|
If it ever becomes a burden on the network, the easy way out is to raise the value of the minimal transaction, or to request a higher transaction fee. This has been done before.
|
|
|
|
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree. I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation. The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success. If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership. Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high. |
|
|
|
This leads us to the idea of administration, and besides tax, I'm very much against it in any form. I don't want anyone to know how much I'm making, nor even what I do for my living. I'm a free person, and I have nothing to declare to anyone.
Without a doubt, your living is supported by a vast and complicated global economy. You don't get to opt out when it's time to give something back. Yes, I take advantage of a vast and complicated global economy, but it's precisely tax and regulations that make it complicated. It's tax and regulations that block business and free trade, it's not me nor the people I'm working with. I've seen business owners who have closed their businesses because they couldn't pay their taxes. Tax isn't helping the global economy in any way, quite the contrary, tax and bureaucracy are killing it. Giving something back? I'm not even entitled to healthcare in the country I'm living in. I always paid far more than what I've ever received, and I'm actually paying for others, people I don't know, and that I don't want to know. So, I'm opting out. It's a lengthy process, but I hope to have it complete by the next quarter. |
|
|
|
Based on these facts, I would say that wealth redistribution is an accidental side effect of tax policy in current societies. The main main function of tax is to raise money to keep the market system running smoothly. That's a valid point and one folks often forget despite my own opinion that taxes should be as minimal as possible. It's because the rich are typically the ones in control of structuring the tax system, including any loopholes. This is why the idea of using taxes as a means of wealth-redistribution is such an eye-roller. You're never going to get the top 1%--or heaven forbid, top 0.1%--to have their wealth drained and given to the poor and needy in some politically-oriented karmic reparation. Real-world weath redistribution always boils down to taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor various groups, effectively rendering the lower classes, as a whole, poorer than before (due to the inefficiencies, fraud, waste and middlemen that such programs inevitably encounter.) Still, as far as this thread goes, being upfront about one's intentions regarding taxation does go quite a ways towards explaining the "whys" of one's choices. I agree and would go a lot further. If you look at tax policies over last 40 years in most of the West, there has been a massive redistribution towards the rich with policies like farm subsidies, mortgage subsidies and the like which redistribute cash from the poor to the rich. Another excellent argument against taxation. The redistribution idea may be nice on paper, but it doesn't work in the real world. |
|
|
|
The assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.
People shouldn't benefit equally from state benefits, people in greater need should benefit more. This is why I'm against all state benefits, so that everybody's equal. I take it this is how you want the world to work then? "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France. Yes, that's the way it works. Don't we represent justice with a blind woman? |
|
|
|
|
I'm not totally sure, but I guess most people buying suntan lotion are white. Maybe the cosmetic firms which produce them are racist, too.
|
|
|
|
|
For a given country's population, if the share of bitcoiners was the same in every country, Americans would only make 5% of all transactions. On the other hand, if using bitcoin is relative to the available wealth, the U.S. will keep on dominating bitcoin for many more years.
|
|
|
|
|
Will you be able to connect without being on facebook?
If it's just a plan to get more customers, it isn't nice. It's also a bit of a gimmick when you think that more than one billion people don't have running water in their home. Millions don't even have a home.
|
|
|
|
|
All I have is BTC, and I don't want to have any other cryptocurrency, but your idea is interesting, you have my support.
|
|
|
|
Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose...
I don't think that needs another thread - that question is integral to which taxes people would prefer since some taxes are inherently redistributive. Far from it. Taxes were invented to pay for armies, long before the idea of redistribution was invented, and today in many countries, most of the tax money is used to pay for the huge number of civil servants, with the jobs of collecting taxes, controlling and organizing the country, which means telling ordinary people how they should work, live and think. In Scandinavian countries, it's more than one person out of ten which works in some kind of administration. People have no freedom at all, and the only cool Scandinavian people I've ever met had left their country for good. This leads us to the idea of administration, and besides tax, I'm very much against it in any form. I don't want anyone to know how much I'm making, nor even what I do for my living. I'm a free person, and I have nothing to declare to anyone. Nobody has. There shall be no NSA, and no Internal revenue Service. We are free people, aren't we? That's why I'm only in favor of a modest property tax, because it just needs some bookkeepers to register land ownership. |
|
|
|
The assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.
People shouldn't benefit equally from state benefits, people in greater need should benefit more. This is why I'm against all state benefits, so that everybody's equal. |
|
|
|
Somehow, Transnistria and Moldova should join the EU as an emergency. If they don't join the free world, they will fall again in the darkness of Soviet rule.
I believe that the EU is the Dark World and Russia is the Free World. If you burn the national flag, in a western European country or in Russia, where will you get the harshest penalty? |
|
|
|
|
I've chosen property tax, because it's quite normal if you own a land to pay a little for maintaining roads going to it, taking out the garbage, and that kind of stuff. I'm surprised so many chose corporation tax, because that couldn't work everywhere. Big corporations are plentiful in America or Europe, but there are plenty of poor countries with very few companies.
About income or asset-related taxes, I'm against all of them for the simple reason that I don't want anyone (besides family and friends) to know how much I'm making, nor what I own. I don't want to hide (I don't), but I want my privacy.
|
|
|
|
If there is no income tax how is it possible to improve the welfare of society?
Improve the well-being of citizens! This is exactly what Putin had in mind when he decided to annex Crimea. It will be better for the Russians living there, and f*ck the Ukrainians. It has always amazed me that when people see how bad the world is, they keep on dreaming about an enlightened leader who will take their money (their freedom, too), and make it a better place. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
|
Somehow, Transnistria and Moldova should join the EU as an emergency. If they don't join the free world, they will fall again in the darkness of Soviet rule.
|
|
|
|
Income tax should go as the government doesn't need to know how much you're making, but I understand property tax to maintain roads and organize basic emergency services. If income tax pays for schools, that's another reason for it to go. Public schools have failed everywhere.
Public schools have failed everywhere? Do we have anyone from Finland here? But I take it you're American...  it's only natural for public schools to fail if they are intentionally defunded; there is only so much you can do without money unfortunately. Quite often, public schools failures are not money related. I'm not American, and I've never been in Finland, but I was in Sweden two weeks ago, and I guess it's quite similar. Swedish schools are highly rated everywhere, but you should not believe that. Sweden is an awful country, and Swedes are awful people. I can't think of a more boring place. Swedish schools don't teach how to be a man, nor how to think freely, they teach children how to become Swedes, and that's a huge difference. They teach what's good and bad according to Swedish rules, and nobody shall ever venture out of those restrictive old-fashioned rules. Questioning authority is not allowed. Somehow, I bet most American schools are better. |
|
|
|
Remarkable article, it will convince you that BTC is more robust than fiat. At least in the UK. |
|
|
|
|
As long as there will be strict capital controls in China, many people will love BTC there. The worst thing China could do to BTC would be to remove all barriers to buying foreign currencies.
|
|
|
|
Because we finance the goverment that way, the goverment pays for teachers,doctors,roads.. It is a way we live, the only way we could remove it is if we had individual taxes for teachers,doctors,politicans and extra taxes which would be discussed if someone suggested to buld something  No, in most countries, income tax doesn't pay for doctors or roads. There are payroll taxes and fuel taxes for this. Income tax pays for the army, for spying on the global population, financing subsidies to the big oil companies, the best restaurants for officials, etc... |
|
|
|
Drivers fasten their seat belts not to protect them, but to avoid getting a fine.
Not me sir - I wear a seatbelt to protect myself. Good, but not everybody's like you. I wish countries which impose fines on drivers who don't wear their seat belts stop doing that. It would be highly educative for the population to see more people dying. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
