> Well there's the issue, isn't it? The government has to know your identity unless you're committing a crime. Depends how much you earn. Below a threshold it’

> Well there's the issue, isn't it? The government has to know your identity unless you're committing a crime. Depends how much you earn. Below a threshold it’s entirely legal to earn income and report nothing to HMRC. Taking the stance that anyone not reporting to HMRC is tax-evading would turn the whole idea of due-process and “innocent until prove that guilty” on its head. The government should be forced to substantiate its accusations with evidence, and a lack of any record is not evidence of a crime. > > The government has an interest in many things. Doesn’t necessarily mean that individuals share that interest and should capitulate. > This isn't an argument against the government knowing who its citizens are. Isn’t it? Governments should exist to serve their citizens, not the opposite (at least in a democracy). If a population don’t want their government to know who they are, that their prerogative. Nothing inherently gives a government a right to know who it’s citizens are, it might be useful and even necessary to provide certain services, but it’s for the people to decide what the trade off is, not government. > Why should we be providing any service to anybody without having any information about them? Yeah, that’s like my entire point. The other side of that coin is “why should citizens provide any information to government with they don’t want to use their services?”. > So one person can show up and collect the same benefits 10x at the expense of everyone else? Don’t know how you got to this conclusion. It totally reasonable for a government to make access to benefits dependent on providing basic identity information to prevent abuse. But if someone doesn’t want to access benefits, then why should they need hand over identity information? Equally if those benefits can be provided with collecting the information, then why should it be handed over? I should need to hand over my ID so an NHS doctor can fix my broken leg. > At a BARE MINIMUM the government has to know your identity to determine your eligiblity to vote and to levy taxes. And both of those are so fundamental and important that I don't see how you can possibly argue that "shadow citizenry" is acceptable. Sure, but if you don’t want to vote, or earn above the tax free allowance, then why should you need to identify yourself? And even if you do identify yourself, why should that process be centralised. Each organ of a government can figure out what they need to perform their function, and only request that data. Just because you want to vote, doesn’t mean the HMRC and the Home Office should automatically know who you are.