Jeff has retired from farming, as has his wife .

together they get $120,000.oo per year in monthly installments.

Jeff wants to live on that and they will comfortably .

He's going to put $1,900.00 in a safe deposit box, every three months. then some more in a safe on the farm and the rest in a checking accounts in two local banks.

the question is is there a problem with saving money , not in a bank ?

does the government care what amount you keep on hand for emergencies?

quote:

does the government care what amount you keep on hand for emergencies?

In those small amounts, and as long as it has been previously declared as income (if taxable), my guess would be no. However, he isn't making any interest that way. Not that they pay jack for interest any more - less than 2% on such a small account.

Check the inflation rate. To a certain extent if your money isn’t “working” to offset inflation you lose value.

I would say that a safe deposit box isn't fool proof and paper money is a perishable item, ie subject to destruction by rot, fire, mice, whatever...

The government seems to object to large chunks of cash if you try to board an international flight, but I doubt they care what quantity you have on hand.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Jeff has retired from farming, as has his wife .

together they get $120,000.oo per year in monthly installments.

Jeff wants to live on that and they will comfortably .

He's going to put $1,900.00 in a safe deposit box, every three months. then some more in a safe on the farm and the rest in a checking accounts in two local banks.

the question is is there a problem with saving money , not in a bank ?

does the government care what amount you keep on hand for emergencies?

Not unless they need new cars, etc. and seize the cash as the instrumentality of crime. There have been a lot of stories of seizures of cash without much link to crime.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Jeff has retired from farming, as has his wife .

together they get $120,000.oo per year in monthly installments.

Jeff wants to live on that and they will comfortably .

He's going to put $1,900.00 in a safe deposit box, every three months. then some more in a safe on the farm and the rest in a checking accounts in two local banks.

the question is is there a problem with saving money , not in a bank ?

does the government care what amount you keep on hand for emergencies?

Not unless they need new cars, etc. and seize the cash as the instrumentality of crime. There have been a lot of stories of seizures of cash without much link to crime.

Asset forfeiture incidents have severely declined since 2016 law.

Cash depreciates. Probably better to make some interest but people are free to do whatever they want with their money.

OK I'm curious. Why stash a cash in the safe deposit box?


Why not put that money to work? Even if it was in a CD (and I'm not suggesting that's the best place for it), but at least it would make some interest.

A fire at home will wipe out the contents of most safes. Damage at the bank (fire, flood) will wipe out their safety deposit box. If the bank ends up in financial trouble, the contents of their box can be seized.

In any case, cash in both places would not be easily recouped as an insurance loss without documentation.

Tell them to take the risk of leaving it on deposit at their bank (or banks). A money trail will exist, no matter what happens to the bank.

quote:

Originally posted by craigcpa:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Jeff has retired from farming, as has his wife .

together they get $120,000.oo per year in monthly installments.

Jeff wants to live on that and they will comfortably .

He's going to put $1,900.00 in a safe deposit box, every three months. then some more in a safe on the farm and the rest in a checking accounts in two local banks.

the question is is there a problem with saving money , not in a bank ?

does the government care what amount you keep on hand for emergencies?

Not unless they need new cars, etc. and seize the cash as the instrumentality of crime. There have been a lot of stories of seizures of cash without much link to crime.

Asset forfeiture incidents have severely declined since 2016 law.

This is not a law. According to the link, only the House passed H.R. 5523, known as the Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act. Has the Senate passed it, and has the president signed it into law?

They can but have the risk that they might have to prove it came from a legal source. They also run the risk of loss by theft of some sort and will lose value due to inflation and the lack of opportunity.

A better option in my opinion is to put it in a Roth IRA, even in a savings type account if they want to be that conservative and won't pay any tax on the gain.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

Originally posted by craigcpa:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Jeff has retired from farming, as has his wife .

together they get $120,000.oo per year in monthly installments.

Jeff wants to live on that and they will comfortably .

He's going to put $1,900.00 in a safe deposit box, every three months. then some more in a safe on the farm and the rest in a checking accounts in two local banks.

the question is is there a problem with saving money , not in a bank ?

does the government care what amount you keep on hand for emergencies?

Not unless they need new cars, etc. and seize the cash as the instrumentality of crime. There have been a lot of stories of seizures of cash without much link to crime.

Asset forfeiture incidents have severely declined since 2016 law.

This is not a law. According to the link, only the House passed H.R. 5523, known as the Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act. Has the Senate passed it, and has the president signed it into law?

I stand corrected, it is not law, but the "IRS agreed in June 2016 to give some or all of the money back to those who it had seized assets on structuring accusations." Link

The CI agents I know have been instructed to stop pursuing ALL structuring cases they have/had. Both have since retired.

They will forgo even the small amount of interest you could earn on a savings account.

They could invest some of it in a low-fee index fund, and earn a decent return. There'd be some more risk, of course, but that isn't a super-risky investment.

Why are they so opposed to any of those options?

quote:

does the government care what amount you keep on hand for emergencies?

The more you have the more they can seize/steal from you.
The question is: "why would you temp them?".
Given the chance it just might not go your way.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
They will forgo even the small amount of interest you could earn on a savings account.

They could invest some of it in a low-fee index fund, and earn a decent return. There'd be some more risk, of course, but that isn't a super-risky investment.

Why are they so opposed to any of those options?

+1

Even a low cost money market fund would be better than absolutely no interest, and eliminates the risk of loss of the physical cash from theft or accident.

"Jeff's" plan is needlessly, actually foolishly, risky.

quote:

Why are they so opposed to any of those options?

Having lived in rural Wisconsin, I have some familiarity with the thinking. Privacy issues, mistrust of the government and advice from Depression era parents are factors. It is actually still quite common among farmers. The term "Banksters" is fairly common when referring to the banking community. In short, it is not a rational but an emotional belief.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

Why are they so opposed to any of those options?

Having lived in rural Wisconsin, I have some familiarity with the thinking. Privacy issues, mistrust of the government and advice from Depression era parents are factors. It is actually still quite common among farmers. The term "Banksters" is fairly common when referring to the banking community. In short, it is not a rational but an emotional belief.

I get it, but just because there are tribesmen who still believe in witchcraft doesn't mean we shouldn't try to educate such people.

quote:

I get it, but just because there are tribesmen who still believe in witchcraft doesn't mean we shouldn't try to educate such people.

Oh I certainly agree. Having worked with these folks I chose to do my "missionary work" with more open individuals. Logic does not seem to trump the attitudes of some of these folks.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
the question is is there a problem with saving money , not in a bank ?

I assume by 'bank' you include all the other types of financial institutions: credit union, investment account, etc.

If by 'problem' you mean, 'is it illegal' then the answer is 'no'. Though, as pointed out above, thinking ahead to when they actually use the cash, there are implications to spending a lot of cash all at once.

If by 'problem' you mean, 'are they doing something likely to cost them over time,' then the answer is 'yes.' The absolute best they could hope for (assuming get lost/stolen etc.) is to have exactly those dollars when they need them.

However, inflation risk is real - we tend to dismiss it after a decade plus at historically low inflation and interest rates.....but inflation is only dormant, not extinct. If, instead of idling their cash in vaults or boxes, if they were to put the money to work at a financial institution, earning interest and capital gains, they could reasonably expect to beat inflation and then some.

Banks have been known to steal from "safe" deposit boxes. What was in there is your word against theirs. I personally keep maybe a thousand in the safe, the rest is invested or banked.