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

just sounds like another controlling force administered by the gov ""in our best interests"" Counterfeiting has always been a problem, its not going to change, a futuristic move, well not really as high level hacking and electronic theft is and will always be an issue as well.
I think more so it is an element of discreet propaganda, a seeding of the weak minded, just imagine you cant get your funds in an economic crisis or emergency (critical depression) or your other monetary assets and interests, term deposits, super etc will fall under total control of anyone but the actual owner. The banks and gov already own our asses, just another step further in absolute control and an imperial world government.
The world bank and governments have made having your financial interests at some point controlled by them already, your (income)salary against your tfn, slave to mortgage etc, thing is it comes down to less freedom for the population, brining it closer to the point of having a financial institution as a critical medium(money for nothing). The only ones to circumnavigate with any real freedom will be and already are the whales. Just a way of rounding up the bottom feeders.
 
Always interesting to see someone argue that eliminating the black economy is a good thing.

Where the economy is made up of the legitimate economy and the black economy, eliminating the black economy doesn't increase the size of the legitimate economy by the same amount. Some of that activity simply doesn't happen any more and why it was being done under the counter in the first place isn't always apparent.

Take those people being paid cash-in-hand that cashless proponents like talking about for example. If the ATO reckons it's, say, 5% that doesn't mean that those jobs suddenly become legit. Some of them will just disappear. Sure, you can try making some low-paid sandwich maker pay $30 a week in income tax but you might as easily end up forking out $265 a week to pay them Newstart because their job isn't justifiable unless they're being paid in cash.

The same goes for drug dealers. If you think people are going to stop buying drugs because they can't pay in cash, you haven't seen the "burner" card readers shipped in from overseas that send the money to a foreign bank account. Cash gets laundered, legitimized and then put back into local circulation. Electronic funds disappear off into the ether and screw with our (black) balance of trade.

None of these people talking about going cashless know what the ramifications are. Neither do I for that matter, but it's not going to be simply "pay for everything electronically and everything will be better".
 
Big A.D. said:
Where the economy is made up of the legitimate economy and the black economy, eliminating the black economy doesn't increase the size of the legitimate economy by the same amount. Some of that activity simply doesn't happen any more and why it was being done under the counter in the first place isn't always apparent.
Click to expand...

+100 Fantastic point A.D. Post of the week!

One of the reasons for cash in hand is because the person paying for the service doesn't consider the legitimate rate to be of value. The legal rate if you like is in their opinion either overpriced, or the cashie rate more attractive to their needs. Their first preference is to pay the cash rate and get an immediate discount. Abolishing the black economy doesn't mean their second preference will automatically be to pay for the service legally, they could very well just not avail themselves of the service at all. And wealth is only created by satisfying needs and desires.

Of course the reason why the cash rate is more attractive in the first place is simply because in the legitimate economy, the government forces itself in as the third beneficiary of every economic transaction, even if it has not produced anything of value to trade.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
...

Of course the reason why the cash rate is more attractive in the first place is simply because in the legitimate economy, the government forces itself in as the third beneficiary of every economic transaction, even if it has not produced anything of value to trade.
Click to expand...

And that is one of the two primary reasons governments are so attracted to a cashless society.

The other reason is that it gives them absolute power to be the ultimate arbiters of economic legitimacy. Electronic payment systems not only facilitate funds transfer, they enable the blocking of funds transfer. The government could almost immediately halt transactions flowing to and from a business or economic sector. They could block citizens from participating in certain economic activities and transactions. They could limit the amount of funds an individual could use in particular areas (a % for smokes, a % for alcohol, a limited % at companies who didn't donate enough to the party in power). And worst of all, they could completely block an individuals access to funds and therefore their ability to participate in the legitimate economy. They would be forced into whatever illegitimate economy still exists (one will always exist) and can then be classed as a criminal. This has the potential to bring down a chilling effect on political opposition and on reporting critically on the government.

A cashless society is a significant threat to our liberty. It would be a sword hanging over the heads of every citizen and every business. It would be a stifling cage around economic activity and innovation.



___
 
No more pocket money for your own kids, or anyone else for some small domestic help.

Some handicap people unable take cash out from banks, and use electronic devices, and also unable to punch in their pin numbers with foot or mouth either will have hard time.
 
There's been some great points raised here. This is one slipperly slope I hope society does not go down.
 
I'm somewhat surprised in this digital world governments havent taken the opportunity of utlizing their famous 2 lines of "if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" (although ask Lindy Chamberlain about that) and "to keep you and the country safe and secure" by saying if you want a drivers license (which governments proclaim is a privilege not a right) then you have to:
1. Give fingerprints; (on its way, for a passport)
2. Give DNA sample;
3. Give retina scan; (on its way, for a passport)
4. Make a license with a tiny gps transmitter in it to track your every move because after all, you need to carry your license while driving.

To some extent the advent of the mobile phone becomes a government tracking device as metadata is all stored including location AND with the advancement in facial recognition your face is as identifiable (if not more so) and can be used to track your movements more than fingerprints or DNA.

I see the Federal Government is considering taking your fingerprints, eye scanes and other biometric data to be used instead of passports. Naturally now if you want a passport (again a privilege not a right according to Government), then you will need to provide a fingerprint sample, eye scans and other unique biometric data.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-...nition-fingerprints-border-protection/8201708
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top