General > General Technical Chat

Cashless Australia

<< < (16/37) > >>

Zero999:
I'm all for keeping cash, mainly because going cashless would severely affect the very poor and homeless often don't have bank accounts. It would also be bad for some charities who receive donations from people donating spare change.

Halcyon:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 11, 2021, 08:57:55 am ---I'm all for keeping cash, mainly because going cashless would severely affect the very poor and homeless often don't have bank accounts. It would also be bad for some charities who receive donations from people donating spare change.

--- End quote ---

On the contrary, I don't think that's an excuse, but I guess that comes down regional differences.

Here, in Australia, if you're a welfare recipient, you receive payment into your bank account. To hold a bank account costs nothing. Anyone can sign up for one. How you use it is a matter for yourself. I'm not suggesting that cash will disappear in our lifetime and it will certainly have its place in the future, but its use is declining quickly. In 2019, Australians used cash for about 27% of all purchases and that has been dropping significantly year-on-year. Likewise the sizes of cash payments have fallen significantly and this is all largely due to consumer demand. Cash is still an option, but more and more people are moving away from it. Like I said earlier, I use cash maybe 3-5 times per year, if that. Almost everything I use money for is electronic and so much more convenient. I have a bucket full of coins that I haven't touched for years. I have no need.

https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2020/jun/cash-use-in-australia-results-from-the-2019-consumer-payments-survey.html

I foresee cash going the same way as cheques did many years ago... still valid forms of payment (for most things) but rarely used by most people.

Zero999:
As far as I'm aware, one needs to have a residential address to have a bank account and receive benifits, which is no good for those who are homeless, because they can't afford the rent.

cdev:
Norbert Haring has a lot to say about this "war on cash" as he puts it. They held a consultation, but like always its shambolic. They don't rally care what people think nor are they about to change any of their plans because what people say.

The ECB would (not really) like to know your opinion on the digital euro – let them know. Here is Germany's non-attempt
Does it seem as if they want any actual debate on the possible problems? No.

cdev:
I think that is the main intent, to non-disruptively keep the homelesss and/or poor out of cities shopping ares and commercial or gathering places.
--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 11, 2021, 10:16:21 am ---As far as I'm aware, one needs to have a residential address to have a bank account and receive benifits, which is no good for those who are homeless, because they can't afford the rent.

--- End quote ---

You neglect that the poor who can afford to live in nicer cities are usually too wealthy to receive any assistance. At least thats the way it is here. The only states that are providing a safety net are the mopre expensive ones. If somebody successfully applies for and receives help with many problems, the social work system likely thinks they are probably cheating somewhere because they designed the system to refuse help to anybody with enough assets to (in their eyes) afford them. Like when you are over 50 the cost of health insurance rises so astronomically. Most shift workers dont make enough to realistically afford it. The same with rents in the areas the jobs remain. They are so high on the coasts, the cost of living is extemely high and the poor are unusually skillful if they can access most benefits because the income disqualifies them. Going cashless will let government claw back money paid to somebody who turns out to be ineligible. After the money is clawed back for a hospital stay then the providers rebill at the uninsured rate, which is higher.

When women come in for maternity care, hospitals bill the child as well as her now. That means that if ones mother has a particularly difficult pregancy and ends up with a six figure bill (its not uncommon for the uninsured to end up with large bills when a mother has something like a breech birth or an ectopic pregnancy or pre gestational diabetes. Well, when that child turns 18, they will inherit this bill in their name.

We have a massive number of people who are carrying around huge student debts they may never be able to pay off. A cashless system would garnish or simply deduct all the money they got in income until all those debts were paid off. .


Here is his web page on the digital euro:
https://norberthaering.de/en/money-finance/digital-euro-en/
Here is a web page from the Bundesbank  on this https://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/untersuchungen/u50200.html  Yes, I suspect giving debtors people an incentive to pay back creditors (not being able to do any of the activities of a modern society)
I suspect anticipation of a future that is impossible to sustainably navigate for a larger and larger number of people is a driver opf much of this policy. Profit always has to be the main priority for governments. for investors.  Here in the US with so much student loan debt -that will be harsh.

Automated roads and autonomous cars will likely help enforce this massive debt collection system too. They simply wont be able to drive on toll roads when ones balance is negative.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod