(edit: title corrected thanks to @Ghoelian@feddit.nl’s info)
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/1624944
Saw a “no cash” sign at a bakery. Conversation went like this:
me: So, no cash? What’s going on there?
cashier: Yeah, we’re not allowed to accept cash.
me: Isn’t it the other way around? Isn’t there a legal tender law in #Netherlands?
cashier: Yeah, we’re not allowed to refuse cash.
me: So this sign posting says loud and clear “we are breaking the law”, in effect, no? Is that not being enforced?
cashier: That’s right. It’s unenforced in Netherlands.
The same thing is happening in #Belgium. This kind of forces me to revise my understanding of European culture & norms. In both the US & Europe there is a culture of certain laws (rightfully) going unenforced against individual natural people. E.g. small amounts of marijuana possession. But I previously thought when it came to moral/legal people (businesses), they simply complied with the law in Europe to a great extent.
IOW, companies complied with laws in Europe. Contrast that with the US where corporations small and large will blatantly disregard any laws that interfere with profit based on the calculated risk of getting caught and risk of penalties.
I just wonder if Europe is being influenced by cavalier US corps and changing to comply only when penalties are likely. Or is this something I had wrong all along… that EU companies were always loose with compliance?
#WarOnCash
This isn’t true, at least in the Netherlands. The Euro is legal tender of course, but stores aren’t required to accept it, provided they make this clear to customers.
Source (in Dutch): https://radar.avrotros.nl/hulp-tips/hulpartikelen/item/mag-een-winkel-cash-geld-weigeren/
And directly from the government (in Dutch): https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/geldzaken/vraag-en-antwoord/kan-ik-met-een-wettig-betaalmiddel-overal-betalen
Thanks for the info. That link is broken for me but I was able to reach the article here:
This differs from Belgium then. In Belgium shops are breaking the legal tender law and it’s going unenforced.
(update) It would be interesting to know how Netherlands treats debts and whether that differs from point of sale. E.g. suppose you’ve been paying your debt by bank transfer, then your bank account gets cancelled (either by you or by the bank). You could then be in a situation of only having the capacity to pay in cash. What does NL law say in that situation?
It would be interesting to know how Netherlands treats debts and whether that differs from point of sale.
That’s the point of the notice rule. You need to know about the condition before the transaction, so you can’t be forced into a debt that can’t be settled with cash.
I don’t quite follow. It would be nice to know in advance before entering home mortgage contract that 10 years into the loan the bank that holds your asset account is going to give you the boot. The reality is that you don’t even get a 1 day notice sometimes (depending on circumstances).
So the contract with your mortgage lender might say the payer agrees to pay via bank transfer for 15 years, while all contracts for asset accounts at all banks never include a guarantee to keep your account open. They reserve the right to pull the plug at any time. Are you saying that in the situation where the payer does not know in advance that their bank account will remain open that they are protected and thus can switch to cash payments?
If you agree to pay back your mortgage by bank statements, it’s up to you to make sure you have a bank account. Maybe they’ll accept cash if you renegotiate the terms, but I wouldn’t count on it. You can probably use whatever bank accounts you want to, so if you want to ditch your bank for whatever reason you shouldn’t have any trouble.
if you can no longer get a normal bank account (because of financial crimes you’ve committed, you falling into debt repeatedly makes you too risky for the banks, etc.) you can get a basic bank account which comes with various restrictions, but will allow you to pay your bills. This avenue should always be open to you, so the “I can’t pay through a bank account” excuse probably doesn’t work.
Be aware of the restrictions on cash payments. Cash payments of €10k or more require the receiving party to look into you to prevent fraud, which your bank probably doesn’t feel like doing. The cabinet was working on a proposal to ban all cash payments above €3k but that seems to have gotten stranded until at least September.
If you agree to pay back your mortgage by bank statements, it’s up to you to make sure you have a bank account.
Yikes! So the law has ensured that people are put in the unreasonable position of making guarantees they are not in control over.
if you can no longer get a normal bank account (because of financial crimes you’ve committed, you falling into debt repeatedly makes you too risky for the banks, etc.)
It’s much easier than that to be systemically shut out. You just have to be born in the wrong place. Point 2 in this paper. That page lists several situations where a law-abiding consumer is shown the door by banks.
you can get a basic bank account which comes with various restrictions, but will allow you to pay your bills.
EU basic bank accounts do not support cash deposits. So if you earn cash or your bank was at least kind enough to warn you before they close your account and you withdrew cash, that money is trapped as cash & cannot be spent from a basic account.
This avenue should always be open to you, so the “I can’t pay through a bank account” excuse probably doesn’t work.
Depends on your nationality.
Suppose you are a Canadian residing in Netherlands and you buy a house. You sign up for a loan under non-negotiable¹ terms. Say 8 years later Canada makes a treaty with NL saying that Dutch banks must either report all Canadian consumers to Canada or they must very closely watch their Canadian clients (bank’s choice). Both options are a burden on banks, so banks decide it’s not worth the money a few Canadians them to deal with it, so they reject all Canadians unless they open a basic account. But the does not want to serve Canadians with basic accounts because of the extra babysitting burden. So they don’t inform Canadian consumers that the option exists. They simply send them a letter saying they have 1 month to clear out their bank account and leave. Some Canadians will do just that and bring home a pile of cash. Other Canadians will take the time to do a bit of research & discover they can force the bank that’s booting them to open a new “basic” account for them.
Human Rights Breached
It’s a human rights problem (all people must be treated as equals which is even codified in EU law). But it’s being ignored. So rewind 8 years. How would a Canadian have predicted that their human rights would be pushed aside and they would be given the boot by banks?
So the Canadian homeowner is booted by the bank and the mortgage lender says “not my problem; pay me and it better not be cash”. How is that reasonable? It comes down to really fucked up law that overlooks the importance that all debts be payable in cash. Not only is the Canadian victimized by way of the human rights violation of treating them different, but then the creditor kicks them when they are down. The lender is also a bank possibly even one with a vault for handling cash, but they simply do not want the inconvenience of handling a monthly cash payment.
The above hypothetical actually happened - but with USians. USians are at the mercy of banks to accept them. Some banks will verbally say “we don’t take Americans” (they will never put that in writing though because it’s an illegal policy). Some banks have decided to take US clients but with extra reporting (thus still violating their human rights by way of unequal treatment). So some USians will say fuck this I’m done with banks. But what about the mortgage that’s still in play? It’s insanely reckless to impose on the human being side of the contract the ability to predict that disaster. And regardless of that, even if a mortgage borrower could predict it, it’s a human rights problem that it would preempt them from home ownership.
Why is this happening? (A: “crime fighting”)
This raises the question: WTF justifies forcing everyone into this shitty banking system? Crime fighting (they say). So non-criminals are getting probed, kicked around, harassed, & denied service under the “crime fighting” rationale? How fucked up is that that the hunt for criminals is designed to put non-criminals in harms way? The whole point to fighting crime is to protect non-criminals in the first place.
Prediction: Brits or Canadians are next
One of those two countries will be next to follow in the footsteps of the USA, and their citizens will also become toxic citizens to banks.
¹ It’s always non-negotiable terms because no bank will take the burden of altering terms and then have to manage different terms for different clients. You can only negotiate figures.
Yikes! So the law has ensured that people are put in the unreasonable position of making guarantees they are not in control over.
You do have control over this. You can still fuck up, that’s what the special bank account is for.
That page lists several situations where a law-abiding consumer is shown the door by banks.
Hence the basic bank account.
EU basic bank accounts do not support cash deposits.
I did not know that. I can see why, though. Banks are already asking several euros per deposit because nobody likes dealing with large amounts of cash.
So if you earn cash or your bank was at least kind enough to warn you before they close your account and you withdrew cash, that money is trapped as cash & cannot be spent from a basic account.
That depends on how much cash you have. You can spend it on groceries or give it to someone else who can deposit it and send the money over to you from their bank account.
Depends on your nationality
We can’t change anything about Canada changing their laws. That’s not really our problem. If the Canadian government tells its citizens they must use a monitored bank account and Dutch banks don’t play ball, then that’s a problem between you and the Canadian government.
The whole point of the basic bank account is that banks can’t refuse you. If this breaks Canadian law, you should ask a Canadian lawyer for advice. If you’re earning enough money to buy a house, you can get your own legal counsel that can help you with your situation.
I’m not sure what human right is being breached here. You, as a Canadian, with a registered address, have the same rights as everyone else, barring some citizenship based exceptions like voting. If you want a bank account, you can get a bank account. If you want a home and have the funds to pay for it, you can buy a home.
If a Canadian-Dutch treaty does make your life impossible, you can probably take the case to the courts.
I don’t think all Debra should be payable in cash. I don’t want to deal with the risks of getting robbed after someone hands me 10k in paper bills. If you’re borrowing money from someone, they can state their terms and it’s up to you to accept them. If you insist on paying back in cash, find someone who will lend you money in exchange for cash.
You do have control over this. You can still fuck up, that’s what the special bank account is for.
What do you mean by “the special bank account”? No one can force a bank to accept their business. Even basic bank accounts have qualifications. Not that it matters because since you can’t deposit your cash into a basic bank account, you’re not in control anyway.
Hence the basic bank account.
If your money is in cash, that’s useless. And even if you can get it transferred, it’s still useless if you can’t find a bank that doesn’t impose closed-source software on you after that trend runs its course. Mortgage contracts in force today predate imposed smartphones w/big attack surfaces and were signed before the consumer could have predicted that.
I did not know that. I can see why, though. Banks are already asking several euros per deposit because nobody likes dealing with large amounts of cash.
It doesn’t matter what their excuse is. They’ve created situations where debtors cannot pay their debt despite having the money.
That depends on how much cash you have.
It does not.
You can spend it on groceries
Buying groceries does not pay your mortgage lender. So say you convert the cash into beer. Then what? You ask the mortgage lender if they can accept beer?
or give it to someone else who can deposit it and send the money over to you from their bank account.
LOL. I was shocked when I heard an energy supplier suggest this very same thing. I said “will you be my friend for 2 minutes, pay my bill, and accept my cash?” (silence).
How can you seriously suggest that it’s okay to draft policy that relies on consumers having friends who aren’t also unbanked?
We can’t change anything about Canada changing their laws.
It’s not Canadian law. It’s international treaty between NL and Canada. NL agreed to it. Surely you don’t believe Canada has direct authority over Dutch banks.
That’s not really our problem.
It is your problem because Netherlands agreed to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is bound by it.
If the Canadian government tells its citizens they must use a monitored bank account and Dutch banks don’t play ball, then that’s a problem between you and the Canadian government.
Not when you have human rights violations. The DUTCH bank under DUTCH law in this scenario is treating Canadians different than Australians (for example). It’s a human rights violation and the jurisdiction is Netherlands. Canada’s only role was to coerce the Dutch into violating the human rights of Canadians. The violation is at the hands of the Dutch who should have rejected the treaty.
I’m not sure what human right is being breached here. You, as a Canadian, with a registered address, have the same rights as everyone else
Same human rights, yes, but getting different treatment under Dutch law. That is the problem.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 26:
“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
(emphasis mine)
If you’re borrowing money from someone, they can state their terms and it’s up to you to accept them
Article 25 ¶1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
So you have lenders pass through human rights violations (via forced but unequal banking) onto Canadians who undertake to secure housing under article 25. When the bank discriminates against Canadians and the mortgage lender imposes forced banking by contract, the human rights violations are also at the hands of the mortgage lender.
What a load of bullshit. It’s not illegal to not accept cash. “War on cash” is hilarious too.
The “war on cash” is not a thing, but it should be. And it should definitely be illegal to accept only cash.
Nonsense. The #WarOnCash is as real as the European Commission.
Are you also going to tell us Bill Gates doesn’t exist? Or that he’s not involved despite his war on cash actions and partnerships?
Perhaps you can tell the CATO Institute that the War on Cash is just an illusion and that the “war tactics” they list are not really happening? If so, some citations that counter CATO’s citations would be nice.
Also don’t forget the Illuminati and the lizard people living in caves at the center of the earth. It’s real, I read it on the internet.
“War on cash” is hilarious too.
The mainstream media is not laughing— they rightfully accepted the term and they use it.
…Likely because researchers use the term.
Not only is it legal to refuse cash payments (storing and transferring large sums of cash brings in very real theft and employee safety risks), the government is even working on a proposal to ban all cash payments over €3000.
A business can demand you pay with any legal tender (as long as it’s indicated beforehand, of course), but you can’t force them to accept whatever legal tender you happen to carry. Stores can allow for payment in Bitcoin, but you shouldn’t even bother trying to pay your local supermarket with any kind of cryptocurrency. You can’t even pay with credit cards in some supermarkets, and those are definitely legal tender.
There are countries that advocate for the right to pay with cash and the privacy advantages it brings. I also agree that I would like to see cash remain a valid payment option for as long as possible. However, the Netherlands don’t have the protections on cash payments that you seem to think they do.
There are countries that advocate for the right to pay with cash and the privacy advantages it brings.
There is an important distinction here between point of sale (PoS) & debts. AFAIK, the Netherlands & Belgium makes no distinction. But Australia & the US does make the distinction because it’s more of an injustice if a debt cannot be settled in cash.
PoS w/cash ensures privacy & access. It’s also resilient to catastrophes like the power grid going down, bugs and malware bringing down appliances, etc. But if a merchant does not accept cash then it’s not a big¹ deal. The contract doesn’t happen and at least neither party is at a loss.
W.r.t. debts, a debtor cannot guarantee bank access throughout the whole duration of the contract. Creditors also profit from late fees when their info system goes down or they do something to make payments painful or they alter the firewall config to block some customers. The debtor should not be put in a position of incurring penalties whenever the creditor adversely changes the info system. Cash should always be an option because shit breaks.
I’ve had a bank that decided out of the pure blue “we are closing both walk-in service and the website permanently… use our closed-source smartphone app which only works on very recent phones if you want to continue accessing your money”. Not joking. Banks are pulling that shit. I have a term for this: “broken”. When my bank is broken, I still need to be able to pay creditors & if they don’t take cash & yet still expect to be paid, on time or penalty levied, it’s an injustice.
¹ Assuming we’re not talking about something extremely essential. When there is one energy supplier to choose from and they don’t take cash, that is a big deal. So really there needs to be a further distinction between PoS of something both essential and uniquely sold, and other sales.
Bank accounts have been the norm for paying most services like energy suppliers for so long that I don’t think you’re going to find a company here that will let you send cash to them.
If the grid (or more likely, the internet) goes down then you do have a problem. Customers of ING and Rabobank will attest that it’s quite annoying when the bank goes down for a few hours, usually people find out about that happening when doing groceries.
If your bank stops supporting your phone for whatever reason, they’ll give you notice in advance. It’s up to you to get yourself a phone that does work or to find a new bank. Rabobank and ING have special reader devices you can request that will scan a QR code and authenticate payments and logins for those without phones.
If your phone runs Android 5 or iOS 13, you’re out of luck when it comes to bank apps, but that’s not “very recent”. If you’re still on an insecure phone like that, get a bank account with a separate authenticator device, not just because the app refuses to function, but also so you don’t get your money stolen. Alternatively, you can pay by automatisch incasso without any digital action required from your end, and you can transfer money by sending in the right paperwork through the mail.
Your bank isn’t a party to your contract with your creditors. If you care so much about being able to pay in cash, negotiate a contract that will let you do so. It’s not your creditors’ problem if you decide to unbank yourself, they’re almost always free to refuse you service if your decisions make you impossible to work with.
Bank accounts have been the norm for paying most services like energy suppliers for so long that I don’t think you’re going to find a company here that will let you send cash to them.
That’s a problem because now that banks have started violating people’s human rights, the energy suppliers forced banking policy doubles down on those human rights violations.
If the grid (or more likely, the internet) goes down then you do have a problem. Customers of ING and Rabobank will attest that it’s quite annoying when the bank goes down for a few hours, usually people find out about that happening when doing groceries.
The grocery store is not going to let you walk out with groceries if their payment system is down. Hence the importance of cash.
If your bank stops supporting your phone for whatever reason, they’ll give you notice in advance.
The way I received a notice was the app refusing to function. I do not call that “in advance”. Nor does advance warning justify it. They can give months of advance warning - I’m still being forced into the private marketplace to needlessly procure new hardware because of designed obsolecense. To not object is to support that abuse.
Rabobank and ING have special reader devices you can request that will scan a QR code and authenticate payments and logins for those without phones.
There are also still banks that have over the counter service and web service. This does not obviate the fact that some banks impose a closed-source app that depends on agreeing to Google or Apple’s privacy-abusing ToS. Any and all banks are within their rights to go in that same direction. Pointing to a couple banks and saying “look, these two banks are not yet fucked up” is not decent rationale for forced banking.
Your bank isn’t a party to your contract with your creditors.
Bingo. That’s the problem. The finger-pointing is designed to point blame on the victim.
If you care so much about being able to pay in cash, negotiate a contract that will let you do so.
I think you missed my comment that mortgage contracts are non-negotiable.
It’s not your creditors’ problem if you decide to unbank yourself, they’re almost always free to refuse you service if your decisions make you impossible to work with.
Actually it is their problem. They can point to the contract all they want but they can’t suck blood out of a rock. If they shoot themselves in the foot by drafting a fragile contract with simple points of failure, they have a business problem because they still need to get paid. It’s also the victim’s problem to the extent that the debt is high enough for the lender to put a lien on the home. That’s actually the only problem I care about because a human being is taking a hit for an incompetent system in that case.
That’s a problem because now that banks have started violating people’s human rights, the energy suppliers forced banking policy doubles down on those human rights violations.
I don’t really understand what human rights banks have violated here.
The grocery store is not going to let you walk out with groceries if their payment system is down.
Small amounts of cash, for sure. Everyone should have enough cash ready to buy a week’s worth of groceries in my opinion. Unless you’ve managed to score a pretty great deal on a mortgage, that’s not mortgage payment money.
The way I received a notice was the app refusing to function.
That’s very strange. What bank was this? Both my banking apps always tell me this type of news one or two months in advance.
I’m still being forced into the private marketplace to needlessly procure new hardware because of designed obsolecense. To not object is to support that abuse.
The fact you bought a phone from a company that refused to maintain its software isn’t your bank’s problem, though. It’s not the supermarket’s fault if the car you bought isn’t allowed into the milieuzone the store is in either.
I think you missed my comment that mortgage contracts are non-negotiable.
Then you should either save up and purchase a house lump sum or rent somewhere. You’re the one asking for a huge amount of money from someone else, they have a say in how they like to be paid.
I don’t know what happened between you and your bank but I fail to see the practical problem here. Do you have an example of someone taking the hit because they had plenty of clean cash but no access to a bank for some reason? Practically speaking, anyone with enough money to get a mortgage can buy a €100 smartphone (or a €50 one at Marktplaats) that they use just for banking and nothing else.
I don’t really understand what human rights banks have violated here.
Banks are giving different treatment to different customers based on their national origin. They singled out those born in a particular country. Some banks showed the marginalized group the door… gave them a GTFO in one month notice. Other banks said “you can stay, but we’re reporting your activity to Canada (for example)”. If you are born anywhere else, you do not get that “special” treatment. It’s a human rights violation because people are not being treated the same.
Small amounts of cash, for sure. Everyone should have enough cash ready to buy a week’s worth of groceries in my opinion. Unless you’ve managed to score a pretty great deal on a mortgage, that’s not mortgage payment money.
Regardless, the mortgage still remains unpaid if the grocer accepts your cash but the lender does not.
That’s very strange. What bank was this? Both my banking apps always tell me this type of news one or two months in advance.
If only the app tells you, that’s obviously incompetent design as it relies on you opening the app frequently enough. Not that it matters, because as I’ve said the designed obsolescence driven forced upgrades are injustice whether they are warned or not.
The fact you bought a phone from a company that refused to maintain its software isn’t your bank’s problem, though. It’s not the supermarket’s fault if the car you bought isn’t allowed into the milieuzone the store is in either.
It is the bank’s problem because the bank chose the platform. And the bank chose a platform that all vendors neglect to maintain. (of course, that’s how capitalism works; there’s diminishing profits if you maintain the software for the life of the hardware). I countered that by installing the bank app on a virtual machine with recent SDK (which is the only way to get immunity from designed obsolescence). The bank app detected that it was being run inside of an VM and refused to run. So by your analogy, it’s more like the bank has deliberately taken an pro-active action to sabotage your car from reaching it.
Then you should either save up and purchase a house lump sum or rent somewhere. You’re the one asking for a huge amount of money from someone else, they have a say in how they like to be paid.
You’re still ignoring human rights. When the bank takes a Canadian to court because the discriminatory treatment lead to inability to pay their debt, the gov itself is bound by the human rights covenant that they signed.
I don’t know what happened between you and your bank but I fail to see the practical problem here. Do you have an example of someone taking the hit because they had plenty of clean cash but no access to a bank for some reason? Practically speaking, anyone with enough money to get a mortgage can buy a €100 smartphone (or a €50 one at Marktplaats) that they use just for banking and nothing else.
You’re confusing multiple different problems. The smartphone problems are inherited from a forced banking posture. You impose banking on people but you do not grant them a right to not use a smartphone so in principle all banks can force you to do something unethical (buy a phone every couple years). It’s also a money problem because the population pushed into forced banking is bigger than the home loan debtor population. It includes poor people. The mortgage problem is a problem of having a loan for 10-30 years out where you cannot predict how the banks will treat you, so you’re being forced to make a promise that you cannot guarantee. You cannot guarantee that your bank account is sustainable. You can’t guarantee that the law doesn’t change. And when the law does change the problem is it’s the human being who didn’t have negotiating leverage that takes the hit for the change, not the bank who has control over what they draft.
I’m in Portugal and no place whatsoever can refuse to take cash and you, as a customer, can complain in writing and even have the police called: you want to pay, you are not evading your charge, it’s the business problem how they handle the cash they receive.
During the pandemic we moved a lot of the day to day transactions to digital format but it was ruled it is unfair treatment to refuse cash.
What can be refused is to take unreasonable volume of coins or too high value bills, as in, paying €50 in small change or handing a €200 bill.
Indeed that’s similar to Belgium. By (unenforced) law, a shop in Belgium must accept accept cash but they can refuse banknotes that are disproportionately high for the transaction amount, they can refuse high volumes of coins, and they can refuse if they don’t have change to give back.
There was a group of people who fought the war on cash in #Belgium by entering a cashless cafe, placed orders, racked up a bill, consumed the food, then when it came time to pay they said “here is our cash. We are happy to pay.” The cafe worker threatened to call the police if they do not pay by card. They said “please feel free to call the police… we will wait.” The police showed up and said indeed there was nothing for them to do. The customers were free to go.
Nice move! Have to remember that one.
