Are you going to pay taxes?

[sortedmush]

Dear Sonic the Hedgehog guy,

I am stepping out of out conversation because I bit off more than I could chew.

No worries.

[hoo2jalu]

I'll pay taxes on bitcoins when the tax institution in question accepts bitcoins for payment!

[shrikeX]

Profits? I'm more a spender than profiteer. I wouldn't though.

[Goldenmaw]

Dear Sonic the Hedgehog guy,

I am stepping out of out conversation because I bit off more than I could chew.

No worries.

No, no, no.  I don't need to chew mush.  Do you understand?  Are argument wasn't doing anything.  It was paste.  You were like "YOU A TOOL OF DA MAN!"  And I was like "nuh uh" and you were like "UH HUH", and that's when I decided to call it quits.  I've got better things to do with my time.

Oh, great.  Now I'm in an argument over an argument.  I really loathe the internet sometimes.

[Lupus_Yonderboy]

In addition, I never said our healthcare system was good. I never mentioned our system. Our system has government imposed prices, our system makes medical charity very difficult, our system uses insurance for EVERYTHING (and you wonder why prices are high). It's not a perfect system, it's far from it. But government isn't going to fix it. Show me a program that the federal government operates that is superior to a free market program. The Postal Service? VA hospitals? Amtrak? Any sort of charity? I'm not just ranting against authority. I'm addressing the nature of government. Because of how it gets resources (takes them), operates (efficiently enough to get more resources), and the accountability that is required (TSA?), they generally produce politically expedient answers that ultimately fit a formula for waste.

No you didn't say that healthcare was good, I somehow was responding to a post above yours at that point. My bad. As far as programs that do work in the U.S. better than private options...Medicare comes to mind. It costs so much because of the spiraling health care costs, but that is mainly due to the insurance companies. If they had medicare for all (i.e. single payer health care) in the U.S. the costs would come way down. No private insurance can provide the level of service that Medicare does to its clients and still remain in business.  Also, no insurance company will touch old people...because it is not profitable to do so. Of course it would be more efficient to simply not treat them and let them die, which is precisely what will happen if/when Medicare is privatized.

The U.S Postal is another excellent example. Up until the relatively recent invention of e-mail, the post office turned a profit every year. If you think that the private alternatives are better, try mailing 50 Christmas cards to 50 different people using either UPS or FedEx. Or your electric bill each month.

Demagoguery aside, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also excellent examples. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I do believe that they back more than 50% of the mortgages in the U.S., meaning that a majority of Americans (who still have homes), do so because of these government programs.

I don't understand why a government organization has to turn a profit to be successful. Governments are not businesses, they do not exist to turn a profit. They do not have dividends they pay out to shareholders, etc. IMHO, a government exists to protect and provide services for its people. A for profit venture will sacrifice the level of service in order to increase profits. More efficiency does not necessarily mean better.


Is there fraud, waste, and abuse? Absolutely. The bureacracy will always expand to meet the needs of the bureacracy. And a fair amount of that fraud waste and abuse comes from private companies ripping off the government (think Medicare).

[sortedmush]

Dear Sonic the Hedgehog guy,

I am stepping out of out conversation because I bit off more than I could chew.

No worries.

No, no, no.  I don't need to chew mush.  Do you understand?  Are argument wasn't doing anything.  It was paste.  You were like "YOU A TOOL OF DA MAN!"  And I was like "nuh uh" and you were like "UH HUH", and that's when I decided to call it quits.  I've got better things to do with my time.

Oh, great.  Now I'm in an argument over an argument.  I really loathe the internet sometimes.

I think I understand. Do you like, blend things up and use a straw or something?

[Anonymous]

No you didn't say that healthcare was good, I somehow was responding to a post above yours at that point. My bad. As far as programs that do work in the U.S. better than private options...Medicare comes to mind.

No.

It costs so much because of the spiraling health care costs, but that is mainly due to the insurance companies.

It's because of corporatism instated by government power.

If they had medicare for all (i.e. single payer health care) in the U.S. the costs would come way down.

You would have huge lines for rations and many people dying because of inefficiency, parasite.

No private insurance can provide the level of service that Medicare does to its clients and still remain in business.  Also, no insurance company will touch old people...because it is not profitable to do so. Of course it would be more efficient to simply not treat them and let them die, which is precisely what will happen if/when Medicare is privatized.

There is profit to be made if there is demand. You don't understand market forces at all. You only see private economies as the corporatist regime we have today.

The U.S Postal is another excellent example. Up until the relatively recent invention of e-mail, the post office turned a profit every year. If you think that the private alternatives are better, try mailing 50 Christmas cards to 50 different people using either UPS or FedEx. Or your electric bill each month.

The government subjects the UPS and FedEx to huge taxes. They would be cheaper if the government wasn't anti-competitive, parasite.

Demagoguery aside, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also excellent examples. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I do believe that they back more than 50% of the mortgages in the U.S., meaning that a majority of Americans (who still have homes), do so because of these government programs.

You're a blind moron.

I don't understand why a government organization has to turn a profit to be successful. Governments are not businesses, they do not exist to turn a profit. They do not have dividends they pay out to shareholders, etc. IMHO, a government exists to protect and provide services for its people. A for profit venture will sacrifice the level of service in order to increase profits. More efficiency does not necessarily mean better.

Profit incentive = efficiency and better use of wealth.

Again, you're a blind moron.

[dacoinminster]

I plan to talk to an tax accountant around November or December (when they aren't swamped), and I will do whatever they say to do.

Also, please stop cluttering this thread with flames.

[LastBattle]

In addition, I never said our healthcare system was good. I never mentioned our system. Our system has government imposed prices, our system makes medical charity very difficult, our system uses insurance for EVERYTHING (and you wonder why prices are high). It's not a perfect system, it's far from it. But government isn't going to fix it. Show me a program that the federal government operates that is superior to a free market program. The Postal Service? VA hospitals? Amtrak? Any sort of charity? I'm not just ranting against authority. I'm addressing the nature of government. Because of how it gets resources (takes them), operates (efficiently enough to get more resources), and the accountability that is required (TSA?), they generally produce politically expedient answers that ultimately fit a formula for waste.

No you didn't say that healthcare was good, I somehow was responding to a post above yours at that point. My bad. As far as programs that do work in the U.S. better than private options...Medicare comes to mind. It costs so much because of the spiraling health care costs, but that is mainly due to the insurance companies. If they had medicare for all (i.e. single payer health care) in the U.S. the costs would come way down. No private insurance can provide the level of service that Medicare does to its clients and still remain in business.  Also, no insurance company will touch old people...because it is not profitable to do so. Of course it would be more efficient to simply not treat them and let them die, which is precisely what will happen if/when Medicare is privatized.

The U.S Postal is another excellent example. Up until the relatively recent invention of e-mail, the post office turned a profit every year. If you think that the private alternatives are better, try mailing 50 Christmas cards to 50 different people using either UPS or FedEx. Or your electric bill each month.

Demagoguery aside, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also excellent examples. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I do believe that they back more than 50% of the mortgages in the U.S., meaning that a majority of Americans (who still have homes), do so because of these government programs.

I don't understand why a government organization has to turn a profit to be successful. Governments are not businesses, they do not exist to turn a profit. They do not have dividends they pay out to shareholders, etc. IMHO, a government exists to protect and provide services for its people. A for profit venture will sacrifice the level of service in order to increase profits. More efficiency does not necessarily mean better.


Is there fraud, waste, and abuse? Absolutely. The bureacracy will always expand to meet the needs of the bureacracy. And a fair amount of that fraud waste and abuse comes from private companies ripping off the government (think Medicare).

the US Postal Service? You nuts? Haven't you ever heard of Lysander Spooner and the American Letter and Mail Company?

[jaimedimon]

Actually, not even renouncing your citizenship may save you from certain taxes.

You should talk to the forum member Mike Gogulski, who went the whole way and became stateless.  

What? Really? That's messed up. I'll have to look into this.

This is correct.  In 2011 for a non-married individual, if you make less than $34,500 you would pay 0% capital gains taxes.  So, before you sell your bitcoin, ask for a reduction in your salary, then wait a year

Well if this is true, it could work really well for me...

Source: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I am an accountant, and literally everything you are saying is wrong.  I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, but this is very bad tax advice.

Whether someone wants to pay taxes on their bitcoins or not is a moral question for themselves to answer, but legally speaking, capital gains are considered part of your income, and are subject to capital gains taxes, which are NOT 0% if you make under $34.5k unless those are LONG TERM capital gains, which is a very important distinction.

[jaimedimon]

Do "capital gains" add to your total income for the purpose of determining your tax bracket or are they taxed at the rate of your income-only tax bracket?

I do not believe capital gains adds to your total income for determining your tax rate.

So what about students and the like, who perhaps have no income or have income so low as to qualify as exempt? I would assume they'd pay at the lowest bracket, right?

This is correct.  In 2011 for a non-married individual, if you make less than $34,500 you would pay 0% capital gains taxes.  So, before you sell your bitcoin, ask for a reduction in your salary, then wait a year

My fiancee is a full-time student who has no other source of income. Since bitcoins aren't legally recognized as money or stock would it be considered evasion if I gifted them to her and allowed her to liquidate them? Honestly I'm at work all day while she maintains the rigs anyway so really I'm less like the owner/operator and more like a contractor who build and installed the things  

Well, you can gift up to $13,000 per year to an individual (or seperate individuals).  That is for your tax benefit.  Your beneficiary would still have to pay relevant taxes on the asset.  I'm not an estate planning attorney, but one of those guys would be able to answer these types of questions.  There are definitely legal ways to get to the coin on a tax favored basis, but it usually makes sense if you are uber wealthy (IE, you will meet hit the 5Mil lifetime gifting limit)

This is also incorrect.  If you gift bitcoins, you will not have to pay a gift tax, but that doesn't change the fact that you received the bitcoins, the government will still want to collect tax on it, whether it is income tax or capital gains tax.

[jaimedimon]

Are you going to pay taxes on your Bitcoin profits?

Suppose you make a million dollars. Suppose you have already made a million dollars. Are you going to hand half of that cash over to the government? Of course, this is assuming you convert your coins into federally recognized cash. If your only intention is to amass a huge supply of Bitcoins, the question does not apply to you.

You're supposed to pay income taxes. It seems rather easy to get away with not doing it, though... at least in this case.

The dollars I used to buy bitcoin were already taxed, income tax withholding taken out of my paycheck. I owe no tax unless I "sell" at a profit and I'm not going to trade them back for dollars, so there are no capital gains. I will trade them at a later date which is considered barter and barter is legal.

Except for short-term cash-flow reasons, I can't imagine why anyone would trade a non-dilutable currency for depreciating bank notes. I'm never going back. Ever. Bitcoin is the real money.

Barter is legal, however when you barter, you are also legally responsible for paying taxes on the value of whatever it was you received in the barter transaction.

[TECSHARE]

I am an accountant, and literally everything you are saying is wrong.  I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, but this is very bad tax advice.

Whether someone wants to pay taxes on their bitcoins or not is a moral question for themselves to answer, but legally speaking, capital gains are considered part of your income, and are subject to capital gains taxes, which are NOT 0% if you make under $34.5k unless those are LONG TERM capital gains, which is a very important distinction.

I think there might be more than a few users willing to put up a bounty for a detailed technical guide to bicoin accounting and or taxation. Anyone else agree?

[smellyBobby]

If they had medicare for all (i.e. single payer health care) in the U.S. the costs would come way down.

You would have huge lines for rations and many people dying because of inefficiency, parasite.

Single Payer Health Care is used in countries like the U.K, Australia, Canada and Taiwan. The U.S only has it for a subset of the population. There aren't huge lines or people dying because of inefficiency, I'm certain that generally their health-care systems are better than the U.S . There are still market mechanisms on the demand-side to ensure that there is sufficient competition. BTW this information is freely available on the web . Just because monopoly or monopsony public services did not work in the U.S, does not mean they can never work. At-least Lupus_Yonderboy looks this up.

And Cuba an undemocratic Socialist system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Cuba

Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons

According to this table, the U.S. sucks on most measures. The countries that rank highest have some sort of government monopoly or monos-poly in place. Not some FFA system where each has to fend for themselves. The market is a tool, not a solution to every problem.............

Blind Moron.

[Goldenmaw]

I think I understand. Do you like, blend things up and use a straw or something?

Let's take a new angle on our old conversation.  It's a new day, and I'm feeling a bit less confrontational.  Let's establish some common ground:

We both agree that our government suffers from deeply rooted financially and politically motivated corruption.
We both agree that this harms us as a nation and as individuals.
We both agree that this needs to change.

With that out of the way, we seem to differ on how exactly this should come about.  Why don't you tell me about how you feel Bitcoin can bring about the kind of regime change we want?  I don't think Bitcoin alone can do it, it just doesn't have enough support - this is why I always take a compromised approach in discussions regarding Bitcoin's future.  I think it has a lot of good that it can do for society, but I don't think any of that good can come to be without the widespread success of Bitcoin, which I think will require government cooperation.  If Bitcoin were to be declared illegal, they can and would stop it.  I have said many times here that their resources are immense and eagerly used to step on those who defy them.  How could Bitcoin possibly endure and proliferate in such a situation?  You tell me.

[TECSHARE]

How does P2P file sharing continue to function and even grow?

[Goldenmaw]

Because our federal government allows it.  They are not so inextricably tied up with our entertainment industries as to think they need to squeeze civil liberties hard enough through our ISPs to stop file sharing.

But Bitcoin is money.  It's the seat of power.  You can bet your ass that it has the potential to get a far worse reaction, if things go sour.

[Anonymous]

Single Payer Health Care is used in countries like the U.K, Australia, Canada and Taiwan.

Okay and 90% of economists believe inflation is necessary. Not a very relevant nor supporting fact.

The U.S only has it for a subset of the population. There aren't huge lines or people dying because of inefficiency, I'm certain that generally their health-care systems are better than the U.S .

Define better? I am certain I get the best healthcare on the planet but that's because my parents are fortunate enough to have enough funds to appease the excessive corporatism that inflicts our healthcare industry. Fortunately there is enough independent incentive to keep things sufficiently efficient.

There are still market mechanisms on the demand-side to ensure that there is sufficient competition.

In America.

According to this table, the U.S. sucks on most measures. The countries that rank highest have some sort of government monopoly or monos-poly in place. Not some FFA system where each has to fend for themselves. The market is a tool, not a solution to every problem.............

Blind Moron.

Their measures are far from objective and are biased to the amount of care that is given on PAPER. Take your pretty charts elsewhere.

[dayfall]

I am going to be paying taxes on what I cash out.  However, I'm attempting to cash as little out as possible.  So far I haven't cashed out any.

Ditto.  I'll certainly keep records for tax purposes.  The government will have no qualms sending armed men to get me if I don't.  Heck, they'll probably send armed men even if I do.

[smellyBobby]

Single Payer Health Care is used in countries like the U.K, Australia, Canada and Taiwan.

Okay and 90% of economists believe inflation is necessary. Not a very relevant nor supporting fact.

....... 90% of economists believe inflation is necessary. <Nullify opposing sides point>, is not an argument........

The U.S only has it for a subset of the population. There aren't huge lines or people dying because of inefficiency, I'm certain that generally their health-care systems are better than the U.S .

Define better? I am certain I get the best healthcare on the planet but that's because my parents are fortunate enough to have enough funds to appease the excessive corporatism that inflicts our healthcare industry. Fortunately there is enough independent incentive to keep things sufficiently efficient.

Fine if we were discussing what is best for Atlas, but that does not translate into what is best for all Americans.

According to this table, the U.S. sucks on most measures. The countries that rank highest have some sort of government monopoly or monos-poly in place. Not some FFA system where each has to fend for themselves. The market is a tool, not a solution to every problem.............

Blind Moron.

Their measures are far from objective and are biased to the amount of care that is given on PAPER. Take your pretty charts elsewhere.

Please educate me. I would like to understand how measures such as Life Expectancy, Infant mortality rate, Physicians per 1000, Healthcare costs as % of GDP, etc, etc are far from objective??? The education system in America must also be great, just like the health system.