from the article:
They are not allowed to avoid this amount by making several smaller payments in banknotes.
What does that mean for salaries? Every salary payment can be seen as a part of an annual income. I would demand more frequent pay days just to get some freedom back – to be free from forced banking. Of course I would say the paychecks are not part of a whole payment but each are a whole payment for a specific amount of labor rendered.
#warOnCash
By cash i think they mean physcial money. You could still pay for a $5000 purchase with your debit/credit, just not in physical cash. As for your paychecks question, the vast majority of people get paid via a cheque or direct deposits. Very few people are getting paid out in physical cash and the ones that are probably make less than $3000 a pay period and may already be breaking other finnancial laws.
You could still pay for a $5000 purchase with your debit/credit,
Not if you are unbanked. The policy is exclusive and elitist.
Generallly, at least the WML (wettelijk minimum loon) part cannot be paid in cash at all - that must be paid into a bank account.
Every salary payment can be seen as a part of an annual income.
No they really can’t. Salaries are standardized to be monthly, as are actual loan repayments. So if you earn more than 3k per month, you’re not getting that in cash.
One payment per month is likely common for well-paid white collar workers, but what about all the shit jobs? McDonalds, Amazon box packers, Uber, domestic work, … surely people that low on the food chain would need more frequent paychecks.
Are you sure about what you’re saying? That the conventional monthly paycheck would then be legally forced in conjunction with this new forced-banking policy? If I’m unbanked by choice, it sounds like I would then need to work ~2—4 part-time jobs to hold on to the privilege to boycott banks, correct?
If you’re paid hourly, I doubt you’ll ever go over €3,000 per hour.
