dailymail.co.uk
Australia urged to phase out cash to curb \$10 billion tax evasion
Professor Richard Holden proposes a three-year phase-out of cash in Australia to combat a \$10 billion annual loss in GST revenue due to tax evasion, while Reserve Bank officials express concerns about the viability of the nation's cash distribution system.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of Australia's black economy, and how would phasing out cash mitigate them?
- Australia's black economy costs the government \$10 billion annually in GST revenue, impacting workers' tax relief. Professor Richard Holden advocates for a three-year cash phase-out to combat this, starting with eliminating larger denomination bills.
- How are the challenges faced by Armaguard, Australia's primary cash delivery firm, connected to the broader debate about cash usage?
- This proposal links to broader concerns about the viability of Australia's cash distribution system, with Armaguard, the main cash delivery firm, facing financial difficulties. The Reserve Bank acknowledges challenges in maintaining cash access given declining usage and geographic distribution issues.
- What are the potential long-term societal and infrastructural implications of a complete cash phase-out in Australia, and how can these be addressed?
- The future of cash in Australia hinges on balancing the need to curb tax evasion with maintaining access for vulnerable populations. A potential solution involves leveraging Australia Post outlets for digital payment kiosks, addressing concerns about bank branch closures and ATM reductions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately present Professor Holden's argument for phasing out cash as a strong and viable solution. This framing sets the tone for the article, prioritizing his perspective and potentially influencing the reader to view his position more favorably. The counterarguments, while present, are presented in a less prominent way, diminishing their impact. The use of quotes from Professor Holden, strategically placed throughout the article, further emphasizes his viewpoint.
Language Bias
The article uses language that occasionally favors Professor Holden's perspective. Phrases like "tax cheats" and "playing politics" carry negative connotations, subtly undermining the opposing viewpoints. While the article attempts to present both sides, the use of such loaded language tilts the balance towards supporting Professor Holden's position. More neutral phrasing such as "individuals who underreport income" instead of "tax cheats" could improve neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the arguments for phasing out cash, primarily from Professor Holden's perspective. Counterarguments, beyond the mention of the Treasurer's proposed cash mandate and the ABA's statements, are limited. The concerns of those who rely on cash, particularly the elderly and those in remote areas, are mentioned but not explored in depth. The potential impact on small businesses that primarily rely on cash transactions is also largely absent. This omission could leave readers with a skewed view of the issue, neglecting the potential negative consequences of a cashless society.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as a simple choice between phasing out cash to combat tax evasion versus maintaining the status quo. It largely ignores the complexities of transitioning to a cashless society, including the potential for increased financial exclusion, security risks associated with digital transactions, and the disruption to businesses that rely on cash. The discussion is oversimplified, lacking nuance and alternative viewpoints.
Sustainable Development Goals
Phasing out cash can reduce tax evasion, which disproportionately affects lower-income individuals and groups who may rely more on cash transactions. This could lead to a more equitable distribution of tax burdens and public resources.