If you don't pay, debt goes to a specific government ministry that picks you clean (property, assets, accounts) until debt is paid off, leaving you with nothing more than enough to eat and pay rent every month (for a tiny apt).
Every time you try to take a loan or buy something on a payment plan, the seller will check with the ministry if you are registered there. You can't get anything unless paid upfront in full, no cellphone subscription, no credit cards.
Once debts are paid off, you are still in the registry for 3 years (unless you rack up more debts).
All that being said, I do appreciate that centralized scoring can go too far. And I don’t have the answer for where a line should be drawn. Or how far back in time the scoring should assess. (BTW, it’s generally 7-10 years I believe, which is pretty short)
How is auto insurance handled where you are? How would you feel about no-fault insurance rates where every driver pays the same amount regardless of risk?
As in, if I never take a credit and save all my money, I don't have a good credit score, but if I spend 95% of my net income on weird stuff, but do pay my credit card bills on time I suddenly have a good credit score? As exemplified by advice I often read to route as many recurring payments as possible (including rent) through a credit card (and paying on time, ofc).
I mean, that's how it was explained to me, but happy to be proven wrong.
Are you sincerely confused that building a credit score requires you to actually use credit?
I suspect most of the building credit Behavior comes into play when you are trying to dilute derogatory marks on your credit reputation. If you missed a $50 bill, it is better if it is one of hundreds of transactions then one of 10.
With that said, I can see the value of showing some experience of servicing debt. Imagine being a banker talking to someone asking for a large loan. Someone with a documented history of paying on time is naturally lower risk then someone with no history