The Spring Statement presentation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the UK parliament argues to ban cash-in-hand payments including all those ranging from large tradesmen to babysitters.
Officials fear that citizens are using cash-in-hand payments to avoid taxes and criminals are operating in hiding facilitated by cash. The would-be newly generated revenues are estimated to be around £3.5 Billion GBP from the underground economy. The plan proposes that all workers maintain a written record of all work done in exchange for cash so they may be taxed at their respective individual rate. This policy reiterates the 2015 thoughts of former shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, who pontificated that he always maintains a written record because ‘it is the right thing to do’.
The statement considers countries that have similar policies such as France, Belgium and Spain that impose cash movement limits up to £13,000 GBP. Ministers and business leaders were quick to point out that these regulations could have the opposite effect and actually hurt innocent people more than they help. Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at accountancy trade body ACCA even said that “we must be cognizant that we don’t want to [sic] things to become unnecessarily bureaucratic”.
War on cash
Governments fear of cash is nothing new and has been brewing for awhile, most famously with Kenneth Rogoff. Rogoff, along with other economists, believe a cashless economy will not only get rid of tax evaders and criminals, but also allow for more extensive monetary policy, including negative interest rates. A variation of the theory was implemented in late 2016 by India’s Prime Minister Modi who wanted to crack down on tax evaders and criminal networks using large denomination bills. The result had the opposite effect and hurt the poor and small businesses the most since many in India rely on cash and do not have bank accounts. One account even details a citizen paying a rickshaw driver in rice due to the lack of available cash. The debacle lead to numerous public critiques of the policy theory and implementation including comedic relief that demonstrated the law’s futility.
The British proposal appears to stop short of eliminating cash and leans more towards requiring all cash payments to be recorded and taxed appropriately. Nevertheless, the British also face theoretical and implementation obstacles since they do not address how they plan to enforce compliance of mandating that written receipts accompany cash-in-hand payments, which they already cannot fully track. Forms of policy that aim to regulate cash is a questionable theory that leads to even more questions for implementation. Cash has been an escape for individuals to conduct business freely and pass on savings to consumers, but as governments leverage more power over currencies, the market has provided cryptocurrencies as a new and better alternative choice.
Dash serves consumers’ wishes
Dash strives to satisfy the demands of consumers by offering an easy to use cryptocurrency that is also open about its development and allows easy access for anyone to enter the user, marketing, and/or development community. Dash allows dual-use: privacy heavy use via PrivateSend, but also regular use via normal blockchain verification. Dash has integrations with numerous partners around the world to meet a plethora of consumer desires. Yes, there are speculative investors within the crypto space, but if consumers want an additional reliable option to compliment cash then Dash is here to provide said services, which sets Dash apart from other more speculative cryptocurrencies.
Dash does not actively enable illicit activities no more than cash does. The threat of criminality encourages governments to regulate cash, but as India exemplifies, good intentions does not mean good results. Criminals will continue to exist and law abiding citizens will be the ones hurt the most. Dash was created to help people where the current government cash and electronic banking system has failed them. The effects of regulations on cryptocurrencies will yield similar results to regulations on cash; harming those that need help the most.