The UPI Controversy Is About More Than a Transaction Charge

UPI, Taxation and Government Debt: When Finance Becomes the Economy

---

India's UPI has been one of the most remarkable pieces of economic infrastructure created in recent years.

It has transformed payments, brought enormous volumes of transactions into the formal, traceable economy and dramatically reduced dependence on cash.

That achievement should itself be recognised as an economic gain.

Yet the current controversy over introducing a charge on certain UPI transactions raises a much larger question:

Why do we so readily look at financial infrastructure in terms of the revenue it can generate, while failing to recognise the real economic value it creates?

The government says the proposed charge is not a tax on UPI users and that merchants should not pass it on to consumers. That may be the immediate administrative position.

But that is not the important economic question.

The important question is why we instinctively try to put a price on every financial transaction, even when the infrastructure supporting that transaction is creating enormous benefits for the economy as a whole.

UPI has helped convert millions of transactions from an unrecorded cash economy into an accounted economy. That means better records, greater transparency, easier business transactions and a stronger information base for economic activity.

That is itself valuable.

Why should the success of such a system necessarily be measured by whether each transaction can generate a fee?

A UPI payment is, at its core, a transfer of bank credit from one bank account to another. When I pay you ₹10,000, the deposit in my account is reduced and the deposit in your account is increased. The bank credit has moved; it has not been consumed.

That credit remains within the banking system. The deposit is a liability of the bank and forms part of the Net Demand and Time Liabilities (NDTL) against which banks are required to maintain their Cash Reserve Ratio. The RBI's current Directions explicitly define demand deposits as bank liabilities and prescribe CRR as a percentage of NDTL. 

In other words, the banking system carries the credit, while the payment system facilitates its transfer. The bank receiving the credit acquires an additional deposit and the corresponding settlement funds, adding to its balance-sheet resources and providing the basis for earning income through its banking activities.

So, in the case of UPI, why should the value of the bank credit being transferred become the basis for charging a percentage of the transaction?

There is an even deeper irony here.

India already operates enormous payment and settlement infrastructure as part of its monetary system. RBI's RTGS settles payments in central-bank money and provides eligible participants with intraday liquidity to ensure that temporary mismatches in their fund flows do not disrupt settlement. This is not merely a payment facility; it is an integral part of the monetary system. RBI itself waived its RTGS processing charges in 2019. 

The scale is extraordinary. According to the RBI's August 2026 Payment System Indicators, India's payment systems processed ₹323.72 Lakh Crore of payments in a single month - June 2026. RTGS alone accounted for nearly ₹230 Lakh Crore, while UPI accounted for ₹28.92 Lakh Crore. 

The contrast is striking. Within the same monetary system, the central bank provides intraday zero-cost liquidity to ensure that payment and settlement can take place smoothly, while UPI transactions are now being considered as a source of transaction revenue.

That raises a much more fundamental question: if the payment and settlement system process hundreds of trillions of rupees every month as essential economic infrastructure, why should UPI payments themselves be viewed primarily as something from which revenue must be extracted?

UPI & Bank Earnings – Key Takeaways

Annual UPI value is now ~₹348 lakh crore.

Daily average ≈ ₹95,000–1 lakh crore.

Most of this volume is former cash transactions that have moved into the formal banking system. Even with high velocity (lower stickiness), the money largely stays within banks.

Float benefit:

For every ₹1 lakh crore of sticky low-cost deposits, banks can earn roughly ₹3,000 crore per year (at ~3% net spread). Higher holdings or multiplier effects increase this further.

MDR context (from 15 Oct 2026):

0.4% on eligible P2M transactions above ₹2,000.

Estimated annual pool: ₹15,000–20,600 crore for the entire ecosystem. Banks get the majority share.

Yes Bank (dominant PSP) and SBI (largest issuer) are among the bigger beneficiaries.

Bottom line:

The structural gains to banks from formalising cash flows and expanding transaction activity are substantially larger than the limited revenue the MDR aims to recover. Banks have already been earning far more from the UPI-driven shift into the banking system than the new fee will generate.

The same thinking dominates taxation

This is not peculiar to UPI.

It reflects a much deeper way in which we have come to think about the economy.

Take taxation.

We normally look at taxation from one perspective:

How much money did the government collect?

But taxation is not costless.

A vast institutional structure exists simply to assess, collect and enforce taxes.

There are tax departments, officials, assessment systems, filing systems, audits, enforcement machinery, information technology, accountants, auditors, tax consultants, lawyers, tribunals and courts.

Businesses themselves maintain large compliance systems. Individuals and professionals spend enormous amounts of time dealing with tax compliance and disputes.

All of these require real resources—people, skills, buildings, technology, electricity, professional services and time.

Those resources could have been employed elsewhere.

That is the real resource cost of the taxation system.

Yet our economic accounting generally focuses almost entirely on the financial amount collected.

The ₹1,000 crore collected is visible.

The resources consumed to collect it—and the alternative uses of those resources—are largely invisible.

Government debt has the same problem

Government borrowing is similarly viewed almost entirely through financial numbers.

We ask:

How much money did the government raise through bond sales?

But government borrowing also requires an institutional and financial infrastructure: debt-management offices, auctions, dealers, settlement systems, custodians, legal and accounting systems, regulatory structures and a whole financial market built around government securities.

These too consume real resources.

And there is another question.

What would those financial resources have been doing if they had not been directed into government securities?

Perhaps they would have financed private investment, working capital or other economic activity.

The point is not that government bonds are necessarily undesirable.

They can have legitimate monetary and financial functions.

The point is that their financial function should not obscure their real economic consequences.

We have reversed the relationship between finance and the economy

This is the deeper problem.

Finance is supposed to serve the economy.

Instead, increasingly, the economy is being organised around finance.

We ask:

• How much tax can be collected?
• How much debt can be raised?
• What is the government's borrowing requirement?
• How can a payment system generate revenue?
• How can financial transactions be monetised?

These are all financial questions.

But they are not the fundamental economic questions.

The fundamental questions are:

What can people produce?

What productive capacity exists?

What resources are lying unused or underused?

What infrastructure is required?

What skills and labour are available?

What goods and services can be produced?

What alternative uses of resources will government action displace?

That is the real economy.

Money is not the resource

This distinction becomes especially important under a modern sovereign monetary system.

A sovereign currency issuer does not face the same financial constraint as a household, business or sub-national entity that must obtain someone else's money before it can spend.

The fundamental constraint is not the availability of money.

It is the availability of real resources.

People.

Labour.

Skills.

Land.

Materials.

Energy.

Technology.

Infrastructure.

Productive capacity.

Money is the mechanism through which these resources are mobilised and allocated.

Once we understand that, the question surrounding government finance changes fundamentally.

Instead of asking:

“Where will the government get the money?”

we should first ask:

“What real resources does the government intend to mobilise, and what will those resources produce?”

Taxation and bond sales then become instruments with particular economic purposes—not the source of the resources that make government action possible.

Taxation may be useful when government needs to reduce private purchasing power, redistribute income or influence behaviour.

Bond sales may serve monetary-policy and portfolio-management purposes.

But neither should be confused with the physical resources that ultimately make development possible.

The opportunity cost is what matters

Suppose a government wants to build a hospital.

The real question is not whether the Treasury has accumulated enough money to pay for it.

The real questions are:

Are there doctors, nurses, engineers and construction workers available?

Are steel, cement, equipment and medicines available?

Is there sufficient electricity and water?

What other activity would have used those resources?

If the resources are idle or underutilised, government spending can mobilise them with relatively little displacement of existing activity.

If the economy is already operating at full capacity, government spending may compete with existing users and generate price pressures.

That is the real economic constraint.

The same principle applies to taxation.

The real cost of taxation is not simply the tax collected. It includes the resources withdrawn from private use and the resources consumed by the machinery required to impose, administer and enforce the tax.

The same principle applies to government debt.

The financial transaction is not the economy.

The resources mobilised, used and displaced are the economy.

And this brings us back to UPI

Perhaps the most useful lesson from the UPI controversy is therefore not whether a particular transaction should attract a particular charge.

It is that we should reconsider what we regard as an economic cost and an economic benefit.

If an enormous public digital infrastructure helps millions of people transact efficiently, formalises economic activity and creates an accountable record of transactions, its value cannot be captured simply by asking:

“How much revenue can we earn from each transaction?”

Likewise, the value of taxation cannot be measured simply by the amount collected.

And the value or cost of government borrowing cannot be understood simply by the amount of debt issued.

The financial system is an instrument.

The real economy is the objective.

When we forget that distinction, finance gradually becomes the economy in our thinking—even though finance itself produces neither food nor houses, neither roads nor hospitals, neither machines nor human skills.

It merely helps organise the claims on the things that the real economy produces.

That is why the UPI controversy is about much more than a transaction charge.

It is an opportunity to ask a much larger question:

Have we become so focused on managing money that we have forgotten to manage the real economy?

---

Rajendra Rasu
The author writes on monetary systems and political economy