"There's no hope boys. Lay down your arms and let them have the women and children."

You're hemorrhaging rep points because you are in fact glib and are not seriously participating in the discussion.

The definition of "fact" is also not present in this thread yet you still need to know it before jumping into a discussion. Much like the other concepts you are arguing here, starting with misunderstanding the simple concepts laid out in the first line of the study. The more things you expect to have presented for you during the conversation, the more likely it is you shouldn't actually be in it.

You expect to throw the proverbial stone in the lake and everyone else to jump in and give you decades worth of education all neatly packed in a comment. Well you just got the conclusion from multiple users. Flailing about that we didn't support our opinion like it was a PhD thesis while you yourself just throw some inflammatory opinions with no qualified support inside or outside of this forum, and worse you remove text after posting, just confirms that you're not only unqualified for the discussion but are very likely carrying it in bad faith.

I don't think that is what was meant, but I'll bite.

Ideally, yes. The trade-off in the cost of this supervision vs the value of the potential fraud (both of tax evasion and for the parties involved in the transaction) must be considered, though.

And then you wouldn't have to do tax returns.....

I think of it more as a game of rugby. Everyone on the field knows the rules, they are all there of their own free will, they have the chance to make money.

You need a referee, because if you don't have one pretty quickly everything descends into a brawl. The biggest "win" the fight, but there is no game, there is nothing for the audience (economy) and only the largest, meanest players can contribute in any way. All the value from the skilled quick players is lost, in fact all the value is lost. Next week, no one turns up.