ov>> explain me these two words: where saw and that monopolized. CC> are going to monopolize monetary flows which will administratively force to start up through this system. CC> will saw on it therefore as if your clients (in the core budgetary) anywhere from you cannot get to basically you with them are free to do everything well here and perfectly, here now it is possible to talk. Give. On monopoly: the state draws on, that monetary flows, which it creates (payments to state employees, to pensioners ) to start up through the system. Basically, has the right: who the girl has supper, that and dances it. Logically? Logically. The state thus pursues the aim: popularization of payment system which allows to lower calculations to raise a collecting of taxes and can be to pay off percent for processing. The state does not lock alternative systems, but spreads the. The purpose: To produce as it is possible for an amount of people these cards that then in shop if these people decide to pay in plastic the percent drips not to the visa, and national system. To the buyer , the seller to any pays, to the state a profit. I here see not monopolization, and aggressive attempt to spread "visa", and this "visa" not from the future, as usual happens, and already quite working directly here now. To business (especially gray) accept such payments it can to be sensitive first, to customers - . For the majority local it generally makes any , and we and will not know. For the Russian business there is a jandeks-cash desk and other which too accept these payments for them. For those who trades in the market or in an Internet and already accepts cards independently - it in bank to descend and connect one more - too not a problem. Problems arise only at those who trades exceptional for . Here they fly, but here at the state quite accurate purpose: gray business - . The purpose in itself good and correct. I for. About your fears that implementing the world they superimpose the visa with I to you so I will tell: on my storage the state still never made anything such that would anger the big percent of the population. Their prohibitions of type of overlapping of sites or the prohibition of gay parades concern so scanty percent of the population that to the state . If they superimpose the visa, them on lift - the people does not understand. If I am mistaken, result to me an example of any prohibition which at least 10-20 % of the population really concern. I can something passed? On : the state gives money to the state employee. Transfers into account in any bank (I suspect, what not in unique). One year ago enumerated, five years ago enumerated, now enumerates and will enumerate then. Earlier the state employee could anchor the visa to this account or remove . Now if he wants to anchor plastic, it can be only the world. If he does not want the patterns - can remove . That is the choice like as remained. Further our two state employees (one of the past with the visa, and the second of the present with the world) come to shop and buy a vodka bottle. Pay one price, the seller pays the commission to payment system/bank ( as there at them it is arranged), the state receives from one of them kopeck, from another - a horse-radish. Everything, on it all differences come to an end. Explain to me please: where here it is possible to saw off something if the system already works? To take away a part of percent from the commission? In a case with the visa the state does not receive anything, and here though something. And that steal here on the way, returns in a type of tax from purchases which they make. That is even if hypothetically they there can saw off something I (doubt), it all the same appears more favourably, than in a case with the visa. ?