Run to the bank, dear EU citizen. Everything is surrendered, the EU is planning. Everything will be taken from you, you will be a hostage to the state, warns Pavel Kohout and suggests a bad thing!
Next year, the European Commission will publish an impact assessment of the EU-wide cash limitation, which suggests that this will happen if the cash payments are not even completely disallowed. Economist Pavel Kohout rejects the rationale for this intention because the financing of terrorism is practiced by the European Union itself, and money laundering is seen as a minor problem compared to the misuse of European subsidies. Analyst Patrik Nacher finds it ridiculous for the state that issued money to forbid them to use, as well as forcing someone to save money and set up an account.
The European Commission has published the results of the consultation on the limitation of cash payments aimed at getting public opinion on possible measures by the European Union in the field of restrictions on cash payments of larger volumes. It therefore took note of its communication to the Council and the Parliament of 2 February 2016 on an Action Plan to further intensify the fight against terrorist financing, which is largely used for cash payments. Limited cash payments, together with the reporting of cash and other anti-money laundering measures, should make it more difficult for terrorist networks to operate and limit further crime. At the same time, it would simplify the course of further investigations to trace the financial operations that occurred in the terrorist activity. In 2018, the European Commission will publish an Impact Assessment stating the follow-up steps.
This may not be a long way from limiting or completely canceling non-cash payments. However, it must be remembered that by transferring all of his financial life to a bank above him a person loses full control. It is a mistake to execute or suspect of crime and immediately falls into existence problems, regardless of your income and financial reserves, because the bank account is a matter of a matter of seconds. While cash represents an immediate and final transfer of value between two parties, electronic payments are, on the contrary, performed by a third party – an intermediary whose credit risk must be accepted by the client and paid to him. If people could not use cash, central banks would have absolute control over money, and people would become the subjects of their experiments. Negative interest, when a person has to pay the bank for having the money deposited with her, becomes a viable decision.
The European Union itself is the most concerned about the financing of terrorism
Economist Pavel Kohout considers payment of cash payments a bad measure against ordinary consumers and completely rejects the rationale of combating terrorist financing and money laundering. "But for God's sake, the financing of terrorism is the very thing that the states themselves are doing, or the European Union itself. European Union Member States pay social benefits to potential suspects, or even returning terrorists from the Islamic State, as is the case with Sweden. If there was no support from the states or the European Union, terrorism would not be so much a problem. The limitation of cash payments has nothing to do with it. And as far as money laundering is concerned, it is such a minor problem compared to how European subsidies are abused, that it does not make sense to talk about it, "Pavel Kohout told ParliamentNews.com.
The bank's analyst and banking expert, Patrik Nacher, is also behind the planned cash cuts. "I am a long-standing critic of artificial, unnatural restrictions on cash payments because I think that in this case, development is authentic. Individual businesses, be they consumers, individuals or companies, companies, naturally aim at the cheapest and safest way of financial transactions. This means that it does – but naturally – increase cashless operations, make more use of payment cards, or make more transfers from account to account. Coming with some artificial regulation when cash is or not to be used, that's something I disagree with, "Patrick Nacher says for ParliamentaryListy.com.
By the system, we are forced to request a service with a commercial subject
He points out that there are situations when one wants to use cash. "Or are people who have no confidence in cashless payments. It is beyond any understanding that the state as a money-issuing institute is also forbidden to use it. That seems totally absurd to me. Just man has some means and it is on him the form of their distribution chooses. Forcing someone to save money and set up an account, I find it terrible. That's every thing he wants to take precedence. When you have cash, you answer for yourself. At the moment you operate non-cash, you are forced to open an account somewhere, having a credit card somewhere. In essence, that law tells us that we need to seek service with a commercial subject. And I do not like it either, "admits Patrick Nacher.
"Many people, for various reasons – and they can be absolutely legitimate reasons – prefer cash. Cash constraints or, ultimately, a total ban on money that is often spoken of could lead to a person becoming a hostage of the state, and if we had any savings, the state would be able to deprive those savings of all their impunity. It could introduce a tax on savings. After all, we have already seen something similar in the case of Cyprus. It could introduce a negative interest rate, which is also a thing that has already occurred, and could continue to do so. So I'm definitely keeping the cash and I do not agree with her limitation. If someone suits cashless payments, why not, I do not mind, I myself often pay cashlessly, but I certainly would not be for any violent restriction of the money, "insists Pavel Kohout, his economist.
Big brother, but masked in the fight against terrorist financing
According to Patrick Nacher, the cash payment for a regular user has one advantage. "It is clearly proven that when paying in cash and not by credit card, a person – consumer – is much more economical, modest. In other words, cash payment means that a person suddenly becomes more aware of the value of money and of having to earn them, so he has a much less appetite for nonsensical spending. It is a natural feature that one does not like to give up, he gives money, he slips, he can reach them, they create a relationship, so I do not want to adore it. I'm just describing that when a person issues money, he wraps his wallet visually. And so much more thinks what they spend. While working with virtual money, such as a credit card, it puts something on it, even money does not see, there is no bond. Non-cash payments lead to much more spending. It has this moment too, "notes the bank analyst.
The cash payment limitation compares with the limitation of arms possession. "If the black money is a problem, let it happen very vigorously. But because people promise people to make dirty money, or promile people distributes money for terrorism, buzzing all of them comes unfair. Because of the negligible number of entities that break something, rules are created that apply to everyone. Only those who have done in this area will simplify the job by ordering something for everyone. We do not have the natural course of choice for people to choose what is better, more effective, safer than they are to be ordered under such an embarrassing fight against the financing of terrorism. That makes me really smile. Let them say straight away: we want to have more control over what people spend on how they behave, that is, the Big Brother 'on the move, than to play that we want to control the financing of terrorism or tax evasion. It's really funny, because it's about the promile of people, "notes Patrick Nacher.
Cash deserves protection, threatening destructive impacts on the economy
They do not even talk about restricting cash payments, but also banning them, or reporting money. "At present there are anti-money laundering regulations that apply to banks, investment companies, insurance companies and similar financial institutions, which also to a certain extent limit cash receipts. But I do not know if there is any other suggestion in this direction that would tighten up the existing measures even more, but I think that what is already today is sufficient or even exaggerated. And I'm not in favor of it continuing, "Pavel Kohout, economist at Economist, told.
It is good to keep in mind the risks pointed out by Slovak economist Juraj Karpiš, a loud supporter of cash payments. "If all of your payments are electronic, then there is data about your financial life that can exploit criminals, the state, or a combination of them. From your bank account, you will also be able to see where you are moving, when you go on holiday and what cosmetics you buy. When there is no cash, it is also significantly easier to tax everything in the economy. An exotic proposal also emerges in Slovakia: to tax every electronic financial operation, ie the withdrawal from an ATM, as well as payment of the payment or payment of yogurt. Such a tax is masked at a low rate, but it has a more destructive impact on the economy than direct or indirect taxes. For all this, cash deserves protection, "explains Juraj Karpiš, who could also expect us to be in a purely non-cash payment world.