zero fees is unrealistic, any such system has costs.

The government generally funds its projects via taxes; zero fees is perfectly realistic.

So, in the end you pay the same, but indirectly. And then this needs to dispute for funding with a bazillion of other government programs in the politically charged environment of budgetary allocations. Wouldn't it be better to have this program directly funded by its users? wouldn't it be more transparent?

Mind you, I am not sure I am right and you're wrong. I am just pointing some concerns I have. And on the other side, your proposal makes sense also in the point that the government always financed the cost of the whole coins and banknotes stuff from the general budget.

But who are we fooling here? The lobbying power from the payments industry is mind-boggling, maybe bigger than the one from the Defense Industry. They would never allow a government payments program that eliminated their role as middleman.

I'm not sure what your objection is; this is a solved problem.

You don't get charged $0.05 per paper bill by the government every time you go to the ATM. Similarly, you don't get charged by the fire department if it puts out a blaze in your home. So:

> Wouldn't it be better to have this program directly funded by its users? wouldn't it be more transparent?

Absolutely not. This goes against the entire ethos of government, which is that we collectively pay taxes, progressively, for the services that benefit society as a whole.

And if supplying and managing cash isn't a core government service, then I don't know what is. Even the most extreme libertarians and anarchists are going to agree on that one.

I do not agree. Making coins of known weight and purity or metals is a role of government. Supplying cash is not. Cash is a poor substitute for money. Cash is no different than monopoly money.