Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday September 05 2019, @03:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the bills-have-serial-numbers-so-only-use-change dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Many Austrians value their privacy and won't accept someone to keep track how many beers they drink. It may sound like a strange thing to enshrine in a country’s constitution: the right to pay cash. But a debate on whether to do just that has entered Austria’s election campaign, shining a light on the country’s love of cold, hard currency.

The Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP, EPP-affiliated) recently made the suggestion as part of its campaign for a parliamentary election in late September, for which it has a commanding poll lead. This led to other parties — though sceptical of the ÖVP’s proposal — vaunting their commitment to protecting cash, with the centre-left Social Democrats (SPÖ) demanding an end to fees levied at cashpoints.

And it is not hard to see why all major parties see protecting cash as a vote-winner.

“In Austria, attitudes change slowly,” an employee of Weinschenke, a burger restaurant in downtown Vienna, told AFP. The woman in her 30s, who only gave her name as Victoria, says she prefers to use cash because “you don’t leave a trace”.

Financial law expert Werner Doralt says Austrians put a high value on privacy and are wary of anything that could be used to keep tabs on them, such as card transactions. “If for example I go shopping, and it’s recorded exactly how much schnapps I’ve bought, that’s an invasion of my privacy,” he says.

A recent survey conducted by the ING bank in 13 European countries, Australia and the US, showed Austrians were the most resistant to the idea of giving up cash payments.

Just 10 percent of those surveyed in Austria said they could imagine doing without cash, compared to a European average of 22%. According to European Central Bank data compiled in 2017, cash accounted for 67% of money spent at points of sale in Austria, compared to just 27% in the Netherlands. Even in neighbouring Germany, another country known for its attachment to cash, the rate is only 55%.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:01PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:01PM (#890120)

    These are all examples of why constitutions tend to have a process for self modification.

    I am guessing you don't like any of those laws/amendments, and that is fine.

    How do you feel about this one:
    https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399461 [house.gov]

    where they are looking to fix Citizen's United (where it was ruled campaign finance laws abridge the first amendment) by... making an amendment that says campaign finance is something that can be legislated, without regard for the first. Most people I talk to say that CU was a terrible ruling, but I explained that it had terrible consequences, but it was the right (legal) ruling. Amending the constitution is the right way to handle this issue.

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:09PM (4 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:09PM (#890123) Journal

    If it defines how a government, an election, or whatever operates. Or define what a right is intended to protect. Great! That's not a problem. That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

    I like all but about 2 of the post-bill of rights amendments. I think most of them were basically addressing that kind of question. I don't mind there being constitutional amendments. I mind dumbfuck movements thinking that an amendment is "Exactly like a law but more powerful"

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:40PM (3 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:40PM (#890143) Journal
      The USA has a written constitution and to Americans that is all important. Many European constitutions are unwritten and are based entirely on centuries of tradition and experience. This is not necessarily equivalent to making an amendment to the USA Constitution. And, if it gets majority backing, then why shouldn't the Austrians be free to do as they wish in their country?
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 05 2019, @11:30PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 05 2019, @11:30PM (#890290) Journal

        No, totally, as long as what they are doing doesn't hurt anyone else, they are free to put in their constitution any garbage or clever things they want.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06 2019, @12:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06 2019, @12:29AM (#890311)

        The USA has a written constitution and to Americans that is all important. Many European constitutions are unwritten

        And Britain has Boris Johnson and prorogation. Such a lawless nation!

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06 2019, @01:03AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06 2019, @01:03AM (#890331)

        "Many" European countries lack a written constitution?
        The only one I can think of is the UK. Which are the others?
        Any country which has had a revolution or become independent since about the Napoleonic Wars should have one; it was standard practice since then.