My proposition of a "Dual Currency" system v.03

Here's an argument: (I formulated it this way when I watched the 2021 Berkshire Hathaway's Shareholder meeting)

If Communism doesn't work because it failed to attribute rewards to the contributors, (capitalists being those who saved up resources instead of consuming them and instead of consuming them in the future after they've accumulated, they risked it in assets or businesses to benefit the market) and communist economies failed because they won't reward the capitalists as well as not prioritizing the importance of rewards for contributors as the strong growth factor of the economy...

Then in order to maintain and enhance the prosperity of an economy, a country must favor the principal of rewarding the sources of solutions respectfully. 

Now, if that's the case then the welfare program, as well as the escalating rates of taxes were against this logic of what's positive for the economy. Welfares were given under the reason of poverty, not out of contributions, therefore people who managed to elevated their own income would've been worse off than when they were still poor, or unable to raise the income level, because they would've lost the welfare if they decided to keep up their income level. In the case of escalating taxes it is similar even though milder, for when one has achieved a certain threshhold of salaries (usually due to excellence in contributions), the government "penalized" them with higher rate of taxes. 

Such were the arguments, mind that such in all was not a statement of my position on the issue, I'm just presenting the arguments. 

These arguments are not saying that the government or the people don't deserve the taxes nor the poor people don't deserve the welfare, I'm just trying to present a logical probem where it demonstrated hindrance for one's economy from performing better. There might very well be a counter argument to this that's True. 

-----------------

Now in case the problem is real, how would one mitigate it?

A dual currency system could be an alternative solution:
Step one adopt a cryptocurrency,
Step two tax every transactions using the cryptocurrency but such tax would be the only form of tax in relation to it. 

There you go, that's the solution. For in every transactions that happened in an economy using official governmental currencies, there's definitely the government's contribution there, good governance. That's what gives a governmental currency their value, albeit people's acknowledgement, but where did all of the acknowledgements came from? It came from the government's work of keeping the country safe, politically stable, people are helpful, smart, and willing to respect each other's "properties". Otherwise people would never be willing live under the government, in the long term.

So I think, such tax is better than the traditional way of taxing. Lets say that everyday people bought a sack of rice and the government took 0.1% of it. Within 1000 transactions of sacks of rice the government would've gotten 1 sack of rice, if a country had 1.000.000 people and everyday they traded 50.000 sacks of rice then the government would've made 50 sacks of rice everyday just from rice transactions alone. Now this is just a low estimate because the taxation cared not whether it is for productive purposes or for consumption purposes, every transactions were taxed and that's it. So imagine the potential, while at the same time the legitimacy, while at the same time the prevention of a type of money laundering. So good of an idea isn't it? if all the premises were true.

What happened to the regular paper currencies? I think the usual system could still be applied. I'm not about drastic revolutionary changes of the economy, especially based off of something that's too new. In this case this is more like an add on rather than a revolution.

Oh and in the case of welfare the government should acknowledge that the presence of people constitutes the presence of justice. It is much more desirable to live among the mass rather than to be secluded in a nowhere place. People's presence alone are contributions to each other, therefore the longer a person lived the more they've contributed to justice (unless there were crimes then likely those are negative contributions). So implement UBI but unequal UBI based on people's ages, the older they got the more they earn. Such UBI could relieve the burden from companies (minimum wages) and they could focus on being evolutionarily getting more and more effective and efficient at what they do. 

Such UBI also could be implemented gradually, starting from 100 years old people, as the countries' prosperity increased, they could increase the trickling down to younger and younger ages.