As the title says, lets talk about money, and how it could be treated differently by how much any single person holds onto it. What if the richest percentage hoarding it, if they were charged a nominal fee for holding onto it.

As we stand it doesn't really cost those who hold onto it.

In order to understand this idea better, it is helpful to
compare money to a railroad freight car which also helps
to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. In
contrast to governments which issue money, however,
the railroad company does not pay the user a premium to
unload the freight car and thereby bring it back into
"circulation" - instead the user pays a small per diem fee
if he or she does not unload it. This is all we would have
to do with money. The community or nation which
issues "new" money in order to help the exchange of
goods and services charges a small "parking" fee to the
user who holds on to new money longer than he or she
needs for exchange purposes. This change, simple as it
may seem, resolves the many societal problems caused
by interest and compound interest throughout history.
While interest nowadays is a private gain, the fee on the
use of money would be a public gain. This fee would have
to return into circulation in order to maintain the
balance between the volume of money and the volume of
economic activities.
The fee would serve as an income to the government, and thereby reduce the amount of
taxes needed to carry out public tasks.

userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/

They already avoid taxation via 'investment' App.

I'd like to see the same principle you mention applied to land tbh, the more you own the more you pay and it has to have zero loopholes.
Land abandoned by the wealthy could then be assigned to farmsteads in return for improvement and self sustenance.

Money bothers me less than physical wealth.

If such a party like Ukip could give the public the votes and jotes needed to do this kind of trial it could take back the land for the people.

During the 1930s, the Freiwirtschaft (free economy)
followers of Gesell's theory found opportunities to
initiate interest-free money projects, in order to
overcome unemployment and to demonstrate the validity
of their ideas. There were endeavours to introduce
free-money in Austria, France, Germany, Spain,
Switzerland, and the United States. One of the most
successful was in the town of Wörgl in Austria. (7)
Between 1932 and 1933, the small Austrian town of
Wörgl started an experiment which has been an
inspiration to all who have been concerned with the issue
of monetary reform up to this day. The town's mayor
convinced the business people and administrators that
they had a lot to gain and nothing to lose if they
conducted a monetary experiment in the way suggested
in Silvio Gesell's book "The Natural Economic Order".

People agreed and so the town council issued 32,000
"Work Certificates" or "Free Schillings" (i.e.,
interest-free Schillings), covered by the same amount of
ordinary Austrian Schillings in the bank. They built
bridges, improved roads and public services, and paid
salaries and materials with this money, which was
accepted by the butcher, the shoemaker, the baker.
The fee on the use of the money was 1% per month
or 12% per year. This fee had to be paid by the person
who had the banknote at the end of the month, in the
form of a stamp worth 1 % of the note and glued to its back.
Otherwise, the note was invalid. This small fee caused
everyone who got paid in Free Schillings to spend them
before they used their ordinary money. People even paid
their taxes in advance in order to avoid paying the small
fee. Within one year, the 32,000 Free Schillings
circulated 463 times, thus creating goods and services
worth over 14,816,000 Schillings. The ordinary
Schilling by contrast circulated only 21 times. (8)
At a time when most countries in Europe had severe
problems with decreasing numbers of jobs, Wörgl
reduced its unemployment rate by 25 % within this one
year. The fees collected by the town government which
caused the money to change hands so quickly amounted
to a total of 12% of 32,000 Free Schillings = 3,840
Schillings. This was used for public purposes.
When over 300 communities in Austria began to be
interested in adopting this model, the Austrian National
Bank saw its own monopoly endangered. It intervened
against the town council and prohibited the printing of
its local money. In spite of a long-lasting battle which
went right up to the Austrian Supreme Court, neither
Wörgl nor any other community in Europe has been able
to repeat the experiment up to the present day.

More here

userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/chap2.htm

App as that work is copyright it would be a prudent idea to place an acknowledgement and link back to it, to save yourself and SZ potential hassles.

Margrit Kennedy: Interest and Inflation Free Money
(Published by Seva International; ISBN 0-9643025-0-0;
Copyright 1995 by Margrit Kennedy)

I saw an interview with some actor the other day. He said that he lives a fairly extravagant lifestyle. Many if not most would look down on him for that but he 'justified' it thus. He said that he holds none of his earnings in reserve. He ploughs the lot back into the economy and thus is doing his bit to stimulate activity.
Whilst I don't ultimately see the need for a currency, I can see his point and I can see that it's similar to the idea the app is talking of here, that rather than reward stashing money away as we do, it would be better to encourage it's recirculation.
Good thread the app

dubmeup wrote:
Well, ironically enough with interest rates near zero then there is little point in hoarding it.
Unless ofc...you know something everyone else doesn't....

dubmeup wrote: I heard an interview with Danny Baker, and he said that he has absolutely no savings whatsoever, despite being a very successful DJ, and when he got cancer he had to ask Chris Evans if he could borrow some money because he wasn't working. He said that when he gets money he just spends it spontaneously on whatever he feels like at the time. He gave an example of when he went with New York with his family, he stayed in some presidential suite in New York that cost tens of thousands of dollars per night.

Actually, I just found this article, it was Desert Island Discs that he said this on:

www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/529...-the-bank-i-spend-it

I wish I could take that attitude to it, I'm the total opposite.

andyh wrote:
Yes, but hoard it people do. Usually in the form of bank accounts, ISA's etc. What do we do when we hoard it in that manner? We hand it over to the World's biggest criminals who are then not only free to invest it in any bloody thing they like (which doesn't usually involve ploughing it into the grass roots of an economy and often involves investing in high risk and ethically dubious schemes/practices) but are also free to FR the arse off of it....

dubmeup wrote:
I don't see many poor people hoarding money in ISA's tbh lol.
Generally speaking they don't have any savings whatsoever, not even so much a pension.

The middle classes? Perhaps, but they're dumb enough to leave it there even when interest rates are zero.

The rich have it invested in real wealth, be that up and coming business with insider knowledge or land or such vast physical wealth.

Like Mr Baker we have very few earings, our investment is in ourselves and our skills, which we have bartered freely and taught others to do the same. In this arena we are as a society slightly lacking and should and most definately do more.

Like the old saying goes, who's money is it really, when the whole comes to undestand just how much their zero percentage labour is worth, such monetary ideas would soon catch on, I would say they would be cueing up to do their share.

ISA's are still very popular andy, HSBC is currently chucking around 2% at you, tax free of course which whilst still a pittance is attractive to many in this 'economic climate'
Granted may of us live hand to mouth by necessity but you don't have to get very far up the earnings ladder before you start to see people hoarding in such ways.

dubmeup wrote:
2% is unacceptable. You can make far more than 2% at car boot sales ffs lol.

Agreed

andyh wrote:
When I make a pair of shoes for ourselves the savings to us are in the 100 of percents, same goes for anything we do in the garden food wise, the people who exploit the fashion trade etc are taking both the eyes and sockets from maker and end user.

If I could use zero credits as my payment for supplies bought, I would never allow usery notes again.

The Apprentice wrote:
Indeed.
The trick is in convincing enough people to accept the money, that it is in their interest to do so.

Agreed H, we know many that do this regularly, all have alternatives to use as collateral, many are professionals looking for an alternative, trading skills for skills is how they can get this avenue rolling, the more who recognise their fellow makers and menders of things, the faster the fat cats will be allowed to starve in isolation.

The fat cats will shortly digitize money and in collusion with govt it will be the only legal tender.
No-one will trade save they have the mark.

Not if the machine suddenly stopped, to allow nature to be digitized would be tateramount to digitally cleansing the paradigm thereafter, the ultimate digital eugenics of mankind, it won't work.

Electricity and water don't mix, lol.

The Apprentice wrote:
Then may it rain on their parade
With any luck they'll put the database server in Ireland, lol!!

I refuse to belive it is a foregone conclusion H, although judging by the lack of debate or maybe the timing on this eve, there is still time to give things a little further BOTD.

More here

userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/chap6.htm