Thank you for the clarification, Ultimo (so there is at least two of us), but the rationality of the measure is still doubtful. This starts making half-sense -

Thank you for the clarification, Ultimo (so there is at least two of us), but the rationality of the measure is still doubtful. This starts making half-sense - it is not to curb the possibility that the merchant evades, but to hinder spending earning coming from evasion. Unfortunately, that money that may come from evasion is the same money that comes from normal earnings: so the damage is spread, not surgical. For example, now Men (is it just the two of us?) in Spain cannot purchase, say, a Macbook (the threshold there is reportedly at 999€). It seems like one of those generalizing measures like "Populations labelled as irresponsible socially extroverts as an aggregate will have individuals bound to confinement in case of epidemic", which even when they work as an effect involve massive lateral damages.