

    Should a member of the public be able to drive at unlimited speeds on public infrastructure with the expectation of full privacy?

    The funny thing.. cash is traceable, it has a serial number. There can be no expectation of full privacy even if you are dealing in cash.

    A lot of the recent uproar over cash transactions has been around incoming legislation which bans $10k+ transactions when individuals are paying a business. I don't think that's completely unreasonable. It's far more lenient than the level of monitoring mentioned by willrocks above (a cup of coffee).

    Some may not agree, but I don't think businesses should be able to transact with individuals in an unlimited cash capacity. I don't think someone should be able to swing a duffel bag full of cash across a real estate agents desk to buy a house or at the Lambo dealership to buy a car. I do think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of privacy at a consumer level, but a line in the sand has to be drawn.

    That said, I'm always open to listening to a good argument to consider changing my mind, but picking on my mistyping of a word or frivolous discussion around whether the black economy is "thriving" or not isn't likely to work :D
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
    Silver260 likes this.
  19. Silver260

    Silver260 Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Queensland
    I agree with your view on cash and its role in society.

    But regarding the above, isn't that the point of Austrac?. How do the new laws strengthen the existing regulations?. I think people have every right to be suspicious about the motivation behind the latest legislation.

    As I stated above, my concern is about control, not privacy. Our privacy has been nothing more than an illusion for many, many years.
     
    leo25 likes this.
  20. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    I may be wrong, but I think TTRs were only applicable to some business types? i.e. financial, bullion dealers, gambling, etc. So the new legislation broadens the scope of businesses covered, makes the transactions illegal instead of just needing to be reported and can result in fines on either side of the transaction. I do agree that there should be suspicions around the motivation, i.e. potential to expand the legislation to transactions between individuals or lowering the limits and I think the limits imposed by some other countries are unreasonably low.
     

Share This Page