"By 2020 Australia could be cash free" The propaganda is ratcheting up

SpacePete

Well-Known Member
Silver Stacker
I hope not.

The article rolls out the usual "benefits", plus a new one: it is apparently frustrating to stand behind someone paying for their coffee with coins.

It sums up with a claim that there simply can be no objection: "... all that would be hindered now are under-the-table tax dodges and criminal enterprises. Those are plainly indefensible."

And of course, a pot of gold for the budget: ".... with a material reduction in the budget deficit, and probably organised crime, as dividends. What's not to like?"

From the AFR:

Why a cashless society is coming

It has become much easier over recent years to get around without physical cash banknotes and coins. Australia has been a world leader in the adoption of "chip-card" technology, allowing a quick tap of a credit or debit card to pay at most retail outlets. Public transport tickets, parking meters, roads tolls, and more can all be easily paid for without cash. In fact, over the last six years the amount of cash used by Australians has fallen by roughly one-third.

And doing without cash is about to get even easier in 2017. Thanks to a good amount of prodding by the Reserve Bank, something called the New Payments Platform (NPP) is due to be introduced in the second half of next year. The NPP will mean that money can be transferred to another person, or business, without BSBs and account numbers, and long processing delays. Armed with a mobile phone number or email address, any amount of money from a handful of dollars to several million can be transferred securely and instantaneously, 24/7.

...

Significant benefits

The benefits of a cashless Australia would be significant and go well beyond not having to stand in line behind someone counting out ten cent coins to pay for coffee (although one shouldn't underestimate how frustrating some of us find that).

The tax revenue loss due to the cash economy is large. In 2012 the Australia Institute estimated that loss to be at least $3.3 billion dollars. Alternatively, just consider the $70 billion in banknotes outstanding at any given time, how many times this turns over a year, and assume that, say, 10 per cent of those transactions are evading GST and other taxes. That quickly gets you north of $5 billion in extra revenue.

It's clearly hard to say exactly how much revenue would be raised from eliminating the cash economy. But, as they say, a few billion dollars here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

...

Another important factor is crime. According to the RBA, $32.8 billion of the $70.2 billion of banknotes in circulation at the end of June 2016 were in $100 bills. When did you last see a C-note outside of a casino or foreign exchange window? All around the world, large bills like these are the lubricant of the drug trade and large-scale tax avoidance. That is why India has recently abolished its largest denomination bills, the eurozone looks likely to follow, and why Harvard professor and former IMF chief economist Ken Rogoff has argued for the gradual elimination of cash, starting with large bills, in his recent book The Curse of Cash.

Perfectly positioned

Given our payments system, the introduction of the NPP, and mobile phone penetration, Australia is perfectly positioned to carefully but deliberately phase out cash. Starting with $100 and $50 bills and the moving to smaller denominations would be a sensible and practical approach.

...Not all that long ago the idea of a cashless society sounded like science fiction. There used to be a legitimate argument that such a move would hinder commerce. Thanks to advancements in technology, all that would be hindered now are under-the-table tax dodges and criminal enterprises. Those are plainly indefensible.

By 2020 Australia could be cash free, with a material reduction in the budget deficit, and probably organised crime, as dividends. What's not to like?

http://www.afr.com/news/economy/why-a-cashless-society-is-coming-20170103-gtl3s1
 
SpacePete said:
...

Why a cashless society is coming
...

It's clearly hard to say exactly how much revenue would be raised from eliminating the cash economy. But, as they say, a few billion dollars here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
...

By 2020 Australia could be cash free, with a material reduction in the budget deficit, and probably organised crime, as dividends. What's not to like?

http://www.afr.com/news/economy/why-a-cashless-society-is-coming-20170103-gtl3s1

What the author fails to understand is that the government has a spending problem. It doesn't matter how much more money the government can claw back from criminals, tax evaders, etc - because they are addicted to spending other peoples money.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IECY6LgqE0[/youtube]
 
Significant benefits for who exactly? Given that the vast majority of people in Western civilisations don't trust or believe the political class and don't think that they are competent or honest why would handing over complete control and surveillance of ever transaction to them be considered beneficial to anyone other than the politicians and the banksters?




^
 
yennus said:
What the author fails to understand is that the government has a spending problem. It doesn't matter how much more money the government can claw back from criminals, tax evaders, etc - because they are addicted to spending other peoples money.

The author is either an isolated ivory tower academic, or alternatively he knows all about the real issue with the government and has written this as a propaganda piece to sell it to the public.
 
Shaddam IV said:
Significant benefits for who exactly? Given that the vast majority of people in Western civilisations don't trust or believe the political class and don't think that they are competent or honest why would handing over complete control and surveillance of ever transaction to them be considered beneficial to anyone other than the politicians and the banksters?




^
Hence all the propaganda, all the talk of criminals and average Aussies getting ripped off, and now the subtle digs at "those people" who are annoyingly "paying for their coffee with ten cent coins."

They'll keep at it and the rhetoric will get more insistent. People will believe it.
 
It's starting to hurt my head.

Should I sell my metal now and put it into allocated?

If I don't pay the loan shark, does he send so one around who breaks my keyboard?
 
SpacePete said:
yennus said:
What the author fails to understand is that the government has a spending problem. It doesn't matter how much more money the government can claw back from criminals, tax evaders, etc - because they are addicted to spending other peoples money.

The author is either an isolated ivory tower academic, or alternatively he knows all about the real issue with the government and has written this as a propaganda piece to sell it to the public.

The author is an advocate of central planning, arguing that market failure justifies government intervention into the economy. For example, his view on childcare* is that given a free-market system (ie unsubsidised) where parents have a choice of either earning an income and sending their children to child care paying for that cost with after-tax $, or remaining at home and looking after the kids themselves doing away with any need to pay tax and childcare fees, parents would most likely favour looking after kids themselves - meaning less participation in the workforce and a host of other social issues he's concerned with. He considers this to be an unsatisfactory outcome that tilts the "playing field" of childcare in favour of parents doing it themselves rather than paying someone else to do it for them. He argues that it is the responsibility of governments to provide a "basic" level of services and child care should be amongst them. His solution, is to allow child care to be tax deductible. Strikingly, his views on housing affordability are the opposite, meaning he considers the tax deductibility of investment housing drives up the price of housing. Presumably, this would not happen with child care, according to the Professor.

But individual policies aside, his more insidious crime is the belief that rather than an invisible hand guiding the countless thousands of daily economic transactions individuals rationally engage in, is that a select group of experts somehow know better and should be entrusted to make those decisions on behalf of all of us. :rolleyes:

Back on to the topic at hand, his comment:
The tax revenue loss due to the cash economy is large. In 2012 the Australia Institute estimated that loss to be at least $3.3 billion dollars.
is actually incorrect. The Australia Institute report he cites did not come up with those figures at all, the AI simply reported the ATO's own figures, citing an article that is no longer available, but the gist of it is probably similar to this http://www.smartcompany.com.au/fina...llion-through-cash-economy-and-gst-crackdown/.

I'm not sure how the ATO arrived at these figures, but if it's anything like the rest of their revenue forecasts eg MRRT, they simply extrapolate their figures. Assuming future revenue from current known economic behaviour without taking into consideration the altered behaviour of individual players as a result of the introduction of new government legislation or policy. Bordsilver may know better how the ATO arrives at it's projected estimates. All I know is that the government usually runs out of money.

The article is typical scaremongering, especially his comment about crime and $100 bills, after all, unless you're in retail or merchandising, most people will not see many $100 bills on a weekly basis. But with the odd reference to "experts" and "sound statistical evidence", naturally, it will win the day. Unless we have a Trump or a John Singleton moment in politics.

PS: if you ever read anything citing The Australia Institute, read it to be The Advocates of Wealth Re-distribution Institute.

* https://www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au/Opinion/Pages/Childcare-should-be-tax-deductible.aspx
 
mmm....shiney! said:
...The article is typical scaremongering, especially his comment about crime and $100 bills, after all, unless you're in retail or merchandising, most people will not see many $100 bills on a weekly basis. But with the odd reference to "experts" and "sound statistical evidence", naturally, it will win the day.
It is curious that he cites the RBA* on $100 bills but then strangely leaves out the bit where the RBA flatly disagrees with his argument on the high-denomination bills.

*Invoking the RBA name adds an authoritative feel, a technique which subtly magnifies trust in the legitimacy of what he is saying.


The recent RBA paper on cash is here: http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2016/dec/pdf/rba-bulletin-2016-12-the-future-of-cash.pdf


And a summary news article:

THE Reserve Bank has defended the embattled $100 note, saying removing the bill from circulation would do little to stamp out crime because criminals prefer $50s.

Earlier this week, the government flagged a review of the $100 note and cash payments over a certain value in Monday's midyear budget update, as it seeks to recoup billions in unpaid tax lost to the cash economy.

"However, liaison with AUSTRAC (Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre) and the Australian Crime Commission suggests that it is the $50 denomination rather than the $100 that tends to be preferred by criminal elements because of its ubiquitous use in legitimate transactions," the RBA wrote.

"This suggests that to the extent that the $100 banknote is being used for nefarious purposes, any phase-out may not be particularly disruptive to those engaged in such activities."

There are currently around 1.5 billion banknotes in circulation worth $73 billion, with $50 and $100 notes accounting for around two thirds. The RBA says the overall demand for cash increased by 6 per cent in the year to November, and demand for $50s and $100s has grown at a faster rate than lower denominations in recent years.

The RBA said that "contrary to some claims", high-denomination Australian banknotes are used in a significant number of legitimate transactions.

"For example, sampling by the Reserve Bank suggests that $100 banknotes account for up to 5 per cent of the cash banked by retailers and supermarkets, and 10 per cent for post offices, likely reflecting the payment of some household bills," the RBA wrote.


Despite the rapid growth in electronic payments, the most recent detailed data on the use of cash for consumer payments from a 2013 RBA survey showed cash was "still the most frequently used payment method for consumer transactions".

More: http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...e/news-story/66b2c2fcafdfa7154435070340f2fdea
 
Back on the estimates used to arrive at the $3.3 billion in lost revenue each year, the smartcompany.com.au article was released in 2010, but the Australia Institute cites a 2012 study by EMC as to how the figures were arrived at, and as I said above, the reference to the smartcompany article cited in AI's report is no longer available. So I'm confused.

But basically what they did (confusion over dates aside) is took the figures that about 5% of employees get paid cash-in hand, multiplied the estimated number of workers working cash-in-hand by the estimated income of those workers to arrive at the total income received by workers as cash-in-hand, then they were able to calculate the lost income tax revenue as a result of this hidden economy, but they also took into consideration the lost tax revenue from superannuation contributions and then they assumed that businesses paying workers in cash would also be under-reporting their sales resulting in a loss in GST revenue.

Apparently, they didn't bother calculating the lost revenue in PAYE (????) or corporate taxes from individuals and businesses under-reporting or not declaring a portion of their earnings. Presumably because by then the statisticians at EMC had a migraine trying to arrive at the type of figures the ATO were after and the tax officers were happy to call it a day and head down to the pub to celebrate.

http://tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/TB 17 Cash in hand means less cash for states_4.pdf
 
I see the cashless welfare card is getting lots of good propaganda - oops - press, and there is a push to roll it out across the welfare system: "No smokes for you lot on the couch. No beer for you bludgers down the beach."

Working well. Time to introduce the PAYE spending card. We'll take the direct wages bill from the company and allocate spending ability to the staff. Don't worry. It will be great for Australia.
 
Shaddam IV said:
Significant benefits for who exactly? Given that the vast majority of people in Western civilisations don't trust or believe the political class and don't think that they are competent or honest why would handing over complete control and surveillance of ever transaction to them be considered beneficial to anyone other than the politicians and the banksters?


^

It also offers complete control in the event of a financial melt down. There can be no run on the banks without cash. What are you going to do? Hoard your digital dollars.

Jim Rickard provide a decent explaination of his concerns both of a digital/ cashless economy and the financial issues presented in the world in his book "The Road to Ruin".
 
Your typical centrally planned leftist academic type. Track every movement of the citizenry.... Mao & Goebbels would be proud.

Cash is a dirty 4 letter word these days apparently. I pay for nearly everything in cash and its kind of funny when you go into a petrol station to pay say a $50 or $60 for your fill up the attendant is always getting the eftpos machine into position expecting a card and is kind of surprised to see the banknotes.
 
goldenspike said:
Your typical centrally planned leftist academic type. Track every movement of the citizenry.... Mao & Goebbels would be proud.

Cash is a dirty 4 letter word these days apparently. I pay for nearly everything in cash and its kind of funny when you go into a petrol station to pay say a $50 or $60 for your fill up the attendant is always getting the eftpos machine into position expecting a card and is kind of surprised to see the banknotes.

In my experience this is mostly due to the stress of cash for attendants. Going to call out our education system here, the stress is caused when the amount comes to $62.10 (for example) and you hand them $100 plus a $2 coin and a 10c coin. They have absolutely no idea what change to give.
 
the machine can not receive higher denomination note >100

so the operator should just key in received 62.10 and hand over 40

or just received 100 and give change and do the exchange later :)

with the auto program into the system, usually if items are bought 2 items, there is small discount as compared to two items paid separately.

paying with card may get x% of discount etc, usually for petrol
 
barneyrubble said:
It also offers complete control in the event of a financial melt down. There can be no run on the banks without cash. What are you going to do? Hoard your digital dollars.

no, gold
 
Roswell Crash Survivor said:
Sweden tried it. There was real resistance, some Swedes started exchanging their Krona deposits for physical Euros, Swiss Francs or US Dollars. The Riksbank is backing down (for now).

"Sweden's central bank puts brake on cash-free society"
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450280077/Swedens-central-bank-puts-break-on-cash-free-society

Now they are removing high denomination Euros and eventually other countries will follow. It will take a coordinated effort by multiple countries and I bet their are conversations happening on this behind the scenes.
 
The problem with the AFR article is that very one sided way to try to influence peoples opinions, without even bothering to ask opinions from the other side to let the people decide whose view is more valid, or credible. So here is one from the other side.

Cashless
These guys just don't get it.
Cash isn't about tax evasion or illegal activity.
It's about having a choice.
Any rational person who actually looks at the numbers in the banking system has to be concerned.
In many parts of the world, banks are pitifully capitalized and EXTREMELY illiquid.
This is especially the case in Europe right now where entire nations' banking systems are teetering on insolvency.
In the United States, liquidity is also quite low, and banks play all sorts of accounting games to hide their true financial condition.
Plus, never forget that the moment you deposit funds at a bank, it's no longer YOUR money. It's the bank's money.
As a depositor, you're nothing more than an unsecured creditor of the bank, and they have the power to freeze you out of your life's savings without even giving you a courtesy call.
Physical cash provides consumers another option.
If you don't want to keep 100% of your savings tied up in a system that's rigged against you and has a long history of screwing its customers, you can instead choose to hold physical cash.
There's very little downside in doing this, especially since most people are barely making any interest in their checking accounts anyhow.
Physical cash means there is no one else standing between you and your savings.
But your government don't want that.
They want a massive, centralized bureaucracy to have control over your savings.
 
Back
Top