I propose that the government introduce lump sums instead of cash registers.
The government seems to ignore this option and is pushing for the introduction of cash registers, despite the fact that lump-sum taxation is much more efficient and brings additional positive effects (limitation of the informal economy, predictability of tax revenues, limitation of unfair competition, simplification of business) compared to cash registers. How can a tax cash register be useful in a situation where no invoice has been issued? There are still a huge number of activities in which the majority of invoices are not issued. According to my information, flat-rate accounting is successfully used in neighbouring Austria and elsewhere. Does the Austrian system not seem good enough to be worth following?
I am awaiting an answer as to why the government prefers cash registers and what, in its opinion, are the advantages of cash registers over flat-rate schemes.
To avoid the unconstructive comments that have already been made on this subject, I would add this. The introduction of flat-rate taxes is not (or would not be) an additional tax, but just a different form of turnover tax, which the entrepreneur or company already pays anyway. The only difference is that some people do not issue invoices and thus do not pay tax, so their services may be cheaper and thus constitute unfair competition with those who do pay tax. For companies and entrepreneurs who already pay tax consistently, the tax burden could be even lower than it is now, as the state could collect a lower percentage of the revenue, but still collect more, because it would collect from everyone.