Australia to Ban Cash Purchases above $10,000 (Submissions Close 15 Nov 2019)

Diji1 on 11/05/2018 - 22:40
Last edited 12/11/2019 - 23:52 by 2 other users

The Turnbull government has turned its attention to the “black economy” in an attempt to raise billions of extra dollars and intends to limit cash payments for purchase goods and services to $10,000.

As part of the cash-in-hand crackdown the government will introduce an economy-wide cash payment limit of $10,000 to reduce money laundering and tax evasion, to apply from 1 July 2019.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/08/austr…

All while the top 500 businesses by market cap pay an effective rate of 2% with most of that paid by the lower half - while they use the infrastructure that your taxes pay for.

Isn't it about time you voted for someone other than LibLabs to stop this continued crackdown on individuals while big business pays almost nothing?

Update:

In the 2018-19 Budget, the Government announced it would introduce an economy-wide cash payment limit of $10,000 for payments made or accepted by businesses for goods and services. Transactions equal to, or in excess of this amount would need to be made using the electronic payment system or by cheque. The Black Economy Taskforce recommended this action to tackle tax evasion and other criminal activities.

SMH

Treasury: Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019

—

Update 2:

3 days left to make a submission against the cash ban!

NOTE: If you made a submission to Treasury in August against the cash ban, you need to do another one to the Senate. They are different inquiries. However, you can adapt your submission to Treasury to re-submit to the Senate. Submissions are due in 4 days—15 November. Every submission is crucial! The easiest way to make a submission is to send an email to:
[email protected]

Financial

Comments

        • ThadtheChad on 13/05/2018 - 21:01

          @natslovR:

          Absolutely agree. This would have resulted in a seamless transition over to NPP (New Payments Platform) without impacting end users/businesses.

          A travel agent we used recently was much nicer about it, was happy to watch us do a transfer and forward the banks receipt to her, but there’s a level of trust there that your average business shouldn’t have to wear

          Very true. Especially at amounts over 10k, there is a possibility that clearing is delayed a bit, for further anti-fraud/AML checks. This means that the customer has to suffer the delay, or the business has to make a leap of faith that the funds will clear (which is not entirely ideal).

        • ely on 13/05/2018 - 23:18

          No problem with large transactions being reported if they're not dodgy. I carried $90k in cash in to Australia from Thailand, declared it on arrival, had printed my form out and handed over to them and they waived me through with no further questions (they were amazed that I'd gone so far as to prepare a form in advance).

        • lead_org on 13/05/2018 - 23:42

          If you deposit more than $10K cash, the bank would ask you how you obtained the cash. If you continually deposit your cash without proof of origin, they may close your bank account citing money laundering.

      • kiLbiL on 12/05/2018 - 16:09

        exactly that's the point

      • RockyRaccoon on 12/05/2018 - 21:56

        Mr Bear - are you a business person?

        Nothing in legislaton about private person buying or selling a car for more than $10000 in cash

        Transactions with financial institutions or consumer to consumer non-business transactions will not be affected.

      • StarvingOat on 13/05/2018 - 11:53
        +1

        Technically you could have sold the car 20,000 and only deposited half or none at all. Then claimed you made a loss on it.

        Just highlighting what the government wants to stop.

        • kingmw on 13/05/2018 - 19:16
          +1

          Unless the car is tax deductible (i.e. a business asset) or you made a capital gain on it then you won't need to declare it on tax nor would the government be interested in your private sale.

    • outlander on 12/05/2018 - 11:52
      +1

      Your missing the point. Right now its option, and its presence has an influence on other forms of payment

      Imagine you're buying a car, and credit card fees have recently been increased to 5%. Would you consider paying cash then?

      Besides, what is this supposed to achieve? If you're doing something dodgy, you're not going to be worried about laws like this.

      • kingmw on 12/05/2018 - 16:02
        +1

        Well the NPP (New Payment Platforms) i.e. instantaneous bank transfers, is already being implemented so there should be no reason why you couldn't just pay on the spot like this. This is likely the reason why the government has decided that next year they plan to ban cash purchase >10k. Once it has started I would imagine they will continue to lower the limit, maybe even to 2k.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 21:22

          +10 years. Cash banned entirely. There's sooo much missing tax money in the economy due to cash transactions. There's 0 reason to buy with cash these days unless you're hiding your income / assets.

        • StarvingOat on 13/05/2018 - 11:55

          @Bargs: Thats a reason! I wanna hide muh moneys and assets! All 200$ worth of them

        • ely on 13/05/2018 - 23:20

          @RandomDeviation: There's zero reason to buy with cash because any self respecting ozbargainer should be raking in points by churning credit cards and you've got to meet that minimum spend somehow…

        • RocketSwitch on 14/05/2018 - 12:55

          @Bargs: Yep, remove cash and no more corrupt pigs.

        • Turbosaver on 14/05/2018 - 14:11
          +1

          @RandomDeviation:

          Hide the enloops

    • kiLbiL on 12/05/2018 - 16:10
      +1

      Imagine i'm going interstate over the weekend to inspect a car (and potentially to buy it) worth 15K. I leave on Friday night and be back with the newly bought car on/before Sunday for my work on Monday. But can I do that if i were to use EFT or a cheque? This is just one scenario where paying with cash would be heck of a lot faster and easier.

      • kingmw on 12/05/2018 - 21:11

        You should look at https://www.nppa.com.au/

      • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 21:24
        +2

        PayID is basically instant. If the person you're buying from has a bank account, you're pretty much done in a minute. Before that, if you had an agreed price there was bank cheque. Meanwhile, carrying $15k cash is a great way to get robbed.

        On the other hand it's hard to lie about how much stamp duty you owe if the transaction is traceable….

        • Pigey on 13/05/2018 - 02:23
          +2

          I tried transferring $1000 from my CBA to ING with PayID and there was a still a 24 hour delay for the first transfer. Is this normal?

        • [Deactivated] on 13/05/2018 - 13:53

          @Pigey:

          It sounds like something is wrong if that is happening. One of the banks has an issue with their systems that should be addressed.

          I tried it out recently, and it worked as expected. Instant transfer.

        • ely on 13/05/2018 - 23:21
          +1

          @Pigey: Quite a few are doing a 24 hour delay the first time you transfer to a new account, subsequent transfers should be instant. Also, the current $1k/day cap is total, I think, not per transfer, so if you've already transferred to an account that day you may be over the limit.

          $1k is a stupidly low threshold, I hope that they bump it up soon.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2018 - 08:11

          @Pigey: No, I've done the same several times and the payment appeared within 2 minutes max (It was there as soon as I checked).

        • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2018 - 08:13
          +2

          @ely: I transferred $5k from my CBA to ING yesterday. 5x $1000 transactions, so the cap is per transfer, not per day or per account. I'm guessing it's just so people get used to it / it limits the impact of transferring to the wrong account accidentally.

          That said CBA do have a separate 'per day' cap, which you can adjust in the app. Mine was $2k and I had to adjust it up to $5k to make those transfers. It's possible some people have that set at $1k which confuses things. You can set that to what you want though, so you can increase the limit when you want to transfer more, the limit change takes effect immediately.

        • ely on 15/05/2018 - 12:44

          @Bargs: Thanks, good to know.

      • beyondtool on 13/05/2018 - 21:17

        I did that last year. I got a bank cheque organised ahead of time with the amount I was prepared to pay. I figure if it was cheaper or dearer there could be a cash adjustment, and if it wasn't a good deal just tear up the cheque (in front of dealer for effect) as I'd already lost money on the flight (but I did get a short holiday with my sister anyway). Flew down to Sydney looked at the car Monday. Bargained hard, got the exact price on the bank cheque and drove the car away an hour later. Save myself over $10,000 on a new car with one that was less than 12 months old. But it took balls and research. In this situation cash would have been a weaker position.

    • abobo on 13/05/2018 - 07:50

      One typical scenario is buying a used car from a private seller.
      The seller will not surrender the car to you until the EFT clears into his account.
      There is a risk to EFT into seller's account without taking possession of the car.

      • RockyRaccoon on 13/05/2018 - 10:25
        +1

        BUT you are allowed to pay cash (yep even if it's over $10K) to a private seller, so whats your point here?

    • logictom on 13/05/2018 - 10:22

      I bought my motorcycle with cash late last year, dealer was charging 5% for card payments, was supposed to do a bank transfer but they were so idle they didn't pass on the details so it was a cash payment for me.
      PayID looks like a good way in the future but ANZ still hasn't implemented it.

      • RockyRaccoon on 13/05/2018 - 10:29

        Sounds more like they wanted the cash rather than it be tracked. 5% is well over their cost for card payments. This is the very thing the Government wants to stiop. Business not individual sellers are restricted.

        Frankly a business would be better off taking the card. Less likely to be robbed and costs of handling cash. However if they want to avoid the 10% GST then cash is far better than card.

        Mores GST means more revenue for the government vs more for the shonky dealer.

        • whooah1979 on 13/05/2018 - 11:18

          This proposed policy is killing two birds with one stone. The government gets to track the flow of funds and their mates at the financial institutions gets a nice boost of transaction fees.

          The current government was against the brc and upsetting the top end of town. They’re now trying to make it up to them.

        • kingmw on 13/05/2018 - 19:22
          +1

          @whooah1979: The government has already legislated to reduced transaction fees and acceptable payment surcharges by merchants, so why do this if they just wanted to benefit financial institutions?

  • altomic on 11/05/2018 - 22:53
    +43

    this does not apply to political donations.

  • Slippery Fish on 11/05/2018 - 23:11
    +13

    Dang, and I was going to start prostatuting myself for 10050 a night next year… The Aust government is killing small business :(

    • nocure on 11/05/2018 - 23:25
      +18

      Best to get a doctor to do it…

    • airal3rt on 12/05/2018 - 00:10
      +1

      I'll give you an Eneloop and half a bag of Skittles..

    • lovesabargain77 on 12/05/2018 - 11:20
      +1

      I guess you'll just have to drop your price to $9,999.95

    • Speckled Jim on 12/05/2018 - 11:43
      +9

      prostatuting

      Aren't prostate checks bulk-billed for over-50s?

    • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2018 - 12:47

      You can't do it anymore since they took down cracker and backpage. I've tried other website but they just not the same…

  • Eeples on 11/05/2018 - 23:46

    July 2019.

    Plenty of time for the tax avoiders to find ways around it.

    • roundnumbersonly on 13/05/2018 - 10:54

      Yeah, make it cash payment of $9,999.99 - done.

  • Findo on 12/05/2018 - 00:39
    +5

    Person A puts $10000 into the pokies and prints out a ticket which is then given to person B as a gift. Person B then cashes in the ticket. Or maybe criminals just don’t give a shit anyway and will continue to use cash for purchases over $10k.

    • pegaxs on 12/05/2018 - 08:55
      +4

      Doesn’t work like that. If it was a pokies ticket for $10,000, that would involve AUSTRAC. It would have to be reported and ID taken down, lots of paperwork…

      Best to make it $9,990 and a $10 note…

      • gromit on 13/05/2018 - 09:43
        +1

        don't make the mistake of thinking the $10k is a hard limit. AUSTRAC can and will be triggered for amounts close to 10k in many situations or if you have made multiple smaller transactions that total 10k over a short period of time.

    • MessyG on 12/05/2018 - 16:33

      I thought we had laws against that kind of money laundering ;)

  • Godric on 12/05/2018 - 00:54
    +1

    they could make it $1k and wouldnt matter to me, cash lool

  • garetz on 12/05/2018 - 01:24
    +16

    This is basically to screw old people who dont keep their money in the bank, the govnt sais its to reduce black market and illegal transactions, but its really to screw anyone who doesnt trust banks and keeps cash/gold/physical items that are easy to sell and keep their value in case of high inflation. It just sits there and the government doesnt get a piece of that, so they are trying to get it all in the system.

    So when everyone is forced to convert everything into cash and transfer it to an account, the bail in laws can wipe you out.
    This is also basically the same way the us government banned the ownership of gold, it will have the same effect on anything with intrinsic value.

    if you hear a politician talking, then they are lieing.

    • c0balt on 12/05/2018 - 09:28
      +12

      Granny would be much better off putting that money into an account earning interest than she would keeping it under the bed.

      Unless she's a bikie.

      • Yamai on 12/05/2018 - 15:52
        +14

        Like those people in Greece who couldnt get their money out of their banks? If you had $50k in the bank and wanted it out, most likely you would have to wait a day and only between 9-4pm, why should you? For the sake of $35 interest?

        Gold and other goods appreciate aswell.

        • Zilch on 12/05/2018 - 17:58
          +8

          Monero is like cash AND a swiss bank, all on your computer :)

          It also goes up in value so that's nice too.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 21:56
          +1

          Greece is a bit of a different situation, in that their currency was constrained by the Euro zone (The currency can be worth something, even if the banks / country is not). Since we have a federal government guarantee up to 250k per account, the only way you won't be able to access it is if the physical cash is useless anyway (ie, the AUD itself is worthless).

          In which case having it able to be electronically exchanged rapidly is going to give you a much better chance of escaping the sinking ship that is Australia before everyone else realises…

          So yeah, I can see the argument for Gold. But not physical cash.

        • ely on 13/05/2018 - 23:24

          @Zeath163:

          [looks at graph of monero price]

          It also goes up in value so that's nice too.

          Definitely depends on when you started your monero gambling habit.

          https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/

      • syousef on 12/05/2018 - 17:51
        +3

        Tell that to a Granny who got screwed over by a financial adviser.

    • kingmw on 12/05/2018 - 16:05
      +1

      You can still keep gold/diamonds and jewels but no business is going to pay you in physical cash for it. More likely a bank cheque or instant transfer/NPP because they won't keep that much cash on site.

      No point in keeping physical cash since it is constantly devalued by the government through inflation.

      • Kangal on 12/05/2018 - 18:43
        +1

        You're allowed to use Gold Mint as a legal trade currency. Silver and Platinum aren't allowed.
        But its basically the government trying to dominate its control over the economy and the people… which would be fine if there was no corruption and bias.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 21:29

      It's to screw over people who are avoiding tax with cash transactions, earning income in cash transactions, or hiding assets in cash to become eligible for the pension etc.

      Expect cash to go away in 10-15 years for this reason.

      • idonotknowwhy on 13/05/2018 - 07:54

        Expect cash to go away in 10-15 years for this reason.

        Some of us expect cash to go away in 5 years because XMR and ZCash make it obsolete :)

        • ely on 13/05/2018 - 23:26

          Some of us expect XMR and ZCash to go away in under five years because something else will make them obsolete. Picking a winner out of the horde of crypto currency scams is probably impossible; I'm sure that some will do well, but who knows which it will be?

  • chumlee on 12/05/2018 - 06:42
    +3

    Doesn't affect consumer to consumer so not really a big deal.

    Remember the introduction of the GST was meant to eliminate the cash economy. How's that working?

    • Allan Thomas on 12/05/2018 - 13:58

      It was never claimed that GST would ELIMINATE the black economy. What it has done is reduce it.

      • chumlee on 12/05/2018 - 14:10

        John Howard's promise of 1998, it would "drag cheats into the net"; in Peter Costello's words the same year, "people trading in the cash economy and those who can afford expensive tax advice will all have to pay their fair share". Mr Costello even claimed in 2001 - a year after it began – that the GST and associated tools had "cracked down on the black economy".

        https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-hidden-costs-of-cash-in-…

        It hasn't even reduced the black economy. It's growing YoY

        • RockyRaccoon on 12/05/2018 - 22:06

          Your problem is you assume what he said is that it will bring in ALL cheats. He just said cheats. So he is correct if at least 2 were brought into the net.

          Need to carefully understand what people actually say, especially politicians.

          Like the word "many" can mean upwards of 3 or more and can mean as little as 3 as well

        • chumlee on 12/05/2018 - 22:10

          @RockyRaccoon: I'm old enough to remember Costello selling the GST and saying to reporters tax cheats will be out of business due to input credits blah blah blah

      • affable on 12/05/2018 - 14:46
        +2

        In my experience GST has become the perfect way for a tradies to say "10% discount for cash", when they are saving much more than just the GST, plus they will still claim the GST on inputs to a cash job. Win win for the tradies.

        • kingmw on 12/05/2018 - 16:09

          Well this is the first blow against tradies and they may continue to keep reducing the cash purchase limit in the future.

        • Kangal on 12/05/2018 - 18:46

          @kingmw:

          Not really fair. Tradies are still putting in their time, effort, and tools to get the job done.
          The (wo)men at the top don't… they get away with larger sums without soiling their nails.

          So I reckon if they want to impose a rule like this, they should extend it to something like $50,000.
          I just see so many situations where $10k is limiting for the everyday man, and even tradies.

        • kingmw on 12/05/2018 - 21:16
          +2

          @Kangal: I don't recall any time that I have needed to have 10K in cash on hand to pay someone or a business. Even car dealers no longer take more than 5k in cash.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 21:31
          +1

          @Kangal: Ah, I haven't had to buy ANYTHING with physical cash in more than a year. This doesn't limit anyone. I've never paid for anything more than a couple of thousand $$ in cash in the last 30+ years.

    • chriise on 12/05/2018 - 21:28
      +6

      It is a big deal. Don't people have any principles? Why should I not be able to make a private transaction with another person and arrange payment in any legal tender that suits us, without immediately being assumed suspicious, or now illegal. It's the principle god dammit!

      • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 21:33

        Such a high percentage of these transactions are suspicious, that the legal ones are the exception now days. There's no great reason for cash transactions anymore, particularly of that value. So inherently people wanting to take a greater risk by holding physical cash are 'probably' doing something dodgy.

      • chumlee on 12/05/2018 - 21:38

        You can still offer to pay a business in cash if over $10K. It's up to them if they accept or ask for EFT. AUSTRAC will not launch criminal proceedings against you for paying more than $10K in cash. They have more important things to do.

        • chriise on 13/05/2018 - 11:06

          I think you're missing the entire point of my reply

        • chumlee on 13/05/2018 - 11:32

          @chriise: you're reply is about the principal - i get it but do you understand about AML/CTF and tax evasion? Principals are what they teach in textbooks

        • chriise on 13/05/2018 - 21:45

          @chumlee: yes I understand. you're one of those types that believes that increased surveillance, opening your data to the government, giving up civil rights and liberties are all justified… because terrorism, or something.

      • gravel on 13/05/2018 - 08:52

        You should. The problem is in many instances cash payments are made specifically to avoid the payment of tax. Not all but a significant proportion. I think the budget is a poorly crafted document but this particular aspect I support. I guess those amongst us who use cash not as a method to avoid tax will suffer.

  • meumax on 12/05/2018 - 07:28
    +4

    Reminds me of a recent case where a criminal had a cozy relationship with CBA mortgage officers so could obtain loans without any proof of income.

    To launder his money he'd get a loan to buy a property, renovate it and pay for all material and labour with cash. Then sell the property at a profit and the sale profits become his legit money.

    This would put a stop to some of that so it makes sense.

    • Thrawn on 12/05/2018 - 11:16

      he'd pay huge taxes on the profit as the cost base would be artificially low

      • JIMB0 on 12/05/2018 - 11:34
        +3

        Not if he lived in it (PPOR).

        • kingmw on 12/05/2018 - 16:10
          +1

          You don't even have to live in it. Just declare that it is your PPOR and not another property.

      • meumax on 13/05/2018 - 07:39
        +1

        That's the point. By paying tax he legitimises his money. It becomes part of the mainstream money market no longer criminal proceeds.

        Cost base would just be the price he paid for the property at auction. The advantage this guy had was he could get loans for any amount he wanted to buy any property he wanted due to him bribing loan officers at the bank.

    • chriise on 12/05/2018 - 21:37
      +1

      Let's also legalise random stop and search - that might help weed out the minority edge cases carrying small amounts of controlled substance. /s

  • whooah1979 on 12/05/2018 - 07:37
    +6

    top 500 businesses by market cap pay an effective rate of 2%

    Five entities on the fortune global 500 are Australian entities that employ more than 500k workers. Each and every entity on this list is vital to the nationals that they provide goods and services to.

    • burningrage on 12/05/2018 - 14:09
      +1

      The OP is clearly hardcore socialist with no appreciation of what Australian companies contribute to the economy.

      • macrocephalic on 12/05/2018 - 14:21
        +4

        And what is that? They provide an opportunity to work? How generous!

        • whooah1979 on 12/05/2018 - 14:39
          +3

          The alternative is 500k unemployed people.

        • scootlomo on 12/05/2018 - 20:12
          +3

          @whooah1979:

          No, the alternative is those 500k people being employed in other smaller businesses which don't use their dominance and access to capital to stifle competition.

        • chriise on 12/05/2018 - 21:35
          +2

          @scootlomo: This is naive. In the same way these companies need to remain competitive to keep your custom, Australia need to remain competitive to keep theirs.

        • gravel on 13/05/2018 - 08:53

          @chriise: Are you saying they need to remain competitive and that means we should lower the tax rate?

        • whooah1979 on 13/05/2018 - 11:06

          @gravel:

          we should lower the tax rate?

          Lower taxes stimulate growth. For every dollar in tax reduction for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quintiles may result in new spending between ~140% to >200%.

        • chriise on 13/05/2018 - 11:07

          @gravel: it means tax rates and regulations need to be competitive internationally

  • EightImmortals on 12/05/2018 - 07:48
    -1

    This is simply parts of the world's crooked governments clampdown on our freedoms, it is NOT just our resident tools in Canberra and it has NOTHING to do with stopping 'terrists' or people who are trying to protect they private property being stolen by government and wasted or handed over to the .1% ers who are running the whole scam. At least that's how I'd characterise it. This guy puts it differently.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA3Nt5bLrFs

  • jacross on 12/05/2018 - 08:18
    +1

    All while the top 500 businesses by market cap pay an effective rate of 2% with most of that paid by the lower half - while they use the infrastructure that your taxes pay for.

    Tomato sauce please?

    • RockyRaccoon on 12/05/2018 - 09:04

      So true, Our Blind Greenie OP at work again.

      If its not "LIB/LAB" it's "Gummints"

      Quoting facts that are wrong, and aren't even connected to the topic.

      The top 500 aren't in the cash business. (banks excepted!!)

      The Cash economy doesn't pay tax, so that's even less money for the government to provide the social programs the Greens want.

      Emma Alberici was proven wrong with her Data. She had to re-write her Investigative piece. (Now says 380) and much of that was due to falling Asset values. (This is where the 500, the OP quotes, comes from)

      many are now paying taxes as these asset values are increasing.

      Yes more work needs to be done. But like the cash economy, people/companies can get around the limitations, it just takes more work. If you want to ban the cash economy then the only way is to eliminate cash, thats really going to be "easy"!!

      And when someone does try to make a little attempt, then the Socially limited, start to play that childish game. "but he/she got more…"

      Just like, "officer 3 other cars spend by, why didn't you book them…."

      Stop ALL Crime, lock EVERYONE up…

      Life wasn't meant to be fair, that's the beauty of life.

      • idonotknowwhy on 13/05/2018 - 08:02

        Quoting facts that are wrong, and aren't even connected to the topic.
        The top 500 aren't in the cash business. (banks excepted!!)

        I think what the OP is trying to imply here, is that (s)he would prefer it if the government perused these businesses to get more tax revenue, rather than trying to earn more tax on these > $10,000 individual purchases (which may be less effective and causes collateral damage like capping gumtree purchases and giving the banks more control over us).

        edit: I'm explaining what I believe the connection is supposed to be, no idea if the facts are wrong or not, I'm not too interested in the topic really and only came here to make some bitcoin-related shitposts.

  • subywagon on 12/05/2018 - 09:00
    +1

    How would this even work? Most cash payments are under the table anyway. It's not like some alarm is going to go ff when you hand over 10k to someone.

    • kiLbiL on 12/05/2018 - 16:15

      it would impact organization/busineeses mostly not so for individuals.

    • Harold Halfprice on 12/05/2018 - 16:56
      +1

      Well currently, cash payments aren't illegal. Although a large cash payment is likely to not be fully declared, no laws have been broken at the time of accepting the payment.

      I think I heard that they'll be implementing a task force to try and enforce it. Most likely through sting operations - have people undercover make large cash purchases to catch people out.

      It'll be difficult to enforce though, no doubt. For stuff like car sales and other big item purchases it wouldnt be too bad - but for things like a home renovation or getting work done on a car, where you're paying for a service/labour rather than goods and usually pay after the work has been performed, then I can't really see it being feasible to setup sting operations for those.

      • Turbosaver on 14/05/2018 - 14:16

        So Cabramatta is in the safe?

  • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 09:01

    Should just ban non citizens from house/land purchases ,
    then there would be no need to increase wages for out of control inflation ,
    and businesses would have a fighting chance to compete.
    Two sides of an "economy" working against itself is not sustainable long term.

    But back to politicians sniffing around for scraps discussion..

  • ATTS on 12/05/2018 - 09:40
    +2

    is this targeting tradies doing cash in hand jobs?

    • outlander on 12/05/2018 - 11:57
      +18

      It's a move to limit the freedom of people. Eventually cash will be banned altogether, but you can't do that right away

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join