preview

Loss Of Identity Theft In A Cashless Society

Decent Essays

Eva is a single mother who works two jobs to provide for her children. Her ex-husband Rick was a deadbeat who did not do his job and left her when money was stretched to thin. Unfortunately, Eva’s monetary situation was endangered when she was one of the countless victims of identity theft in a cashless society. Eva now has to start all over on earning money because there is no way to prove her innocence. In a cashless society, Eva would be one of them many examples of all the damage a lack of physical cash would cause. Obviously, eliminating cash detrimentally impacts hard working people, like Eva, for innumerous reasons. Society wants to promote a cashless society, oblivious to the obvious detriments to society. One of the possible risks …show more content…

With the installment of money in a centralized place leaves a perfect breeding grounds for thieves to gain money. Money could also be easily hacked from online accounts, wiping out all of one account in an instant. Thieves would now have a new playground that would allow them to evade the law and potentially steal millions. Logically, the government would not be able to convict every criminal or help citizens stay safe from these stealthy attacks. No one would be safe, with the chaotic uncertainty of how to move on once all the money is taken from a person at one time. Another problem that people would have to face is the lack of privacy created by the ability of the government to track citizen spending. Overall, society tends to want to keep privacy and with “unprecedented access to information and power over citizens.” making citizens vulnerable to government bullying (Winkler 5). Citizens should not have to disclose all of their spending details, that reveal about their personal lives to the government. Without cash, society would not be able to gauge what information people should know. When all transactions happen through technology there would be no …show more content…

The opposition states that people will save money in a cashless society. The opposition states that people would have an added cost benefit by switching to a cashless society. Lombardo states that people “The ink, paper and even the designs… have associated costs with them..” and these costs will go away and not be replaced in a cashless society (10). This is an oversimplification fallacy because these are not the only costs associated with money. Furthermore, these costs do not automatically vanish with no cost successor. In fact there are costs to a cashless society, like the technology that is the replacement in the transaction. The opposition does not take into account that technology costs money to make and maintain because that will be the predecessor to cash. Society would be at the same expenditure because the maintaining of the new ways to pay would cost the same as using money. This leads to a neutrality in cost savings in which both sides are equal. Another reason the opposition gives is that other countries are heading toward a cashless society. The opposition insists “China has made more progress than the U.S in transitioning citizens to mobile wallets…” (LaMagna 7). This is a bandwagon statement because China and the United States are not the same, yet the author wants to put them in the same group. This bandwagon especially falls flat because China is

Get Access