For larger sums or payments abroad, since decades, we're using "plastic/digital money" tied to a myriad of private banking institutes of OUR choice.
These banking institutes balance & transfer "wholesale" once a day between each other via the Central Bank(s). Any info about our particular purchase is "drowned" into the total transfer-sum; therefore CANNOT be known to the latter.
The point is that the new Central Bank DC, which completely overrides the individual commercial banks of our choice, CENTRALIZES any personal purchasing info down to the last minute detail IN ONE PLACE as our purchase is instantly registered at the CB. (where it can and WILL be interwoven to our E-ID, health-, financial-, movement info as well as our activities on public platforms, etc.)
THIS centralization which equals total transparency, along with the complete programmability of the digital currency, is the pivotal point for total abuse by the powers-that-be.
Everybody touts: Use cash as much as possible. Fine, but:
- the merchants where the plebes buys will dump it into a bank account from where it will disappear until NO CASH is left and
- who's gonna give the plebes cash in future ??? ... For sure NOT your employer, tax-refunds, etc.
Current regimes do not even have to mandate or coerce CBDCs: it's the merchants, institutions and corporations who will coerce their customers to use it ...
Welcome to fascism, the old euphemism used to describe marriage between regimes and private corporations to totally control their slaves. Better though, to call it CORPORATISM:
States, entirely run by unelected, narcissistic CEOs lacking any empathy to their human fellows but totally obsessed with raking-in stakeholder profits during their tenure.
Let's examine this idea of future European social credit systems. They're unlikely to be European-wide. Anyway, individual countries might form their own decisions.
The British Social Security System we have can provide an unemployed and disabled adult with £24,000 a year, tax free, and health benefits, and basically not incentivize them to go out to work at all, even to do a part-time job, or to go out to college because they'd lose benefit, they'd lose their income.
So I think the system is wrong, and I think social credit needs to be looked at a little bit more seriously than just discarding it as being a wicked plot.
“Each country makes its own decisions”? You’re speaking from a country that had the foresight to extricate itself from the European hydra’s tentacles! The nations still mired in it either have no choice but to fall in line or submit to blackmail over subsidies.
As for the unemployed and disabled, the highest rate I can find is around £130/week, or less than £6,800/year (and for a maximum of 6 months in the case of unemployment). That’s a far cry from the figures you’re citing, but it doesn’t matter: if I understand correctly what you’re avoiding saying outright, you would only grant the right not to die of hunger or cold (like many elderly people in your land of plenty, according to impartial sources…) to “good” citizens who, through their docility, maintain a sufficient social credit score.
I would be afraid to ask you what your criteria would be for achieving this enviable status, but I think I will simply wish you never to experience a reversal of fortune or health, and probably also not to become a useless old mouth to feed.
Thats the standard benefits available to an adult who needs constant care aged over 25 living independently with support. This adult also gets a personal budget to employ PA's for 24/7 the year around - worth around £140,000 a year. Its mainly due to having diabetes and needing regular monitoring and help managing that condition.
I dislike cash. I used to run a very popular local festival attracting 5,000 people a year. The problem with cash handling is it's very expensive and dirty stuff to manage. If you've ever tried to take £15,000-£20,000 on a day and try to stash it in your car, and then try to get to the night deposit box of the bank, it's painful. It feels insecure, it feels dangerous, it feels dirty, and it takes a lot of time.
So I think, generally speaking, the move to cashless transactions is probably preferred by the vast majority of people. I accept your arguments in principle, but in practise, sorry, I just don't like cash. I don't use it very much at all.
And then just consider a large purchase like buying a car or a house. You know you might be dealing with hundreds of thousands of pounds. Well, there's no way you're going to take a large suitcase full of £100,000 to buy an expensive motor car or a small flat. It's just not going to happen, is it?
This argument about £15,000-20,000, or whatever you want to call it, seems particularly specious to me. You're reasoning "globally" from an exceptional situation. Even as a merchant, £15,000 in cash is unlikely to be an everyday occurrence (and if that's the case for you, you have the means to find a secure solution). Many merchants themselves complain about the transaction costs generated by digital payments.
And there are far fewer merchants than customers, so your argument is a class-based one.
Digital payments also have the perverse effect of decimating bank branches, leaving the older and less "digitally literate" people in a state of disarray... No, definitely not—with all due respect, I'm not buying it.
So armored cars with armed guards aren't your style? 😆 Why no, I've never tried to take £15,000-£20,000, stash it in my car, and then try to get to the night deposit box of the bank. That's good to know.
I guess, the answer, then, is that we have to prevent government overreach in the banking system. For example, in the states, with the "PATRIOT" Act, banks are required to ask all these ridiculously invasive questions when you open a bank account.
As far as large purchases, I've wired the money and avoided credit cards altogether. Credit cards are one way governments can exercise too much control. So yeah, I guess the real issue is government overreach, not payment method.
Armoured cars are a sensible solution - but clearly add a lot of transaction costs to cash handling. Cash is hard to count quickly, and dangerous to move around or store overnight - and it can be forged - so yes, I don't carry a lot of cash these days - just plastic money.
I understand your point of view. Just let's keep in mind that everything must be considered from different angles. A “unique” solution can't be the answer to a multitude of situations… and bears the risk of becoming a totalitarian tool , which seems to be the current trend…
The point is NOT digital- VS physical currency.
For larger sums or payments abroad, since decades, we're using "plastic/digital money" tied to a myriad of private banking institutes of OUR choice.
These banking institutes balance & transfer "wholesale" once a day between each other via the Central Bank(s). Any info about our particular purchase is "drowned" into the total transfer-sum; therefore CANNOT be known to the latter.
The point is that the new Central Bank DC, which completely overrides the individual commercial banks of our choice, CENTRALIZES any personal purchasing info down to the last minute detail IN ONE PLACE as our purchase is instantly registered at the CB. (where it can and WILL be interwoven to our E-ID, health-, financial-, movement info as well as our activities on public platforms, etc.)
THIS centralization which equals total transparency, along with the complete programmability of the digital currency, is the pivotal point for total abuse by the powers-that-be.
Everybody touts: Use cash as much as possible. Fine, but:
- the merchants where the plebes buys will dump it into a bank account from where it will disappear until NO CASH is left and
- who's gonna give the plebes cash in future ??? ... For sure NOT your employer, tax-refunds, etc.
Current regimes do not even have to mandate or coerce CBDCs: it's the merchants, institutions and corporations who will coerce their customers to use it ...
Welcome to fascism, the old euphemism used to describe marriage between regimes and private corporations to totally control their slaves. Better though, to call it CORPORATISM:
States, entirely run by unelected, narcissistic CEOs lacking any empathy to their human fellows but totally obsessed with raking-in stakeholder profits during their tenure.
Welcome to digital feudalism ... 🤣🤣🤣
🎯 💯 🎯 💯 !
Couldn't say better.
This shows that it is still and always necessary to remember how things really work, and the true name we should give them.
Let's examine this idea of future European social credit systems. They're unlikely to be European-wide. Anyway, individual countries might form their own decisions.
The British Social Security System we have can provide an unemployed and disabled adult with £24,000 a year, tax free, and health benefits, and basically not incentivize them to go out to work at all, even to do a part-time job, or to go out to college because they'd lose benefit, they'd lose their income.
So I think the system is wrong, and I think social credit needs to be looked at a little bit more seriously than just discarding it as being a wicked plot.
“Each country makes its own decisions”? You’re speaking from a country that had the foresight to extricate itself from the European hydra’s tentacles! The nations still mired in it either have no choice but to fall in line or submit to blackmail over subsidies.
As for the unemployed and disabled, the highest rate I can find is around £130/week, or less than £6,800/year (and for a maximum of 6 months in the case of unemployment). That’s a far cry from the figures you’re citing, but it doesn’t matter: if I understand correctly what you’re avoiding saying outright, you would only grant the right not to die of hunger or cold (like many elderly people in your land of plenty, according to impartial sources…) to “good” citizens who, through their docility, maintain a sufficient social credit score.
I would be afraid to ask you what your criteria would be for achieving this enviable status, but I think I will simply wish you never to experience a reversal of fortune or health, and probably also not to become a useless old mouth to feed.
Yes, benefit rates are decidced by each country, noit by Brussels or the EU as a whole.
...
These current maximum rates apply to an adult I know aged 31 with a significant learning disability who is living in his own tenancy and paying rent:
ADP: / PIP - £749.80p every 4 weeks
ESA - £281.10p every two weeks
Universal credit - £764..36 per month
As a state pensioner myself with an occupational pension I am living very well in the UK, as I own my 4 bedroomed detached own home and car.
Do these 3 benefits add up or do they apply to different situations?
If they add up, is this usual or exceptional ?
Thats the standard benefits available to an adult who needs constant care aged over 25 living independently with support. This adult also gets a personal budget to employ PA's for 24/7 the year around - worth around £140,000 a year. Its mainly due to having diabetes and needing regular monitoring and help managing that condition.
I pay in cash everywhere (except online). And when brick & mortar businesses don't accept cash, I leave Google Maps reviews stating that fact. 😏 Here's my latest: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Public+Room/@41.9899429,21.4233639,17z/data=!4m18!1m9!3m8!1s0x1354144de67331df:0xf0087225bdd525cd!2sPublic+Room!8m2!3d41.9899429!4d21.4259388!9m1!1b1!16s%2Fg%2F1tjd1q2n!3m7!1s0x1354144de67331df:0xf0087225bdd525cd!8m2!3d41.9899429!4d21.4259388!9m1!1b1!16s%2Fg%2F1tjd1q2n?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTExNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
I dislike cash. I used to run a very popular local festival attracting 5,000 people a year. The problem with cash handling is it's very expensive and dirty stuff to manage. If you've ever tried to take £15,000-£20,000 on a day and try to stash it in your car, and then try to get to the night deposit box of the bank, it's painful. It feels insecure, it feels dangerous, it feels dirty, and it takes a lot of time.
So I think, generally speaking, the move to cashless transactions is probably preferred by the vast majority of people. I accept your arguments in principle, but in practise, sorry, I just don't like cash. I don't use it very much at all.
And then just consider a large purchase like buying a car or a house. You know you might be dealing with hundreds of thousands of pounds. Well, there's no way you're going to take a large suitcase full of £100,000 to buy an expensive motor car or a small flat. It's just not going to happen, is it?
This argument about £15,000-20,000, or whatever you want to call it, seems particularly specious to me. You're reasoning "globally" from an exceptional situation. Even as a merchant, £15,000 in cash is unlikely to be an everyday occurrence (and if that's the case for you, you have the means to find a secure solution). Many merchants themselves complain about the transaction costs generated by digital payments.
And there are far fewer merchants than customers, so your argument is a class-based one.
Digital payments also have the perverse effect of decimating bank branches, leaving the older and less "digitally literate" people in a state of disarray... No, definitely not—with all due respect, I'm not buying it.
So armored cars with armed guards aren't your style? 😆 Why no, I've never tried to take £15,000-£20,000, stash it in my car, and then try to get to the night deposit box of the bank. That's good to know.
I guess, the answer, then, is that we have to prevent government overreach in the banking system. For example, in the states, with the "PATRIOT" Act, banks are required to ask all these ridiculously invasive questions when you open a bank account.
As far as large purchases, I've wired the money and avoided credit cards altogether. Credit cards are one way governments can exercise too much control. So yeah, I guess the real issue is government overreach, not payment method.
Armoured cars are a sensible solution - but clearly add a lot of transaction costs to cash handling. Cash is hard to count quickly, and dangerous to move around or store overnight - and it can be forged - so yes, I don't carry a lot of cash these days - just plastic money.
I understand your point of view. Just let's keep in mind that everything must be considered from different angles. A “unique” solution can't be the answer to a multitude of situations… and bears the risk of becoming a totalitarian tool , which seems to be the current trend…
(You have to sort by "newest" review).