[vsundar]

> India does have very large middle class population and most of their income is unaccounted.

At least until Nov 2016, wouldn't this income have been cash given that cash transactions accounted for 95+% of transactions[1]? (Percentage by total amount would have been useful too but I couldn't find that stat.) If these were 'unaccounted' then demonetization would have caught that. But only 1% of banned currency wasn't deposited (as of Aug 2017) [2]. The initial estimates given were for about 20% to not show up [3]. That didn't turn out to be the case.

So while I'm sure there is unaccounted income, I'm not sure this is most of the income of a very large middle class.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/12/14/inside-i...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetis...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/12/10/indias-c...

[ravirajx7]

Very good point but i believe the cash in hand doesn't account for all the money you have.

There are many facets for accountability. And I don't think that any middle class person having more cash in hand while exchanging his cash could potentially prove that his money is accountable because there exist some form of money which he has given to some other person or may be has invested in some business.

My point is by totalling out just the amount of cash maybe 5-10k rupees the income cannot be accounted.

[vsundar]

> .. the cash in hand doesn't account for all the money you have.

Yes, but your original point I was addressing wasn't about all the money you have but specifically income.

My point is that income is coming from some transactions and 95% of transactions were cash based pre Nov 2017. And only 1% of cash outstanding was unaccounted for after demonetization.

> My point is by totalling out just the amount of cash maybe 5-10k rupees the income cannot be accounted.

Sorry don't understand what this means.

But this is probably moot now.