Chief Citigroup Economist Proposes Abolishing Cash to Save World Economy

a reply to: NthOther

I think the ugly truth of this whole thing is the fact that they are slowly conditioning everyone using the "boiling frog" philosophy.

Slowly but surely sitting back and watching us digitally connect ourselves to the network 24/7... freely and voluntarily.

Internet, cellphones, gps connected vehicles, debit cards, credit card tracking chips, google watches, smart tv's, smart meters, slow introduction to implanting RFID's into our newborns under the guise of "safely tracking our children", etc etc.

The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually, such as creeping state surveillance.

According to contemporary biologists the premise of the story is not literally true; a frog submerged and gradually heated will jump out. However, some 19th-century experiments suggested that the underlying premise is true, provided the heating is sufficiently gradual.

The story's common metaphorical use is a caution for people to be aware of even gradual change lest they suffer eventual undesirable consequences.

Link

originally posted by: TonyS
The real problem the elites are addressing is savings. They need to end the hoarding of cash reserves by the consumer public in order to maintain their monopoly on capital.

Yes, this...consumers will not have choices in the future because purchases will be mandatory.

Policies structured like Obamacare should have taught us ALL how these kinds of scenarios will play out. Obamacare is merely the test run of how to implament legislated purchases on a large scale.

What do I mean exactly?

Many forget that we now live in what "could" be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results, is a situation where the "owners of capital", can and will "legislate" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nation of course, i.e., Too-Big-to-Fail).

So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a "penalty" at tax time. When the "owners of capital" run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc, they will simply make it law that you have to buy them, in certain quantities before tax season (the current Healthcare dependent Flexible Spending Account, FSA, is just the pilot program, one day we will have an FSA for ALL goods and services, and they will be use-it or lose-it).

You will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the "owners of capital" will take close to the same amount back, when a person tries to save money by reducing purchases, in the form of "tax penalties". A cashless society is the easiest way to structure "forced purchases" into the largr economy. In the future when someone chooses "not to buy" and then doesn't have the proper "proof of purchase" coupon to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due, the IRS will have some way to calculate the amount "you should have purchased" (sounds a little like a college FASFA in reverse).

Look at solar roof panels, for example, many local governments are taxing people for installing them because they reduce dependence on local utilities, which in turn drive down privatized revenue being collected by the contract companies hired running the utilities.

a reply to: boohoo

I can't say whether your prediction is correct or not. It might just be. Obamacare isn't the only example. Another would be automobiles. We had a great urban transit system in most cities in the US. GM bought out the trolley and light rail systems, tore out the tracks and replaced those systems with crappy buses. Then, after 1970 or so, as cars obsoleted, people's only choice was to buy cars with performance chocking emission control devices. I see they'll force people to buy self driving cars by banning People-Driven cars in the big cities.

What I find a bit curious is the fact that the US population will take just about any amount of abuse. In fact anywhere from 25% to 40% can be counted on as cheerleaders for whatever coercive initiative the Govt comes up with.

a reply to: NthOther

The existence of the black market makes any attempt to eliminate cash useless. If they got rid of cash, people would switch to some other arbitrary and untraceable object to use to engage in black market deals.

a reply to: CranialSponge

You are right about the slow steady decline into tyranny. They used currency manipulation to enslave the people with debt and taxes. Now they want to take one of the last roadblocks out of the system.



One of the biggest reasons banks want this is so they can make even more money by laying off all bank workers. You will no longer need fixed point banks.

a reply to: NthOther

The article simply proves that we all serve the banks, including our government. "negative deposit rates" What the #$$% are these? They are fees. It's not enough that they get to play Monopoly with our deposits? Now they want to charge us a fee for that privilege?

Solution to THE WORLDS PROBLEMS. Keep the cash and do away with banks!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If they got rid of cash, people would switch to some other arbitrary and untraceable object to use to engage in black market deals.

This circumvention method has been suggested before, but the IRS already has a plan and system in place to deal with it somewhat. They will tax bartering by an estimate, the same way they do for restaurant servers receiving tips. There will likely be HUGE penalties for barter and I will bet EVERYONE will automatically be assumed to have "bartered" some amount over the year at tax time (perhaps an estimated $500 in barter per year, that is taxed whether the person in question did any actual bartering or not). The most likely outcome though, is that one day, bartering will simply be deemed an illegal activity, I don't recall it being a named constitutional right anywhere.

originally posted by: SubTruth
One of the biggest reasons banks want this is so they can make even more money by laying off all bank workers. You will no longer need fixed point banks.

Its even more simple than that, people will have to pay a monthly fee to keep their digital money in the bank and there won't be any alternative free way to store it, without paying the monthly fee. It is an instant, predictable, revenue generator for public companies, that the stock market will then feed off.

originally posted by: TonyS
I see they'll force people to buy self driving cars by banning People-Driven cars in the big cities.

OR make People-Driven car insurance rates, so high, that no regular working-stiff can afford to pay it and in turn and are then forced to buy/finance a self-driven car, at an overall cheaper price point, per mile driven.

Correct, this kind of tech is bad for regular people, whom are not part of the true "Owners of Capital" class.

The "Owners of Capital" believe that this kind of tech, along with the manipulation of legislation and tight wage controls will give them ultimate power over ALL labor, not just the lower classes. People need to start abandoning tech, if they truly hope to have a chance at standing up against the "owners of capital". Currently, people falsely believe tech will save and unite them, when in reality it was designed by "corporate committee" to do just the opposite.

Here is an example, remember when cell phones were actually fun?

I do, the phone was a huge and needed to be carried in a bag, BUT my boss NEVER called me on it, after what was considered typical work hours and certainly never to ask me to do more work, while I was at home. Compare that to today, when a cell phone in your pocket can spontaneously generate more work to be done outside of the office, simply because someone higher up than you had a random thought at midnight.

When my parents were in school in the 1950's and 60's they were told: no one would have to work in the future, that everything would be done by robots and they would, in turn, have increased free time used for creating, making art, learning and helping others...

Robotics, self driving cars, digital currency, the Singularity, Cell Regeneration and Artificial Intelligence are essentially the same lie, told to our parents, rehashed for a 21st century audience. I think its funny when regular people get excited about future tech like the Singularity, AI, Robotics, Self-Driving Cars, etc. Do people really think when these thing finally become real, functioning, working designs, applicable to industry, that we, the "peons", will somehow ALL get a Data from Start Trek or a C-3PO from Star Wars, to help us at home, at the job site or in the office, etc?

Also all these digital technologies WILL have "click-wrap agreements". Remember we will be "agreeing" to use software, not "agreeing to follow the rules of the road in vehicles under our own control". Self-driving car WILL have "click-wrap agreements", waiving the right to sue, that will be automatically acknowledged by stepping into the vehicle and digitally signed wirelessly by the phone in passengers pocket. I can GUARANTEE that users/owners of Self-Driving Cars are going to be forced to waive their right a Jury Trial and will be REQUIRED to sign either "jury waivers" at the time purchase/lease or to go through forced private arbitration.

The only way regular people can save themselves, NOW, is to abandon tech, physically impede tech research and stop buying/supporting companies making this AI/singularity tech. I personally at this point are willing to live with 1980's +/- era tech, if it means, I am more free and can continue to earn money to live off.

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If they got rid of cash, people would switch to some other arbitrary and untraceable object to use to engage in black market deals.

This circumvention method has been suggested before, but the IRS already has a plan and system in place to deal with it somewhat. They will tax bartering by an estimate, the same way they do for restaurant servers receiving tips. There will likely be HUGE penalties for barter and I will bet EVERYONE will automatically be assumed to have "bartered" some amount over the year at tax time (perhaps an estimated $500 in barter per year, that is taxed whether the person in question did any actual bartering or not). The most likely outcome though, is that one day, bartering will simply be deemed an illegal activity, I don't recall it being a named constitutional right anywhere.

The IRS could do that, but they'd have no recourse to determine how much bartering you did over the year. There is literally no way they could track it. If the government made it illegal, it wouldn't change anything. Remember my original point was directed to the black market anyways. Do you honestly think that people buying and selling wares that are illegal to do so are going to care if the medium of transaction is also illegal?

a reply to: NthOther

Star for you, you're halfway right. What really will happen is that an alternative form of money -- promissory notes -- will take the place of cash. An alternative banking system already exists, based on such mutually honoured notes or contracts. It is used by people in the Middle East, South Asia and the former Soviet bloc to transfer money across borders in defiance of national foreign-exchange controls.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The IRS could do that, but they'd have no recourse to determine how much bartering you did over the year. There is literally no way they could track it.

They won't care if its accurate, which is no different than the way they currently calculate taxes on server tips received at restaurants. The IRS will calculate the overall "lost revenue" and then split that assessment among groups that are statistical determined to "most likely engage in bartering". The taxes will simply be "due" and there won't be any reasonable way to dispute it, without spending more money than is owed, on professional consultation/services.

a reply to: boohoo

Hmmm... Making up expenditures... Sounds like an easy way to net yourself a lawsuit.

By the way, the IRS doesn't completely estimate tips for waiters and waitresses. Restaurants are SUPPOSED to report all tips earned at the end of the day. Naturally, not all restaurants do this, so a little bit of estimation on the IRS' part is required, but it isn't anywhere near the scale of guessing that estimating bartering would be. At least with tips, the IRS can fall back on reported tips to justify their estimates. There is no data that the IRS can pull from to justify estimating bartering expenses. It's really not the same thing at all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Naturally, not all restaurants do this, so a little bit of estimation on the IRS' part is required, but it isn't anywhere near the scale of guessing that estimating bartering would be. At least with tips, the IRS can fall back on reported tips to justify their estimates. There is no data that the IRS can pull from to justify estimating bartering expenses. It's really not the same thing at all.

I guess you haven't been keeping up on the garage sales and flea markets that IRS agents and local government tax assessors are now targeting. They do nothing, but, estimate whats owed in those circumstances, the burden is then on the tax payer to prove they owe less.

You also have overlooked the possibility that one day ALL taxpayers may be required to sign TRAC or TRDA agreements (like the kind restaurant owners sign), meaning individual tax payers will be reporting items they bartered for, on their tax returns, in some way, maybe even issuing 1099's some day. Don't forget, we live in a world where more "rules" are added everyday, so the chances are likely that MORE reporting burden will be put on individual tax payers, not less.

a reply to: boohoo

You care to post some evidence to back that claim up? Because my evidence shows that the government doesn't give a hoot about garage sales since most if not all items are sold at a loss.

Garage Sale Money: Does the Government need to Know?

Averaging $4.2 million in weekly revenue, garage sales add up to serious cash. But, if your garage sale is among the 165,000 held every week, do you need to report how much you raked in to the IRS? Probably not, because the items typically are sold at a loss.

When determining if a sale must be reported as income it isn’t the dollar amount that matters or how it was sold, but whether the item was sold for more than it was originally purchased. This is because selling something for more than you bought it results in a capital gain, which must be reported to the IRS as income. Capital gains typically are realized when selling items that have appreciated in value, such as antiques and collectibles.

Your point about requiring citizens to sign TRAC or TRDA agreements is also silly because of the above again.

By the way, just because it is a possible thing that the IRS could do something in the future, doesn't mean you can argue like it is an inevitability. You first need to establish trends that show the government is moving in that direction. Which you haven't done. Your entire argument is hinged on the IRS just randomly deciding it can determine the tax amount of the bartering economy when no procedures or even desire on the IRS' part exists to do that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You care to post some evidence to back that claim up? Because my evidence shows that the government doesn't give a hoot about garage sales since most if not all items are sold at a loss.

By the way, just because it is a possible thing that the IRS could do something in the future, doesn't mean you can argue like it is an inevitability. You first need to establish trends that show the government is moving in that direction. Which you haven't done. Your entire argument is hinged on the IRS just randomly deciding it can determine the tax amount of the bartering economy when no procedures or even desire on the IRS' part exists to do that.

Its easy to make garage sales accountable for taxes, all they have to do is make them get a permit to hold one. Code enforcement then drives around looking for garage sales that don't have permits and writes them a ticket. The ones that got their permit then need to report the revenue to the local Franchise Tax Boards. Under a system like that garage sale revenue becomes traceable for both the state and federal governments, by starting at the local level.

Louisiana has gone the farthest so far:

A secondhand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or secondhand property. Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or secondhand property and made payable to the name and address of the seller. All payments made by check, electronic transfers, or money order shall be reported separately in the daily reports required by R.S. 37:1866.

For every transaction a secondhand dealer must obtain the seller's personal information such as their name, address, driver's license number and the license plate number of the vehicle in which the goods were delivered. They must also make a detailed description of the item(s) purchased and submit this with the personal identification information of every transaction to the local policing authorities through electronic daily reports. If a seller cannot or refuses to produce to the secondhand dealer any of the required forms of identification, the secondhand dealer is prohibited from completing the transaction.

a reply to: boohoo

Well that is just one state. I, personally, think that law is unconstitutional since it says on any dollar bill that you have in your wallet "For all debts public and private". Though I'm having trouble finding any follow up news about this bill outside of the initial reporting of it in 2011 (and a few right wing doom porn sites rereporting it like it is brand new news). I can't find any enforcement records for it or public opinions on it. It appears like the bill went into effect, it was briefly mentioned in the news, then everyone continued to go about their way like nothing had changed.

Going by this, I'd say that this law isn't really enforced. I'd say that this law is quickly just going to be added to the long list of dumb laws on various state and city governments. Here are some more.

Real Funny Dumb Laws in the United States

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: boohoo

Well that is just one state. I, personally, think that law is unconstitutional since it says on any dollar bill that you have in your wallet "For all debts public and private"

I agree, I think its unconstitutional too, but government CAN make this tax collection scheme work if they want to.

With the Permit/Code-enforcement/tax-franchise-board strategy, the laws are in place to collect revenue from sources where it was not previously possible to collect. So yes, right now its not likely enforced and results, at best, in small fines and low, to non-existent, tax revenue. However, down the road when collected tax revenue drops they can always pull this out of the closet, when they need a little boost.

So how is this relevant to the larger IRS collection scheme?

Since there will be permit and revenue records at the local level, the Federal Government can EASILY make a law that people need to sign TRAC or TRDA agreements, to really put the enforcement teeth into the local legislation. I know you disagree, but I do not find this scenario far fetched.

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: boohoo

Well that is just one state. I, personally, think that law is unconstitutional since it says on any dollar bill that you have in your wallet "For all debts public and private"

I agree, I think its unconstitutional too, but government CAN make this tax collection scheme work if they want to.

With the Permit/Code-enforcement/tax-franchise-board strategy, the laws are in place to collect revenue from sources where it was not previously possible to collect. So yes, right now its not likely enforced and results, at best, in small fines and low, to non-existent, tax revenue. However, down the road when collected tax revenue drops they can always pull this out of the closet, when they need a little boost.

I have a feeling that if they tried to do this, it would end up being challenged in court and quickly overturned. I notice no other states jumped on board with this draconian legislation.

So how is this relevant to the larger IRS collection scheme?

Since there will be permit and revenue records at the local level, the Federal Government can EASILY make a law that people need to sign TRAC or TRDA agreements, to really put the enforcement teeth into the local legislation. I know you disagree, but I do not find this scenario far fetched.

But only in Louisiana... You know since no other state has this stupid law on the books and all.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Citigroup has been working into getting a "cashless society for the last teen years", but while some hail to this as a good thing, the main issue behind this type of economic approach has nothing to do with good intentions, but this is one of the biggest attempts among many to erode more freedoms.

Cashless means that we will not have a choice on how our earned income or any other income due to us is processed and accounted by us, but some faceless entity will be doing that for us. This is having a private interest company, a bank or whatever agency that I am sure will be created to monitor every citizens allowances as per government regulations.

This is the new world order dream or one of them.

In a time and age that most data is manipulated, this will give the government enormous power to regulate individuals in every aspect of their daily lives

From taxation, income earning, bills due and whatever any crafty methods to manipulate numbers.

The sad thing is that the government, greedy banks and all those that controls world economies already have the tools to go along eliminating all cash in any economy in the world

Will you want to become a slave to some entity telling you how much you will be allow to spend in any given month? after all the government already can hold your earnings any time it wants when you own them money, in a cashless society they will do all your transactions for you

Does it sounds like doomsday to you? well think about how many people do no longer trust the government and neither the banking system this days, look how our government and the banking system is scaming the consumer will you trust them with your hard earned dollars to make decisions for you without your consent?.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But only in Louisiana... You know since no other state has this stupid law on the books and all.

Other states may not limit cash transactions, but there are many local governments that require a permit to hold a garage sale and the reporting of revenue collected to the local tax franchise board.

Think about the bigger picture, TRAC agreements already act like this Louisiana law, so whats stopping the Federal Governement from introducing a modified version for secondhand sales? Nothing and there is plenty of incentive for them to do it.

Here is an excerpt of a TRAC agreement that requires a restaurant to cooperate with the IRS:

Provides that if employees fail to report at or above the determined rate, the employer will provide the names of those employees, their SSNs, job classification, sales, hours worked, and amount of tips reported.

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But only in Louisiana... You know since no other state has this stupid law on the books and all.

Other states may not limit cash transactions, but there are many local governments that require a permit to hold a garage sale and the reporting of revenue collected to the local tax franchise board.

Think about the bigger picture, TRAC agreements already act like this Louisiana law, so whats stopping the Federal Governement from introducing a modified version for secondhand sales? Nothing and there is plenty of incentive for them to do it.

This is a loaded question. What is stopping the federal government from doing anything? All laws are Constitutional until shown to be otherwise by the Judicial Branch. So you can ask this question, but the reality is, how likely is it that the law will withstand Constitutional scrutiny? I'm already pretty sure that Louisiana law is unconstitutional, so if that is the case, a federal version of it will be equally unconstitutional.