Comment: It's a little more equitable too for people that might

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Well I guess in the future it (see in situ)

It's a little more equitable too for people that might

come up short. If you voluntarily pay for serves, such as we do for telephone service or something, and you happen to go broke and can't make payment, you can stop the service, negotiate some sort of an agreement or just get cut off. The phone company stops providing a service you can't afford anymore and then comes after you for just what you owe. So, the losses get mitigated from both sides. The service provider stops taking a loss and the buyer gets to reorient their life and prioritize with what they can afford and only have to pay the debts already incurred. But when the government charges you taxes for services and you can't pay, because you lose your job or go senile with old age, you can't just cut off the services to help mitigate your damages. They just pile it on and compound it until they foreclose on your home or garnish your wages in perpetuity.