Counterfeiting

[TheDrake]

Been reading a little bit lately about the ongoing exchange of one pound coins in the UK.

As many as 1 in 30 coins in the old design were counterfeit, according to the Royal bank.

It seems there were large scale counterfeiters behind this.

It makes me wonder if the US had a higher value coin, would this be more prevalent?

Also, does this suggest a move to fully electronic currency in the future? It would certainly curb criminal enterprise and tax evasion, but also raises questions of privacy. It could even have an impact on the hiring of illegal labor, either people not authorized to work in the US or people operating outside of labor rules, like overtime. What would happen to people who rely on tips for their income, suddenly they would get hit with a much higher tax bill.

This would happen gradually over time, and we're seeing it in places like India. In the US, proposals have been made to eliminate the $100 bill.

[NobleHunter]

I think it depends on how well the new coin resists counterfeiting. If it works as intended, then it won't spur further change. The old 1 pound coin was 30 years old so it's not likely to spur innovation past today's currency standards.

Adopting a purely non-physical currency poses an interesting question regarding the influence of criminal priorities in government decisions. A lot of SF posits that the desire for untraceable transactions will win out over a desire for efficiency or control. The US will almost certainly be the last Western country to adopt a non-physical currency even if the rest of the world goes ahead with it.

[Fenring]

There is a question of how it could possibly be established to keep the government from observing all of a person's transactions if they were paperless, because you know they would. Then there's the question of whether they maybe should be monitoring them in the first place. It seems like an invasion of privacy, but on the other hand is it inherently wrong to suppose that the government should have a record of transactions for tax purposes? The trust system can only work so well and seems a bit inefficient. My beef is that if government is going to have access to financial data then I would like to know that there isn't monetary incentive for them. As of now there certainly is and I would see that as a real problem. It's like asking whether I would like the police to have a constant monitor of the speed of my car. I certainly would not! Conflict of interest city.

[TheDrake]

That's always the issue with privacy from the government. Sure, there's lots of legitimate reasons to follow money flow with respect to crime prevention, including tax evasion. Then there's the fact that with the right access and lack of controls, somebody could leak how a public official or political opponent was spending their money. Why has the congressman been down to the bunny ranch three times a week? Or otential abusive policing like "who's been to both the home depot and sent money to Mexico?"