@rms Yikes. #fuckTexas “#Texas passed a law in 2021 requiring #banks underwriting the state’s municipal bond market to certify that they don’t and won’t turn away firearms clients.”

@rms Those who #boycott #banks that act against #gunControl should also boycott goods & services from #Texas.

@rms “#Visa, #Mastercard and #Discover this month also paused a plan to implement a new merchant category code for the nation’s gun retailers after political pressure from Republicans.” #gunControl

@koherecoWatchdog @rms

Personally i support this boycott. Banks should not have the right to deny clients based on the legal activities they perform.

We are required by law to use banks and simply can not operate legally as cash businesses. So as long as what you do is legal i will support any law that prevents banks from denying service based on a category of what you sell.

Even if you dislike guns this is a dangerous precedence to let banks decide what you do with your own money.

@freemo @rms What country are you in? Presumably Europe, where the EU has established that ppl have a right to a bank account. Banking is not required by law in the US; nor is it a right. Individuals & companies both have a right to purely use cash in the US if they want. Banks have a right to refuse svc to anyone. Many banks deny service to those operating legally in sex trades. #warOnCash

@koherecoWatchdog @rms

Originally from the USA, thugh thyese days I spend little time there though I do maintain a business and home in the USA.

In the USA a bank is not **directly** required by law, but it is effectively required by law as a consequence of other less direct laws.

For example, I cant legally send cash in the mail, I cant legally transport cash across borders, You cant legally pay for things in large quantities of cash without the help of a bank to show a paper trail, etc.

For all intents and purposes the other existing laws make it impossible to deal with large amounts of money without a bank account.

@freemo @rms It’s a bad risk to send cash by mail, but in the US you are free to do so. You are also free to carry cash across borders as far as the US is concerned (provided that you declare it when traveling inbound & exceeding $10k). A paper trail is not required in the US -- it’s your option. Receipts cover that option (it's not like the EU where accountants demand bank statements).

@koherecoWatchdog

Not entierly true.. Purchases over 10K must show a paper trail and must be reported. I have tried to buy cars and even homes with cash, they simply wont take it without a detail trail on the money.

@rms

@freemo @rms That’s not a blockade on cash. When you declare your $10k+ in cash, you have no paper trail responsibility. The gov creates the paper trail for it's own purpose. You only need to declare it. This can be no more than taps on an ICE screen.

@koherecoWatchdog
=
Have you ever tried to buy an expensive car from a car dealership with cash? Good luck, and they will claim its due to the requirements of IRS reporting that they need to verify the legitimate source of the money before taking it, and therefore wont.

@rms

@freemo @rms That’s the dealer’s choice. Just as banks are risk adverse, so are other professions. No one is forcing a car seller to only accept bank payments.

@koherecoWatchdog

It isnt their "choice" it is forced upon them due to the requirements placed upon them by the IRS.

@rms

@freemo @rms The requirement is not a bank txn only requirement. It’s a requirement that they do their due diligence which is easier to satisfy if the payment is via bank. If they want your business, they can accept cash and go through irs hoops.

@koherecoWatchdog

AsI said at the onset, the law does not directly forbid the transaction, but it indirectly makes it infeasible effectively making banks a requirement indirectly.

@rms

@freemo @rms But you can’t use the word “requirement” if that's what you're saying. They are incentivizing bank txns, not banning cash.

@koherecoWatchdog

Semantics arent really important to me, whether calling it an indirect requirement is appropriate or not is not something that has value to debate... the point is, the laws in place make it virtually impossible to run a large business without using a bank.

Honestly banks shouldnt even be able to know how or where your money comes from, that information should not be accessible to them as I should have some garuntee of privacy over my money.

@rms

@freemo @rms The more banks are forced to accept business from anyone, the more the US becomes like Europe, where there is an assumption that everyone can have a bank account, which facilitated some EU countries banning cash transactions. It’s better if we /do not/ have a *right* to have a bank account. It needs to remain a priviledge to keep the #warOnCash at bay.

@koherecoWatchdog

I disagree, if we have a fundemental right here a bank can not legally invade our privacy and review the source and destination of our transactions (without a court order) then we can facilitate accepting cash transactions from people who do not have bank accounts, and better secure the right to not needing one.

@rms

@freemo @rms That doesn't follow. Banks violate your privacy inherently. Not just by gov. pressure but also by the pressure to profit. Giving people the right to a privacy-compromising bank account enables oppression. It’s important for unbanked people (who are unbanked by choice) be able to say they are unbanked by force.

@koherecoWatchdog

they can profit as a bank just fine not knowing where my money came from.. Yes they do violate my privacy to make more money im sure, but there is no inherent need to do so.

Im not saying they cant have some info, how much I deposit, when, , how long my money stays in there... fine.. but they do not need to know who i am transacting with and why to make profit.

@rms

@freemo @rms There’s an inherent need to maximize profits for their shareholders, which means abusing people’s privacy. There are over 6000 banks & credit unions in the US (so copious competition) and not a single one of them is privacy-focused.

@koherecoWatchdog

Agreed, which is why they will violate privacy as long as they are allowed to do so, and the urge to maximize profits will always be too high for them to be privacy respecting due to market pressures... which is exactly why we need to make it a law and force them (And all of their competition) to be privacy respecting.

@rms

@freemo @rms We don’t live in a hypothetical world. Certainly if you give people the /right/ to have a bank account /before/ legislating banking privacy, it’s a recipe for disaster. At a minimum, it would have to happen in the reverse order.

@koherecoWatchdog @rms

Im not advocating for the right to have a bank account, that might be a natural consequence of a right to privacy, but it isnt the direct principle at play.