All money that changes hands purely because of existing laws (as distinct from free exchange) counts as "tax".
Selection Votes 
Agree 80%69 
Don't agree 20%17 
86 votes total 
pollcode.com free polls


Create a free poll!

Comments Left About This Poll


Showing comments 1-4 of 4.

 From AntiCitizenOne on December 6, 2009 at 5:11 pm.  IP Logged, 81.2.66.x  Report Abuse 
 
I'm quite in favour of Debt licensing as I beleive that Credit is often sold in a way that catches alot of people out.

Surely a contract to be valid should benefit both parties?

     From Mark Wadsworth in reply to AntiCitizenOne on December 7, 2009 at 7:22 am.  IP Logged, 87.82.125.x  Report Abuse 
     
    AC1: "...a contract to be valid should benefit both parties"?

    No, why? Or else stupid people wouldn't be allowed to enter into contracts. Quite clearly some contracts disadvantage one party, which is just tough AFAIAC.

 From AntiCitizenOne on December 6, 2009 at 2:41 pm.  IP Logged, 81.2.66.x  Report Abuse 
 
I disagree. I suppose it depends on your definition of purely.
     From Mark Wadsworth in reply to AntiCitizenOne on December 6, 2009 at 4:33 pm.  IP Logged, 82.29.122.x  Report Abuse 
     
    The main reason I inserted "purely" was to distinguish it from people who refuse to pay their debts and have the debt enforced in court.

    If the original debt arose from a freely negotiated exchange, then the court (i.e. the law) is serving a useful purpose, and the money changes hands only "partly" because of the law, and not "purely" because of it.



Add a Comment


Your Name:


Comment:
 
By posting, you confirm that you have read and
agree to be bound by Pollcode's terms of service.

Polls and their results are subject to error and are for entertainment only. Pollcode does not pre-screen the content of polls created by Pollcode customers.