Sure, people have a right to life. But if they have inadequate food and healthcare, how am I suddenly obligated to work however hard is required to provide it for them? There's a difference between charity and entitlement. Charitable giving is moral. Forced entitlements are not. The idea that one can be said to have any sort of morality when they're forced to do something is a bit odd, really.


[citation needed]

Source: common sense



You said the point was to address inequity. Income taxes don't do that so long as private schools and private security are an option (and really, they always will be.) The rich don't have to be given better stuff, they just buy it.

So if the inequity will continue to exist, what's the problem with using property taxes rather than income taxes if one is to fund public schools?



Yes, that is a problem. If you're going to justify taxes by saying it's "for society," then how in the world does paying more but getting the same make any sense? If I'm your neighbor, and we use the same public school system (let's presume that this is someplace that income taxes actually pay for schools,) and it costs $X to pay for that school, there's several different ways to split up the cost of that. The only possible rationales for making those with higher incomes pay more are ideological: that they "should" pay more. It's a common opinion, but it's one that turns simple theft into wealth redistribution.

Justifying taxes is one thing. Justifying wealth redistribution is another.



Of course. That's the ideal, after all.

I see some relevance. If anything, that suggests that the path toward greater adoption of Bitcoin isn't simply a better wallet (i.e., a better AOL,) but rather ubiquitous access to the currency. ATMs, more businesses accepting it, the ability to regularly have a portion of your income converted to it, and having the tech integrated into products and services in ways we find hard to envision now. I'd imagine a greater emphasis on keys could be a part of that though.

That's partly why I like Mycelium: handling, creating, importing, and exporting keys is quick and easy, as is the backup process.

(And coming soon to it... a Local Trader feature! If you've got an Android phone, you might want to use this wallet just for that feature alone.)

Yet common law as it currently exists isn't some manifest destiny of societal arrangements.

As I see it, an objective look between taxing corporations as active, functional entities and taxing, well, the ownership of personal land makes for a clear choice as to which should be preferred.

*Why* would you opt to tax land over corporations? Do you feel corporations being taxed creates problems that taxing personal land doesn't? Or do you have issues with some people paying no direct taxes (or with some other philosophical/ideological aspect of it?)

At the very least... other taxes.

EDIT: Again, if you live in a Western society, you might be surprised at how little of your income tax actually goes toward "improving the welfare of society."

Not a single vote for a death tax.

What if it wasn't redundant, if it was the only tax?

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

By flat tax, you mean a flat personal income tax?

Transaction has been completed!

Understandable.

But what if you had to choose between property taxes or personal income taxes paying for everything? Would that change your mind any?

I tend to agree that it's one of the more tolerable ones. I'd probably go with corporate income tax, myself. After all, if corporations are going to exist, and get special government-sanctioned privileges, I have little problem with them paying for those privileges.

I personally agree with you.

However, the purpose of this thread is to focus on which is the least bad, as debated among those who resign themselves to accepting taxes (or who believe taxes are necessary.)

The "why do people think income tax is ok" thread prompted me to start this one.

But that raises the question of why you got into Bitcoin, right? If it was just an investment, then I think you should hold on longer (at least a year or two) but I understand the sentiment.

But for many of us, it's at least in part ideological, or a statement of our values, or to have some wealth stored outside the system. Those reasons aren't really tied to the USD price per Bitcoin.

I certainly don't think of selling my gold just because the price dips (and boy has it dipped lately!) It's probably not something one should be in to make a quick buck; I think Bitcoin should be viewed in a similar light.

For those wanting to focus specifically on income tax vs. other taxes, and not wanting to get mired down in the idea of more/less/no taxes:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=526816.0

Presuming a society has taxes (safe bet there,) some taxes could be considered more intrusive, less efficient, or generally worse than other taxes.

Which taxes do you feel are the least bad?

Bonus points for explaining why; double points for also pointing out the especially egregious taxes, and explaining why.

Does the address have both other receipts and other spends that aren't yours?

If so, then it sounds like Blockchain isn't randomizing their keys well enough, and generated the same key for someone else. The possibility here should give pause to anyone using Blockchain wallets.

My recommendation: get another wallet, Mycelium if you want to be mobile, Electrum or Multibit if you don't want to deal with the entire block chain. Move all your coins to it (leaving this other person their coins,) then once that confirms, destroy your Blockchain wallet and never look back.

Also: if you suspect your computer is compromised, use a different computer/device for your new wallet.
 

I don't use exchanges, and honestly I'm not too fond of BTC-e.

This seemed like a simpler (if pricier) method.

It's only been considered an appalling attitude over the last few decades. Giving charity to those who can't afford their needs is great; considering every basic need of every individual an entitlement, and stealing directly from the income of others to pay for those needs is called socialism. It's immoral, inefficient, and unsustainable.

And even if none of that were true, an income tax is still a horrible way to pay for it.

Again: if food prices had gone up like medical costs, I would hope the societal response wouldn't simply be to ignore the cause and to start advocating for public restaurants.



Yes. Rich people can afford to pay more for nicer things; that's life. Even if payment for those things was switched to income taxes, it wouldn't end the disparity (due to private schools and private security forces,) so demanding income redistribution to address the inequity seems a little disingenuous.



I'm not even sure what you're saying here.

Why would you be against corporations, which are granted special privileges by government that individuals don't have access to, paying for military expenditures (as primarily happens in the U.S.?)

Are you saying corporations shouldn't have to bear the burden, or that individuals should also pay out of their personal income, just because?



I have a problem with all taxes.

But if taxes are going to exist, there are far better options than income taxes, regardless of whether regressive or progressive. One would think the intrusiveness alone should cause people to demand a change; but I suppose once people become use to a status quo, it will be defended, regardless of the wrongness of it.

I'm looking to purchase 40 Namecoins. I will pay 15% over BTC-e's Bitcoin/Namecoin exchange rate, as established at the time of agreement.

Conditions:

 - You send coins first.
 - Escrow is acceptable. It must be a mutually agreed-upon agent, and you pay any fees.
 - Sending batches of 10 NMC at a time is fine too; the same price will be paid for each batch.
 - Transaction details (sending addresses, etc.) can be as public as you like.
 - No traders with: a scammer tag, negative trust, or under 150 posts, please.

I'm not looking to haggle over the price, nor am I in any particular rush. I just want to get this done as smoothly as possible.

What platform are you using? Did you upgrade from a prior version?

Except that eventually, men with guns do their best to enforce that debt (at least the portion owed to the well-connected.)

When society tries to service trillions of dollars of debt when there's no possible way to do so, problems occur. Among these is economic collapse.

Now, if the debt were just done away with, then yes, there wouldn't be much (immediately) to worry about. I don't see that happening though.