Slashdot Mirror
Is Australia Becoming A Cashless Society? (abc.net.au)
Australia's Reserve Bank will roll out an instantaneous money-transferring technology later this year, "which will push Australia even further towards being a cashless society," according to ABC. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
In 2014, 12 financial institutions signed up to build the "New Payment Platform," partly as a way of bringing Australia up to speed with other countries that are ahead in the race to becoming completely cashless. Sweden is on track to become the world's first completely cashless economy, and just last November India got rid of its highest denomination bills, effectively eliminating 90 per cent of its paper money... The "New Payment Platform" will mean money can be transferred almost instantaneously, even when the payer and payee are members of different banks.
"It's estimated that somewhere between about $3.5 and $5 billion in Australia every year is lost in tax revenue due to the sort of cash economy," says an economics professor at the University of New South Wales, who predicts Australia could be cash-free by 2020. The Australian Payments Association reports that over 75% of the country's face-to-face payments are already tap-and-go, and ATM withdrawals have sunk to a 15-year low.
"It's estimated that somewhere between about $3.5 and $5 billion in Australia every year is lost in tax revenue due to the sort of cash economy," says an economics professor at the University of New South Wales, who predicts Australia could be cash-free by 2020. The Australian Payments Association reports that over 75% of the country's face-to-face payments are already tap-and-go, and ATM withdrawals have sunk to a 15-year low.
The better to track you with, my dear!
We don't have EFTPOS facilities that are anywhere near reliable enough for cashless to be realistic.
They can stop printing cash, that is fine, but that does not mean you have to be part of this experiment in oppression a and slavery, defy this crap, exchange in something tangible, use precious metals or just barter, tell the government to fuck off, or don't tell it but act that way.
You can't handle the truth.
Not to mention not every vendor has it, or network reception isn't always there for the reader to connect. So yeah, maybe one day but we won't be the first.
+Raider of the lost BBS
Think of all the lovely money a service charge per transaction will generate! As long as that 2020 is on an NBN time scale, we'll be ok.
What this kind of paranoid person doesn't understand is that they can already track you to an incredible degree, and there's fuck all you can do about it, so ultimately all you're doing is arguing against having the convenience. Black markets exist anyway, so that's not really an argument either.
It's always interesting how the Media guys consider themselves as part of the government. "It's our money! How dare the people keep it!"
>"It's estimated that somewhere between about $3.5 and $5 billion in Australia every year is lost in tax revenue due to the sort of cash economy,"
"Lost in tax revenue". That is, it's the government's money, and the citizens are just thieves who are stealing it.
Let's correct that, shall we?
"It's estimated that somewhere between about $3.5 and $5 billion in Australia every year is saved by the people..."
What this kind of paranoid person doesn't understand is that they can already track you to an incredible degree
Who is "they"? The NSA probably has access to my credit card transactions. But my neighbor doesn't, nor does my mother-in-law, nor do the local police.
Given that you have to hold records for ~7 years (last I checked), and given the recent (2016/2017) focus shift from the ATO to specifically look at tradies, it's a really bad gamble to do that sort of thing. The tradie gains pretty much nothing from the transaction and then has to explain away a disparity in stock acquisition claimed against the quarterly GST. If the ATO decides to audit them they will be screwed. Unless you've got a hell of a setup you're not going to be able to convincingly (legally) smooth out the disparity in the flow of money; so you either create a paperwork flaw, or you sit on a pile of cash you can't really use.
I get a lot of people offering me cash-on-the-side for jobs to try "help me out", the thought is lovely, but at the end of the day it's a lot easier to sleep knowing that your books are genuine and will stand up to scrutiny. It only takes one disgruntled customer to lodge a report/complaint to the ATO and they'll be on you.
This has always amused me - having a tradie offer 10% discount for cash, just because they don't have to pay the GST. They love it as they end up getting far more in their pocket as they're also not paying the 30-odd percent company tax or around the same on average for income tax on the earnings either. So, they get around 30% more in their pocket and you save 10%...
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Cashless means everything costs more, including paying your child an allowance for mowing the lawn because it's taxed.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
This is 99% about TAXES. No more cash between friends. Tax everything 3, 4 and 5 times.
All this cashless society has the main problem that during any serious cataclysm that kills the communication infrastructure the trade just stops. Not only the global nuclear cataclysm and EMP but any kind of local cataclysm like Katrina or war in Syria. And if the trade stops the hungry people could rob since they could not buy.
Moreover, I feel that the more Western is the society the higher the unrest. Some Somalians could organize a government-less society based on traditional law, in the First World it's just impossible. We Russians survived the wild capitalism of 1990-s because in any crisis there was impossible to foreclose or cut off the electricity and heat. Next such crisis could produce hordes of homeless.
They only have value above their utilitarian value because people say they do.
Two major differences between precious metals and fiat currencies are:
* The utility value for fiat currencies is zero for book-entry money, almost zero for paper/plastic currency, and that of base metals for coinage ("melt-down value"). The utility value for gold, silver, and most other precious metals is at least as much as base metals, there's just a lot less of it to go around.
* precious metals have a known, reasonably-predictable caps on long-term future supply based on active mines and known deposits (subject to technology disruptions such as what aluminum went through in the 19th century). The "future supply" of fiat currencies is about as predictable as politics. That is to say, it may be reasonably predictable in the short- or even medium-term but for anything longer than a decade or two, the political risk can become significant even in countries that currently enjoy stable govermnents, stable banking systems, and stable currencies.
I'm leaving out the difference that fiat currencies are typically legal tender in their country of origin. Precious metals might have been legal tender in the past, but I can't think of any major country where they are legal tender in any practical sense of the word (that is, the are legal tender, AND when you pay your debts with them you are credited with the current spot price of the metal in your local currency, or at least something very close to it).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The supermarket duopoly offer POS cash withdrawals with no fee.
Contrast that with an ATM where you have to hunt for your bank's machine or face an extortionate $2 charge to withdraw from a rival bank's machine. Hence an increasing number of people just get $100 or so out in cash when they buy their groceries.
There are all sorts who want information on your shopping history. The NSA is passe. We know the government has access to most digital shopping data. If you are an undocumented immigrant or buying anything tangentially illegal or without paying the appropriate tax they can look it up. Today's argument is generally more marketing or blackmail oriented.
I pay cash for just about everything. I often get discounts so the merchant doesn't have to pay the 3% charge. Win win.
What this kind of paranoid person doesn't understand is that they can already track you to an incredible degree
Who is "they"? The NSA probably has access to my credit card transactions. But my neighbor doesn't, nor does my mother-in-law, nor do the local police.
Bring India in as an example. They royally screwed over their poorer citizens when they 'retired' their old cash and didn't have enough new bank notes ready to replace it.
It would be interesting to see a graph of household debt vs adoption of cashless payment methods. An anecdotal point: Germany has pretty low household debt and relies primarily on cash for personal transactions. The idea being; if you don't have the money in your pocket, you don't buy it. Cashless transactions are a good way to either get people to run up debt in the form of a line of credit or overdraft fees. I smell more income for banks here.
Have gnu, will travel.
Real time tracking of every financial transaction of your life. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
Reading the article I see the push for this cashless system is to assure that the government gets their cut of the deal. I have an idea, do away with sales taxes and get your revenue by means less likely to get subverted. How many ways do people need to be taxed? Should not one form of taxes be enough? I assume Australia is much like any other Anglosphere nation where there is a sales tax, income tax, property tax, "sin" tax (on alcohol, tobacco, and such), homeowner tax, Homer tax, bear tax, poll tax, pole tax, polecat tax, poll cat tax, cat on a pole tax, and a tax tax.
Where is it written that a government *MUST* tax sales? I'm not saying governments do not or should not have the ability to impose any taxes, only that the number of taxes imposed by most governments is excessive. I know why governments impose taxes like this, it hides just how much money they are collecting by spreading it around so that it is difficult to see just how much the government is taking. I believe that a government that is honest with its citizens would make the taxes simple.
They are fighting a battle they cannot win. If they impose restrictions on the movement of cash then people will revert to barter.
This also gets into the "mark of the beast" territory from Christian tradition. You can call it just a superstition if you like but psychologists, sociologists, and economists have made connections between Christian tradition and a healthy society. I'm not saying following every Christian belief will bring an ideal society, only that we've seen Christian societies excel where others did not. I say it may be helpful to see the Bible as a historical document, full of parables, advice, and warnings for building a healthy society.
I know people will feel the urge to mod me down for getting all religious. This is not about religion though, but religion does play a part in this. There will be people that oppose this on religious grounds. There will be people that oppose this because they see the hazards this has on society. These are not mutually exclusive groups. Removing the ability for people to conduct business with cash is dangerous, and some people roughly 2000 years ago warned us of this. I believe that we should think real hard about what a cashless society means. It won't take divine intervention to destroy society, we'll do that on our own.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
... so ultimately all you're doing is arguing against having the convenience.
Isn't that enough to oppose this? How many reasons do I need to tell the government to get out of my personal business? Assuming the government can already track all my monetary transactions that does not mean I am somehow obligated to make it easier for them.
The reasons black markets exist is because the government has imposed some restrictions on trade. By shifting what would have been legal before into the black market now the government has the ability to fine, imprison, or otherwise make life more miserable for something we used to be able to do freely.
We should not have to turn to the black market to get what we want and need. Places where black markets thrive tend to be tyrannical hellholes where mothers have to sell their hair to wig makers to get enough cash to buy milk for their children.
Free markets are where bread sits in lines waiting for me. The alternative is me waiting in lines for bread.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Asutralia's rural internet is still pathetic, with some areas either unconnected or sporadically connected by pre-dialup speed satellite connections. There is literally no way Australia has any potential to go cashless in 3 years time.
Moving towards a classless society? I'm afraid not. Australia is moving towards a classic feudal society, with an enormous divide between land-owners & tenants.
As prices for a nondescript family home within cooee of anywhere with a job that pays more than 80k/year approach $1 million, the divide between those who already have property & those who don't is becoming impassable.
My pics.
What's hilarious is that as more societies go cashless it will make the more stable cash societies worth more since they will fuel the cashless societies.
This is 99% about TAXES.
You're probably right - I was about to say it was about trying to shut down black markets (particularly chop-chop), but in the end, shutting down those markets is ultimately about taxation too.
My pics.
1.) You enjoy the possibility of having your funds cut at anytime because there's no physical currency as proof (think paper trail). If the local version of IRS says you owe us, then there's is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it because it's all controlled by a bank. If you need to buy something in an emergency, but banks are closed or there are server issues, now you can't. 2.) Or, raise your hand if you enjoy being on the phone for hours when creditors screw up. 3.) Or, raise your hand if you believe we are in a world in which bank hacking is impossible or you enjoy having all of your purchases monitored, recorded, and controlled forever and ever amen. This means every condom, tampon, douche, medication, or whatever embarrassing thing you can think of is now on record forever. 4.) Do you like eating? Of course you do. But, have you noticed how much harder it is to grow things thanks to a screwed up climate? How much harder it is to get fruit or veggies with seeds? How much more restrictions and requirements there are on farming? Paying for water? The Future: "If you don't believe what we believe, then you don't get to eat. Your card has been declined and we don't take cash." Limiting the ability to trade only reflects the countries failure to manage its problems and puts people's basic human right to survival and privacy in danger.
Why is a news article in the form of a question? And why are statistics provided? Is it some sort of exam? If I didn't even know those statistics, how am I the expert to answer that question? Assuming they even put a comments section.
I don't fucking know.
Cashless as in broke. Yes.
Not yet, but close to it.
Of course, many "old" people still use piles of cash.
But you can pay nearly anything with your smartphone now. And this change happened in 1 or 2 years (at least from my point of view, which is a trip in 2015/06 and 2017/02).
Totof
If Australia is quickly becoming the first cashless society then the leading technology in enabling this will be extremely powerful.
Australian banks, and more recently retailers, fighting to take control back from Apple of their wireless payment system can now be seen in a different light.
Because Safeways doesn't accept bitcoin. Neither do any of the local petrol stations. Neither does the public transit system. Neither do any of my billers (electricity, gas, internet). Neither does my weed dealer.
You may think that the US is a low tax country, but you have to pay tax on private sales of used items in many states, something that you don't have to do in a high tax country like Sweden.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Sweden is being derailed into becoming a cashless society.
It is a change pushed by banks and related tech companies, so that they can make a little bit more money. Nobody else wants it.
Leading politicians on a national level are not very interested in the issue - spending more time and energy on squabbling between themselves, pointing finger at each other's small mistakes than willing to take on real responsibility themselves.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
In Australia not so much. People disappear all the time just because they don't want to be found. Sometimes (eg. battered wives with a homicidal spouse looking for them for extreme examples (which do happen)) it's not a bad thing.
I think you'll find it's not unheard of in the USA either despite efforts to track people getting onto busses etc.
There are still a lot of cash in hand jobs so it's possible to get by with no identification in a lot of places apparently.
This is 99% about control. There are multiple players here. Local governments, the US major political players, credit card companies, banks, they all get to win. Control means you know much more about transactions, you get more say about what transactions you favor or not, you get a larger percentage on transactions, you get to use negative interests in the bank because people can no longer extract their money from the bank. There's a lot. It's about power and the threat of power. For one thing it means the US can threaten to stop all financial traffic for any target they pick, on the spot. There is a big difference between using little cash and taking away the possibility to use cash.
This article http://norberthaering.de/en/ho... describes what happened in India. India is mostly cash based, or was until some people decided that was no longer the case. The result was a caricature of unchecked power.
For those Americans confused by the above "chop-chop" is tobacco sold outside the mainstream so not subject to very high rates of tax on over the counter tobacco products. While there is likely to be a massive black market it's probably less than the tax even just Apple avoids in Australia.
There are still a lot of cash in hand jobs....
Yup, doing hand jobs can get you plenty of cash, I hear...
It doesn't even need a disaster. In a few situations it's required no more than someone digging in the wrong place to kill a link between a city and where the funds are being processed. The trend is towards processing in less locations so fragility is increasing.
I expect a major storm hitting Manilla would fuck up the payment processing of a large number of US based banks and a few others. Consider the hard drive shortage when Bangkok got flooded only for communication.
What this kind of paranoid person doesn't understand is that they can already track you to an incredible degree
Yes, because people like you were too apathetic to write a letter to politicians to say that you don't want them to do that.
and there's fuck all you can do about it, so ultimately all you're doing is arguing against having the convenience
So be a good boy and accede to their demands. Forget about defending the democracy you live in, LETS GO SHOPPING!!
Black markets exist anyway, so that's not really an argument either.
For what, your apathy? There are many democratic reasons you want cash to flow unhindered in a society that have nothing to do with criminal activities.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It is also about delaying the big financial crash.In many countries of the world banks have a negative interest on money parked at the respective central bank. Of course they would like to forward this cost to their customer, but guess what would happen, if banks put negative interest on the savings of Joe Average. It would start a run on the banks, because everybody would prefer to put his money under their mattresses. This is the only reason there are still small interests of 0.01% or so on every type of savings, only because the banks know what happens if everybody tries to cash his savings. As soon as cash has been abandoned, there will be no alternative for the customers but to accept it, at least those with incomes and savings to small to buy into gold or diamonds. Which also makes clear that abandoning cash will not solve the big cases of tax evasion or to impair organized crime: Those people will just keep on using those "currencies", as they do it already.
You are sort-of right, but you are looking at the wrong 'tax'. The real benefit of cashless, is that central banks can drive interest rates negative in a deflationary environment.
Since around the 1990s, automation and competition from low labour centers basically destroyed the utility value of the working class. We still give them jobs (which are basically funded by welfare), but most of these are just a sop to our consciences so that we can enjoy our lattes and craft beer without having to stare at slum dwelling children.
The real horror for us, however, is that through the 2000s this same effect has extended well into the middle class. Some of us have quite obviously been directly affected, but these are not a majority yet so nobody cares about them. So why has the middle class not collapsed? The reason is because of the banking sector. What the banking sector has been doing since 2000s is engaging in a giant UBI process for anyone in the middle class who owned a house. Central banks have maintained broadly negative real interest rates (when you've adjusted for inflation) since then, which has ensure that anyone with access to credit (ie middle class home owners) can get connected to a perpetual money spiggot that supplements their falling income from their increasingly unnecessary jobs. This has sustained the middle class in most western countries.
Essentially the problem that occurred is that central banks let a fast bubble develop which blew open the nature of the ponzi scheme and those middle class homeowners freaked out. They then hit the zero lower bound on interest rates, and could not keep the bubble inflated. This is why they are desperate for inflation (just watch Mark Carney do nothing as UK inflation rockets) as this would force real interest rates negative, but demographics, automation and a continuing lack of confidence means that they cannot get the mild 3-4% inflation that would allow them to keep the debt ponzi scheme going.
Because of this, what they would really like to be able to do is drive nominal interest rates deeply negative. If they could do this they can get the debt bubble going again even under deflationary conditions. Just imagine how many people will rush out to buy a house for even more stupid prices if people started getting paid to have mortgages. The middle class economy would take off again as the homeowner UBI comes back on line (well, for anyone lucky enough to have gotten onto the housing bandwagon).
The biggest impediment to negative rates is cash. This is why the swiss national bank does not allow you to store francs in safety deposit boxes, and why many countries have introduced controls on cash (under the guises of preventing terrorism). Central banks want this as a tool for the next crash, and they are slowing setting things up to ensure this is possible.
If you have lots of money, then you'll know how to protect it (buy a house, basically). If you have lots of debt then the central banks have your back. If you have a moderate amount of savings, then you will be screwed. Indeed, watch Mark Carney's recent talk on the post crash recovery and he admits that the only people who have suffered since the crash are those who had savings but not assets, but he justifies letting this happen by saying they in the minority.
And issued R2000 notes to replace them. Not exactly what I'd call eliminating.
This is 99% about TAXES. No more cash between friends. Tax everything 3, 4 and 5 times.
That is even dumber and more paranoid. Those transactions are already either taxed or tax-exempt, plus there are a rounding error in taxing.
I exchange cashless between friends all the time. We go and have a dinner and one of us pays by card. The others then transfer the money to that person.
Where I live this is free. They are working on making it faster, but for now I can wait a day. When with the same bank, it is immediately.
No taxes.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
This is 99% about TAXES. No more cash between friends. Tax everything 3, 4 and 5 times.
Actually this is 0% about taxes.
If the incompetent LNP cared about taxes they'd be looking at the big end of town. A$3-5 billion is a few days worth of tax evasion for the mining and tech giants.
This is about a conservative government trying to keep the populace distracted whilst giving a boost to their mates in banking. Yep, every time you use your card the bank collects from the merchant. The merchants have to pay the banks to get the money you paid them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Not really. That has been legal here for a long time so there isn't that much money in it.
>Free markets are where bread sits in lines waiting for me. The alternative is me waiting in lines for bread.
The real difference between those two scenarios is just that in your 'free market' a helluva lot of people can't get bread at all.
There is then more bread than people who CAN get it, and hence it sits and wait.
This is, obviously, great for you - being one of the few who can get bread - but it sucks for the people who can't.
Of course the OTHER thing it does it so perpetually increase the number of people who can't - so more and more bread goes to fewer and fewer people. We often refer to this effect by the shorthand name "rising inequality' - perhaps you've heard of it ?
But your BIGGEST mistake of all is thinking those are the only options. This is not an either-or question. Nothing that involves human beings is ever THAT simple. It's not a choice between "laizes faire capitalism" and "USSR style communism" -there are literally THOUSANDS of other ways we could organise the distribution of resources (which is all an economy is - a system to distribute resources). So while you feel the advantages of liazes-faire capitalism outweigh the problems (but only because none of the really BIG problems happen to you personally), a great many people do not and the argument that it's better than the downsides of Soviet Style communism is complete bullshit - because we don't need to choose EITHER.
Are you seriously so closed-minded that you are convinced, among the thousands of other possible ways we can organise this activity - not ONE of them may offer better pro/con ratios than the one you love ?
Because I am. None of them can... for every resource, service and product. But for every resource, service or product there is a way to organise it that would be better than EITHER laizes-faire capitalism OR soviet-style communism - in THIS location. In another town - another one will work better for the same product. And somewhere in the world, there is one product which, in one town, will work best with laizes-faire capitalism and somewhere out there is one product which, in one town, will work best with soviet-style communism. But for all the millions of other products in the millions of other towns the best answer will be NEITHER of those.
Indeed it's impossible to predict what the best answer will be. The only way to discover it is to experiment with all of them - in every town and for every product- and record the results. The only way to get an economy with minimum downsides and maximum benefits - is to have an economy that's created by the scientific method, experiment, test, improve - and consider all answers to be local to the specific parameters of the experiment. Just because in bummsville Idaho the best way to distribute apples turned out to be "plant an apple tree on every street corner and let everybody pick when they want" doesn't mean it's true for oranges in bummsville idaho and doesn't mean it's true for apples in New York.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
and lastly, because if everyone pays their rightful share, each individual can pay less. This is not about "extra" taxation, or taxing "3, 4, 5" times, but simply applying the same rules everyone. It is amusing to me that you assume that everyone in the world has the same allergic reaction to paying taxes that you do, because you assume that everyone else in the world shares the same jaundiced view of government and the social contract that many of you do - not just those on the libertarian fringe either, it seems, but reg'lar folks who rather unbelievably to me and many in my country, elected a president that publicly brags about paying little or no taxes. In Australia a political campaign would be dead in the water after such an admission, - the "obligation to shareholders blah blah blah" argument being self-serving bullshit in the case of a privately-held company like Trump Organization anyhow - because although we're not the fair and equitable nation we once were there's a pretty strong feeling that our obligations must balance our privileges. Of which we have many. As it happens I don't think GST or other consumption taxes that this kind of payment system will help with tracking are the best kind of tax, but they're not entirely regressive either. For mine, a single, universal no-exemption financial transaction tax is the way to go.
The problem is everyone in Australia is a friend.
No seriously, I think I built an entire house including all services without paying a dollar in tax, and that is coming to the scene new without any former contacts in the building industry.
The only taxes I paid were the 10% GST to the electrical utility provider to do the final inspection and install the pole-fuse and then carseal the meter.
What's more likely to affect my daughter this year ? The government knowing I bought her, her first trycicle or her dad getting killed by a mugger for his cash ?
The biggest advantage of going cashless is not convenience, it's SAFETY. Muggings have been dropping as cash use has declined because the reward for the risk is reduced. Cash is instantly spendable, cards run a real risk of being reported and cancelled before you can get the money out, cellphones you need to sell to get money.
Nothing is more immediately valuable to a mugger than cash. Now of course, as muggings have declined - identity theft and similar crimes have gone up - because the money is now in computers, it makes more sense to rob the computers than to risk your life in person mugging somebody. At least there's no risk he turns out to be a black-ops trained marine vet who breaks your arm in four places.
But this is actually an improvement - because while you lose money in EITHER an identity theft or a mugging - the former probably won't get you killed or in hospital.
A change which forces a reduction in violent crime is a positive change - even if it comes with an uptick in white-collar crime.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
That is completely legal in Australia, so most people pay for prostitutes with credit cards. They typically use a discreet business name that looks like a restaurant or hotel though.
Power outage once every five years? Not all of us can use the moose to power our generators. Some of us live in more urban areas.
Track your spending. Track your computer usage via Windows 10,8,7 even Server (Way disturbing). Track phone location / usage. Track Internet usage. Track your spending by making you use electronic payments because your bank manager will call the cops if you withdrawl $1000+, Track your car with License plate readers/toll cameras, then there's cameras at each stop light.
This is all good to deter/help solve crimes, but well, you know abuse comes inherently with power.
You shouldn't need electricity or some kind of communications infrastructure in order to carry out trade.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Cash is obviously very useful in the black market, and I suspect fighting against it is a primary motivation for going cashless.
The interesting question becomes : what will replace cash in the black market? Prepaid cards, cryptocurrencies, foreign cash, precious metals...?
I thought that Australia got rid of their paper money when they moved to plastic polymer notes years ago.
Would love to see the citation there.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Cigarettes, condoms, flowers for the side girl...
Yes, but it's much easier to build redundant infrastructure in urban areas. You're not stringing infrastructure over as long of distances and you have a higher population density to spread the fixed costs across making the build-out more economically attractive.
What's more likely to affect my daughter this year ? The government knowing I bought her, her first trycicle or her dad getting killed by a mugger for his cash ?
Well I got mugged by three guys last May and defended myself successfully. Drunk bogan morons don't need an excuse to start a fight.
The biggest advantage of going cashless is not convenience, it's SAFETY.
The world isn't a safe place. You should teach your daughter that so she is strong enough to defend herself when the time comes. Exchanging freedom for safety (apart from franklin's words on the subject) is also shown to be a path to tyranny. I'd be careful what you wish for.
identity theft and similar crimes have gone up
I've been assisting someone who has had their identity stolen. He lost his house, $800,000 and was accused and tried of fraud despite the evidence available to say that he was just a naive old person being preyed upon.
You haven't lived until you've had a body cavity search at every airport you go to.
But this is actually an improvement - because while you lose money in EITHER an identity theft or a mugging - the former probably won't get you killed or in hospital.
being raped in gaol after loosing everything you worked for all your life is not a good option either.
A change which forces a reduction in violent crime is a positive change - even if it comes with an uptick in white-collar crime.
A change which promotes state based terrorism is worse than both of those things, IMHO.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I'd say Denmark, with Danske Bank's MobilePay, are quite far ahead. Allows transfers to customers at different banks, as it's card-to-card transactions. You can also use it to pay on the web.
>Well I got mugged by three guys last May and defended myself successfully. Drunk bogan morons don't need an excuse to start a fight.
Drunk people are not, exactly, an example of a mugging. I got mugged some 17 years ago - and that consisted of a stab-first-and-take-valuables-of-his-bleeding-body approach. Kind of hard to defend yourself after a person just walking past you on the street suddenly stuck a knife in your ribs.
>The world isn't a safe place
That's a stupid response to an argument I didn't make. I merely said we can make it SAFER.
>You should teach your daughter that so she is strong enough to defend herself when the time comes.
Fine, that does NOT mean that it is NOT stupid to do things that endanger yourself more - like carrying cash. The very BEST defense is not being a target.
> Exchanging freedom for safety
There is no loss of freedom involved. Just a change in how I carry my money. If it's wrong to use technology to reduce our risk of being crime victims then you should get rid of any guns you may own. If you can use a gun to make yourself feel safer, I can use a smartphone for the same purpose. Neither affects how free we are in any way (contrary to what gun-nuts think - owning a gun does not make you freer nor is it 'freedom' to own one).
>I've been assisting someone who has had their identity stolen. He lost his house, $800,000 and was accused and tried of fraud despite the evidence available to say that he was just a naive old person being preyed upon.
And that is terrible. But it's still better than dead.
>You haven't lived until you've had a body cavity search at every airport you go to.
A ridiculous theater that does nothing to improve safety and thus is clearly not a good idea. On the other hand, not carrying cash, is PROVEN to reduce your risk of certain violent crimes - and thus is a good idea. My behavior, my ability to do the things I want to do, my capacity to live as I want to live is entirely unaffected. Government is not intruding in my behavior in any way, shape or form - I am merely making myself a less attractive target to desperate or evil people with deadly weapons.
>being raped in gaol after loosing everything you worked for all your life is not a good option either.
That's pretty damn terrible... but it's better than dead.
>A change which promotes state based terrorism is worse than both of those things, IMHO.
You've shown zero evidence whatsoever of this being true. Real state based terrorism has never happened in the USA. No, not even under Obama. State based terrorism by the US government tend to happen in other countries. It's what was done in Iraq. It's what was done in Nicaragua. It's what was done in Panama and Brazil.
But in America ? Never happened. The risk in America is that you'll be killed by corporate terrorists after republican 'freedom lovers' finish getting rid of every law that stands between them and getting paid to kill you. Whether they get killed in cash or via an electronic payment system is really not going to make any difference. It doesn't matter if you can track the payment for a murder when the murder is no longer a crime.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And don't forget to thank those who want to restrict new development. Can't have that. Can we?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Who is "they"? The NSA probably has access to my credit card transactions. But my neighbor doesn't, nor does my mother-in-law, nor do the local police.
Don't be so sure, your mother-in-law might be 1337 H4x0r
I don't. I also was not talking about a savings account.
Spend the money. No more interest. No more taxes. So "Compulsory tax. For now."
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Go back to sleep and lick the hands of your masters, whilst hoping they don't use the whip on you.
The economics prof from Univ of NSW says it: "It's estimated that somewhere between about $3.5 and $5 billion in Australia every year is lost in tax revenue due to the sort of cash economy
Not to mention the unbelievable control it puts over citizens. "Well you cannot buy more than 1 litre of milk in every 24 hours, otherwise you'll get fat, so your credit card has been declined."
Yeah, it's a major societal impediment if somebody out to pull a heist at the local 7-11 can't pay in cash for that Marlboro so that the cops can't trace him after he's taken the loot and disappeared
It's not terribly important when the entire nation of Australia has a population smaller than some of the world's largest cities (Shanghai, Tokyo, Delhi, and maybe Mexico City). Post some news when Australia is a cashless society, not when they maybe could become one some day. Right now it's conjecture. They still print currency, they still exchange coins.
Sweden is probably further along, but again Sweden's entire population is smaller than Australia's largest city. These are minuscule movements in nations that are almost of no consequence in the grand scheme of things.
When Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico City, São Paulo and other major world cities take real action to eliminate physical currency, then we can talk.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You shouldn't need electricity or some kind of communications infrastructure in order to carry out trade.
Ok but that's a different issue to the one I was responding to.
Drunk people are not, exactly, an example of a mugging.
I would argue that alcohol related violence would be close to the top cause.
I got mugged some 17 years ago - and that consisted of a stab-first-and-take-valuables-of-his-bleeding-body approach. Kind of hard to defend yourself after a person just walking past you on the street suddenly stuck a knife in your ribs.
Cunts.
I can empathize with you, I defended myself, but I still copped a head injury and spinal surgery from a kick in the head.
I merely said we can make it SAFER.
I think it is an incremental step towards tyranny so SAFER is relative to that.
There is no loss of freedom involved. Just a change in how I carry my money.
As long as cash remains it doesn't matter what options are available.
And that is terrible. But it's still better than dead.
This is 21st century crime.
That's pretty damn terrible... but it's better than dead.
Some people call it 'Soul Murder'
On the other hand, not carrying cash, is PROVEN to reduce your risk of certain violent crimes
Where is this proof?
You've shown zero evidence whatsoever of this being true.
There is a bunch of legislation attempted in Australia first that I've noted drift to American legislature. Meta data retention in the guise of alternate clauses of Burr-Fienstien encryption bill (if anyone bothered to read it to find that) is a good example. Warrant-less Telecomunication intercept acts and cross departmental information exchange and governance. My reading of all of these laws in defence of my own country's democracy had the unintended consequence of me observing it in the US,UK,Canada,Australia and New Zealand relative to the Constitutional legality of the laws. It's morbidly fascinating.
The role of money in politics would be the best evidence. Tracking the money supply of political opponents is very useful for those in power. Why else would they maintain the anonymity of their own finances. I've also read Bills and Acts that specifically control the flow of money (I believe you will find that in the patriot act IIRC) so monitoring and tracking money is very important to the state.
That does NOT make me feel SAFE.
Real state based terrorism has never happened in the USA. No, not even under Obama. State based terrorism by the US government tend to happen in other countries. It's what was done in Iraq. It's what was done in Nicaragua. It's what was done in Panama and Brazil.
What's the difference? US and them? State based terrorism is incremental, this is an example. The powers are built and not used for a long time, but they are in place for when they are needed. This is what happened in many countries, where it is perfected.
How minorities are treated is an example of an individual's worth to the state that moves towards corporate totalitarianism and the despotism it brings.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
>State based terrorism is incremental, this is an example
No. State based terrorism is when the guy who blew up your family was sent by a government as opposed to a non-government group.
It's the act of violence for political purposes that makes it terrorism, nothing less qualifies. And the USA has really only ever done that to foreigners. And you would note that I chose my list of examples carefully - they were the cases where you could make no claim of a "just war". The people attacked were not enemies, were not a threat in any way - and in several of them - were no war was even declared with their government. They got bombed, to replace their democratically elected leaders with puppet dictators (coincidentally - that's how Saddam got into power in the first place - so Iraq was the victim of American state-based terrorism at least 4 different times). This tends to happen whenever a democratically elected leader thinks his job is to serve his citizens rather than serve Coca-Cola's bottom line.
The definition of terrorism is "an act of violence for political purposes" -that definition comes, by the way, directly out of the state department handbook on the topic, has been in place since the 1970s, and is the same one used by all federal agencies.
I vehemently oppose government surveilance in general, and believe government should stay out of people's private lives. Yet I am quite unconcerned about them tracking money. Because money and spending is not private. Never was, never will be, never COULD be. By definition the transfer of money from one person to another is always a public act - since somebody else always knows. I don't care if government knows what I buy or not, I only care if and when they try to restrict what I can buy.
They've been doing THAT for decades - they tell you you can't buy a blowjob or a pack of weed all the time. THAT Is an intrusion of liberty. Knowing you bought it so they can make sure the dealer pays his taxes ? I see no harm whatsoever in that.
Managing the economy is government's job, managing the flow of money is their JOB, knowing how it flows it pretty fucking essential to doing that job well. Them knowing a bit more about that, will only help them do their job better. We all benefit from a better run economy. We all benefit from a government that's better able to guage when to print more money and when to rather put up interest rates to manage inflation rates at the ideal point where economic growth can happen without grossly impoverishing everybody or pushing us into a deflationary depression.
Don't worry your head about "steps towards tyranny" - there's ZERO historical precedent for that. Tyranny doesn't come in small steps. It comes in giant, world-changing events that happen so fast that they tend to have installed the dictator-for-life with absolute power before you can even react. Hitler didn't come to power in a series of small steps. He tried a coup, failed, went to jail and wrote a book. built up his party for a decade, and then used the depression (and the resulting discontent) to win a bunch of seats in parliament in an ordinary election. Then the government gave him the presidency (a largely ceremonial position in Germany - I bet you don't even remember the current German president's name, I don't, but we ALL know the Chancelor is Angela Merkel). There was one major flaw in the German system of checks and balances unfortunately. In the event that the president or chancelor dies in office, they appointed each other's successor - and there was nothing restricting who they could appoint. The Chancelor died and Hitler appointed himself to that post - while retaining the presidency, merging them into 'Fuhrer'. Next step - the Reichstagh fire, then the execution of every liberal in parliament mere days later.
The conversion from democratic, free country to total dictatorship took about 3 months. A series of massive steps - nothing small anywhere.
And that was a particularly long and convoluted one - the TYPICAL way it happens is
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
What this kind of paranoid person doesn't understand is that they can already track you to an incredible degree, and there's fuck all you can do about it, so ultimately all you're doing is arguing against having the convenience. Black markets exist anyway, so that's not really an argument either.
Canada went to a plasticised paper currency for the Five dollar and higher denominations. The one and two dollar values are coins. The penny has been withdrawn from circulation (it is getting to be a collector's item).
The paper bills wore out too soon. The new Canadian bills are hard to counterfeit, (partially see through), and have braile indents on them. They will survive a washing machine laundry wash.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
ATMs, when first introduced, were free. Now they often charge fees. Do you really think once a cashless society is reached that fees will not be applied to everything?
"no taxes" . for now.
And when cashless is all you can use, do you believe that the financial establishment and/or government will refrain from adding fees and taxes to those transactions? Why wouldn't they?
so how does SWISH make money? If it's a bank, they will eventually charge a fee. Nobody runs infrastructure for free.
Yes, because we must sacrifice all rights on the altar of SAFETY.
Who is "they"? The NSA probably has access to my credit card transactions. But my neighbor doesn't, nor does my mother-in-law, nor do the local police.
The local police, if they have any reason to care to, can easily get access to it. There's been things in the news about how most of the time when the police go to someone - particularly ISPs and financial institutions - asking for something, it's just handed over without so much as asking if there's a warrant. There's also been things in the news about cops just accessing whatever records they like, so if your neighbour or mother-in-law happen to know a cop could use a few more dollars or a favour, they could have access too.
But more generally, even without actual access to bank records, plenty of larger businesses and institutions can track other things from which a creepily complete picture of you can be inferred.
You'd be surprised how many paranoid people don't actually understand what it is they're being paranoid about. There are people who, for example, won't enter their credit card number into an electronic system because they're worried someone will steal the details, so instead speak it aloud over the phone in a room full of people.
Here in Australia there was also some kind of single card for some array of services or other (health, maybe?) that the government wanted to introduce, being sold to the public on the basis of it being a convenient way for them to co-ordinate all these services, rather than getting Form A from Department A to submit to Department B so they could get Form C to submit to Department C so they can get Form B so they can go and get what they actually want from Department D. People raised a huge fuss over privacy concerns, and how this card would be used to track people, and all that, and eventually it was scrapped. The people celebrated because they'd defended their privacy. But the various departments talk to each other behind the scenes anyway, and bit by bit legislation to allow the departments to do what they were going to with peoples data passed, leading to the end result where people are tracked anyway but don't have the convenience they could have had.
So the moral of the story is, if you're objecting to some offered convenience because privacy, either think about and object to all the other ways the involved parties could get your info anyway, or just take the convenience on the basis that you might as well have that if your info is going to be passed around anyway.
So has Australia, but I'm not sure how the materials the cash is made of is relevant to a cash vs credit/debit card debate.
If you had bothered to read the thread you would find that I rather fully addressed your false argument already, I don't feel like repeating myself. I'll just summarize. No rights of consequence are lost, none whatsoever.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
... so ultimately all you're doing is arguing against having the convenience.
Isn't that enough to oppose this? How many reasons do I need to tell the government to get out of my personal business? Assuming the government can already track all my monetary transactions that does not mean I am somehow obligated to make it easier for them.
Maybe, maybe not. In my view, the government is less inconvenienced by me not using cards than I am. Feel free to disagree (which I'm sure you will, given the libertarian flavour your post has), but I just don't think it's worth making things significantly more difficult for myself just for the sake of making things slightly more difficult for the government.
In Australia not so much. People disappear all the time just because they don't want to be found. Sometimes (eg. battered wives with a homicidal spouse looking for them for extreme examples (which do happen)) it's not a bad thing.
I am talking in Australia. Certainly people can basically disappear from their social circle or their employer or even their family relatively easily, but dropping off the official radar would take a lot more doing.