>>Untraceable money is far more likely to lead to centralization of power, because it allows the already wealthy to act unaccountably. How do you keep the peop

>>Untraceable money is far more likely to lead to centralization of power, because it allows the already wealthy to act unaccountably. How do you keep the people collecting all of this information accountable? Information asymmetries that this kind of mass-surveillance creates ultimately leads to power disparities, and there is no way to police the information collectors to prevent them from profiting off of it. Just look at the Snowden revelations. He speaks of LOVEINT, where agents would on intimate partners. It was a practice so common it had its own term coined for it. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We have no idea how this information is being used, and how it's contributing to all sorts of social, economic and political disparities. And unlike the business world, where individuals begin to face diseconomies of scale as the size of their portolio of businesses/investments grows beyond their ability to actively manage them, and the number of investment targets that can absorb their wealth diminishes [1], growing concentrations of political power begets even more political power, as the state's monopoly on violence requires no sophistication to scale up. >>With untraceable money you'd never know this. Or you'd have to limit yourself to "declared income", which would be effectively voluntary. Untraceable money does not mean an income tax can't be collected. The act of earning income doesn't become untraceable by virtue of the government not being able to swoop in and monitor every transaction without a warrant. And frankly, if an income tax did require warrantless mass-surveillance of the population's financial interactions, to effectively collect, then it would be better to replace it with another form of taxation which didn't. [1] https://youtu.be/2Qq8GZjmHqw?t=120 https://youtu.be/2Qq8GZjmHqw?t=120