In any case, when governments confiscate resources from the people via taxation, the sort of wealth redistribution that Mr. Obama and other statists are avidly defending cannot be avoided. Taking their wealth and handing it out to some citizens for various purposes simply involves redistributing that wealth, period, be it justified or not.

Government’s redistribution of the citizens’ wealth is unavoidable unless taxation is abolished. Even the most minimal of taxation brings about such redistribution.

Tax efficient equity-based plans, eh? Like those used by investment bankers perchance? Gauke must have made a success of finding “innovative solutions” to reducing his clients’ tax bills as he appears to be held in high regard by his former colleagues:

Guido thinks Gauke should look in the mirror the next time he thinks about lecturing us on the morality of taxation…

ACCI’s director of economics and industry policy, Greg Evans, said yesterday the purpose of the carbon tax was to introduce a price signal into the market, but the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission was trying to prevent businesses from attributing increases to the impost.

“It’s basically saying to business: don’t attribute price rises to the carbon tax, otherwise we’ll come after you,” he said.

I've not really made up my mind as yet, just rethinking my position. But it could be that Pigou Taxation just won't work because of politics. In the same way that Keynesian economics doesn't because of politicians: even if the entire economic analysis is correct there is never the political will in the booms to put aside money for the busts. And so it is with Pigou Taxes. They are correct in theory, of that there's no doubt.

But giving a politician a justification for a new tax is like giving a child a loaded machine gun: noisy, dangerous and very definitely a very bad idea.

If everybody agrees that the laundering cannot be stopped or reversed, what is the aim of the legislation?

Is it possible that the only purpose of this legislation is to make sure that the state has more control over its citizens and is enriched with one more possibility to stop and arrest a citizen when the state decides to do so?

If that is so, making people afraid to possess cash, is an excellent means to achieve that purpose.

The ultimate aim of many governments seems to be the removal of cash from their society.

In Amsterdam I can no longer park a car without inserting a credit card or prepaid voucher into a machine which registers the number plate and the time of my arrival and departure.

As a consequence the government is able to check, how many times I have parked my car in a certain street and how long I have stayed there.

In modern times, in order to make it seem that the non-payment of taxes and the hiding of undeclared money and assets is a despicable thing, the term money laundering was invented in addition to the existing terms of tax avoidance and tax evasion.

The term money laundering has been launched in order to divert attention from the fact that in the majority of the cases the money which a central authority has tried to steal from a person who has made it. It is a natural reaction for the damaged party to endeavour to protect what the government has tried to embezzle.