Quote:
|
i think it was the assumption of guilt rather than the tax itself which caused controversy.
|
Yes, you are right. But this got even stranger with the new law prohibiting copying media for private use - I still have to pay that tax, so the government is essentially assuming that I am breaking the law (and to believe that they actually certified that I am trustworthy (and law-abiding) enough to handle explosives ...)
Perhaps one should start a case of defamation
--edit:
I mean - if you would apply the "presumption of innocence" and a tax differing between "media used for copying" and "other media" - you would actually have to pay that tax for nearly none medias (and that's why it is indiscriminating...)
Oh well, who ever heared of a tax or cession abolished after the original meaning has been lost? (For Germans: Sparkling wine tax ... established to pay for WW1
)