Why are people so eager to pay tax?

[RenegadeMind]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

All these threads about "how do I pay tax" sound like a cacophonous symphony of masochists screaming "Rape me! No, rape me first!"

Paperwork is painful enough. Why add to the misery?

Or at a minimum, why not just only sell back an amount equivalent to your initial investment and keep the BTC? The next time you take a holiday, or step out of the country, you can probably cash in some of your BTC and stay under the radar and avoid more paperwork. 

[1715300792]

1715300792

[1715300792]

1715300792

[1715300792]

1715300792

[1715300792]

1715300792

[tutkarz]

this is exactly my point of view. maybe people are brainwashed and scared that governments can come to them and say BU!

[(A)social]

this is exactly my point of view. maybe people are brainwashed and scared that governments can come to them and say BU!

Fixed 


P.S. personally I'd add stupid too.

[ammo88]

For me it's more or less cause of fear, I guess. Here in Sweden the ones that gets really REALLY serious sentences in courts are usually the ppl prosecuted for tax evasion and tax related frauds, that kinda stuff. Crime involving violence, robbery, also murder you get away pretty easily.. For example a guy in my town got prosecuted recently for murder, they were able to prove he handled the corpse at some point but were not able to prove that he murdered the guy. So the guy got out and the murderer is still on free foot...fucking bullshit.

Anyhow, I'm not yet paying any tax for Bitcoin cause I've not yet cashed out. But when/if I do I will think more closely about wether or not to pay tax on it. But since the government is spending the tax money on complete bullshit things I'll probably go for the latter.  

[Bitcoinpro]

there is no tax or regulations yet! think "embryonic currency"

some people are saying they have made a profit from selling coin and so they paid the appropriate tax as income

what they obviously don't realize is that there is no regulatory/legal requirement to do so as yet

[Rodyland]

So someone who acknowledges that their taxes pay for roads, schools, the fire and police departments, hospitals, just to name several, and hence feels that freeloading by avoiding taxes is a dick move, is "brainwashed" or "stupid".

And as for the "you don't have to" argument because governments don't know what bitcoin is yet - it's a thing you got at price X, and you sold at price Y.  So at a minimum, if you convert your profits (Y-X) to fiat you have some kind of tax bill.  The other side - spending bitcoins bought (or mined) at X for something at Y (Y > X) - is something that governments will have to decide how to classify, but don't think that just because they haven't issued a ruling yet means your profits are free.

Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.

If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes.  There are plenty around.

[kokjo]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

All these threads about "how do I pay tax" sound like a cacophonous symphony of masochists screaming "Rape me! No, rape me first!"

Paperwork is painful enough. Why add to the misery?

Or at a minimum, why not just only sell back an amount equivalent to your initial investment and keep the BTC? The next time you take a holiday, or step out of the country, you can probably cash in some of your BTC and stay under the radar and avoid more paperwork. 

becuase they realise that personal monetary gain does not always maximize their wealth.

i want to pay taxes, because i think its best for the society(and in turn me) to have "free" education.

[bam91]

Considering bitcoin has now been deemed a currency by fincen, wouldnt thay mean a) mining bitcoin will be treated as income and b) buying/selling would be capitals gains. The main issue i believe should be redefining the statement by fincen in regards to user/exchanger so that the miners would not require a money transmitter license to sell.

[roy7]

RenegadeMind, noone is "eager" to pay tax. But some of us to choose to obey the laws of the country we live in. The forum has plenty of people whose moral code appears to be "it is okay to break the law if I'm unlikely to get caught".

[Bitcoinpro]

So someone who acknowledges that their taxes pay for roads, schools, the fire and police departments, hospitals, just to name several, and hence feels that freeloading by avoiding taxes is a dick move, is "brainwashed" or "stupid".

And as for the "you don't have to" argument because governments don't know what bitcoin is yet - it's a thing you got at price X, and you sold at price Y.  So at a minimum, if you convert your profits (Y-X) to fiat you have some kind of tax bill.  The other side - spending bitcoins bought (or mined) at X for something at Y (Y > X) - is something that governments will have to decide how to classify, but don't think that just because they haven't issued a ruling yet means your profits are free.

Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.

If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes.  There are plenty around.

no one is avoiding paying taxes, bitcoin is a global currency its called a totally new concept

[kokjo]

no one is avoiding paying taxes, bitcoin is a global currency its called a totally new concept

that does not matter in tax laws... if i have a capital gain from bitcoin, i would have to pay taxes. it does not matter if im exchanging them back into fiat: i still had a gain.

[Luno]

If I had solo mined 100.000 coins in 2010 and kept them in my offline wallet until last week where I bumped into a Billionaire in the street who out of the blue asked me about Bitcoin, and bought the lot @266, then maybe I would consider burring the suitcase of money in my back yard and not tell anybody!

However, I would put the whole Bitcoin idea at risk by just suggesting on different fora that Bitcoin suitable for tax evasion, which it is not, if you sit down for a second and think open source money and the complete transparency of transactions.

We want Bitcoin to go mainstream? So it is good that FinCen is working on merging the traceability of Bitcoin with the traceability of ordinary money?

Suggesting Bitcoin is a tax heaven is making it too easy for the opposition!

So un taxed Bitcoin millionaire, when you speed down a pot holed road in your Ferrari, do you curse the lousy road worker that isn't very carefull about his lousy job, or do you have a deep sense of guilt by knowing that he is the guy you have robbed of a better future for his children?

Disagreeing with tax laws are fine, breaking them is a crime on the whole of society.

You bastards!!!!!

[Rodyland]

no one is avoiding paying taxes, bitcoin is a global currency its called a totally new concept

that does not matter in tax laws... if i have a capital gain from bitcoin, i would have to pay taxes. it does not matter if im exchanging them back into fiat: i still had a gain.

This.  Profiting from bitcoin whilst living in the USA would be no different to profiting from trading Euro/JPY.  You're making a profit and you need to pay taxes.  The "oh it's global" and "oh it's brand new" is self-serving self-justification that is rooted in nothing but wishful thinking.

Now, you could mount an argument that unrealised bitcoin gains aren't taxable until said gains are realised - either by sale or by exchange for goods/services.  But I have no doubt that once you sell bitcoins for fiat or trade bitcoins for a good/service, you are liable for tax on those gains.

[legendster]

this is exactly my point of view. maybe people are brainwashed and scared that governments can come to them and say BU!

BOOOO !!!!!  lol

[legendster]

no one is avoiding paying taxes, bitcoin is a global currency its called a totally new concept

that does not matter in tax laws... if i have a capital gain from bitcoin, i would have to pay taxes. it does not matter if im exchanging them back into fiat: i still had a gain.

This.  Profiting from bitcoin whilst living in the USA would be no different to profiting from trading Euro/JPY.  

GBP/JPY is in a bubble stage after that old lady - ex prime minister death  .... just saying

[Bitcoinpro]

no one is avoiding paying taxes, bitcoin is a global currency its called a totally new concept

that does not matter in tax laws... if i have a capital gain from bitcoin, i would have to pay taxes. it does not matter if im exchanging them back into fiat: i still had a gain.

sure which part then

http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/pathway.aspx?pc=001/001/038

[Bitcoinpro]

no one is avoiding paying taxes, bitcoin is a global currency its called a totally new concept

that does not matter in tax laws... if i have a capital gain from bitcoin, i would have to pay taxes. it does not matter if im exchanging them back into fiat: i still had a gain.

if its claimed as capital gains then it can be claimed as capital losses with the similar tax deductions, 

[kokjo]

no one is avoiding paying taxes, bitcoin is a global currency its called a totally new concept

that does not matter in tax laws... if i have a capital gain from bitcoin, i would have to pay taxes. it does not matter if im exchanging them back into fiat: i still had a gain.

if its claimed as capital gains then it can be claimed as capital losses with the similar tax deductions, 

yup. but you don't have capital losses(unless you are stupid and bought at 266).

[Rodyland]

no one is avoiding paying taxes, bitcoin is a global currency its called a totally new concept

that does not matter in tax laws... if i have a capital gain from bitcoin, i would have to pay taxes. it does not matter if im exchanging them back into fiat: i still had a gain.

sure which part then

http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/pathway.aspx?pc=001/001/038

I'm pretty sure the "type" of gain from bitcoin is still to be decided.  I think it would be hard to argue that unrealised gains from held bitcoins are taxable.  By that same logic, unrealised gains from the Monet I have hanging in my loungeroom (I wish!!) are taxable income every year.

But to say that it's not at all taxable is just plain ignorant - but I acknowledge there is a difference between taxable and able-to-be-taxed.  

[Bitcoinpro]

just seems like keyboard taxmen got know idea of what they are talking about, just trying to get the gullible who have made money to pay taxes

[Jobe7]

I don't know how it is everywhere else (pretty sure its the same in the US, but don't quote me).

In the UK, you do NOT pay Bitcoin tax .. no matter what anyone says, it simply does NOT EXIST!

OK, that said, I do get a little   when people are like "amagad pay tax pay tax!"

What you pay tax on is the amount you change into FIAT. It is simply NOT considered capital gain, or bloomin' anything else.. might as well start trying to declare World of Warcraft gold or Eve online currency (can't remember what that's called) as your 'capital gains' ..

HMRC simply does not recognize Bitcoin as taxable .. yet.

Anyway .. that said .. if you're a sole trader, nps, keep changing your btc into fiat until you hit the 'tax cap' (working in expenditure), then declare and pay your taxes, not saying anything, but ye, this part is easily 'fiddled' (legally!).

If you're a private or public company, then yes, you'll run into 'messiness' if you try to 'fiddle' a lot and pretend you're not making any profit, and this is highly NOT advisable.

It IS advisable to change some to fiat in the terms of 'profit', declare that, and personally I'd make a point of explaining btc and that I was keeping some as btc and re-spending it as btc, encouraging hmrc to think about taxing it.


It will come, eventually, and it will be a good thing.

edit: Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer to pick and choose who/where/what I pay my 'taxes' towards. But obviously quite a few potential and current businesses don't want to get closed or locked up for tax avoidance. And it's also the same argument as those that was Cannabis legalised as a 'free for all', no taxes whatsoever.

Taxes CAN be a good thing, if they're used appropriately. I'd be happy for more nurses/doctors/hospitals/better education/better public services, etc, etc

But ye.. current governments abuse the system very badly (surprise surprise...)

[roy7]

What you pay tax on is the amount you change into FIAT. It is simply NOT considered capital gain, or bloomin' anything else.. might as well start trying to declare World of Warcraft gold or Eve online currency (can't remember what that's called) as your 'capital gains' ..

I can only speak to the USA, but converting it into something of value other than USD should still be a taxable event I believe. It'd fall under barter most likely:

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

That is, I pay you (as a barter since bitcoin isn't an actual legal tender, yet?) X bitcoins for a car worth $15,000 USD. That places my mined bitcoins at a value of $15,000 USD with a cost basis of zero, for a $15,000 realized gain.

[RenegadeMind]

So someone who acknowledges that their taxes pay for roads, schools, the fire and police departments, hospitals, just to name several, and hence feels that freeloading by avoiding taxes is a dick move, is "brainwashed" or "stupid".

Roads > Paid for with gasoline/petrol taxes
Schools > Paid for by property taxes

Not sure about fire & police departments.

But I'm not so sure that I like my tax dollars funding unlimited wars, bank bailouts, corporate bailouts, forced sterilizations, human experimentation on unwilling/unknowing subjects, and a truckload of other outright immoral and evil things.

No... I'd prefer not to help fund wholesale murder and corruption.

If you really want to fund murder, why not just do it yourself. Why do you need a middle man?

And as for the "you don't have to" argument because governments don't know what bitcoin is yet - it's a thing you got at price X, and you sold at price Y.  So at a minimum, if you convert your profits (Y-X) to fiat you have some kind of tax bill.  The other side - spending bitcoins bought (or mined) at X for something at Y (Y > X) - is something that governments will have to decide how to classify, but don't think that just because they haven't issued a ruling yet means your profits are free.

So, Joe decides to go on a long deserved holiday to Lovelyland, and purchases $2,000 Lovely dollars for $2,000 of his country's fiat dollar.

He returns from his Lovelyland holiday and goes to sell his remaining Lovely dollars, $1,000 as things were cheap and he was frugal. Much to Joe's suprise, oil, gas, diamonds, and the cure for cancer were all discovered in Lovelyland while he was away, and the Lovely dollar rose nicely. Joe end up recieving $2,000 of his country's fiat dollars for his $1,000 Lovely dollars.

1) Does Joe have to pay capital gains tax?
2) How is bitcoin different? (For those that purchase and are not professional traders.)

I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate

It's funny how often those that preach collectivist principles always end up calling for someone to die.

RenegadeMind, noone is "eager" to pay tax. But some of us to choose to obey the laws of the country we live in. The forum has plenty of people whose moral code appears to be "it is okay to break the law if I'm unlikely to get caught".

It seems like there are a lot of Americans in this forum, and a lot eager to cough up. I happen to have an advantage given my particular situation in that I'm not under any obligation in the country where I live to pay that particular tax.

Now, if you have money outside of your country of residence, it really isn't any business of the government of your country as it is outside of their sovereign territory and outside of their jurisdiction.

(Assuming you live in none of these places...)

You can go to Colorado and smoke pot.

You can go to Amsterdam for "intimate physical encounters".

You can go to Texas and own and shoot guns.

You can go to Vietnam and insult the king of Thailand. (God forbid you ever go to Thailand afterwards...)

But you're not going to face criminal charges where you live for what you do outside of that territory.

Why is bitcoin somehow magically different?

Large corporations and trusts do business in other countries simply to get around tax laws in their own countries?

Why do corporations get to avoid tax, but individuals don't?

*IF* you do your bitcoin activities where you live, then sure - you're doing it there.

If you are doing your bitcoin activities outside of where you live, then it's none of their business.

Does where you live necessitate that your local "authorities" somehow have absolute purveyance over everything you do and every aspect of your life, even outside of their jurisdiction?

I don't think so. Just because you live somewhere doesn't necessitate some kind of lien on your soul.

If you want to go whoring in Nevada, that's your business. It's legal there.


Perhaps a better question would be:

Why do people do bitcoin activity in jurisdictions where they will be liable for tax?


Here's something entertaining to think about as a minor distraction.

[(A)social]

I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate

It's funny how often those that preach collectivist principles always end up calling for someone to die.

Isn't it? 

[Luno]

This is a funny thread: You hate government control and taxes, you believe that officials are corrupt, you are a libertarian, so you agree to the notion of government, unless you are an ancap ideologist, so it's ok to be corrupt yourself? You like infrastructure, but you don't have to pay because you are smart enough to evade tax?

How is judging others as criminals an argument for breaking the law yourself?

[elebit]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax? And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

No, the the attraction of Bitcoins is fast global payments an order of magnitude cheaper than anything else.

Of course you should pay taxes if your investment pays off. It's income just like anything else and that's what makes society work. If I had lived outside society I would statistically not have had the opportunity to learn about this stuff, let alone own a computer.

What you say about cash transactions is true for all foreign exchange speculation. Sure you can trade USD and JPY by meeting random people on the street from the classified section and exchange cash. Then all your speculation would be outside taxation. But if that seems like a worthwhile endevour for you, you are investing way too little!

[kokjo]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax? And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

No, the the attraction of Bitcoins is fast global payments an order of magnitude cheaper than anything else.

+1 truer words have never been spoken.

[Jobe7]

Need to add (concerning UK), though you'd not pay taxes on 'bitcoin' until you changed it into fiat, you'd still be paying taxes on whatever commodity you were trading in.

As an exchange the rules are different, don't ask me on that.

[Jobe7]

What you pay tax on is the amount you change into FIAT. It is simply NOT considered capital gain, or bloomin' anything else.. might as well start trying to declare World of Warcraft gold or Eve online currency (can't remember what that's called) as your 'capital gains' ..

I can only speak to the USA, but converting it into something of value other than USD should still be a taxable event I believe. It'd fall under barter most likely:

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

That is, I pay you (as a barter since bitcoin isn't an actual legal tender, yet?) X bitcoins for a car worth $15,000 USD. That places my mined bitcoins at a value of $15,000 USD with a cost basis of zero, for a $15,000 realized gain.

OK, if you had btc of $15,000 USD value (lets use a random number, 200 btc), then brought a car with that amount. You now have a car, would you still have to pay tax on the btc that you no longer have?

On the car, yes, same as in the UK. But you don't pay tax on stuff (money/btc) you don't have.

So, in the US you'd have to declare your btc, pay tax on that as if it was $15,000? (how do you propose to pay that tax in btc exactly? Does the IRS have a Bitcoin wallet now that I'm unaware of?).

[deadweasel]

What you pay tax on is the amount you change into FIAT. It is simply NOT considered capital gain, or bloomin' anything else.. might as well start trying to declare World of Warcraft gold or Eve online currency (can't remember what that's called) as your 'capital gains' ..

I can only speak to the USA, but converting it into something of value other than USD should still be a taxable event I believe. It'd fall under barter most likely:

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

That is, I pay you (as a barter since bitcoin isn't an actual legal tender, yet?) X bitcoins for a car worth $15,000 USD. That places my mined bitcoins at a value of $15,000 USD with a cost basis of zero, for a $15,000 realized gain.

OK, if you had btc of $15,000 USD value (lets use a random number, 200 btc), then brought a car with that amount. You now have a car, would you still have to pay tax on the btc that you no longer have?

On the car, yes, same as in the UK. But you don't pay tax on stuff (money/btc) you don't have.

So, in the US you'd have to declare your btc, pay tax on that as if it was $15,000? (how do you propose to pay that tax in btc exactly? Does the IRS have a Bitcoin wallet now that I'm unaware of?).

Nobody actually pays tax on barter.

[Jobe7]

Nobody actually pays tax on barter.

Backing my point even more then ty

[unk]

OK, if you had btc of $15,000 USD value (lets use a random number, 200 btc), then brought a car with that amount. You now have a car, would you still have to pay tax on the btc that you no longer have?

On the car, yes, same as in the UK. But you don't pay tax on stuff (money/btc) you don't have.

So, in the US you'd have to declare your btc, pay tax on that as if it was $15,000? (how do you propose to pay that tax in btc exactly? Does the IRS have a Bitcoin wallet now that I'm unaware of?).

you're not thinking about it correctly. we pay tax all the time on things we don't 'have'. for example, if you earn USD $15,000, you pay tax on that income regardless whether you spend it or save it.

the principle is really very simple, but most people who haven't studied it get very easily confused and make bad assumption after bad assumption. the united states's principle is very straightforward: you owe tax on all income received, from whatever source derived.

that includes noncash compensation. when something isn't cash, the value for tax purposes is its fair market value at the time you received it. of course, fair market value can be disputed; it is up to the taxpayer to declare it and the IRS to challenge it. (if an intentional understatement, it can lead to civil or criminal penalties.)

so if you buy 150 BTC at $100 and immediately use it to buy a car, you owe no tax merely because you used bitcoins. (you might owe a sales tax in the US on the car, of course.) if you buy 150 BTC at $50, wait until it appreciates to $100, and use it to buy a car, you owe $7500 in income (specifically, probably capital gains) taxes on the appreciation of the bitcoins.

as to barter, people pay tax on it all the time. individuals who barter for $200 probably cheat the government out of income to that amount, but sophisticated individuals and businesses that engage in noncash transactions certainly do pay tax. i have done it myself, to the tune one year of a $4 million tax bill.

as to the title of the thread, it is because not everyone is an extremist anarchist; most people adopt ethical systems that recognise the value of law and government and then adopt the principle that it is appropriate for the costs of government to be split based roughly on income. nobody thinks the tax system in any large country is perfect, but almost everyone in those countries (except in this often ridiculous forum) thinks it is better than having no government at all.

[RenegadeMind]

I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate

It's funny how often those that preach collectivist principles always end up calling for someone to die.

Isn't it?  

Once you get over the "crabs in a bucket" thing, yes.

How is judging others as criminals an argument for breaking the law yourself?

As the OP, I assume that you are addressing me... Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're making some wrong assumptions. I haven't broken any laws at all. However, I'm a bit of an edge case and by far not typical of most people.

This is a funny thread: You hate government control and taxes, you believe that officials are corrupt, you are a libertarian, so you agree to the notion of government, unless you are an ancap ideologist, so it's ok to be corrupt yourself? You like infrastructure, but you don't have to pay because you are smart enough to evade tax?

I'll leave that alone as you're making some wild assumptions with no basis.

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax? And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

No, the the attraction of Bitcoins is fast global payments an order of magnitude cheaper than anything else.

Of course you should pay taxes if your investment pays off.

Well, I can't disagree with it being a fantastic payment system.

But as for paying taxes... Why should anyone pay taxes that they don't need to? It's not that hard to get around a lot of tax laws. Yet still, there are many thread with people clambering to cough up when there are many, many ways for them to legally get around it.

A lot of people seem to think that there's no way around tax. Ahem... Google... Ireland... Ring a bell anyone?

It's income just like anything else and that's what makes society work. If I had lived outside society I would statistically not have had the opportunity to learn about this stuff, let alone own a computer.

And the current society is the ONLY one possible? There are no alternatives? Everything has been explored, and we've arrived at the pinnacle?

I find that rather unlikely.

I'm not saying that it's easy to think outside the box. But it seems like a lot of people really, really love the box.

(how do you propose to pay that tax in btc exactly? Does the IRS have a Bitcoin wallet now that I'm unaware of?).

Quite correct. BTC is not something that you *CAN* pay taxes in (the US).

[mwag]

RenegadeMind, noone is "eager" to pay tax. But some of us to choose to obey the laws of the country we live in. The forum has plenty of people whose moral code appears to be "it is okay to break the law if I'm unlikely to get caught".

Maybe their moral code is something more like, "It is OK to break the law if the law is unjust." Perhaps they think tax laws are unjust because the taxed do not get to choose where their contribution is used. They might not mind paying taxes for the building of public infrastructure, but they might mind paying taxes for bailing out mismanaged businesses or bombing other people halfway around the globe.

[majorddf]

I am in the UK and have not yet cashed out any coin.

However when I do, I understand from a phone call to the HMRC and a cross check of their website, that I will be needing to pay capital gains tax over a certain tax free threshold, reset annually.

So although there is no 'Bitcoin Tax' the act of changing Bitcoin in to Fiat creates a Capital Gain.

So I just have to make sure that I stick within the £10k or so annual threshold and I don't pay a penny.

However, if I do happen to need to or want to exceed that threshold, will I pay the tax? Of course I fucking will, I don't need or want the hassle of a fine or jail time. Anyone who says otherwise is, in my opinion, a total imbecile.

[Luno]

I am in the UK and have not yet cashed out any coin.

However when I do, I understand from a phone call to the HMRC and a cross check of their website, that I will be needing to pay capital gains tax over a certain tax free threshold, reset annually.

So although there is no 'Bitcoin Tax' the act of changing Bitcoin in to Fiat creates a Capital Gain.

So I just have to make sure that I stick within the £10k or so annual threshold and I don't pay a penny.

However, if I do happen to need to or want to exceed that threshold, will I pay the tax? Of course I fucking will, I don't need or want the hassle of a fine or jail time. Anyone who says otherwise is, in my opinion, a total imbecile.

+1+1 to the two last posts. We can not afford having people looking at Bitcoin as a way to cheat on their taxes, nor having a lot of people getting fined for not filing their income in Bitcoin correctly. Taxation guides for each country are being compiled in different threads for the challenged, as I myself was, at the start at the year when the numbers suddenly added up, and my hobby had become an income.

[unk]

So although there is no 'Bitcoin Tax' the act of changing Bitcoin in to Fiat creates a Capital Gain.

the act of disposing of it (for fiat or anything else) is what creates the capital gain. it doesn't matter if you sell it for 'fiat' currency, goods, services, land, or anything else.

the mistake people keep making is to assume that a nation's fiat currency has any special place in computing the timing or amount of capital gains, except as the denomination of value in which the tax is paid. the way the tax laws work is much simpler: if you buy something for something worth $X and trade it away for something worth $Y, you owe $(Y-X) in (capital gains) taxes.  (modulo, of course, the exceptions you mentioned, like bands of tax-free income for small amounts.)

[Jobe7]

I am in the UK and have not yet cashed out any coin.

However when I do, I understand from a phone call to the HMRC and a cross check of their website, that I will be needing to pay capital gains tax over a certain tax free threshold, reset annually.

So although there is no 'Bitcoin Tax' the act of changing Bitcoin in to Fiat creates a Capital Gain.

So I just have to make sure that I stick within the £10k or so annual threshold and I don't pay a penny.

However, if I do happen to need to or want to exceed that threshold, will I pay the tax? Of course I fucking will, I don't need or want the hassle of a fine or jail time. Anyone who says otherwise is, in my opinion, a total imbecile.

What he said

Until HMRC recognizes btc as a currency and creates a btc wallet to receive taxes, there's nothing we can do even if we wanted to (unless ofc we change all our btc to fiat (assuming its over the threshold) declare that fiat, pay the taxes, then change all the fiat back into btc), which is bloody stupid in anyones book.. And ye, as the person above says, if you're going to cash out xxx amount over the threshold, then ye.. it's bloody daft NOT to declare it (if you have to for any purposes).

[RenegadeMind]

There's a serious disconnect here...

There is NO reason to assume that AVOIDING tax is the same as CHEATING tax.

There are plenty of ways to avoid tax without being a "cheat". Sure, many people won't take advantage of the legal ways to get around being gang raped for more than they need to pay, but that doesn't necessitate that just because YOU didn't take advantage of those ways that other people are cheats.

Again, this is just more buying into common misperceptions.

If you can avoid tax, why not? Large corporations do it all the time.'

Why is it ok for a fortune 500 company to do something, but it's "immoral" or "unethical" for you to do it?

I say BS. If you don't work the system, it will work you. Just take advantage of the ways to avoid tax that are available. There are LOTS of ways.

[kokjo]

There's a serious disconnect here...

There is NO reason to assume that AVOIDING tax is the same as CHEATING tax.

There are plenty of ways to avoid tax without being a "cheat". Sure, many people won't take advantage of the legal ways to get around being gang raped for more than they need to pay, but that doesn't necessitate that just because YOU didn't take advantage of those ways that other people are cheats.

Again, this is just more buying into common misperceptions.

If you can avoid tax, why not? Large corporations do it all the time.'

Why is it ok for a fortune 500 company to do something, but it's "immoral" or "unethical" for you to do it?

I say BS. If you don't work the system, it will work you. Just take advantage of the ways to avoid tax that are available. There are LOTS of ways.

it is also immoral for the fortune 500 companies...

[Severian]

Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.

No.

Anyone that tells a government about money that the government doesn't know about in order to pay taxes to said government is a fool. Wishing violence on people because you disagree with them is about what I'd expect from someone that wants to take it up the pooper from The State.

[Luno]

There's a serious disconnect here...

There is NO reason to assume that AVOIDING tax is the same as CHEATING tax.

There are plenty of ways to avoid tax without being a "cheat". Sure, many people won't take advantage of the legal ways to get around being gang raped for more than they need to pay, but that doesn't necessitate that just because YOU didn't take advantage of those ways that other people are cheats.

Again, this is just more buying into common misperceptions.

If you can avoid tax, why not? Large corporations do it all the time.'

Why is it ok for a fortune 500 company to do something, but it's "immoral" or "unethical" for you to do it?

I say BS. If you don't work the system, it will work you. Just take advantage of the ways to avoid tax that are available. There are LOTS of ways.

If large companies are avoiding taxes people think they are cheating. When someone has the ability through the way they setup their business or the country they have their business i, others without that possibility are sure they are cheating.

Accounting is not always an exact science, tweaking the uncertainties to your own advantage is about the limit of what is concerned legal, within limits!

Bitcoin is new, so in my opinion people should file as they were boy scouts to get maximum goodwill from authorities. That will be beneficiary in the long run.

[Severian]

Bitcoin is new, so in my opinion people should file as they were boy scouts to get maximum goodwill from authorities.

I'd only worry about state and local authorities for those in the US doing business in a regulated domain. Personal users should keep their bitcoin info and earnings as far from government ears as possible.

[RenegadeMind]

it is also immoral for the fortune 500 companies...

Just because it is immoral doesn't mean that it is illegal or against the law.

If large companies are avoiding taxes people think they are cheating. When someone has the ability through the way they setup their business or the country they have their business i, others without that possibility are sure they are cheating.

Accounting is not always an exact science, tweaking the uncertainties to your own advantage is about the limit of what is concerned legal, within limits!

Bitcoin is new, so in my opinion people should file as they were boy scouts to get maximum goodwill from authorities. That will be beneficiary in the long run.

Just because people think that something is wrong doesn't mean that it is illegal.

For example:

You may believe that abortion is right/wrong, but that has no bearing on what is legal/illegal.

I don't think that the state has any right to murder people, but states murder people all the time. Legally.

There is a very big difference between "legal/lawful" and "moral".

[RenegadeMind]

Anyone that tells a government about money that the government doesn't know about in order to pay taxes to said government is a fool. Wishing violence on people because you disagree with them is about what I'd expect from someone that wants to take it up the pooper from The State.

Seems reasonable. Why take a solid ass-fucking with a chainsaw if you can avoid it?

[Jobe7]

Bitcoin is new, so in my opinion people should file as they were boy scouts to get maximum goodwill from authorities.

I'd only worry about state and local authorities for those in the US doing business in a regulated domain. Personal users should keep their bitcoin info and earnings as far from government ears as possible.

Ye, couldn't agree more. Not a chance in hell I'd tell the state about my personal btc and the 'profit' from increase in value. That just should not come into anyone's equation.

And a good point from someone - difference between 'cheating tax' and 'avoiding tax'.

BTC (the value you change to fiat) for tax purposes should only be stated if you run a business, or if you're claiming benefits.

Hey .. 40% inheritance tax in the UK (yes, its sick) - how about starting a business

"Want your inheritance to go to your spouses/relatives 100%? Then do it through Bitcoin!"

[kokjo]

"Want your inheritance to go to your spouses/relatives 100%? Then do it through Bitcoin!"

if you want people to be born equal, then the wealth of the parents should not be transferred to the children.

[Jobe7]

"Want your inheritance to go to your spouses/relatives 100%? Then do it through Bitcoin!"

if you want people to be born equal, then the wealth of the parents should not be transferred to the children.

Hmm.. then what do you propose happens to someones wealth/assets when they die? It all goes to the government?

[gollum]

All these threads about "how do I pay tax" sound like a cacophonous symphony of masochists screaming "Rape me! No, rape me first!"

"Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[RenegadeMind]

Hey .. 40% inheritance tax in the UK (yes, its sick) - how about starting a business

"Want your inheritance to go to your spouses/relatives 100%? Then do it through Bitcoin!"

Good point.

You get taxed on everything, then they want to steal more when you die. It's sick and perverse. It's double taxing you at a minimum.

if you want people to be born equal, then the wealth of the parents should not be transferred to the children.

Spoken like a true statist. Steal everything from people when they die. Wonderful! Make certain that people live in poverty, or at least help ensure poverty.

All these threads about "how do I pay tax" sound like a cacophonous symphony of masochists screaming "Rape me! No, rape me first!"

"Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Nicely done.

Again, crabs in a bucket. I'm getting raped, so you should too!

[Jobe7]

All these threads about "how do I pay tax" sound like a cacophonous symphony of masochists screaming "Rape me! No, rape me first!"

"Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Ye.. there's a difference between stockholm syndrome and not wanting to have all your assets/wealth stolen and being locked up.

In the city where I live they set aside 1 day a week, the whole day, at the Courts so that the city Council can run all its cases against people who havn't been able (or havn't paid) their council taxes.

But hey, if you think stockholm syndrome reflects not wanting to get locked up and all your stuff stolen, then I suggest you try don't pay any taxes, ever, again. Then state its because you won't adhere to taxes because everyone else pays taxes due to stockholm syndrome and you simply don't/won't pay your taxes because YOU don't suffer from stockholm syndrome.

You "No sir, I will NOT and don't need to pay taxes because I don't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome!"

Let us know how it goes. Especially when the court bailiffs/police come knocking.

I don't fully agree with taxes, because of what they stand for and because of the extent they're used for. BUT I will pay them (when I have to) so that my wealth/assets (and those that have families) don't get stolen and so that I don't lose my liberty.

One day it ('taxes') will change, but that day is not yet.

[RenegadeMind]

I don't fully agree with taxes, because of what they stand for and because of the extent they're used for. BUT I will pay them (when I have to) so that my wealth/assets (and those that have families) don't get stolen and so that I don't lose my liberty.

Good points there.


Aside:

I would recommend a few people to read Immanuel Kant on moral worth of actions. It's relevant to this discussion.

[silzero]

While the origins of Bitcoin is from freedom. The moment you convert Bitcoin to Fiat you are liable to pay taxes.
Your existence in a country gives you no other choice but to pay taxes (unless you are in Brunei or some such country).

If you are not eager to pay taxes that shows you don't care about the legalities. It would be an expensive mistake to think your government will sit and let you skip your taxes.

Now you can reduce or eliminate your tax due, that implies you have to look to pay your taxes. Ignoring your taxes is like ignoring a festering wound and think that'll go away on its own.

This thinking of sticking it to the man, needs to change if you want your coins to count for anything greater than 0. There is nothing to be gained by creating friction with legal systems. Bitcoin itself would not be illegal, just its  way of use makes it attract bad light. There is lots to be gained by just not working against the system (if possible work with it).

Look at the advantages of Bitcoin: Secure, fast and very cheap way to transfer money anywhere there is a computer. Those are more productive than "eh.. I don't care about the government and I'm going to use Bitcoin to prove it".

[qxzn]

Everyone seems to agree that it's "moral" to pay your taxes, and immoral not to pay taxes. But when you consider the violence that is wreaked with your tax dollars, there's a good case for the exact opposite. Some of the great nonviolent thinkers agree:

If a thousand [citizens] were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.

- Thoreau

    This sad situation developed after my departure from South Africa, but my idea of having permanent funds for public institutions underwent a change long before this difference arose. And now after considerable experience with the many public institutions which I have managed, it has become my firm conviction that it is not good to run public institutions on permanent funds. A permanent fund carries in itself the seed of the moral fall of the institution. A public institution means an institution conducted with the approval, and from the funds, of the public. When such an institution ceases to have public support, it forfeits its right to exist. Institutions maintained on permanent funds are often found to ignore public opinion, and are frequently responsible for acts contrary to it. In our country we experience this at every step. Some of the so-called religious trusts have ceased to render any accounts. The trustees have become the owners, and are responsible to none. I have no doubt that the ideal is for public institutions to live, like nature, from day to day. The institution that fails to win public support has no right to exist as such. The subscriptions that an institution annually receives are a test of its popularity and the honesty of its management, and I am of opinion that every institution should submit to that test. But let no one misunderstand me. My remarks do not apply to the bodies which cannot, by their very nature, be conducted without permanent buildings. What I mean to say it that the current expenditure should be found from subscriptions voluntarily received from year to year.

- Gandhi

[gollum]

The taxation we got today in many european countries are way too high, when you pay 100 euro for a service the total taxes paid are between 50-80%! So you only get 20-50% of the value that you pay for.

We could have 10-15% tax and still have the same quality in the society if the public sectors efficiency were optimal.

The problem with the government is that they tax people as much as they can, and then decide how to waste that money instead of deciding on what is really needed first. I believe we could cut the government budget (taxes) with 80% without regular people noticing any difference in the service they experience in real life. There are so many bullshit projects, bullshit departments and bullshit regulations that no one would miss them except the bureaucrats that would get fired from their unneeded jobs.

In my view government is mostly a parasite on the economy. We should cut the government functions as much as possible, and let the private sector handle the rest.

[Severian]

Why take a solid ass-fucking with a chainsaw if you can avoid it?

I'm starting to think that some of the tax apologists actually LIKE the chainsaw part of the deal.

[kokjo]

"Want your inheritance to go to your spouses/relatives 100%? Then do it through Bitcoin!"

if you want people to be born equal, then the wealth of the parents should not be transferred to the children.

Hmm.. then what do you propose happens to someones wealth/assets when they die? It all goes to the government?

i don't know...

if you want people to be born equal, then the wealth of the parents should not be transferred to the children.

Spoken like a true statist. Steal everything from people when they die. Wonderful! Make certain that people live in poverty, or at least help ensure poverty.

i have not in this thread said it should go to the state, just that it are against your own political believes.

[Severian]

i have not in this thread said it should go to the state, just that it are against your own political believes.

Then who gets my wealth when I die if I'm not allowed to leave it to my family?

[kokjo]

i have not in this thread said it should go to the state, just that it are against your own political believes.

Then who gets my wealth when I die if I'm not allowed to leave it to my family?

as i answered before: I don't know, it could just "vanish", given away to a 50 random strangers, given to the state, given to a "good" course. i don't care, im just stating that inheritance of wealth does not go well with your people are born equal. you can only have one of the options.

[gollum]

People actively not paying taxes are actually contributing to the evolution of the government without knowing it! When you dont pay tax you starve the government and forces it to become more efficient. Thats something economists should make research on - the efficiency of low tax vs high tax countries.

[Severian]

i don't care, im just stating that inheritance of wealth does not go well with your people are born equal. you can only have one of the options.

Trying to make people "equal" results in what happened in China during the Cultural Revolution. The Soviet Union suffered the same fate.

There's an old saying I abide by:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

-TJ

[Severian]

People actively not paying taxes are actually contributing to the evolution of the government without knowing it! When you dont pay tax you starve the government and forces it to become more efficient. Thats something economists should make research on - the efficiency of low tax vs high tax countries.

Well stated. Thank you.

[Jobe7]

Urm .. it's not against my political beliefs...

I believe that my family should inherit by life times work.

I do NOT believe that the government is entitled to steal 40% of it when I die.
I do NOT believe that the government is entitled to steal 100% of it when I die.

I DO believe that my family (or those that I choose) are entitled to 100% of what I leave to them.

I think what you meant to say was -

It's against YOUR political beliefs to leave anything to anyone,

That your beliefs are;

1. Everything you've worked your life for should just be burned and turned to ash.
2. You want ALL your possessions, assets/wealth, 100% to go to your government, regardless of your children, wife, spouses/friends/etc
3. When you die all your assets/wealth will be a 'free for all', which will obviously all go to the bank/government.

Now I'm guessing you didn't mean no 2 or no 3, which leaves no 1. Is that what your political belief is? I'll tell you now .. the human race will not get very far if we burn everything to ashes every time someone dies ..

Btw - no 3 already exists (in the UK anyway) if you don't leave a will (spoken or written).

edit: read your 'divide to 50 people'

I think you mean something along the lines of - "when someone dies their wealth should be divided amongst the rest of the populace." The problem with that is that people will go "fuck no!" And it would destroy the economy.

Example: Why should I bother working when all my assets/wealth will get split amongst people I do not know and for all I know do NOT work or do anything but sit on their asses waiting for random inheritance to come into their pocket.

So I don't work, and become like them. So who does the work? (knowing all their work will go into random pockets). Why bother working? To provide a better life for myself? I can sit on my arse and wait for inheritance from random people, why should anyone work.. but then there's no labour, no income..

[kokjo]

i don't care, im just stating that inheritance of wealth does not go well with your people are born equal. you can only have one of the options.

Trying to make people "equal" results in what happened in China during the Cultural Revolution. The Soviet Union suffered the same fate.

when a baby is born:
a) it is born into a rich family
b) it is born poor family.
(yes i know there are degrees of rich/poor)

now say that all people are created equally, a premise of liberalism. then the baby born into the rich family have unfair advantage over the poor baby, and are therefor not equals.

in other words:
you can have either one, but not both. stop using the liberal propaganda of "every one if created equally", or surrender your inheritance.

[kokjo]

"all men are created equal", Thomas Jefferson.

do you agree with that statement?

[Severian]

"all men are created equal", Thomas Jefferson.

do you agree with that statement?

Full thought:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Not paying taxes is an enshrined right to alter or abolish a despotic government.

The State dictating what I may or may not do with my wealth when I die is a despotic government.

[kokjo]

Not paying taxes is an enshrined right to alter or abolish a despotic government.

The State dictating what I may or may not do with my wealth when I die is a despotic government.

i disagree with this... the government is not despotic, when it tries to redistribute wealth.

[Severian]

i disagree with this... the government is not despotic, when it tries to redistribute wealth.

A government is most certainly despotic when it dictates how citizens may or may not use their movable property. If government is worth anything, it exists, or should exist, to protect the rights of its citizens, not to infringe on their rights.

"Wealth redistribution" is just another way of saying "confiscation". Robbery is robbery, no matter if a person or a State is doing it.

[Malawi]

I am a human being, not a freeloading monkey.

Taxes have paid my education and founded a stable society that have enabled me to make a decent living, food in the stores, reliable public services etc.

[kokjo]

I am a human being, not a freeloading monkey.

Taxes have paid my education and founded a stable society that have enabled me to make a decent living, food in the stores, reliable public services etc.

+1

[Severian]

Taxes have paid my education and founded a stable society that have enabled me to make a decent living, food in the stores, reliable public services etc.

Taxes did no such thing. Money printing allowed that.

Taxes exist in the fractional reserve system as a mechanism to increase the value of the unit of account by removing some of the supply from the user base. Governments and banks can print all the money they want. They don't need our taxes to survive  but they do need to take some of our money away as means of regulating the supply of their increasingly worthless product.

[kokjo]

"Wealth redistribution" is just another way of saying "confiscation". Robbery is robbery, no matter if a person or a State is doing it.

you entered an agreement with the government when you where born, just as you did to your family.

this agreement allows you to take advantage of free education, and other public services, and the government to take taxes.

[Severian]

you entered an agreement with the government when you where born, just as you did to your family.

You're mistaking "government" and "society". This is an error in logic that is causing an accumulation of errors in your other reasoning. One of those errors is the mistaken idea that we entered into a "contract" with a force that has no care for consent or reason.

A little Thomas Paine might set you straight:

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!

this agreement allows you to take advantage of free education, and other public services, and the government to take taxes.

I'd rather die in the gutter than take one penny from the State for my food, shelter, clothing and education. I make my own way, thanks.

[kokjo]

I'd rather die in the gutter than take one penny from the State for my food, shelter, clothing and education. I make my own way, thanks.

you should not walk on the streets and road that we have paid for.

[gollum]

I'd rather die in the gutter than take one penny from the State for my food, shelter, clothing and education. I make my own way, thanks.

you should not walk on the streets and road that we have paid for.

Everytime you buy anything in a store VAT is paid which should be enough for the roads he is walking on.

[kokjo]

I'd rather die in the gutter than take one penny from the State for my food, shelter, clothing and education. I make my own way, thanks.

you should not walk on the streets and road that we have paid for.

Everytime you buy anything in a store VAT is paid which should be enough for the roads he is walking on.

the VAT is a tax on the merchant.how would he get to the store, when he don't wants to walk on the roads? fly?

and anyways, it was he who decided to not use anything that the state owns...

[Severian]

you should not walk on the streets and road that we have paid for.

I pay taxes just like everyone else when I buy things like fuel and other taxed essentials.

I said I'm not taking anything from the State. Surely that makes me a good citizen since I'm not looking for a return?

[kokjo]

you should not walk on the streets and road that we have paid for.

I pay taxes just like everyone else when I buy things like fuel and other taxed essentials.

I said I'm not taking anything from the State. Surely that makes me a good citizen since I'm not looking for a return?

you are expecting street without holes.

[Severian]

you are expecting street without holes.

As I don't recall saying this, I can only assume this is another flaw in your logic.

[kokjo]

you are expecting street without holes.

As I don't recall saying this, I can only assume this is another flaw in your logic.

we created and maintained this road, and you are now abusing it.

[Severian]

we created and maintained this road, and you are now abusing it.

"We" is you and I: society. We built the roads. Society precedes government. Government is a scam designed to make you think you need them, as with any abusive relationship.

I don't expect perfect roads from society but I do expect a little civility. Perhaps you could start by learning some.

[kokjo]

we created and maintained this road, and you are now abusing it.

"We" is you and I: society. We built the roads. Society precedes government. Government is a scam designed to make you think you need them, as with any abusive relationship.

I don't expect perfect roads from society but I do expect a little civility. Perhaps you could start by learning some.

take all the sweet stuff, and leave all the sour?

roads was made of mud where i live now, if it had not been for the government. before a democratic government was created in Denmark, there was only roads and streets in the big cities.

[Severian]

roads was made of mud where i live now, if it had not been for the government. before a democratic government was created in Denmark, there was only roads and streets in the big cities.

Government may have been the tool used to facilitate the roads, but credit for the road building goes to society, not government.

[gollum]

People defending taxes dont know that most of the money is either ending up in wrong hands (corruption) or wasted on bullshit wars, bullshit interest rates and bullshit departments (Department of Homeland Security et al.)

It is a huge myth that tax money benefits schools, roads, police and hospital. Increase taxes and you will see no increase in the quality of public services, just more corruption and more spending on bullshit.

[(A)social]

"Wealth redistribution" is just another way of saying "confiscation". Robbery is robbery, no matter if a person or a State is doing it.

you entered an agreement with the government when you where born, just as you did to your family.

LOL. You really believe this shit???

[kokjo]

roads was made of mud where i live now, if it had not been for the government. before a democratic government was created in Denmark, there was only roads and streets in the big cities.

Government may have been the tool used to facilitate the roads, but credit for the road building goes to society, not government.

you are wrong. public roads in Denmark are funded by the danish government.

[kokjo]

"Wealth redistribution" is just another way of saying "confiscation". Robbery is robbery, no matter if a person or a State is doing it.

you entered an agreement with the government when you where born, just as you did to your family.

LOL. You really believe this shit???

LOL, you really believe otherwise???

[Severian]

you are wrong. public roads in Denmark are funded by the danish government.

And who funds the Danish government?

[kokjo]

you are wrong. public roads in Denmark are funded by the danish government.

And who funds the Danish government?

people who pay TAXES!

[Severian]

people who pay TAXES!

That's called "society". Government should be our employee, not our employer.

If you're happy with your government, then do as you see fit. But quit casting aspersions on informed dissenters that aren't happy with our own governments and are doing as we see fit. I'd take you more seriously if your argument had nothing to do with me and had more to do with your own ideas.

[kokjo]

Government should be our employee, not our employer.

correct, and i would like my government to take taxes of my payments.



who creates wars then?

also the people? or is it just an evil government creation? 

[agaumoney]

inheritance of wealth does not go well with your people are born equal. you can only have one of the options.

That is a gross distortion.

Born equal has nothing to do with family, gender, health, wealth or anything other than civil rights.  In other words, there is no nobility or other political privilege or punishment by right of birth.

If anything, being born poor is now currently breaking the "born equal" promise because the state provides more for those at the expense of those whose families pay their own way.

[Severian]

who creates wars then?

Bankers. All wars are banker wars.

[Malawi]

you entered an agreement with the government when you where born, just as you did to your family.

You're mistaking "government" and "society". This is an error in logic that is causing an accumulation of errors in your other reasoning. One of those errors is the mistaken idea that we entered into a "contract" with a force that has no care for consent or reason.

A little Thomas Paine might set you straight:

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!

this agreement allows you to take advantage of free education, and other public services, and the government to take taxes.

I'd rather die in the gutter than take one penny from the State for my food, shelter, clothing and education. I make my own way, thanks.

And this you say at a network made by the US department of defence, on a computer only made possible due to public research?

[kokjo]

inheritance of wealth does not go well with your people are born equal. you can only have one of the options.

That is a gross distortion.

Born equal has nothing to do with family, gender, health, wealth or anything other than civil rights.  In other words, there is no nobility or other political privilege or punishment by right of birth.

If anything, being born poor is now currently breaking the "born equal" promise because the state provides more for those at the expense of those whose families pay their own way.

define "Born equal" then, and don't just put a reference to civil rights.

who creates wars then?

Bankers. All wars are banker wars.

does not banks pay for wars?

[agaumoney]

i disagree with this... the government is not despotic, when it tries to redistribute wealth.

If you want to steal from me, have the guts to do it yourself instead of hiding behind skirts of government.

Redistribution of wealth is 100% the province of despots.  Only the idiotic would think that a gov't capable of redistributing wealth will continue to do so in their favor.

[Severian]

And this you say at a network made by the US department of defence, on a computer only made possible due to public research?

I bought the computer with money I worked for. Society paid for the academics and DARPA researchers to develop the tool. Government is the dumb beast we use to get from point A to point B. The internet is proof that human ingenuity can't be stopped by government as the internet will be its downfall.

You missed what I said: I won't take money from the State. Where did I say I won't contribute?

[kokjo]

i disagree with this... the government is not despotic, when it tries to redistribute wealth.

If you want to steal from me, have the guts to do it yourself instead of hiding behind skirts of government.

Redistribution of wealth is 100% the province of despots.  Only the idiotic would think that a gov't capable of redistributing wealth will continue to do so in their favor.

the governement behave in the society's favor.

im currently paid by the state to take my education. and when im done with my education i will happily pay taxes, and i will not claim that the government steals from me.

[majorddf]

Forgetting the global society for one second and just focussing on our individual societies, because we are all from different countries, with different systems of government and different taxation systems.

This is how I see it, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong:

Government is a construct of a society seeking to organise itself to be more efficient.

Taxation is a construct of government put in place to centralise the funds required to effectively provide services and infrastructure to that society.

Now, no one likes paying taxes, I lose 22% of my salary each month to National Insurance and Income Tax, pay x amount a month for Council Tax, Road Tax, 20% Value Added Tax on anything deemed a luxury and don't even get me started on getting taxed at the pump twice, with Fuel Duty added on top. The coup de grace is having my savings taxed too.

But if we do away with taxation, then who is going to pay for the infrastructure and services?

You expect the world to run on altruism?

I am man enough to admit that freed from the shackles of taxation, you would have a hard time getting me to spend any money on anything except that which benefited me and mine. If everyone did the same, the world we lived in would probably be a worse place to live than it currently is.

Taxation is not perfect, but you can't disagree that as a premise it works.

[agaumoney]

So, Joe decides to go on a long deserved holiday to Lovelyland, and purchases $2,000 Lovely dollars for $2,000 of his country's fiat dollar.

He returns from his Lovelyland holiday and goes to sell his remaining Lovely dollars, $1,000 as things were cheap and he was frugal. Much to Joe's suprise, oil, gas, diamonds, and the cure for cancer were all discovered in Lovelyland while he was away, and the Lovely dollar rose nicely. Joe end up recieving $2,000 of his country's fiat dollars for his $1,000 Lovely dollars.

1) Does Joe have to pay capital gains tax?
2) How is bitcoin different? (For those that purchase and are not professional traders.)

Not cap gains tax, regular income tax.

In the U.S. Joe has to consider all incidental gains on currency exchange over $200 to be regular income which is taxed at far higher rate than capital gains.  There is only a short paragraph devoted to this topic.

Only trading forex gains and losses are subject to cap gains rates and then only if you opt for that treatment in advance of your trade.  But taking that option may also cost you...  There is a whole section devoted to this topic.

[agaumoney]

you are wrong. public roads in Denmark are funded by the danish government.

No, they are not.

They are funded by taking money from society by force if necessary.  Gov't claims the exclusive right of the exercise of force against members of society.

[agaumoney]

inheritance of wealth does not go well with your people are born equal. you can only have one of the options.

That is a gross distortion.

Born equal has nothing to do with family, gender, health, wealth or anything other than civil rights.  In other words, there is no nobility or other political privilege or punishment by right of birth.

If anything, being born poor is now currently breaking the "born equal" promise because the state provides more for those at the expense of those whose families pay their own way.

define "Born equal" then, and don't just put a reference to civil rights.

Civil rights are the rights to which born equal applies. That was and is the only context.

[kokjo]

inheritance of wealth does not go well with your people are born equal. you can only have one of the options.

That is a gross distortion.

Born equal has nothing to do with family, gender, health, wealth or anything other than civil rights.  In other words, there is no nobility or other political privilege or punishment by right of birth.

If anything, being born poor is now currently breaking the "born equal" promise because the state provides more for those at the expense of those whose families pay their own way.

define "Born equal" then, and don't just put a reference to civil rights.

Civil rights are the rights to which born equal applies. That was and is the only context.

and what you did was to just reference civil rights...

[agaumoney]

the governement behave in the society's favor.

im currently paid by the state to take my education. and when im done with my education i will happily pay taxes, and i will not claim that the government steals from me.

Then you are a fool with gullible written in bold on your forehead.

Government has as its highest priority the survival of government. If helping society will help government, then gov't will help society to help itself.  But each and every time those goals conflict, government has always and will always sacrifice society for the continuance and growth of government.

Look at any government emergency plans for themself vs for their populace.  Look at any war between two nations.

[kokjo]

Government has as its highest priority the survival of government.

no. you are assuming that the government is a living being, that only have its own survival in mind. it is not.

[agaumoney]

Government is a construct of a society seeking to organise itself to be more efficient.

basically I agree with what you wrote except for that line.

Efficiency has nothing to do with founding gov'ts.  Gov'ts are the least efficient allocators of resources known to man.

Many/most gov'ts were founded by gangs of thieves who conquered and subjected others in order to exploit them.  Some/few were founded by people to protect the people from gov'ts of the first order, but none remain of that persuasion to my knowledge.  Some have tried to dress themselves as if the people/society were a priority, but the laws, constitutions, and actions when observed in action do not support that stance.

[agaumoney]

Civil rights are the rights to which born equal applies. That was and is the only context.

and what you did was to just reference civil rights...

[kokjo]

Government is a construct of a society seeking to organise itself to be more efficient.

basically I agree with what you wrote except for that line.

Efficiency has nothing to do with founding gov'ts.  Gov'ts are the least efficient allocators of resources known to man.

Many/most gov'ts were founded by gangs of thieves who conquered and subjected others in order to exploit them.  Some/few were founded by people to protect the people from gov'ts of the first order, but none remain of that persuasion to my knowledge.  Some have tried to dress themselves as if the people/society were a priority, but the laws, constitutions, and actions when observed in action do not support that stance.

you really have a fucked up sense of history.

[Mike Christ]

The government's like the mafia; they offer protection, for a price.  If you don't cough up the dough, they hurt you.  The government can do this because it has a monopoly on security: governments generally own A.) the military, B.) the militias, and C.) the police.  If you don't want to support the military, or the militias, or the police, then it's too bad; you're forced to pay for them to exist, and you have little to no control over how these services are run.  Now, because the government owns the soldiers, the mercenaries and the peacekeepers, they can essentially do whatever they want to their citizens.  Now, they might pretend they're benevolent and they're there for your well-being, but lets not forget, they own the means of force, and they use it, often.

In the case of America, the citizens don't get to decide who goes to jail, an appointed official does.  The citizens don't decide which laws get passed, their elected officials do.  The citizens don't decide where their taxes go.  The citizens don't decide whether or not they pay them.  We have this funny little system where we're told we can change this or that, but it's a lie; our vote only decides who we're putting in charge for making our every decision.

So, the answer to the question is, people pay tax because they have to.  They can either pretend to like it, or express their discontent, but the fact is, you will be taxed, and resistance is futile.

This is normally where most people stop, go to their bedrooms, shut the door and grumble to themselves how it's not fair "but life is unfair."  Well, if you're that person, too bad, because here's the solution:

A free market on security.  The government exists by force.  You don't decide which government you follow, unless you get out of the country.  It shouldn't be this way.  Coca Cola doesn't put a gun to our head and tell us that if we drink Pepsi, we'll be thrown in jail.  Why doesn't the Coca-Cola company do this?  Because it's illegal.  Which is hypocritical; the entity which invented law, is breaking that same law, for the government is putting guns to our heads (through the soldiers, the militias, and the peacekeepers) and telling us we have to follow every decision they make, every law they pass and war they wage, or we'll be punished.  If the Coca-Cola company can't do this, nor should a single government.  The government is not God.  The government is there to serve us, but like any monopoly, the government will charge whatever it wants for their service and provide whatever kind of service it feels.  It has been providing shit service for decades.

Thus, the solution is a competition of government; government A, B, C, and D need to show us they provide the better service on security and infrastructure.  Since Government A (our government) has proven, over, and over, and over, that they no longer care for our needs (and why should they, with a monopoly, care?), I believe anyone living in a capitalistic society can agree that competition is the very soul of a quality service.

[Jobe7]

Bankers. All wars are banker wars.

does not banks pay for wars?

Yes and yes.

Governments (or rebels) borrow from banks to fund their wars. This turns into 'debt' to the banks, lots and lots of interest and enslavement to the banks.

So, yes, bankers pay for wars, and they profit immensely from them. You might want to research into who made lots and lots of money from nearly every war that we have records of. For example, when the UK won the Napoleonic wars, who had a very fast horse race back to the UK/London, pretend to tell a certain individual (coughRothschildscough) things privately, who then acted as if the war was lost and start selling shares/stock en masse, which caused everyone else to go "AMAGAD PANIC SELL SELL SELL!!!" and then through various agents brought up all the shares/stock that was being sold, and at the end of the day (and when reports came back that the UK had won the war) turns out that this particular person had just literally brought out everyone.

Also, look into who actually owns arms companies, and where these arms go (to both sides, surprised?). Selling arms is very big money, and keeping nations destabilized so you can go in and steal their wealth is even more money.

Pretty much every country is in debt to the banks (coughrothschildscough)

------------------

anyway, apologies to digress, back to taxes

[farlack]

People want to pay taxes on their earnings for a simple reason..

Right now there isn't tax on coin.
There is tax on profit.
Coin worth $10, you sell for $10 make 0 profit in your eyes


4 years later your taxes you didn't owe that $45,000 that you should have paid out that you didn't.
Coins are now worth $1000 each, but you sold all. You spent all your money, now working your 9-5 job.
Now the IRS comes after you, what can you do but pay the now $150,000 they want after fees, and fines.

I think paying is better.

[Severian]

Only the idiotic would think that a gov't capable of redistributing wealth will continue to do so in their favor.

One of the reasons I stay off of the State's gravy train is because I noticed that it tends to affect the intellectual capacity of the recipient. It has to:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

[Severian]

does not banks pay for wars?

Bankers see wars as just another investment. They see government in the same way.

People are just cheap assets to bankers. Never forget that.

[Jobe7]

Forgetting the global society for one second and just focussing on our individual societies, because we are all from different countries, with different systems of government and different taxation systems.

This is how I see it, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong:

1. Government is a construct of a society seeking to organise itself to be more efficient.

2. Taxation is a construct of government put in place to centralise the funds required to effectively provide services and infrastructure to that society.

Now, no one likes paying taxes, I lose 22% of my salary each month to National Insurance and Income Tax, pay x amount a month for Council Tax, Road Tax, 20% Value Added Tax on anything deemed a luxury and don't even get me started on getting taxed at the pump twice, with Fuel Duty added on top. The coup de grace is having my savings taxed too.

But if we do away with taxation, then who is going to pay for the infrastructure and services?

You expect the world to run on altruism?

I am man enough to admit that freed from the shackles of taxation, you would have a hard time getting me to spend any money on anything except that which benefited me and mine. If everyone did the same, the world we lived in would probably be a worse place to live than it currently is.

Taxation is not perfect, but you can't disagree that as a premise it works.

(I numbered stuff to make it easier for reference)

1. Government is a construct of those with the strongest arms kicking the shyte out of everyone else and getting to power.

2. Taxation was originally meant to finance expenditure and allow for growth, but as I'm sure you know very well the system is badly abused. Though tbh, it's been abused through the millennia.

3. Decentralization & Privatization (the full infrastructure isn't there yet). Most of the things we pay for are private services, if they fail, we go to someone else (phone services for example). The government holds a monopoly on certain services, because holding a monopoly on these services enables them to enforce obedience through punishment (e.g. police, money, etc, can't think of others atm tbh). Competition breeds growth, monopolies breed corruption and staleness.

As an example to your last comment - What public services do you use that can't be privatized? Would you prefer to just pay your taxes to your local council if you KNEW exactly what your council was spending it on AND it was local matters? If everything was fully privatized and you had the option to pick and choose what services/company you and your family needed/wanted, would you prefer that? (I'm assuming you would tbh from what you said).

If government gives up certain things it means loss of power, but growth and more wealth and growth for yourself.

[Jobe7]

Government is a construct of a society seeking to organise itself to be more efficient.

basically I agree with what you wrote except for that line.

Efficiency has nothing to do with founding gov'ts.  Gov'ts are the least efficient allocators of resources known to man.

Many/most gov'ts were founded by gangs of thieves who conquered and subjected others in order to exploit them.  Some/few were founded by people to protect the people from gov'ts of the first order, but none remain of that persuasion to my knowledge.  Some have tried to dress themselves as if the people/society were a priority, but the laws, constitutions, and actions when observed in action do not support that stance.

you really have a fucked up sense of history.

@ Kokjo

How do you think governments are formed? Honestly, serious question.

[phelix]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

All these threads about "how do I pay tax" sound like a cacophonous symphony of masochists screaming "Rape me! No, rape me first!"

Paperwork is painful enough. Why add to the misery?

Or at a minimum, why not just only sell back an amount equivalent to your initial investment and keep the BTC? The next time you take a holiday, or step out of the country, you can probably cash in some of your BTC and stay under the radar and avoid more paperwork. 

fyi: It currently looks like selling Bitcoins you held on to for more than a year is tax free in Germany. Just as with foreign currencies.

[Severian]

Pretty much every country is in debt to the banks (coughrothschildscough)

They had help: Rockefeller, Warburg, Morgan, etc....

[Jobe7]

Pretty much every country is in debt to the banks (coughrothschildscough)

They had help: Rockefeller, Warburg, Morgan, etc....

Aye true, but the bastichs are the ones that got the ball rolling .. grrrr

Mind you tbh, damn Bank of England started fiat (1694), just the Rothschilds that started interest.. (and then went and took over the Bank of England in 1812).

[kokjo]

Government is a construct of a society seeking to organise itself to be more efficient.

basically I agree with what you wrote except for that line.

Efficiency has nothing to do with founding gov'ts.  Gov'ts are the least efficient allocators of resources known to man.

Many/most gov'ts were founded by gangs of thieves who conquered and subjected others in order to exploit them.  Some/few were founded by people to protect the people from gov'ts of the first order, but none remain of that persuasion to my knowledge.  Some have tried to dress themselves as if the people/society were a priority, but the laws, constitutions, and actions when observed in action do not support that stance.

you really have a fucked up sense of history.

@ Kokjo

How do you think governments are formed? Honestly, serious question.

the state of denmark became a democracy, to ensure the civil rights of the citizens, and to limit the kings power.

[Severian]

Aye true, but the bastichs are the ones that got the ball rolling .. grrrr

The Rothschilds transformed the interest system already in place. They just moved it to their family's advantage by buying governments all over Europe and the US.

An excellent work on the subversion of the American government by Money and Oil (Rothschilds and Rockefellers) is "Wealth Against Commonwealth" by Henry Demarest Lloyd, late 19th century.

[Severian]

the state of denmark became a democracy, to ensure the civil rights of the citizens, and to limit the kings power.

If you're a reader, "The State" by Oppenheimer might prove beneficial:

The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.

http://www.franz-oppenheimer.de/state0.htm

[Luno]

you are wrong. public roads in Denmark are funded by the danish government.

No, they are not.

They are funded by taking money from society by force if necessary.  Gov't claims the exclusive right of the exercise of force against members of society.

That's not the point!! If you feel that the Danish government is stealing money from cycling tax payers to favor motorists or is building an insane amount of highways in Jutland because of lobbyism, you still pay your taxes as you know that the things you appreciate being publicly funded, like maybe health care and education are payed for by more people than have use for it.
You really only have the choice of paying all your taxes on non at all, i.e. change citizenship. Stealing by not paying all your taxes disqualifies you as an accuser of government theft.

However, Gandhi started out as a tax avoider!

[Severian]

Stealing by not paying all your taxes

I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking is insanity. Defending myself from theft by "legal" coercion isn't stealing.

[johnyj]

Taxes have paid my education and founded a stable society that have enabled me to make a decent living, food in the stores, reliable public services etc.

Taxes did no such thing. Money printing allowed that.

Taxes exist in the fractional reserve system as a mechanism to increase the value of the unit of account by removing some of the supply from the user base. Governments and banks can print all the money they want. They don't need our taxes to survive  but they do need to take some of our money away as means of regulating the supply of their increasingly worthless product.

This is the most accurate observation

Governments are poor, they have to facilitate lots of public services using either tax money or borrowing money from banks. If they tax too much, they will not be voted, so their best option is always issuing bonds instead of increase tax, and the result is the national debt keeps rising

And, in a debt driven money issuering system, no matter how much tax the government charge, the society as a whole would still be debt laiden, since every dollar in existance are borrowed from central bank at the first place, no matter how you redistribute these money, the total debt will not change

[Luno]

Stealing by not paying all your taxes

I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking is insanity. Defending myself from theft by "legal" coercion isn't stealing.

I understand you completely, but why care about citzenship at all then? My point is that government offer something. The deal might be bad from your point of view, but you have a choice. It's a contract you agree to!

You can't claim moral superiority over your government if you steal back from them.

Actually separating yourself from any government affiliation by saying no to handouts and government money and refuse to vote or participate in any public life is a much stronger message. in the US religious minorities have that privilege, thats quite unique for the US. I can think of a lot of countries where such separatist cultures would be either discriminated or worse.  

[chufchuf]

These kinds of conversations are bullshit.

''Government'' isn't something that only exists after the existence of money, to pull us all down because we all have money. This is garbage right wing talk from the same people who legislate that an employer must be allowed logins into our facebooks, the same people who legislate that sharing torrents should be sued. To see something and merely evaluate it on the basis of whether there are property rights in it, you'd have to have a very warped view. Would it be a blessing to approve of all abuse just because it comes from the private sector, of Oscar Pistorius or the crazy guy in Human Centipede, or demeaning jobs imposed by stronger people? Of course not. Fact is, in order to have money be the right in this world, people of this persuasion have to keep legislating. They look not for a world that isn't governed by something, but for a world where our selves are sold and marketed to each other, where we don't share, and where we are consumers and we are consumed and where dissent of this ideology is cornered and alienated. Capitalism infects the bloodstream of the world with its perniciousness, class, feudalism, power, coercion, abuse and a variety of other instrumentalized solipsisms. Its definition of coercion excludes itself because once everything is capitalist and the only freedoms left are capitalist, you are engaging in voluntary work for the customer because you have nowhere to run to.

But by restricting money with savage tax rates like Denmark and socialism does, there also aren't many kinds of freedoms. You can't do this, you can't do that because it could harm someone down along the line, you have to consult with the village assembly what you can do, you have to stay put, you have to pay social security so we are all at the same level. The ultimate case of socialism where there are freedoms, communism, doesn't quite ever happen, it's always on the verge of happening.

So it's not a matter of government vs no government, but of one ideology over another, some certain kinds of freedoms versus other kinds of freedoms. You choose.

[Severian]

I understand you completely, but why care about citzenship at all then?

I don't care about citizenship. I limit my exposure to theft by legislation as much as possible and I require nothing of the State's administrative functions. I'm a model citizen: they get something from me and I don't file paperwork or petitions looking for anything from them.

It's a contract you agree to!

I don't recall agreeing to it. It was forced on all of us.

You can't claim moral superiority over your government if you steal back from them.

Why does this confuse you? I take nothing from them.

[justusranvier]

You can't claim moral superiority over your government if you steal back from them.

Why does this confuse you? I take nothing from them.

Of course you're stealing.

It's like if you were a business owner and refused to pay the local mafia's "not breaking all your windows" fee. Of course that would be stealing, because you'd be getting the benefit of them not breaking your windows without paying like everybody else. Don't you think the honest, hard working thugs deserve compensation for the time and effort they devote to not breaking windows? They have kids to put through college and mortgages to pay, you know.

[Severian]

Don't you think the honest, hard working thugs deserve compensation for the time and effort they devote to not breaking windows? They have kids to put through college and mortgages to pay, you know.

You're right. How could I be so selfish? They're not burning my house down or killing my family and here I am childishly holding onto what I've worked for instead of being grateful for all of their kindnesses to me.

[justusranvier]

You're right. How could I be so selfish? They're not burning my house down or killing my family and here I am childishly holding onto what I've worked for instead of being grateful for all of their kindnesses to me.

Don't forget not shooting your dogs. That's a service which has apparently been in very high demand during the last few years.

[agaumoney]

Many/most gov'ts were founded by gangs of thieves who conquered and subjected others in order to exploit them.  Some/few were founded by people to protect the people from gov'ts of the first order, but none remain of that persuasion to my knowledge.  Some have tried to dress themselves as if the people/society were a priority, but the laws, constitutions, and actions when observed in action do not support that stance.

you really have a fucked up sense of history.

At least I understand it.

Check out the origination of the Danish monarchy and how long those Germans had absolute power.  You really think everybody wanted that?  Then look at how many constitutions the Kingdom of Denmark has had.  4?  5?  Maybe the 1953 one will stick around for a bit because it requires at least 40% of voters to approve changes.  Of course, all gov't has to do is make more promises or declare a state of emergency and the constitution will be changed or discarded as desired.  Sure, there would be controversy (just like joining the EU).  But that can be quelled if it becomes too strident.

[agaumoney]

Stealing by not paying all your taxes

I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking is insanity. Defending myself from theft by "legal" coercion isn't stealing.

My point is that government offer something. The deal might be bad from your point of view, but you have a choice. It's a contract you agree to!

You can't claim moral superiority over your government if you steal back from them.

It is not stealing to prevent a thief from taking your property.

It is not stealing to recover your property from a thief.

My relationship or arrangement with gov't is not a contract I agreed to.  The laws of the government do not allow enforcing a contract if I was not presented all the terms prior to agreement and also prohibit changing the terms after I agree.  The fact that the government does not have to follow contract law shows our arrangement with government is not a contract.  Further, the remedy for breach of contract does not include either party taking out with other party with military action.  Yet that is the government's remedy against the people.  Of course, the people are not allowed to have equivalent capability of arms, nor are they allowed to exercise even the limited capability of arms they are allowed.  This imbalance of power and exercise of force shows that the arrangement with gov't is so far from contract it is not even a binding agreement.  In any other setting the law would define this arrangement as extortion.  But when the thugs write the law, they define it differently.  But what is a name?

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

Of course the same logic holds impeccably for that which is sweet only in name but deed is not.  Extortion by any other name...

[agaumoney]

the state of denmark became a democracy, to ensure the civil rights of the citizens, and to limit the kings power.

You might want to look again at when the king's power was first limited by whom and for whom.  It was not for the rights of the citizens but the wealthy landowners who were able to pose a threat to the king.

Camel's nose and all that, time passes, and look what happened in the hundreds of years since...  Gov't discovered it could bamboozle the common people into thinking gov't was good, and gov't was caring, and gov't could provide a nice teat to suck on yet still stomp on the people whenever it was needed, just so long as it smiled while so doing.

Nothing that wasn't predicted hundreds of years ago, of course.  But people that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[nwbitcoin]

The government's like the mafia; they offer protection, for a price.  If you don't cough up the dough, they hurt you.  The government can do this because it has a monopoly on security: governments generally own A.) the military, B.) the militias, and C.) the police.  If you don't want to support the military, or the militias, or the police, then it's too bad; you're forced to pay for them to exist, and you have little to no control over how these services are run.  Now, because the government owns the soldiers, the mercenaries and the peacekeepers, they can essentially do whatever they want to their citizens.  Now, they might pretend they're benevolent and they're there for your well-being, but lets not forget, they own the means of force, and they use it, often.

In the case of America, the citizens don't get to decide who goes to jail, an appointed official does.  The citizens don't decide which laws get passed, their elected officials do.  The citizens don't decide where their taxes go.  The citizens don't decide whether or not they pay them.  We have this funny little system where we're told we can change this or that, but it's a lie; our vote only decides who we're putting in charge for making our every decision.

So, the answer to the question is, people pay tax because they have to.  They can either pretend to like it, or express their discontent, but the fact is, you will be taxed, and resistance is futile.

This is normally where most people stop, go to their bedrooms, shut the door and grumble to themselves how it's not fair "but life is unfair."  Well, if you're that person, too bad, because here's the solution:

A free market on security.  The government exists by force.  You don't decide which government you follow, unless you get out of the country.  It shouldn't be this way.  Coca Cola doesn't put a gun to our head and tell us that if we drink Pepsi, we'll be thrown in jail.  Why doesn't the Coca-Cola company do this?  Because it's illegal.  Which is hypocritical; the entity which invented law, is breaking that same law, for the government is putting guns to our heads (through the soldiers, the militias, and the peacekeepers) and telling us we have to follow every decision they make, every law they pass and war they wage, or we'll be punished.  If the Coca-Cola company can't do this, nor should a single government.  The government is not God.  The government is there to serve us, but like any monopoly, the government will charge whatever it wants for their service and provide whatever kind of service it feels.  It has been providing shit service for decades.

Thus, the solution is a competition of government; government A, B, C, and D need to show us they provide the better service on security and infrastructure.  Since Government A (our government) has proven, over, and over, and over, that they no longer care for our needs (and why should they, with a monopoly, care?), I believe anyone living in a capitalistic society can agree that competition is the very soul of a quality service.

I knew someone would eventually post something close to the truth!

[RenegadeMind]

One day Steve was walking down the hill to fetch a pail of water from his well, when all of a sudden, a band of armed men set upon him and threw him in shackles.

They carried him off to where he was forced to work for the men and others like them.

There were many other people also forced to work for the men, and over time Steve became friends with some, with his best friend being Martin. Unlike Steve though, Martin was never captured and enslaved; he was born into slavery.

Steve often complained to Martin about how he missed his home, and how much he enjoyed simply staring down into his well some days.

Steve also complained about how hard they were forced to work, and how he had to work much less at home, but received much more for his efforts.

Martin: I don't understand why you always complain. You have free housing and all your food is free.

Steve: A loaf of bread and occasionally a cup of milk? That's what you call free food?

Martin: Well, how else could you possibly get bread if it weren't given to us by our masters?

Steve: I could buy it from the baker that lives a short spell from my old home.

Martin: You're just an ingrate. You complain about the work you must do, so why do you eat the bread you are given? You shouldn't have any bread. Nor should you have the bed given to you by our masters if you're going to complain like that.

Steve: I work just as much as you do, so why shouldn't I get to eat and have a bed?

Martin: Because you don't like working like the rest of us.

Steve: And none of my efforts count if I don't like being a slave?

Martin: You're an ingrate. Everyone else has to work, so why shouldn't you?


You cannot argue with slaves that cannot see their own shackles. There's a lot of that in this thread.

[Mike Christ]

I knew someone would eventually post something close to the truth!

Dang.  Which parts did I goof up on? 

[zeroday]

Tax system became rotten and perverted. It stimulates ignorance and laziness.

I've moved myself to an "offshore" Caribbean country and now I'm paying zero income taxes, legally!

Now I don't have social security, medicare and other social shit and I feel that I have just thrown off the shackles of slavery.
I pay fair price for anything I need - security, medicine, education, insurance. I don't have any "subsidies", but I also don't pay for someone who does nothing.

It really shocks me when I see those insane prices for medical service in the US! $200 for a single visit to a doctor just to get recipe for antibiotic! $5k for simple treatment of minor wound! This way they force you to be drawn into bondage of medicare and give away $700 every month!

I pay 5% sales tax when I shop, I pay road tax when I fill my car with gas. These taxes are pretty enough to maintain civilized environment in the country. People do charity and It's enough to feed the poor. But I'm free of enslaving income and capital gains taxes, I'm happy not to see my money disappearing in the abyss of pseudo-social care!

[RenegadeMind]

Tax system became rotten and perverted. It stimulates ignorance and laziness.

I've moved myself to an "offshore" Caribbean country and now I'm paying zero income taxes, legally!

Now I don't have social security, medicare and other social shit and I feel that I have just thrown off the shackles of slavery.
I pay fair price for anything I need - security, medicine, education, insurance. I don't have any "subsidies", but I also don't pay for someone who does nothing.

It really shocks me when I see those insane prices for medical service in the US! $200 for a single visit to a doctor just to get recipe for antibiotic! $5k for simple treatment of minor wound! This way they force you to be drawn into bondage of medicare and give away $700 every month!

I pay 5% sales tax when I shop, I pay road tax when I fill my car with gas. These taxes are pretty enough to maintain civilized environment in the country. People do charity and It's enough to feed the poor. But I'm free of enslaving income and capital gains taxes, I'm happy not to see my money disappearing in the abyss of pseudo-social care!

Congratulations!

A lot of people just cannot seem to wrap their minds around not being taxed into poverty. It's kind of like some sick, masochistic ritual that people must endure or their entire world falls apart. The more you suffer, the better a person you are?

[Jason]

I think this gets to the heart of the matter:

http://www.anonymousartofrevolution.com/2013/01/moral-transmutations.html

[Elwar]

The following statement has been approved by CISPA:

I love paying taxes. I have not yet had any gains on my bitcoins but when I do I will be the first one at the tax office to pay my fair share.

[Jobe7]

Government is a construct of a society seeking to organise itself to be more efficient.

basically I agree with what you wrote except for that line.

Efficiency has nothing to do with founding gov'ts.  Gov'ts are the least efficient allocators of resources known to man.

Many/most gov'ts were founded by gangs of thieves who conquered and subjected others in order to exploit them.  Some/few were founded by people to protect the people from gov'ts of the first order, but none remain of that persuasion to my knowledge.  Some have tried to dress themselves as if the people/society were a priority, but the laws, constitutions, and actions when observed in action do not support that stance.

you really have a fucked up sense of history.

@ Kokjo

How do you think governments are formed? Honestly, serious question.

the state of denmark became a democracy, to ensure the civil rights of the citizens, and to limit the kings power.

@ Kokjo

You totally avoided the question.

I'll ask you again.

How do you think governments are formed? Honestly, serious question.

[Jobe7]

Aye true, but the bastichs are the ones that got the ball rolling .. grrrr

The Rothschilds transformed the interest system already in place. They just moved it to their family's advantage by buying governments all over Europe and the US.

An excellent work on the subversion of the American government by Money and Oil (Rothschilds and Rockefellers) is "Wealth Against Commonwealth" by Henry Demarest Lloyd, late 19th century.

Apparently interest did not exist before Rothschilds, as it was against the Christian religion, the Vatican stamped on it anytime someone mentioned interest.

Not sure how this reflects in the UK/Bank of England though, seeing as they threw out the Vatican power a few century's before that.

edit: tbh, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bank of England introduced a form of interest pre-Rothschilds

[nwbitcoin]

I knew someone would eventually post something close to the truth!

Dang.  Which parts did I goof up on? 

There is no solution!

Governments exist because without them there is a void. 

The biggest gang wins!  The customer choice aspect doesn't work when force is used and the longer you have peace, the more difficult it is to remove the class in power, because they spend their time ensuring that their infrastructure can't be undone.

Eventually, the system breaks, and its only through war or some other kind of social upheaval that the balance can be brought back in line.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss!

[kokjo]

How do you think governments are formed? Honestly, serious question.

i don't understand your question... a new government is formed every 4 years, is this what you area asking about?

we vote at the election every 4 years? and the people who got our votes, then they elect who to be ministers.

its called indirect democracy.


or do you ask how the state of denmark was formed?

[Luno]

Aye true, but the bastichs are the ones that got the ball rolling .. grrrr

The Rothschilds transformed the interest system already in place. They just moved it to their family's advantage by buying governments all over Europe and the US.

An excellent work on the subversion of the American government by Money and Oil (Rothschilds and Rockefellers) is "Wealth Against Commonwealth" by Henry Demarest Lloyd, late 19th century.

Apparently interest did not exist before Rothschilds, as it was against the Christian religion, the Vatican stamped on it anytime someone mentioned interest.

Not sure how this reflects in the UK/Bank of England though, seeing as they threw out the Vatican power a few century's before that.

edit: tbh, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bank of England introduced a form of interest pre-Rothschilds

Interest is older than the Rothschilds. It was the Medicis in Florence that made lending a profitable business in the 14th century. Interest was outlawed amongst Jews, the traditional bankers at the time. So actually we should blame the Italians for all wrongs in the world!

[Jobe7]

How do you think governments are formed? Honestly, serious question.

i don't understand your question... a new government is formed every 4 years, is this what you area asking about?

we vote at the election every 4 years? and the people who got our votes, then they elect who to be ministers.

its called indirect democracy.


or do you ask how the state of denmark was formed?

Okey dokey, I'll try to be more clear. I probably should have stated the question as;

How does a ruling party become a ruling party?
Or
How does a new state of governance appear/come into existence?

Examples:

When cavemen got out of their caves and into a community, and a leader 'appeared', how do you think that leader became a leader and stayed a leader?

In ancient Greece times (city states) how do you think that they became unified? Did they all suddenly band together and decide to become 1 unified country?

In Roman times, how did Italy become 1? I'm assuming you know that Italy, like every other country, was split into numerous 'city states'. How did the Roman's unite Italy?

How did Gual (France) and the UK become unified?

How did a King become a King in the first place? Did he just magically appear all by himself and said "HAI, I'm now King of all these lands, gimme taxes!"

How were monarchies overthrown?

Did the Denmark Monarchy just roll over on its back and basically said "ahh, ye, we cba to rule anymore, here, have a government and most of our power and wealth."? You had absolutely NO revolution?

(here's some help, but I'm assuming you're Danish from your earlier comments, so clearly you should know this stuff better than I one would think? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848)

How did the Vatican get to power? Did they just waltz in and say "HAI, we're the Vatican, everyone give us money and btw, God talks to us primarily, WE are the voice of god." And everyone just went, "ok" ?

How do you think the current government of Iraq was formed? Do you think it would have existed if the USA never invaded them?

I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the general idea .. So, ye.

How do YOU think Governments (ruling party) are formed?

Not - how do you think Governments are ELECTED (which is what you're answering) - but FORMED.

But ye, substitute 'government' for 'ruling party'.

[Jobe7]

Interest is older than the Rothschilds. It was the Medicis in Florence that made lending a profitable business in the 14th century. Interest was outlawed amongst Jews, the traditional bankers at the time. So actually we should blame the Italians for all wrongs in the world!

You're quite right, and I stand corrected. Interest has existed in various forms throughout history. I meant to say that the Rothschilds brought interest into 'Banking'. Though again, as mentioned above, I counter what I say in that interest in banking very likely existed in the UK beforehand, Rothschilds just brought it to the rest of Europe, then took over the Bank of England.

[nwbitcoin]

Aye true, but the bastichs are the ones that got the ball rolling .. grrrr

The Rothschilds transformed the interest system already in place. They just moved it to their family's advantage by buying governments all over Europe and the US.

An excellent work on the subversion of the American government by Money and Oil (Rothschilds and Rockefellers) is "Wealth Against Commonwealth" by Henry Demarest Lloyd, late 19th century.

Apparently interest did not exist before Rothschilds, as it was against the Christian religion, the Vatican stamped on it anytime someone mentioned interest.

Not sure how this reflects in the UK/Bank of England though, seeing as they threw out the Vatican power a few century's before that.

edit: tbh, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bank of England introduced a form of interest pre-Rothschilds

Interest was called Usuary and was against the rules of both Christian and Muslim teachings but there were laws preventing the lending of money for interest going back to Greece and old China!

The modern day acceptance of interest is blamed on Henry Viii who legalized it in 1545.

That was a good 30 years before the birth of the first Rothschild!

[axus]

If you are using Bitcoin for currency speculation to earn dollars/euros, you should pay taxes in dollars/euros on the profit.  If you are using Bitcoin to pay for goods and services, or save for retirement, you should not pay taxes.  The way I see it, tax the speculators, and don't tax the people bringing a good alternative to big credit card companies and banks.

[Luno]

about Denmark: civil rights was introduced gradually from 1788 to 1800 for the farmer population, the non land owners. From the age of 4 until the age of 40 you was obliged to live and work in the shire they were born in as the property of the local count!

The end of monarchy as the only political power happend in 1841 as the king, Frederik the 7'th, didn't care much about politics and the elitist citizen group demanded that he stepped down. A rally was organized and when they reached the royal castle (the current parliament), Frederik the 7'th responded by the famous words: "I'm happy to announce that your current demands have already been met and the royal ministry have already been dissolved".

I guess he was scared by what was happening around Europe. Denmark had the whimpist "revolution" by far. following this, power was divided between the 152 members of the first constitutional assembly. The division in social classes was apparent in selecting the domains of governmental institutions.

The current ruling party today "Socialdemokraterne" originated in 1871 as a socialist union movement fighting police in the streets. However today, Denmark living on the mercy of strict monetary policies, together with the rest of Europe and the fact that budgets are always agreed upon with the opposition, means that the notion of Denmark as a "socialist country" is nothing but a sour insult to the lefties around here!

Because of that, Socialdemokraterne today have a historical low public support, only around 15% as of yesterday. The same as in 1898.

[kokjo]

about Denmark: civil rights was introduced gradually from 1788 to 1800 for the farmer population, the non land owners. From the age of 4 until the age of 40 you was obliged to live and work in the shire they were born in as the property of the local count!

The end of monarchy as the only political power happend in 1841 as the king, Frederik the 7'th, didn't care much about politics and the elitist citizen group demanded that he stepped down. A rally was organized and when they reached the royal castle (the current parliament), Frederik the 7'th responded by the famous words: "I'm happy to announce that your current demands have already been met and the royal ministry have already been dissolved".

I guess he was scared by what was happening around Europe. Denmark had the whimpist "revolution" by far. following this, power was divided between the 152 members of the first constitutional assembly. The division in social classes was apparent in selecting the domains of governmental institutions.

The current ruling party today "Socialdemokraterne" originated in 1871 as a socialist union movement fighting police in the streets. However today, Denmark living on the mercy of strict monetary policies, together with the rest of Europe and the fact that budgets are always agreed upon with the opposition, means that the notion of Denmark as a "socialist country" is nothing but a sour insult to the lefties around here!

Because of that, Socialdemokraterne today have a historical low public support, only around 15% as of yesterday. The same as in 1898.

yeah, the socialdemokraterne are not very popular right now, as they does not do as promised and they are having what is considered by some to be right-wing policy.

[RodeoX]

All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?

[Severian]

All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?

You should direct your complaints to these 16 entities instead of grabbing at your fellow crabs trying to crawl out of the boiling water:

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/16-giant-corporations-have-basically-stopped-paying-taxes

[RodeoX]

All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?

You should direct your complaints to these 16 entities instead of grabbing at your fellow crabs trying to crawl out of the boiling water:

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/16-giant-corporations-have-basically-stopped-paying-taxes

That puts a bee in my bonnet also.  Going after businesses who work around the tax code should be a high priority.  And don't get me wrong, I do not like how my tax dollars are used these days. We should be more vocal in expressing our displeasure. But when your solution is to not pay, you only hurt other taxpayers and not the government.
They will simply raise everyones taxes.

[nwbitcoin]

All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?

You should direct your complaints to these 16 entities instead of grabbing at your fellow crabs trying to crawl out of the boiling water:

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/16-giant-corporations-have-basically-stopped-paying-taxes

That puts a bee in my bonnet also.  Going after businesses who work around the tax code should be a high priority.  And don't get me wrong, I do not like how my tax dollars are used these days. We should be more vocal in expressing our displeasure. But when your solution is to not pay, you only hurt other taxpayers and not the government.
They will simply raise everyones taxes.

I really don't understand this logic.

The tax laws are created by government.
Companies use specialists to ensure they only pay the correct amount of tax for their circumstances.
Loud socialists then protest that these companies are not paying as much as these protesters would like.
Protesters then complain that tax will be raised for everyone else because these companies are acting lawfully!

Rant starts:
Tax is simply a protection racket that has been normalised through custom and education. I pay tax for services I don't use - I pay extra tax on goods I use a lot but don't get any benefits for this extra tax.
Tax to me just seems like a way to fund people who don't or can't fund themselves.  I don't seem to be getting good value for money out of it!

[Severian]

They will simply raise everyones taxes.

It sounds like you'll pay them so why shouldn't they?

[RodeoX]

All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?

You should direct your complaints to these 16 entities instead of grabbing at your fellow crabs trying to crawl out of the boiling water:

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/16-giant-corporations-have-basically-stopped-paying-taxes

That puts a bee in my bonnet also.  Going after businesses who work around the tax code should be a high priority.  And don't get me wrong, I do not like how my tax dollars are used these days. We should be more vocal in expressing our displeasure. But when your solution is to not pay, you only hurt other taxpayers and not the government.
They will simply raise everyones taxes.

I really don't understand this logic.

The tax laws are created by government.
Companies use specialists to ensure they only pay the correct amount of tax for their circumstances.
Loud socialists then protest that these companies are not paying as much as these protesters would like.
Protesters then complain that tax will be raised for everyone else because these companies are acting lawfully!

Rant starts:
Tax is simply a protection racket that has been normalised through custom and education. I pay tax for services I don't use - I pay extra tax on goods I use a lot but don't get any benefits for this extra tax.
Tax to me just seems like a way to fund people who don't or can't fund themselves.  I don't seem to be getting good value for money out of it!

The problem is that the experts hired by companies are not trying always trying to determine the correct tax rate, they are trying to cheat. It may or may not be illegal, but it should be stopped as it is costing YOU money.
Here is an example. A very wealthy *friend of mine owns tons of property. He develops them into shopping centers and the like. Last year he had a vacant lot that he was going to build on this year. He loves to find ways to pass his tax burden onto you, so here is what he did.
In the early fall he spread about $50 worth of pumpkin seeds around the lot. Although he did not care for them, many grew into pumpkin plants. Why? This was so he could call himself a pumpkin farmer and receive receive a farming subsidy. Of course he just let the pumpkins rot in the field and took your tax money as a reward.

[(A)social]

Funny and distressing thread at the same time.
Definitely statism supporters are at the same mental level than the "usual" religious fanatics, maybe worse. For sure more dangerous.


P.S. a good read for those with a bit o brain left  http://www.polyarchy.org/manifesto/english/introduction.html

[Luno]

Clever guy, but an asshole too. Government subsidiaries are often exploited by farmers but entrepreneurs? he really deserves a prize!

If you own a store in Denmark a certain percent of your stock, is considered consumed by you during the year. So if you are a grocer you are taxed something like $800 per year regardless of you buying all your vegetables in the nearby mart.

[RodeoX]

Funny and distressing thread at the same time.
Definitely statism supporters are at the same mental level than the "usual" religious fanatics, maybe worse. For sure more dangerous.


P.S. a good read for those with a bit o brain left  http://www.polyarchy.org/manifesto/english/introduction.html

I assume you mean me? Can I ask you where you got your education to write that? How did you get to work today? via private roads I assume. Without taxation there would be no state, without the state your life would be a struggle to survive.

Have you traveled much? I have. Much of it to places you would not go on vacation. I assure you that where there is no government, there is nothing but horror. Not that all governments are just, far from it. But until you have lived in an ungoverned place you really don't know what you have. 
 

[gmaxwell]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

Nope. It doesn't have that property.

And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

Because you still owe taxes on that transaction.

Paperwork is painful enough. Why add to the misery?

Because getting prosecuted for tax evasion is far far more miserable.

[kokjo]

Funny and distressing thread at the same time.
Definitely statism supporters are at the same mental level than the "usual" religious fanatics, maybe worse. For sure more dangerous.


P.S. a good read for those with a bit o brain left  http://www.polyarchy.org/manifesto/english/introduction.html

I assume you mean me? Can I ask you where you got your education to write that? How did you get to work today? via private roads I assume. Without taxation there would be no state, without the state your life would be a struggle to survive.

+1

give up dude, libertards are just as other fanatics narrow-minded and impossible to discuss with.

[Luno]

This thread is really getting more and more interesting. Not necessarily because of my posts, but the combined effort here really is about defining a reasonable form of society.

The point is not coming to a consensus, but accepting that your neighbor is a complete idiot, a parasite on government welfare or an anti social egocentric but still deserves the right to his lifestyle even if he is the exact opposite of you.

Perhaps thats what nationalism is for?

[Severian]

Definitely statism supporters are at the same mental level than the "usual" religious fanatics, maybe worse. For sure more dangerous.

Statists have murdered tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people in the past 100 years or so. Religious fanatics have killed far, far fewer people.

At least with religion, there's some kind of code present that prevents some its followers from engaging in violence. That can't be said for the fanatic irrationality of statists.

This is what puzzles me about statists that are interested in Bitcoin: it's the most rational monetary tool ever employed yet attracts some of the most irrational believers in the very entity that would see it crushed.

[Severian]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

Nope. It doesn't have that property.

By its very nature, Bitcoin avoids taxation. A bitcoin holder has to go through extra effort to get taxed on his holdings.

[Elwar]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.



How do they get to work? Private roads?

But at least those 49% who do not pay taxes are advocating for less government and more privatization...right? So they would at least be consistent.

What, they actually do not pay taxes and yet still overwhelmingly vote for bigger government? How could this be so?


That would make people who do not want to pay taxes but actually want a government that reflects no taxes...consistent. While the rest would be...freeloaders.

[Hawker]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

[Elwar]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?

[chufchuf]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?

No, it's those people that are less skilled, less intelligent, and less strong.

[Elwar]

Everyone seems to agree that it's "moral" to pay your taxes, and immoral not to pay taxes.

If I am being robbed in the alley, how is it moral or immoral for me to hand over my money?

Most people believe that it is moral to rob someone. They go out of their way to justify that morality with things like roads and schools and firemen. But they are still justifying theft.

[Elwar]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?

No, it's those people that are less skilled, less intelligent, and less strong.

So, do they not use government services?

[Hawker]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?

Again you misread the image.  They do pay their fair share.  Income tax is tax on income above a certain level because its a waste of time and effort chasing peons for pennies.  When they work, they generate payroll tax.  When they spend, they generate sales tax.  But what they don't do is earn enough income to cover the cost of assessing their tax returns. 

In simple terms, if you want to charge the very poor income tax, then you have to raise income tax on the rest of the population as well.  Since the very poor don't generate enough income to matter, all you would be doing is raising taxes on the rest of us.  No thanks.

[Elwar]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?

Again you misread the image.  They do pay their fair share.  Income tax is tax on income above a certain level because its a waste of time and effort chasing peons for pennies.  When they work, they generate payroll tax.  When they spend, they generate sales tax.  But what they don't do is earn enough income to cover the cost of assessing their tax returns. 

In simple terms, if you want to charge the very poor income tax, then you have to raise income tax on the rest of the population as well.  Since the very poor don't generate enough income to matter, all you would be doing is raising taxes on the rest of us.  No thanks.

That is fine. As long as they do not use the services paid for by taxpayers.

[Hawker]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?

Again you misread the image.  They do pay their fair share.  Income tax is tax on income above a certain level because its a waste of time and effort chasing peons for pennies.  When they work, they generate payroll tax.  When they spend, they generate sales tax.  But what they don't do is earn enough income to cover the cost of assessing their tax returns. 

In simple terms, if you want to charge the very poor income tax, then you have to raise income tax on the rest of the population as well.  Since the very poor don't generate enough income to matter, all you would be doing is raising taxes on the rest of us.  No thanks.

That is fine. As long as they do not use the services paid for by taxpayers.

They are taxpayers but they are not paying income tax at the moment. 

Since you don't understand this, let me give the example again.  A guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.  While he worked, he paid income tax and generated payroll tax.  His wife stayed at home with the kids and did not.  Both he and she are below the level at which income tax applies.  Both are entitled to use any services for which they are eligible.  As they should be...

[Elwar]

Both are entitled to use any services for which they are eligible.  As they should be...

So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?

[Severian]

So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?

Oil companies get military escorts for their tankers and skate from taxes every year.

Fuck it. Just kill the poor that are too weak to work in the camps. That's where this conversation usually ends up.

[ammo88]

So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?

Oil companies get military escorts for their tankers and skate from taxes every year.

Fuck it. Just kill the poor that are too weak to work in the camps. That's where this conversation usually ends up.

Good, now that question is answered and out of the way.

Next question, plzz?

[Elwar]

So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?

Oil companies get military escorts for their tankers and skate from taxes every year.

Why would you pay for that?

[Jobe7]

about Denmark: civil rights was introduced gradually from 1788 to 1800 for the farmer population, the non land owners. From the age of 4 until the age of 40 you was obliged to live and work in the shire they were born in as the property of the local count!

The end of monarchy as the only political power happend in 1841 as the king, Frederik the 7'th, didn't care much about politics and the elitist citizen group demanded that he stepped down. A rally was organized and when they reached the royal castle (the current parliament), Frederik the 7'th responded by the famous words: "I'm happy to announce that your current demands have already been met and the royal ministry have already been dissolved".

I guess he was scared by what was happening around Europe. Denmark had the whimpist "revolution" by far. following this, power was divided between the 152 members of the first constitutional assembly. The division in social classes was apparent in selecting the domains of governmental institutions.

The current ruling party today "Socialdemokraterne" originated in 1871 as a socialist union movement fighting police in the streets. However today, Denmark living on the mercy of strict monetary policies, together with the rest of Europe and the fact that budgets are always agreed upon with the opposition, means that the notion of Denmark as a "socialist country" is nothing but a sour insult to the lefties around here!

Because of that, Socialdemokraterne today have a historical low public support, only around 15% as of yesterday. The same as in 1898.

Ahh ok, I didn't know that, I assumed they had a bloody revolution same as everywhere else, understandable the confusion mix with kokjo now.

[Severian]

Oil companies get military escorts for their tankers and skate from taxes every year.

Why would you pay for that?

I think the proper question is why do oil companies not pay?

[Elwar]

Oil companies get military escorts for their tankers and skate from taxes every year.

Why would you pay for that?

I think the proper question is why do oil companies not pay?

Exactly, if an oil company wants a government service, they should just pay for that service instead of making the rest of us pay for it.

[chufchuf]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?

No, it's those people that are less skilled, less intelligent, and less strong.

So, do they not use government services?

The stronger make their life a misery, so it compensates.

[Elwar]

I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?

No, it's those people that are less skilled, less intelligent, and less strong.

So, do they not use government services?

The stronger make their life a misery, so it compensates.

So it is ok to get government services without paying for them?

Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.

If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes.  There are plenty around.

[agaumoney]

All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?

Tell you what.

Abolish all taxes beyond the local (city or county) level.

Expel or assimilate non-local service providers providing service in the local area.

Institute "pay cost" for use on all services provided by non-local entities.

Then we can talk about greed.

Until then, the greedy who want me to pay for their services can take a flying leap.

[Matthew N. Wright]

All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?

Tell you what.

Abolish all taxes beyond the local (city or county) level.

Expel or assimilate non-local service providers providing service in the local area.

Institute "pay cost" for use on all services provided by non-local entities.

Then we can talk about greed.

Until then, the greedy who want me to pay for their services can take a flying leap.

That's exactly what this guy is trying to do in Nevada. I'm moving there if he succeeds.

[agaumoney]

You misread the image.   Its income tax only that they don't pay.  The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low.  For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.

The lousy scumbag thief!  What right does he have to keep his income so low that he pays no income tax?  He should be forced to work at a productive job! What gives him the right to be a parasite on society and work those low-paying jobs that should be reserved for children?

[agaumoney]

Ahh ok, I didn't know that, I assumed they had a bloody revolution same as everywhere else, understandable the confusion mix with kokjo now.

He just left out the Saxon's (germans) taking over Denmark in the 1400's (the nobles chose a saxon king to avoid war) and he also left out the wars with sweden, norway (oops, not denmark) and germany since then.

And the 1848 revolution was threatening to get bloody but the king decided to fold and appease the angry landlords.

[Peter Todd]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

Nope. It doesn't have that property.

Don't be pedantic.

You may not be able to use Bitcoin to avoid taxes legally, but from a practical point of view as long as you can still conduct Bitcoin transactions anonymously you can use Bitcoin to avoid taxes. The Blockchain may be public, but provided the likes of Mike Hearn don't succeed in getting blacklists and similar 'taint' concepts implemented ways to transact anonymously will continue to exist.

It would be better if core developers stay out of politics rather than keep trying to insist that Bitcoin has nothing to do with taxes or illegal activity.

[Hawker]

Both are entitled to use any services for which they are eligible.  As they should be...

So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?

Correct.  There is no general link between paying income tax and being able to use government services.  Many policies, for example social security for blind children and mental health services, benefit people who will never pay a cent of income tax in their lives and cost way more in government money than healthy people.

[elebit]

You may not be able to use Bitcoin to avoid taxes legally, but from a practical point of view as long as you can still conduct Bitcoin transactions anonymously you can use Bitcoin to avoid taxes.

Of course, if you can keep all your trading in a closed system, that would be very difficult to impossible to tax correctly. But that's nothing intrinsic to Bitcoins. In fact, whatever else you can trade in such as gold, cash, collectibles, seashells or whatever, is probably more suited for avoiding taxes since you don't have to worry about the public ledger.

[Peter Todd]

Of course, if you can keep all your trading in a closed system, that would be very difficult to impossible to tax correctly. But that's nothing intrinsic to Bitcoins. In fact, whatever else you can trade in such as gold, cash, collectibles, seashells or whatever, is probably more suited for avoiding taxes since you don't have to worry about the public ledger.

Bitcoin is the first store of value that you can send anonymously, digitally, and without involving central authorities. None of your other examples are as useful.

People put way too much emphasis on Bitcoin's public ledger. You only need one honest wallet/mixer like EasyWallet, a Silk Road account or a dedicated mixer like BitcoinFog to make your coins untraceable. Using multiple such services in a row means you are safe provided any one service didn't keep logs.

[elebit]

Bitcoin is the first store of value that you can send anonymously, digitally, and without involving central authorities. None of your other examples are as useful.

Sure, that's correct but it's not really the whole picture. Cash in an envolope works too. And it's quite hard to acquire Bitcoins anonymously unless you buy it for cash from someone local.

But Bitcoin is unique in its cheap international transactions, while still being somewhat pseudonymous, I'll give you that. I just don't see the potential in anonymous tax-avoidance as something groundbreaking compared to its other virtues.

[Elwar]

Both are entitled to use any services for which they are eligible.  As they should be...

So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?

Correct.  There is no general link between paying income tax and being able to use government services.  Many policies, for example social security for blind children and mental health services, benefit people who will never pay a cent of income tax in their lives and cost way more in government money than healthy people.

Ok, that is fine. I just see far too often people complaining that using Bitcoin to not pay taxes should result in that person not being able to use any of the government services. As if it is hypocritical.

But when it comes down to it, the theft is what I have issue with. Not what you do with the loot. I am not against government services, though I believe it can be done more efficiently if paid per use, but if the money is gained voluntarily then I have no issue with it.

I do have issue when someone steals from me under threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned. That part people seem to gloss over as a necessary evil to get all of those free goodies.

[elebit]

I do have issue when someone steals from me under threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned. That part people seem to gloss over as a necessary evil to get all of those free goodies.

Ah, the impeccable logic of a seventeen year-old. But you see, lots of people stay outside society. They are not kidnapped and brought back en masse. So that reasoning falls already on the premises.

True, you can't pick and choose. You can't go "I want this road, but not that one - heart surgery but not hand surgery" which would be a great deal more bureaucratic and expensive. That why we go with a baseline instead, which is indeed remarkably different across societies and leaves plenty of room for arguments, but all civilizations has had one and for a very good reason.

Logic.

[Hawker]

Both are entitled to use any services for which they are eligible.  As they should be...

So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?

Correct.  There is no general link between paying income tax and being able to use government services.  Many policies, for example social security for blind children and mental health services, benefit people who will never pay a cent of income tax in their lives and cost way more in government money than healthy people.

Ok, that is fine. I just see far too often people complaining that using Bitcoin to not pay taxes should result in that person not being able to use any of the government services. As if it is hypocritical.

But when it comes down to it, the theft is what I have issue with. Not what you do with the loot. I am not against government services, though I believe it can be done more efficiently if paid per use, but if the money is gained voluntarily then I have no issue with it.

I do have issue when someone steals from me under threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned. That part people seem to gloss over as a necessary evil to get all of those free goodies.

The goodies are not free and doing what is necessary to pay for them is not evil. For example, coast guard staff must be paid salaries and people who live 1000s of miles from the sea must pay a share of those salaries just as much as people who live near it and actually benefit.

[Elwar]

I do have issue when someone steals from me under threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned. That part people seem to gloss over as a necessary evil to get all of those free goodies.

Ah, the impeccable logic of a seventeen year-old. But you see, lots of people stay outside society. They are not kidnapped and brought back en masse. So that reasoning falls already on the premises.

But they are still people who legally have to pay income tax on their earnings or else they will go to jail. Staying out of society just means you are good at evading your kidnappers for a while.

True, you can't pick and choose. You can't go "I want this road, but not that one - heart surgery but not hand surgery" which would be a great deal more bureaucratic and expensive. That why we go with a baseline instead, which is indeed remarkably different across societies and leaves plenty of room for arguments, but all civilizations has had one and for a very good reason.

Logic.

But you can choose if you want heart surgery but not hand surgery. For a little bit longer medical treatment is still private.

Again, it falls back to what government provides instead of acknowledging that the money comes via force.

[gollum]

TheTinyDot - Showing how a small part of the population controls the rest to pay taxes etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs#!

[Elwar]

doing what is necessary to pay for them is not evil.

Forcing people to hand over their money is not evil?

[Hawker]

doing what is necessary to pay for them is not evil.

Forcing people to hand over their money is not evil?

Of course not.  What planet are you on?  You can't have a decent society without taxes and taxation ultimately relies on force.

[Severian]

You can't have a decent society without taxes and taxation ultimately relies on force.

Do you think American society is a decent society?

[Hawker]

You can't have a decent society without taxes and taxation ultimately relies on force.

Do you think American society is a decent society?

"Decent" is a relative term.  The US is not as decent a place to live as the UK or most Northern European countries.  I would still be perfectly happy living in pretty well any US state and would much prefer that to living in, say, India or China. 

[Elwar]

doing what is necessary to pay for them is not evil.

Forcing people to hand over their money is not evil?

Of course not.  What planet are you on?  You can't have a decent society without taxes and taxation ultimately relies on force.

I am from a planet where using force against someone to take their money is considered a bad thing.

Will it be ok if someone steals your money at the point of a gun on your way home tonight?

[Hawker]

doing what is necessary to pay for them is not evil.

Forcing people to hand over their money is not evil?

Of course not.  What planet are you on?  You can't have a decent society without taxes and taxation ultimately relies on force.

I am from a planet where using force against someone to take their money is considered a bad thing.

Will it be ok if someone steals your money at the point of a gun on your way home tonight?

Oh well, when you come back to planet Earth, where using force to maintain a stable society is needed, do let us know. 

[Elwar]

Oh well, when you come back to planet Earth, where using force to maintain a stable society is needed, do let us know. 

However you need to justify it. I know that it is wrong to initiate force. But I understand that tyranny exists because people accept it in exchange for goodies.

[elebit]

However you need to justify it. I know that it is wrong to initiate force.

Come back when you've actually thought that through.

But I understand that tyranny exists because people accept it in exchange for goodies.

That is obviously illogical for a whole bunch of reasons. To start with, it's not really a tyranny if people actually wants the "goodies" as you put it. Second, if a society of a hundred people works well for everyone except one who keeps rambling about "tyranny", shouldn't just this person be kindly asked to leave, instead of ninety-nine people acommodating for the crazy one?

[Hawker]

Oh well, when you come back to planet Earth, where using force to maintain a stable society is needed, do let us know. 

However you need to justify it. I know that it is wrong to initiate force. But I understand that tyranny exists because people accept it in exchange for goodies.

The correct way to look at it is that wealth and income are created by the state providing a safe legal and social environment.  In countries like the US with well run systems, the wealth created is huge.  The recipients of this largesse pay some of it in taxes.  Take away the taxes and you take away the safe legal and social environment and US incomes fall to the levels of Somalia.  Its perfectly moral to insist that those who are lucky enough to profit from living in a well run state make a contribution to the running costs of that state.

[RenegadeMind]

The correct way to look at it...

Ahem...

The correct way to look at it is that wealth and income are created by the state providing a safe legal and social environment.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NbNFJK1ZpVg

Yes. I understand how mashups create social hysteria, chaos, bedlam, dogs sleeping with cats...

But seriously? Safe?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/

Because the law and police to such a great job of keeping people safe...

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=46843

Chicago. Enough said.

In countries like the US with well run systems, the wealth created is huge.

Yes. Just look at some of the greatest cities in the US, e.g. Detroit:

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/detroit-symbolizes-americas-decline.html

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/24-facts-about-city-of-detroit-that.html

Because there's so much wealth, that houses only cost $200 now!

The recipients of this largesse pay some of it in taxes.

Absolutely. Just like the megacorps like General Electric:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/general-electric-taxes_n_2852094.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/

Ooops... Nope. They didn't pay tax. They got a $3.2 billion tax refund.

(Countless more examples like GE. Look them up if you like.)

Take away the taxes and you take away the safe legal and social environment and US incomes fall to the levels of Somalia.

Or Chicago, or Detroit, or...

Its perfectly moral to insist that those who are lucky enough to profit from living in a well run state make a contribution to the running costs of that state.

"Moral?"

I do not think it means what you think it means.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk for fun! )

Read a bit of Kant if you want to understand "moral", because it sure doesn't sound like you're using that word right.

http://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/kants-ethics/the-good-will/

You are flat out advocating violence and theft. Unless by "insist" you mean call people nasty names if they don't cough up.

Nobody is born with an obligation to any state or anyone. Just in case you are unaware, there is a word for being born with obligations... it's called "slavery".

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

You don't have to be moral or good. There is no requirement there. The only thing people need to do is follow that little pearl of wisdom so nicely stated by TJ there.

[Hawker]

...snip...

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

You don't have to be moral or good. There is no requirement there. The only thing people need to do is follow that little pearl of wisdom so nicely stated by TJ there.

Thomas Jefferson had no problem with slavery or taxation.  If you are happy to accept his authority, you are happy that taxation is moral as is the violence needed to back up tax demands.

[RenegadeMind]

...snip...

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

You don't have to be moral or good. There is no requirement there. The only thing people need to do is follow that little pearl of wisdom so nicely stated by TJ there.

Thomas Jefferson had no problem with slavery or taxation.  If you are happy to accept his authority, you are happy that taxation is moral as is the violence needed to back up tax demands.

TJ wasn't perfect, but he was on the right track there.

You nicely illustrate just how collectivists and statists always end up resorting to violence. They are basically incapable of not resorting to violence because they simply have no rational arguments otherwise. What better argument than just running around and beating and murdering people? Great argument! Got a problem? Kill it! Violence DOES solve invented and contrived problems!

[Hawker]

...snip...

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

You don't have to be moral or good. There is no requirement there. The only thing people need to do is follow that little pearl of wisdom so nicely stated by TJ there.

Thomas Jefferson had no problem with slavery or taxation.  If you are happy to accept his authority, you are happy that taxation is moral as is the violence needed to back up tax demands.

TJ wasn't perfect, but he was on the right track there.

You nicely illustrate just how collectivists and statists always end up resorting to violence. They are basically incapable of not resorting to violence because they simply have no rational arguments otherwise. What better argument than just running around and beating and murdering people? Great argument! Got a problem? Kill it! Violence DOES solve invented and contrived problems!

I agree.  We are a violent species and no society can ever exist without violence.  I see you would prefer we were not a violent species.  That's very nice.

[RenegadeMind]

I agree.  We are a violent species and no society can ever exist without violence.  I see you would prefer we were not a violent species.  That's very nice.

I think that you seem to be missing the point...

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

[kokjo]

I agree.  We are a violent species and no society can ever exist without violence.  I see you would prefer we were not a violent species.  That's very nice.

I think that you seem to be missing the point...

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

maybe, in some few cases.

[RenegadeMind]

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

maybe, in some few cases.
[/quote]

So, are you saying that the best way to chat in this thread is for us to get together with some baseball bats and beat the shit out of each other? That's the best way to have a heated discussion?

Speaking of... I don't know any stores where I can buy a baseball bat with BTC... Perhaps we'd be better off trying to kill each other with consumer electronics?

[Hawker]

I agree.  We are a violent species and no society can ever exist without violence.  I see you would prefer we were not a violent species.  That's very nice.

I think that you seem to be missing the point...

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

As I say, that a nice ideal.  Sadly, its not true - without the threat of punishment, people descend into barbarism.

[Anon136]

So someone who acknowledges that their taxes pay for roads, schools, the fire and police departments, hospitals, just to name several, and hence feels that freeloading by avoiding taxes is a dick move, is "brainwashed" or "stupid".

And as for the "you don't have to" argument because governments don't know what bitcoin is yet - it's a thing you got at price X, and you sold at price Y.  So at a minimum, if you convert your profits (Y-X) to fiat you have some kind of tax bill.  The other side - spending bitcoins bought (or mined) at X for something at Y (Y > X) - is something that governments will have to decide how to classify, but don't think that just because they haven't issued a ruling yet means your profits are free.

Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.

If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes.  There are plenty around.

For starters, not wanting to be stolen from at the point of a gun is not at all the same thing as being uninterested in helping the poor or putting out fires ect... Dont get me wrong it could mean that, im sure there are plenty of people who subscribe to your argument and yet dont pay taxes anyway because they legitimately dont care about the poor or having fires put out, but it doesn't necessarily mean this. There are those who believe that these same services could be provided, probably at a higher quality and for a lower price, by voluntary interaction instead of state threats of violence. Now it may be the case that we are wrong about this, and if you provide me with good evidence i will accept it. But either way i feel it is important to understand that many tax avoiders are, at the very least, 100% legitimately well intentioned.

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

[Hawker]

So someone who acknowledges that their taxes pay for roads, schools, the fire and police departments, hospitals, just to name several, and hence feels that freeloading by avoiding taxes is a dick move, is "brainwashed" or "stupid".

And as for the "you don't have to" argument because governments don't know what bitcoin is yet - it's a thing you got at price X, and you sold at price Y.  So at a minimum, if you convert your profits (Y-X) to fiat you have some kind of tax bill.  The other side - spending bitcoins bought (or mined) at X for something at Y (Y > X) - is something that governments will have to decide how to classify, but don't think that just because they haven't issued a ruling yet means your profits are free.

Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.

If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes.  There are plenty around.

For starters, not wanting to be stolen from at the point of a gun is not at all the same thing as being uninterested in helping the poor or putting out fires ect... Dont get me wrong it could mean that, im sure there are plenty of people who subscribe to your argument and yet dont pay taxes anyway because they legitimately dont care about the poor or having fires put out, but it doesn't necessarily mean this. There are those who believe that these same services could be provided, probably at a higher quality and for a lower price, by voluntary interaction instead of state threats of violence. Now it may be the case that we are wrong about this, and if you provide me with good evidence i will accept it. But either way i feel it is important to understand that many tax avoiders are, at the very least, 100% legitimately well intentioned.

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

Fair point.  But does it matter? If you object to funding for police services you can pretend that your taxes only get spent on the fire department.  But what you can't do is refuse to pay any taxes.

[RenegadeMind]

I think that you seem to be missing the point...

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

As I say, that a nice ideal.  Sadly, its not true - without the threat of punishment, people descend into barbarism.

So, in other words, you're saying that it's better to preempt violence with violence rather than to meet violence with violence?

[Hawker]

I think that you seem to be missing the point...

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

As I say, that a nice ideal.  Sadly, its not true - without the threat of punishment, people descend into barbarism.

So, in other words, you're saying that it's better to preempt violence with violence rather than to meet violence with violence?
[/quote]

Of course.  That's why we have police, social services, welfare services and mental health services.  Take any of those away and you will live in a far more violent world. 

[RenegadeMind]

But what you can't do is refuse to pay any taxes.

Again, always the threat of violence.

[RenegadeMind]

Of course.  That's why we have police, social services, welfare services and mental health services.  Take any of those away and you will live in a far more violent world. 

Did you look at any of those links I posted above for you?

[kokjo]

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

maybe, in some few cases.

So, are you saying that the best way to chat in this thread is for us to get together with some baseball bats and beat the shit out of each other? That's the best way to have a heated discussion?
[/quote]
i have not said that it was the best way, im just making a statement about human nature.

[RenegadeMind]

i have not said that it was the best way, im just making a statement about human nature.

And I'd like to say that we can easily rise above that. It's not that hard. The only thing needed is for people to refuse to hurt other people. Not really a difficult thing. Basically, you just need to do nothing and the problem is solved.

[Anon136]

So someone who acknowledges that their taxes pay for roads, schools, the fire and police departments, hospitals, just to name several, and hence feels that freeloading by avoiding taxes is a dick move, is "brainwashed" or "stupid".

And as for the "you don't have to" argument because governments don't know what bitcoin is yet - it's a thing you got at price X, and you sold at price Y.  So at a minimum, if you convert your profits (Y-X) to fiat you have some kind of tax bill.  The other side - spending bitcoins bought (or mined) at X for something at Y (Y > X) - is something that governments will have to decide how to classify, but don't think that just because they haven't issued a ruling yet means your profits are free.

Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.

If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes.  There are plenty around.

For starters, not wanting to be stolen from at the point of a gun is not at all the same thing as being uninterested in helping the poor or putting out fires ect... Dont get me wrong it could mean that, im sure there are plenty of people who subscribe to your argument and yet dont pay taxes anyway because they legitimately dont care about the poor or having fires put out, but it doesn't necessarily mean this. There are those who believe that these same services could be provided, probably at a higher quality and for a lower price, by voluntary interaction instead of state threats of violence. Now it may be the case that we are wrong about this, and if you provide me with good evidence i will accept it. But either way i feel it is important to understand that many tax avoiders are, at the very least, 100% legitimately well intentioned.

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

Fair point.  But does it matter? If you object to funding for police services you can pretend that your taxes only get spent on the fire department.  But what you can't do is refuse to pay any taxes.

why can you not refuse to pay any taxes? do you mean because the government will beat you up? does the same argument that applied to the fire department not also apply to the police? if not why not?

[Hawker]

i have not said that it was the best way, im just making a statement about human nature.

And I'd like to say that we can easily rise above that. It's not that hard. The only thing needed is for people to refuse to hurt other people. Not really a difficult thing. Basically, you just need to do nothing and the problem is solved.

You've never encountered organised violence.  Once you meet a group of people that can't be stopped without violence, you'll think differently about refusing to have police.

[Hawker]

...snip...

why can you not refuse to pay any taxes? do you mean because the government will beat you up? does the same argument that applied to the fire department not also apply to the police? if not why not?

Taxation is by definition based on coercion.  If you refuse to pay it, either the state collapses or it forces you to.

[kokjo]

i have not said that it was the best way, im just making a statement about human nature.

And I'd like to say that we can easily rise above that. It's not that hard. The only thing needed is for people to refuse to hurt other people. Not really a difficult thing. Basically, you just need to do nothing and the problem is solved.

ah ha! so all the shit you people say about communism, that it can not function due to human nature, is also wrong?

[QuantumQrack]

I don't see why people are eager to pay tax either.  Our federal government is full of bumbling idiots to put it nicely.  At the very least they are thieves.  If a person's economic destiny is 100% under their own control, i.e. Bitcoin, then the "Fuck You, Too Big to Fail, asshats of the world" are truly fucked.  This is the primary power of Bitcoin, even if the Bitcoin Community doesn't get it yet.  (Of course, the power mongers on the government payroll realize this, hence FinCEN getting involved in Bitcoin).

[kokjo]

... This is the primary power of Bitcoin, ...

no, it is not.

[Severian]

Thomas Jefferson had no problem with slavery or taxation.

Jefferson despised the institution of slavery but ceased all talk of emancipation when he realized there were as many blacks as whites in Virginia. He was instrumental in ceasing the importation of slaves into Virginia and burned a lot of political capital trying to outlaw slavery when he was president.

The Continental Congress removed the anti-slavery paragraph Jefferson had written into the Declaration of Independence:

He (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

Jefferson has many shortcomings to criticize. But perhaps one should be informed before criticizing them.

[Severian]

 The US is not as decent a place to live as the UK or most Northern European countries. 

I've never had the pleasure of visiting but that's what I've heard. America is tolerable if one stays away from the strip malls and the big cities.

[Hawker]

Thomas Jefferson had no problem with slavery or taxation.

Jefferson despised the institution of slavery but ceased all talk of emancipation when he realized there were as many blacks as whites in Virginia. He was instrumental in ceasing the importation of slaves into Virginia and burned a lot of political capital trying to outlaw slavery when he was president.

The Continental Congress removed the anti-slavery paragraph Jefferson had written into the Declaration of Independence:

He (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

Jefferson has many shortcomings to criticize. But perhaps one should be informed before criticizing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Opposed freeing of slaves.  Refused to recognise Haiti.  Never freed his own slaves.  Had children with his slave girls and refused to free the children.  Allowed the wife of his son and their 8 children be sold to 4 separate owners.  Disgusting.

I'm really pleased you asked me to get more informed on that.

[Severian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Opposed freeing of slaves.  Refused to recognise Haiti.  Never freed his own slaves.  Had children with his slave girls and refused to free the children.  Allowed the wife of his son and their 8 children be sold to 4 separate owners.  Disgusting.

I'm really pleased you asked me to get more informed on that.

In 200 years, future generations perhaps will likewise be condemning us for whatever evils we compromised with, evils that we were also born to and are, in large part, trapped by. The point here is that Jefferson was one of the few members of his generation that recognized slavery for what it was and addressed. His peers removed his protests against slavery from his masterpiece.

BTW, Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Jefferson's beloved dead wife. Court historians forget to mention that very human fact. It doesn't absolve Jefferson of his other sins but as far as 18th-19th century slave owners go, Jefferson was leagues beyond his peers.

Judging history by the standards of our day is a good way to miss the more subtle connections of history.

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Opposed freeing of slaves.  Refused to recognise Haiti.  Never freed his own slaves.  Had children with his slave girls and refused to free the children.  Allowed the wife of his son and their 8 children be sold to 4 separate owners.  Disgusting.

I'm really pleased you asked me to get more informed on that.

In 200 years, future generations perhaps will likewise be condemning us for whatever evils we compromised with, evils that we were also born to and are, in large part, trapped by. The point here is that Jefferson was one of the few members of his generation that recognized slavery for what it was and addressed. His peers removed his protests against slavery from his masterpiece.

BTW, Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Jefferson's beloved dead wife. Court historians forget to mention that very human fact. It doesn't absolve Jefferson of his other sins but as far as 18th-19th century slave owners go, Jefferson was leagues beyond his peers.

Judging history by the standards of our day is a good way to miss the more subtle connections of history.

Oh I agree.  Times change and morality evolves. Were the old Testament god around today, he'd be locked up for advocating genocide.  However, it wasn't me that wheeled out Thomas Jefferson to support an argument against the right to levy taxes. 

[Severian]

However, it wasn't me that wheeled out Thomas Jefferson to support an argument against the right to levy taxes. 

This thread is now so wrapped around itself that I can't recall who brought up ol' TJ. But I can safely say he'd be utterly opposed to the form of extortion that passes for taxation in today's world.

In Jefferson's perceptions, allowing one's self to be taxed by a government one consented to was merely noblesse oblige. Likewise, fighting a government that attempted to impose unjust taxation was also considered a duty.

Were the old Testament god around today, he'd be locked up for advocating genocide.

No worries. Some of Yahweh's contemporary followers in the Christian and Jewish worlds are still trying to follow his instructions to the letter.

[elebit]

You nicely illustrate just how collectivists and statists always end up resorting to violence. They are basically incapable of not resorting to violence because they simply have no rational arguments otherwise. What better argument than just running around and beating and murdering people?

I don't know what a "statist" is (someone who abhors change?), but I get the gist of your argument: since the state is built on a violence monopoly, a larger state should necessitate more violence.

However, that argument is purely a play on words. Every data points available to us through most history shows the inverse relation, a stronger state generally gives a less violent society.

[Elwar]

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

Actually, the town I used to live in had a private fire department. No taxes went toward putting fires out at people's houses. And that fire department was rated one of the highest in the state for safety giving all home owners in town a lower rate on their home owner's insurance.

I will not explain here how they were paid because if given a bit of thought, people can come up with ways that government services can be paid for without force.

But just getting the money at the point of a gun is easiest and requires no thought.

How would you create a private fire department?

[Anon136]

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

Actually, the town I used to live in had a private fire department. No taxes went toward putting fires out at people's houses. And that fire department was rated one of the highest in the state for safety giving all home owners in town a lower rate on their home owner's insurance.

I will not explain here how they were paid because if given a bit of thought, people can come up with ways that government services can be paid for without force.

But just getting the money at the point of a gun is easiest and requires no thought.

How would you create a private fire department?

Unfortunately when dealing with complex issues people tend to prefer easy but incorrect answers to complicated but correct ones. 

[RenegadeMind]

I don't know what a "statist" is (someone who abhors change?), but I get the gist of your argument: since the state is built on a violence monopoly, a larger state should necessitate more violence.

Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".

But no, it's not resistance to change.

However, that argument is purely a play on words. Every data points available to us through most history shows the inverse relation, a stronger state generally gives a less violent society.

Don't tell me that.

Tell the near 80 million Chinese that were murdered by their "stronger state".

Or you could tell it to the 60 or 70 million Russians murdered by the strength of the Soviet state.

Or you could praise the strength of the Khmer Rouge for their incredible strength as they wiped out millions of Cambodians.

Then there's the United States of America. The strongest state in the world, and responsible for countless millions dying. 3 million people in Vietnam. Millions more in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's kind of hard to put the numbers on how many people are murdered inside the US by that strong state. It's pretty much every week that some cop murders someone in cold blood, but they never seem to face justice. Human experimentation in the US? Squalene? Syphilis experiments on civilians? etc. etc.

There are countless more examples.

Please tell me more about how strong states make the world "less violent".

[Hawker]

I don't know what a "statist" is (someone who abhors change?), but I get the gist of your argument: since the state is built on a violence monopoly, a larger state should necessitate more violence.

Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".

But no, it's not resistance to change.

However, that argument is purely a play on words. Every data points available to us through most history shows the inverse relation, a stronger state generally gives a less violent society.

Don't tell me that.

Tell the near 80 million Chinese that were murdered by their "stronger state".

Or you could tell it to the 60 or 70 million Russians murdered by the strength of the Soviet state.

Or you could praise the strength of the Khmer Rouge for their incredible strength as they wiped out millions of Cambodians.

Then there's the United States of America. The strongest state in the world, and responsible for countless millions dying. 3 million people in Vietnam. Millions more in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's kind of hard to put the numbers on how many people are murdered inside the US by that strong state. It's pretty much every week that some cop murders someone in cold blood, but they never seem to face justice. Human experimentation in the US? Squalene? Syphilis experiments on civilians? etc. etc.

There are countless more examples.

Please tell me more about how strong states make the world "less violent".

There is a world outside the US borders.  You are confusing your dislike for your own country with a general argument against states.  Most countries tick along happily and have none of your drama.

[elebit]

Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".

I did, but it's not terribly useful. It's mainly a term used for fascists. Merely the fact that one can appreciate the wealth that organized societies make possible does not make one a statist in this sense.

Don't tell me that. Tell the near 80 million Chinese that were murdered by their "stronger state".
Or you could tell it to the 60 or 70 million Russians murdered by the strength of the Soviet state.
Or you could praise the strength of the Khmer Rouge for their incredible strength as they wiped out millions of Cambodians.

The greater part of these numbers are caused by large upheavals where society and state is pretty much thrown over, and new dictators tries to base their power on quellling dissent on a large scale. That is the work of a weak state, revolutionary militias and the like, not of a well established state. You could not call any of these states welfare societies. If you look at the violence rates when these states are established, you will find that it is lower than in areas with very weak or non-existing states. Dictatorships are awful is many ways, but they tend to have a way with crime and petty violence.

Do not try to pretend I said a large state is always stronger and more secure, I did no such thing. I pointed out that there is a correlation, and it is the opposite of what you alluded to. Societies are complex beasts are there is no single factor that decides these things. Before we can decide on how to decide the amount of violence in a society, we can't even begin to untangle the different factors involved. But that does not mean there is not correlation.

It is true the superpowers of the 20th century has been responsible for much suffering, and most of the smaller ones are actually wars by proxy, such as the massacres of Cambodia which started out as a proxy war to Vietnam. But none of these compare to established states and welfare states, where the rates of violence and suffering is much, much lower.

[Anon136]

Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".

Merely the fact that one can appreciate the wealth that organized societies make possible does not make one a statist in this sense.

what tripe. 99.9% of your life is organized without authoritarianism. Do you brush your teeth because there is a man behind you with a gun? Do bridge builders build bridges because there is a man behind them with a gun? Is the man with the gun even the reason why you refrain from committing murder? Stateism is not "the mystical force that allows society to be organized". It is a man with a gun telling you to give him your the products of your labor "or else". Please try not to confuse these 2 things, they are so very different.

If you want to understand what society is on a micro level, observe your own behavior. Observe the social rituals that allow you to cooperate with other people, with out any threats of violence being involved. Observe how you almost certainly play only a very small role in the creation of something greater, through spontaneous order, not because you and all your co-workers are threatening each other. This is what society is, statism is just that 0.1% of your life that is not spontaneous and voluntary. It is when the police man pulls you over because the sticker on your car is the wrong color, or the building inspector puts a red sticker on your house which indicates that the state is willing to murder you, if it comes down to it, for entering your own house.

[Hawker]

...snip...
 Is the man with the gun even the reason why you refrain from committing murder?
...snip...

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death.  Same happened in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 and in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. 

Take away the man with the gun and people immediately start looting and soon will start killing.  The man with the gun is exactly why they don't loot, pillage and kill. 

[Anon136]

...snip...
 Is the man with the gun even the reason why you refrain from committing murder?
...snip...

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death.  Same happened in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 and in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. 

Take away the man with the gun and people immediately start looting and soon will start killing.  The man with the gun is exactly why they don't loot, pillage and kill. 

I understand that many people are aggressive and many people would murder if they wernt supervised by men with guns. My point was never to say that this was not the case.

[Elwar]

...snip...
 Is the man with the gun even the reason why you refrain from committing murder?
...snip...

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death. 

The guy was not able to hold off the people outside? What kind of guns did he have?

[Mike Christ]

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death.  Same happened in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 and in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. 

Take away the man with the gun and people immediately start looting and soon will start killing.  The man with the gun is exactly why they don't loot, pillage and kill. 

People are looting, pillaging and killing because the guns went away.  Not because their God was dying, not because their state was collapsing or their worlds were crumbling apart--meh, same things.  Couldn't be because something pissed an entire society off.  Couldn't be that the riot would've happened with or without the guns, and that controlling the riot with guns is an artificial way to quell any argument and is just a bandaid when nobody can or is willing to solve the reason why the riot happened to begin with.  No, that couldn't be right...

So quick question:  If the police went away, would you, not talking about anyone but yourself, revert into an animal and kill the next guy you saw?  Usually the answer is, "No, I wouldn't, but what's to stop someone else?"  Which implies everyone's stupid and barbaric and untrustworthy with any form of weapon (except the person being asked, of course, which is how statism was invented to begin with.)

[Hawker]

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death.  Same happened in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 and in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. 

Take away the man with the gun and people immediately start looting and soon will start killing.  The man with the gun is exactly why they don't loot, pillage and kill. 

...snip...

So quick question:  If the police went away, would you, not talking about anyone but yourself, revert into an animal and kill the next guy you saw?  Usually the answer is, "No, I wouldn't, but what's to stop someone else?"  Which implies everyone's stupid and barbaric and untrustworthy with any form of weapon (except the person being asked, of course, which is how statism was invented to begin with.)

London is a city of over 8 million.  Less than 2000 rioted.  But as a mob they burnt people out of their homes and beat up, in one case beat to death, anyone that didn't surrender their property immediately.

You keep saying "statism" as if an anarchic society would allow that 2000 to prey on the 8 million.  Can I suggest you read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and understand that anarchists would have a police function and in events like riots would have conscription to ensure safety.

[Twerka]

All you now where taxes go, don't you?

[Hiroaki]

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
by Frederic Bastiat, 1848

Unfortunately this is true, every year my government receives more taxes, yet it is never enough. Strange isn't.


http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

[RenegadeMind]

I don't know what a "statist" is (someone who abhors change?), but I get the gist of your argument: since the state is built on a violence monopoly, a larger state should necessitate more violence.

Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".

But no, it's not resistance to change.

However, that argument is purely a play on words. Every data points available to us through most history shows the inverse relation, a stronger state generally gives a less violent society.

Don't tell me that.

Tell the near 80 million Chinese that were murdered by their "stronger state".

Or you could tell it to the 60 or 70 million Russians murdered by the strength of the Soviet state.

Or you could praise the strength of the Khmer Rouge for their incredible strength as they wiped out millions of Cambodians.

Then there's the United States of America. The strongest state in the world, and responsible for countless millions dying. 3 million people in Vietnam. Millions more in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's kind of hard to put the numbers on how many people are murdered inside the US by that strong state. It's pretty much every week that some cop murders someone in cold blood, but they never seem to face justice. Human experimentation in the US? Squalene? Syphilis experiments on civilians? etc. etc.

There are countless more examples.

Please tell me more about how strong states make the world "less violent".

There is a world outside the US borders.  You are confusing your dislike for your own country with a general argument against states.  Most countries tick along happily and have none of your drama.

You would be quite incorrect there. I'm not from the US.

However, the American police state disease is infecting my country. We have the same kinds of draconian legislation as the US, and some worse. We even have Cyprus-like banking theft legislation that pre-dates the Cyprus theft.

My dislike isn't for the US. My dislike is for police states, tyrants, slavers, and thieves.

[Mike Christ]

London is a city of over 8 million.  Less than 2000 rioted.  But as a mob they burnt people out of their homes and beat up, in one case beat to death, anyone that didn't surrender their property immediately.

You keep saying "statism" as if an anarchic society would allow that 2000 to prey on the 8 million.  Can I suggest you read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and understand that anarchists would have a police function and in events like riots would have conscription to ensure safety.

I'm not implying there would not be security against violence in an anarchistic society.  I'm saying they're freaking out because they're upset with their own government, not because the "guns went away."  The guns are a band-aid, and only work when your society is disarmed.  Coincidentally, there happens to be a popular argument recently which the citizen should be disarmed, so they can be safe from themselves.  Except the government doesn't feel they belong in this pool.  If people had a proper defense against bullies, through their own means or through a business which specialized in security, we wouldn't be having this issue, and the riots against one's own government would not occur.  Instead, the business of security is monopolized by a single entity; whether the guns are there or not, this is the state in which we live in, and though we can keep everyone in a prison or free, it doesn't change how they feel.

You didn't answer my question, by the way.  So I'll present another, and I expect an answer to both: what shaped these people who want to rape and loot and pillage?

[Hawker]

London is a city of over 8 million.  Less than 2000 rioted.  But as a mob they burnt people out of their homes and beat up, in one case beat to death, anyone that didn't surrender their property immediately.

You keep saying "statism" as if an anarchic society would allow that 2000 to prey on the 8 million.  Can I suggest you read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and understand that anarchists would have a police function and in events like riots would have conscription to ensure safety.

I'm not implying there would not be security against violence in an anarchistic society.  I'm saying they're freaking out because they're upset with their own government, not because the "guns went away."  The guns are a band-aid, and only work when your society is disarmed.  Coincidentally, there happens to be a popular argument recently which the citizen should be disarmed, so they can be safe from themselves.  Except the government doesn't feel they belong in this pool.  If people had a proper defense against bullies, through their own means or through a business which specialized in security, we wouldn't be having this issue, and the riots against one's own government would not occur.  Instead, the business of security is monopolized by a single entity; whether the guns are there or not, this is the state in which we live in, and though we can keep everyone in a prison or free, it doesn't change how they feel.

You didn't answer my question, by the way.  So I'll present another, and I expect an answer to both: what shaped these people who want to rape and loot and pillage?

But what you say isn't true.

They rioted because the police allowed it.  They saw that they could get stuff for free and went for it.  No bookshops were looted but several sports chains were specifically targeted.  Once the police made public that they would be defending property as well as lives, the riots faded away.  No-one has ever suggested there was a political motivation.  And if the police withdrew protection from property at 4pm today, shops would be looted by 5pm. 

So the answer to your question as to what shaped these people is simple; they are human.  When law and order breaks down, rape and looting are normal.  That's why war zones are terrible places for civilians even though killing civilians is not part of the military strategy of most armies.

[ewitte]

Not a single $ in the US (federal tax) goes towards the US.  Look up the grace commission its all a big scam and intimidation.  Even their own forms for summons is conveniently missing information if you look it up says it only applies to federal employees!

[rider650]

But what you say isn't true.

They rioted because the police allowed it.  They saw that they could get stuff for free and went for it.  No bookshops were looted but several sports chains were specifically targeted.  Once the police made public that they would be defending property as well as lives, the riots faded away.  No-one has ever suggested there was a political motivation.  And if the police withdrew protection from property at 4pm today, shops would be looted by 5pm.  

So the answer to your question as to what shaped these people is simple; they are human.  When law and order breaks down, rape and looting are normal.  That's why war zones are terrible places for civilians even though killing civilians is not part of the military strategy of most armies.

And the police allowed it because they are state police. A private insurance company, with which I have a contract to protect my property, and which has to compensate me if they fail to protect my property, would never do such a thing. And in an anarchistic society, these insurance companies would flourish, and provide security much cheaper and more efficient than todays police, which is paid by the state with the funds the state robbed from its people (a.k.a. taxes), and is loyal only to the state.

A small number of people are willing to break natural law (i.e. rob, steal, murder, counterfeit money -> do all the things that in our statist society only the state is allowed to do!) - and these rulebreakers will be dealt with in any society, because there is a very high demand from all other people that these rulebraekers are dealt with. Most people don`t break natural law - because they are human, not because of threat of force!

Monopolies are alway expensive and inefficient. This is of cause also true for the monopoly of security, of decision making (justice) and of issuing money. Because states have had these monopolies for centuries, people are so brainwashed that they can`t imagine private entities fulfilling these functions - let alone fulfilling these functions much more efficient than states with monopolies. It`s funny that the same people mostly agree that state monopolies in areas where they are not used to them are bad - otherwise the East German Trabant and the Soviet Russian Mosqvich would have been the crown of automobile making of their time, for example. But they were not, they pretty much sucked ass - as does the state police forces and judicial and monetary systems of today.

[RodeoX]

I think a lot of people believe that if there was no government there would be no taxes. I have been to a lot of lawless places and that is not the case. You would pay tolls on roads at makeshift checkpoints. You would need to bribe smugglers to get basic goods, and pay protection money or face the terror of the militias. There is no free lunch.

[mgio]

So someone who acknowledges that their taxes pay for roads, schools, the fire and police departments, hospitals, just to name several, and hence feels that freeloading by avoiding taxes is a dick move, is "brainwashed" or "stupid".

Roads > Paid for with gasoline/petrol taxes
Schools > Paid for by property taxes

Not sure about fire & police departments.

But I'm not so sure that I like my tax dollars funding unlimited wars, bank bailouts, corporate bailouts, forced sterilizations, human experimentation on unwilling/unknowing subjects, and a truckload of other outright immoral and evil things.

No... I'd prefer not to help fund wholesale murder and corruption.

If you really want to fund murder, why not just do it yourself. Why do you need a middle man?

And as for the "you don't have to" argument because governments don't know what bitcoin is yet - it's a thing you got at price X, and you sold at price Y.  So at a minimum, if you convert your profits (Y-X) to fiat you have some kind of tax bill.  The other side - spending bitcoins bought (or mined) at X for something at Y (Y > X) - is something that governments will have to decide how to classify, but don't think that just because they haven't issued a ruling yet means your profits are free.

So, Joe decides to go on a long deserved holiday to Lovelyland, and purchases $2,000 Lovely dollars for $2,000 of his country's fiat dollar.

He returns from his Lovelyland holiday and goes to sell his remaining Lovely dollars, $1,000 as things were cheap and he was frugal. Much to Joe's suprise, oil, gas, diamonds, and the cure for cancer were all discovered in Lovelyland while he was away, and the Lovely dollar rose nicely. Joe end up recieving $2,000 of his country's fiat dollars for his $1,000 Lovely dollars.

1) Does Joe have to pay capital gains tax?
2) How is bitcoin different? (For those that purchase and are not professional traders.)

I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate

It's funny how often those that preach collectivist principles always end up calling for someone to die.

RenegadeMind, noone is "eager" to pay tax. But some of us to choose to obey the laws of the country we live in. The forum has plenty of people whose moral code appears to be "it is okay to break the law if I'm unlikely to get caught".

It seems like there are a lot of Americans in this forum, and a lot eager to cough up. I happen to have an advantage given my particular situation in that I'm not under any obligation in the country where I live to pay that particular tax.

Now, if you have money outside of your country of residence, it really isn't any business of the government of your country as it is outside of their sovereign territory and outside of their jurisdiction.

(Assuming you live in none of these places...)

You can go to Colorado and smoke pot.

You can go to Amsterdam for "intimate physical encounters".

You can go to Texas and own and shoot guns.

You can go to Vietnam and insult the king of Thailand. (God forbid you ever go to Thailand afterwards...)

But you're not going to face criminal charges where you live for what you do outside of that territory.

Why is bitcoin somehow magically different?

Large corporations and trusts do business in other countries simply to get around tax laws in their own countries?

Why do corporations get to avoid tax, but individuals don't?

*IF* you do your bitcoin activities where you live, then sure - you're doing it there.

If you are doing your bitcoin activities outside of where you live, then it's none of their business.

Does where you live necessitate that your local "authorities" somehow have absolute purveyance over everything you do and every aspect of your life, even outside of their jurisdiction?

I don't think so. Just because you live somewhere doesn't necessitate some kind of lien on your soul.

If you want to go whoring in Nevada, that's your business. It's legal there.


Perhaps a better question would be:

Why do people do bitcoin activity in jurisdictions where they will be liable for tax?


Here's something entertaining to think about as a minor distraction.

You are horribly misinformed. This is not how it works at all.

If you go to a foreign country and earn money, you still owe US federal tax.

If you go to Thailand and have sex with an underage prostitute, you will still go to jail when you return to the United States.

If you kill someone on a boat in international waters you still will be tried for murder.

Sorry, it usually does not matter where the deed takes place.

[mrkent]

I think a lot of people believe that if there was no government there would be no taxes. I have been to a lot of lawless places and that is not the case. You would pay tolls on roads at makeshift checkpoints. You would need to bribe smugglers to get basic goods, and pay protection money or face the terror of the militias. There is no free lunch.

I don't think anyone believes taxes (for services) will be gone. You are just free to choose who to pay your taxes to. If I don't drive on that road, I don't have to pay at the check point. People find the most efficient way to do things quickly.

[CryptoPath]

Paying tax sucks! Period !

[Zaih]

At the end of the day, you're obligation as a citizen of your country is to pay tax.

If you think the tax is too high, then live some where else really. You're basically scamming your country.

But fair enough I guess, everyone to themselves.

[giantdragon]

If you think the tax is too high, then live some where else really.

If some considerable amount of rich people will decide to leave home country due to high taxes, its government can start imposing 20..30..50...% expatriation tax on all assets.
Some totalitarian govts could even try to ban to emigrate altogether IMHO.

[skull88]

At the end of the day, you're obligation as a citizen of your country is to pay tax.

If you think the tax is too high, then live some where else really. You're basically scamming your country.

But fair enough I guess, everyone to themselves.

That were my thoughts too, till they taxed my wife 9000 euro's while she had earned that year 1600/month. If you work in Belgium than they automatically deduct the taxes from your wage, my wife worked in The Netherlands where they taxed her on her wage and a year later the Belgium state was sending us a nice bill, seems they can tax you a second time. She worked 2 years in the Netherlands so you got to multiply that by 2, 18000euro on taxes. 

Welcome in Belgium 
http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/

I think my country scammed us enough to scam them back now.

[Severian]

At the end of the day, you're obligation as a citizen of your country is to pay tax.

My obligation is to contribute to the society I live in, not to support the government I live under.

There's a huge difference between society and government. Some or many of the ills of our day can be attributed to the fact that too many people confuse the greater good (society) for the lesser evil (government).

So no, no one is under any obligation to pay tax to a government. A government may coerce you into paying but that still doesn't mean you're obligated. But all decent human beings do have a desire to contribute to the community of people in which they live.

[RenegadeMind]

You are horribly misinformed. This is not how it works at all.

If you go to a foreign country and earn money, you still owe US federal tax.

If you go to Thailand and have sex with an underage prostitute, you will still go to jail when you return to the United States.

If you kill someone on a boat in international waters you still will be tried for murder.

Sorry, it usually does not matter where the deed takes place.

Frayed knot.

What you are describing is criminal overstepping of government authority outside of its jurisdiction.

What you've put forward is, sorry to say, complete and utter insanity. It would put everyone under every law, and everyone would be stoned to death. e.g. Why shouldn't you be subject to Shariah law? Other people are.

Well, the objection you (or someone else) will put up is, "Oh, but I'm not a citizen of XYZ." The underlying assumption there is that you are the property of whatever country you are from and have no self-ownership. i.e. You are a slave. I'm not going to bother putting in the effort to explain why because statists can't be reasoned with because they start with logical contradictions after which any absurd premise follows, e.g. it's ok for some people to be violent, but not others, etc. etc. The slave logic there holds.

[RenegadeMind]

At the end of the day, you're obligation as a citizen of your country is to pay tax.

My obligation is to contribute to the society I live in, not to support the government I live under.

I'd go a lot further, or from a different perspective, I wouldn't go that far.

Do people have the right to be hermits? I'd say absolutely.

You have no obligation or duty to contribute to any society, and even not the one you live in.

So no, no one is under any obligation to pay tax to a government. A government may coerce you into paying but that still doesn't mean you're obligated. But all decent human beings do have a desire to contribute to the community of people in which they live.

I think that's a much better characterization - the desire to contribute. But I wouldn't go as far as to say they are obligated.

Going back to Immanuel Kant, the only good is a good will. If you remove freedom, there is no possibility to do anything moral. i.e. Where there is no freedom, there is no morality.

Kant was right. End of story.

[kokjo]

Kant was right. End of story.

Fascinating how much you  want to close the discussion, you just quote some old dead dude. Afraid to lose?

[RenegadeMind]

Kant was right. End of story.

Fascinating how much you  want to close the discussion, you just quote some old dead dude. Afraid to lose?

Please! Be my guest. Do go ahead and show why Kant is wrong! But don't be surprised when you fail, just like several hundred years of others.

Critiques of Kant mostly rely on the introduction of a logical contradiction and then the critiquer dancing around and praising how clever they are. The rest of the critiques of Kant pretty much boil down to temper tantrums, hissy fits and name calling.

BTW - The reference there goes directly back to what Severian had brought up with obligation, i.e. duty. You need to read an understand Kant at least a bit though to get the reference and how it applies. It's not directed toward the broader discussion. Well, until you decide to apply it like that.

As for him being "some old dead dude", you appear to be showing a general lack of knowledge about moral philosophy. Kant is the giant.

[kokjo]

Kant was right. End of story.

Fascinating how much you  want to close the discussion, you just quote some old dead dude. Afraid to lose?

Please! Be my guest. Do go ahead and show why Kant is wrong! But don't be surprised when you fail, just like several hundred years of others.

Critiques of Kant mostly rely on the introduction of a logical contradiction and then the critiquer dancing around and praising how clever they are. The rest of the critiques of Kant pretty much boil down to temper tantrums, hissy fits and name calling.

BTW - The reference there goes directly back to what Severian had brought up with obligation, i.e. duty. You need to read an understand Kant at least a bit though to get the reference and how it applies. It's not directed toward the broader discussion. Well, until you decide to apply it like that.

As for him being "some old dead dude", you appear to be showing a general lack of knowledge about moral philosophy. Kant is the giant.

the problem with kantian ethics is that if you follow the categorical imperative, its very easy to end up in a situation where you can't take any actions, but by not taking any action you have chosen not to do so, and therefor have chosen the action of non-acting, which is immoral. When kantian ethics are faced with a moral dilemma it fails horribly.

rational egoism or utilitarianism does not have this problem, they only try to maximize happiness(either your own, or a group's).

Kant is wrong.

[RenegadeMind]

the problem with kantian ethics is that if you follow the categorical imperative, its very easy to end up in a situation where you can't take any actions, but by not taking any action you have chosen not to do so, and therefor have chosen the action of non-acting, which is immoral. When kantian ethics are faced with a moral dilemma it fails horribly.

Those critques are short sighted and simply silly. I'm not going to bother explaining why as I'm simply lazy.

rational egoism or utilitarianism does not have this problem, they only try to maximize happiness(either your own, or a group's).

And that is why we should kill all the jews. Utilitarianism is simply stupid as a moral theory. It ends in murder. Always. It cannot accomodate diversity of thought or personage.

Kant is wrong.

No. You are.

[kokjo]

And that is why we should kill all the jews. Utilitarianism is simply stupid as a moral theory. It ends in murder. Always. It cannot accomodate diversity of thought or personage.

please explain why maximizing the world's happiness is a bad thing.

[Severian]

Do people have the right to be hermits? I'd say absolutely.

You have no obligation or duty to contribute to any society, and even not the one you live in.

If you decide to be a hermit, you've removed yourself from society and have little need or way to contribute.

If you live in society, you have every right to be a selfish oaf and take without returning. But karma's a bitch.

Kant was right.

That's only because he ran into Swedenborg's works as a younger man.

[RenegadeMind]

And that is why we should kill all the jews. Utilitarianism is simply stupid as a moral theory. It ends in murder. Always. It cannot accomodate diversity of thought or personage.

please explain why maximizing the world's happiness is a bad thing.

Utilitarianism is a collectivist ideology where "the greater good" is used to justify violence against individuals. It is inherently evil.

Individuals naturally try to maximize their happiness, but once this becomes mobs of people trying to maximize happiness for everyone else, it simply ends in disaster.

Just look at how Mao or Stalin "maximized" happiness for the Chinese and Russians - hundreds of millions of people were murdered in the name of creating a "better" or "happier" society. When forced on people, Utopia invariably becomes Dystopia.

[RenegadeMind]

Do people have the right to be hermits? I'd say absolutely.

You have no obligation or duty to contribute to any society, and even not the one you live in.

If you decide to be a hermit, you've removed yourself from society and have little need or way to contribute.

Given the way things are, I think this is a bit of an interesting question:

Can you live in a city and still be a hermit?

If you live in society, you have every right to be a selfish oaf and take without returning. But karma's a bitch.

No argument there. You're bang on!

Kant was right.

That's only because he ran into Swedenborg's works as a younger man.

Hehehe! It pays to stand on the shoulders of giants.

[FinShaggy]

People are willing to pay tax because they don't want to go to jail.
BTC is only taxless when you don't turn it into money.

[kokjo]

Utilitarianism is a collectivist ideology where "the greater good" is used to justify violence against individuals. It is inherently evil.

okay, so people must not work together?

Individuals naturally try to maximize their happiness, but once this becomes mobs of people trying to maximize happiness for everyone else, it simply ends in disaster.

okay, then argue against the rational egoist if that whats you like.

Just look at how Mao or Stalin "maximized" happiness for the Chinese and Russians - hundreds of millions of people were murdered in the name of creating a "better" or "happier" society. When forced on people, Utopia invariably becomes Dystopia.

did stalin or mao make the world a happier place? NO!
was their actions utiltaristic then? NO!

okay, so you point to two people who killed a lot of poeple, yell utiltarist at them, and then generalize from a bad premise.

i see your flawless logic.

[CoinHoarder]

People are willing to pay tax because they don't want to go to jail.

This

[freedomno1]

Because I don't want to live in a society with armed guards protecting your house, barbed wire fences around your property steel bars over my windows and an inate fear of poor people swarming or robbing my place because their standard of living sucks

[TheButterZone]

So you don't want to live as a politician in practically every Western nation?

[freedomno1]

So you don't want to live as a politician in practically every Western nation?
[/quote

Zing mean XD nice one lol
Na meant third world vs first world the politicians are another level

[RavinTavin]

this is exactly my point of view. maybe people are brainwashed and scared that governments can come to them and say BU!

Fixed 


P.S. personally I'd add stupid too.

lol

[Bitware]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

All these threads about "how do I pay tax" sound like a cacophonous symphony of masochists screaming "Rape me! No, rape me first!"

Paperwork is painful enough. Why add to the misery?

Or at a minimum, why not just only sell back an amount equivalent to your initial investment and keep the BTC? The next time you take a holiday, or step out of the country, you can probably cash in some of your BTC and stay under the radar and avoid more paperwork.  

I am most interested in staying out of prison and maintaining a clean/non-existent criminal record.

[freedomno1]

Got a better one
Well I didn't sign the agreement to be part of this thing called society my ancestors did but if I want to participate in exchanges and not live alone in the wilderness I guess I am forced to make some compromises

[agaumoney]

Well I didn't sign the agreement to be part of this thing called society my ancestors did but if I want to participate in exchanges and not live alone in the wilderness I guess I am forced to make some compromises

You cannot live in the wilderness, it is against the law.

[freedomno1]

Well I didn't sign the agreement to be part of this thing called society my ancestors did but if I want to participate in exchanges and not live alone in the wilderness I guess I am forced to make some compromises

You cannot live in the wilderness, it is against the law.

Just move to Indian Land
http://infolific.com/leisure/wilderness-survival/legal-to-live-in-wilderness/
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/photos/7-people-who-gave-up-on-civilization-to-live-in-the-wild/b
Does happen

[rbgrish]

Very well said, I intend to quote that a lot, As it can be backed up by history.

[Gareth Nelson]

there is no tax or regulations yet! think "embryonic currency"

some people are saying they have made a profit from selling coin and so they paid the appropriate tax as income

what they obviously don't realize is that there is no regulatory/legal requirement to do so as yet

Yes there is - it's pretty clear cut that if you make a profit in fiat then you become liable for tax, all disagreement with tax law to the contrary.

[smoothie]

there is no tax or regulations yet! think "embryonic currency"

some people are saying they have made a profit from selling coin and so they paid the appropriate tax as income

what they obviously don't realize is that there is no regulatory/legal requirement to do so as yet

Yes there is - it's pretty clear cut that if you make a profit in fiat then you become liable for tax, all disagreement with tax law to the contrary.

+1.

If you deal in Bitcoins entirely for purchases of goods or services then you never touch fiat and hence aren't liable for taxes.

Especially if the transaction is P2P or in person. No paper trail.

[Gareth Nelson]

there is no tax or regulations yet! think "embryonic currency"

some people are saying they have made a profit from selling coin and so they paid the appropriate tax as income

what they obviously don't realize is that there is no regulatory/legal requirement to do so as yet

Yes there is - it's pretty clear cut that if you make a profit in fiat then you become liable for tax, all disagreement with tax law to the contrary.

+1.

If you deal in Bitcoins entirely for purchases of goods or services then you never touch fiat and hence aren't liable for taxes.

Especially if the transaction is P2P or in person. No paper trail.

That's more complex - in some cases the market value of what goods you receive could be used to determine your income for tax reasons. Yes this is perverse, but that's the way it is.

[justusranvier]

Under US law if a carpenter builds a deck for a dentist in exchange for getting a cavity filled then both of them are required to report the dollar value of their respective activities as income and pay taxes on it regardless of whether or not dollars are involved.

The US government claims that any profit-generating activity performed by a person it claims as a citizen, anywhere on this planet or elsewhere, generates a tax liability.  All profit*, in any form, no matter where.

In practice their ability to enforce this edict is nowhere near what it would need to be to extract revenue from every activity that meets their definition of taxable income.

*Except where specifically noted in the tax code.

[mgio]

there is no tax or regulations yet! think "embryonic currency"

some people are saying they have made a profit from selling coin and so they paid the appropriate tax as income

what they obviously don't realize is that there is no regulatory/legal requirement to do so as yet

Yes there is - it's pretty clear cut that if you make a profit in fiat then you become liable for tax, all disagreement with tax law to the contrary.

+1.

If you deal in Bitcoins entirely for purchases of goods or services then you never touch fiat and hence aren't liable for taxes.

Especially if the transaction is P2P or in person. No paper trail.

Yes you are still liable for taxes. It is less likely that you would be caught, but you'd still owe the taxes.

Otherwise everyone would just buy gold to cash out their bitcoins and then sell the gold.

[KeyserSoze]

People are eager to pay tax so the IRS can have lavish parties using "excess funds":
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/04/breaking-report-shows-lavish-spending-at-irs-conference/?hpt=hp_t2

Who doesn't like a good $4.1M party?

[NewLiberty]

there is no tax or regulations yet! think "embryonic currency"

some people are saying they have made a profit from selling coin and so they paid the appropriate tax as income

what they obviously don't realize is that there is no regulatory/legal requirement to do so as yet

Yes there is - it's pretty clear cut that if you make a profit in fiat then you become liable for tax, all disagreement with tax law to the contrary.

+1.

If you deal in Bitcoins entirely for purchases of goods or services then you never touch fiat and hence aren't liable for taxes.

Especially if the transaction is P2P or in person. No paper trail.

Not having a reporting requirement category, does not mean there is no tax liability. but... 
The people in this forum are likely in every different tax situation imaginable.  So...
Don't take advice from this forum, get it from your accountant/lawyer who understands your situation and jurisdiction.

[pizza]

Under US law if a carpenter builds a deck for a dentist in exchange for getting a cavity filled then both of them are required to report the dollar value of their respective activities as income and pay taxes on it regardless of whether or not dollars are involved.

The US government claims that any profit-generating activity performed by a person it claims as a citizen, anywhere on this planet or elsewhere, generates a tax liability.  All profit*, in any form, no matter where.

In practice their ability to enforce this edict is nowhere near what it would need to be to extract revenue from every activity that meets their definition of taxable income.

*Except where specifically noted in the tax code.

This ^^, there is taxing on bartering, but the argument above seems to point at services and "profit-generating activity". In the above they are exchanging services for a specific dollar amount. There is no mention of exchanging a good for equal value of another good. For example if you take 4BTC and convert it into equal value of 24 Silver Coins, you did not earn any income you just converted value. It's like exchanging cheese or knives, even if the act itself is taxable since you are exchanging for an equal value there won't be a taxable event. Not to mention that exchanging goods is not mentioned at all.

The only time there will be a taxable event would be in the case that you exchange your silver into fiat, then you will be liable for capital gains. Once they make new regulations and codes it seems like you are paying tax that doesn't exist, you should probably get a refund for overpaying lol. Also, given the fact with the current IRS scandal I don't think we will see any guidance on taxing digital currencies, expect when you convert to fiat. Once you convert the "goods" (Digital Currency) into fiat, you then are liable for capital gains tax or Income tax if mining for profit or income.

[justusranvier]

there is taxing on bartering, but the argument above seems to point at services and "profit-generating activity". In the above they are exchanging services for a specific dollar amount. There is no mention of exchanging a good for equal value of another good. For example if you take 4BTC and convert it into equal value of 24 Silver Coins, you did not earn any income you just converted value. It's like exchanging cheese or knives, even if the act itself is taxable since you are exchanging for an equal value there won't be a taxable event. Not to mention that exchanging goods is not mentioned at all.

Think about that for a second. If the IRS enforced the tax code using your interpretation there would be no such thing as taxable income. When a dealership trades you a car worth $20000 for $20000 in dollars that is an equal value trade yet the IRS very clearly demands a cut of the transaction.

Regardless of whether you think your definition is correct they'll still throw you in jail and confiscate your property if they catch you trying to use it. What they actually do is treat all received value as profit and then let you subtract certain types of expenses from that in order to calculate your income.

In the plumber and carpenter case if the IRS scrutinized the transaction the auditor would assess a dollar value for each service and then allow each person to claim the expenses they incurred by performing their respective portions, and the difference would be expected to be accounted for as income.

If you ever want to know which interpretation of the tax code is the one the IRS won't kidnap you, throw you in a cage, and steal your property for, just assume it's the interpretation that gives them the most money.

[TheButterZone]

Just give them 100% of everything you own, cut off your limbs and give them those too, oh don't forget bags of the maximum amount of blood you can lose on a regular basis without dying.

[dandirk]

there is taxing on bartering, but the argument above seems to point at services and "profit-generating activity". In the above they are exchanging services for a specific dollar amount. There is no mention of exchanging a good for equal value of another good. For example if you take 4BTC and convert it into equal value of 24 Silver Coins, you did not earn any income you just converted value. It's like exchanging cheese or knives, even if the act itself is taxable since you are exchanging for an equal value there won't be a taxable event. Not to mention that exchanging goods is not mentioned at all.

Think about that for a second. If the IRS enforced the tax code using your interpretation there would be no such thing as taxable income. When a dealership trades you a car worth $20000 for $20000 in dollars that is an equal value trade yet the IRS very clearly demands a cut of the transaction.

Regardless of whether you think your definition is correct they'll still throw you in jail and confiscate your property if they catch you trying to use it. What they actually do is treat all received value as profit and then let you subtract certain types of expenses from that in order to calculate your income.

In the plumber and carpenter case if the IRS scrutinized the transaction the auditor would assess a dollar value for each service and then allow each person to claim the expenses they incurred by performing their respective portions, and the difference would be expected to be accounted for as income.

If you ever want to know which interpretation of the tax code is the one the IRS won't kidnap you, throw you in a cage, and steal your property for, just assume it's the interpretation that gives them the most money.

I get where he was going with it, just wasn't clearly defined as you stated with the car example.

EDIT: I was wrong... you have to pay capital gains tax on each transaction, whether you reinvest or not.  Though at least for home, generally they off-set each other, incurring gains if you down-size (aka have money left over after buying another home).

[RodeoX]

"Eager to pay taxes" is an overly provocative statement. I am not eager, but i do recognize my obligation to pay taxes. If you think using BTC means that you no longer have to pay taxes, then you may be rudely informed by a judge just how wrong you are. 
You will be sent to jail just like any other tax cheat. And no, not bitjail.

[dmartig]

Just give them 100% of everything you own, cut off your limbs and give them those too, oh don't forget bags of the maximum amount of blood you can lose on a regular basis without dying.

i will admit to not reading the entire thread so this may be redundant. mea culpa in advance. first of all my interest in btc is because it is a libertarians wet dream. it is also an anarchists wet dream. the only way we will ever be free is to have our own currency beyond the control of the international banksters and their sock puppet governments,
i am both endlessly amused and disgusted by statists who always use the arguments of " but we won't have schools, hospitals, fire departments, and police departments, or the roads will fall apart"  first of all most of that is paid for with property taxes and sales taxes. second of all most of rural america uses volunteer fire departments there is no reason there could not be more of them. as for the schools , public education is a travesty and public schools GRADUATE more than 20% of their students who are functionally illiterate. if anyone has gone to a hospital lately i doubt they went to a public one. most hospitals these days are privately owned affairs owned by large corporations, ie . for profit. as for the roads well the american society of engineers has given our roads and bridges a D and it will take at least 3 trillion to get them up to  B.  all those tired arguments can be handled by free people making agreements and using the marketplace.

this country has only had an income tax since 1913. how in the world did we survive before that? the income tax was devised to pay off the debt from the illegal federal reserve currency scam.  what we do get for our tax money is perpetual war, state of the art drones, universal surveillance, ndaa, obomba care, tax breaks for the wealthy who write the laws, debt debt and more debt and inflation. while the wealthy and the coroporations pay little or nothing for the supposed benefits of taxes

what this breaks down to is statists versus non-statists. states use force and the threat of violence to operate and tax which is a claim on our labor. it is in fact a mafia. the only way t end this system and become free is to take the power away from the thugs and that power resides in their ability to create money out of thin air and force us to use it.
I am well aware of the consequences of fighting goliath (been doing it all my life) ia ma also aware of something called a conscience and a thing called the constitution which is being shredded before our very eyes. so it is up to each individual to decide for themselves haow to handle how they deal with the mafia. but if you are invested in bitcoins and support a fascist regime i suggest you look up " cognitive dissonsnce" g'day

[No 1]

Well I didn't sign the agreement to be part of this thing called society my ancestors did but if I want to participate in exchanges and not live alone in the wilderness I guess I am forced to make some compromises

You cannot live in the wilderness, it is against the law.

You haven't seen Nell?

[AliceWonder]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

Maybe that's the attraction for some but not for me.

I don't look for ways to rip off society.
Personally I'm disgusted with the way my government uses a lot of its tax revenue, but part of being a productive member of society is paying taxes on what I have earned.

And the open nature of the blockchain makes it easier for an audit to track your BTC earnings than many people realize. If caught not reporting income, the government can lawfully seize my house and freeze my fiat accounts and even put me in jail.

Paying taxes is the right thing to do and avoids that risk.

[MGUK]

In the UK, we are pretty far up the creek still after this whole recession hoohaa. Our country could really do with a bit more money.

That is why you should pay tax in the UK. Residents consume numerous tax funded benefits such as roads, healthcare, schools, firefighters etc. If a country doesn't have money, it can't offer these services.

i am both endlessly amused and disgusted by statists who always use the arguments of " but we won't have schools, hospitals, fire departments, and police departments, or the roads will fall apart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme#Cutting_back_quangos
"NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement"  (health/hospitals)

Our tuition fees have tripled (education/schools)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22932618 (fire fighters)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-22512584 (police)
http://www.transport-network.co.uk/DfT-facing-10-budget-cuts-in-next-spending-review/8609#.Ub8mbPmRDW4 (roads)

In the UK, with the majority of taxes, individual taxes don't go to solve individual problems - money from tax is put into a pot and then divided between required causes. So the argument "well other tax pays for x" is invalid.

The argument "well we've only paid tax since x year, how did we survive before then?" We've only had the NHS since 1948, we've only had a semi-comfortable rail, road and communications infrastructure for a couple of hundred years. It's possible to absorb the costs of doing nice things for a small community, but when it's millions of people, it costs.

We can spend all day bickering about who's fault it is that it's like this, or how much some idiots in power waste money on stupid things, exclaim how big corporations can get away with it so it's okay for us to lower ourselves to that level, but that's not going to help.

One thing that will help reduce cuts on vital services: pay your taxes. Not because there's a law that says so, but because you live in a country, in most cases, in a civil society and that doesn't come for free. As someone above said, by not paying taxes is a crime against society, not against authority.

Not only is it a crime against society, it's a crime against Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.  If you want cryptocurrencies to be outlawed, or perceived to only be for criminals, then using them to avoid tax, and make outlandish claims such as "the whole point of Bitcoin is to avoid paying tax" is one of the fastest ways to do it.


As observed, there's a lot of people in here that have the mentality "there's no law making me/nobody will catch me if I don't pay tax so it's okay." There's no law that says you have to go to work, but if everyone stopped doing that, we'd be even further up the creek and casting away the paddle. There's probably a lot of sick/twisted things a person can do and not get caught - that doesn't make them right.

[PrintMule]

I do not care about my country, because it does not care about me.
They spend it on all kinds of bullshit.
I'm already a slave to their tax system, from a birth, If there's a way to avoid it, I would go for it without any doubt.
I should not care about other people (the society) too, because it's a rat race, you can only survive by walking on other people's heads.

[NewLiberty]

I do not care about my country, because it does not care about me.
They spend it on all kinds of bullshit.
I'm already a slave to their tax system, from a birth, If there's a way to avoid it, I would go for it without any doubt.
I should not care about other people (the society) too, because it's a rat race, you can only survive by walking on other people's heads.

My experience is entirely different.
I've found survival requirements to be most easily satisfied by providing something which society values, or at minimum, individual members of society. 
Rather than walking on heads, helping others more easily walk on their own feet can be quite rewarding, and I recommend it heartily.

[PrintMule]

I do not care about my country, because it does not care about me.
They spend it on all kinds of bullshit.
I'm already a slave to their tax system, from a birth, If there's a way to avoid it, I would go for it without any doubt.
I should not care about other people (the society) too, because it's a rat race, you can only survive by walking on other people's heads.

My experience is entirely different.
I've found survival requirements to be most easily satisfied by providing something which society values, or at minimum, individual members of society. 
Rather than walking on heads, helping others more easily walk on their own feet can be quite rewarding, and I recommend it heartily.

I've considered myself "mr nice guy, always to lend a hand" to a point in my life, where I'm almost broke.
Although it's hard to make a sudden change - now I try to be more selfish, and it works out much better, at least I'm halfway out of my debts, and the only waste of time I allow myself - are 1-2 forums like this and a movie now and then. There is quite a lot of thieves around, and it's hard to keep up, if you want a little bite for your piece of happiness and welfare.

[JohnyBigs]

there is taxing on bartering, but the argument above seems to point at services and "profit-generating activity". In the above they are exchanging services for a specific dollar amount. There is no mention of exchanging a good for equal value of another good. For example if you take 4BTC and convert it into equal value of 24 Silver Coins, you did not earn any income you just converted value. It's like exchanging cheese or knives, even if the act itself is taxable since you are exchanging for an equal value there won't be a taxable event. Not to mention that exchanging goods is not mentioned at all.

Think about that for a second. If the IRS enforced the tax code using your interpretation there would be no such thing as taxable income. When a dealership trades you a car worth $20000 for $20000 in dollars that is an equal value trade yet the IRS very clearly demands a cut of the transaction.

Regardless of whether you think your definition is correct they'll still throw you in jail and confiscate your property if they catch you trying to use it. What they actually do is treat all received value as profit and then let you subtract certain types of expenses from that in order to calculate your income.

In the plumber and carpenter case if the IRS scrutinized the transaction the auditor would assess a dollar value for each service and then allow each person to claim the expenses they incurred by performing their respective portions, and the difference would be expected to be accounted for as income.

If you ever want to know which interpretation of the tax code is the one the IRS won't kidnap you, throw you in a cage, and steal your property for, just assume it's the interpretation that gives them the most money.

your example isn't correct. The dealer is giving you fiat money in return, he is not exchanging for example a pick up truck for a car. There is no taxable event If I trade you my car for another car. It's like saying I gave you 10 tomatoes and you gave me 5 potatoes in return there is no income event. They clearly are only talking about services rendered as that would of been income earned.

[justusranvier]

There is no taxable event If I trade you my car for another car. It's like saying I gave you 10 tomatoes and you gave me 5 potatoes in return there is no income event. They clearly are only talking about services rendered as that would of been income earned.

Wrong.

In your example, you have earned income equal to the dollar value of 10 tomatoes and I have earned income equal to the dollar value of 5 potatoes.

Each one of us is required to report this income as additional income on our income tax returns, although in practice nobody does and it's virtually impossible to enforce.

Depending on the circumstance we may or may not be able to deduct as business expenses the costs of obtaining the tomatoes and potatoes and in that case we'd effectively only owe taxes on the profit of that trade.

[JohnyBigs]

There is no taxable event If I trade you my car for another car. It's like saying I gave you 10 tomatoes and you gave me 5 potatoes in return there is no income event. They clearly are only talking about services rendered as that would of been income earned.

Wrong.

In your example, you have earned income equal to the dollar value of 10 tomatoes and I have earned income equal to the dollar value of 5 potatoes.

Each one of us is required to report this income as additional income on our income tax returns, although in practice nobody does and it's virtually impossible to enforce.

Depending on the circumstance we may or may not be able to deduct as business expenses the costs of obtaining the tomatoes and potatoes and in that case we'd effectively only owe taxes on the profit of that trade.

I found the actual IRS guidence:

Topic 420 - Bartering Income
Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide or may provide under the bartering arrangement.

Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF). Refer to Topic 308 for amended return information.

A barter exchange or barter club is any organization with members or clients or persons who contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis.

The Internet has provided a medium for new growth in the bartering exchange industry. This growth prompts the following reminder: Barter exchanges are required to file Form 1099-B (PDF), Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions for all transactions unless they meet certain exceptions. Refer to Bartering in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, and the Form 1099-B Instructions for additional information on this subject. Persons who do not contract a barter exchange but who trade services are not required to file Form 1099-B. However, they may be required to file Form 1099-MISC (PDF). If you are in a business or trade, you may be able to deduct certain costs you incurred to perform the work that was bartered. If you exchanged property or services through a barter exchange, you should receive a Form 1099­B. The IRS also will receive the same information.

Please refer to our Bartering Tax Center page for more information on bartering income and bartering exchanges.

If you receive income from bartering, you may be required to make estimated tax payments. Refer to Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for additional information.

The question is does this apply for equal barter income? Even if they do, is there any tax liability if you exchange $2000 worth of BitCoin for $2000 worth of Gold there is no profit therefore shouldn't be any taxes.

Or I guess the taxable event already has occurred when you barter so the income is realized when the exchange occurs. For example:

1. You exchange $100 of BitCoin for $100 dollars of Silver.
2. You pay tax on $100 of income.
3. If you sell your Silver for Fiat for $100 as you have already claimed the $100 in income. You should theoretically only pay tax on any gains above $100

If there are any accountant's/lawyers here can you please clarify this?

[NewLiberty]

The question is does this apply for equal barter income? Even if they do, is there any tax liability if you exchange $2000 worth of BitCoin for $2000 worth of Gold there is no profit therefore shouldn't be any taxes.

Or I guess the taxable event already has occurred when you barter so the income is realized when the exchange occurs. For example:

1. You exchange $100 of BitCoin for $100 dollars of Silver.
2. You pay tax on $100 of income.
3. If you sell your Silver for Fiat for $100 as you have already claimed the $100 in income. You should theoretically only pay tax on any gains above $100

If there are any accountant's/lawyers here can you please clarify this?

The taxable event there occurred before #1.
Gaining the Bitcoin can be taxable, and you can deduct your costs (mining, electricity and etc) if you kept good records and itemize.
The other exchanges are no more taxable than exchanging dollars for euros (they are not income, they are exchange).
Income tax applies to earned income.
#3 may be taxable if there is a gain, and it would be at capital gain rates, however depending on the type and amount of silver, it may or may not have a reporting requirement. (The New Liberty Dollars do not trigger such a reporting requirement as they are outside the CFTC list)
The gain incurs tax liability either way though.

But don't rely on my advice, listen to your own (paid for) tax lawyer.

[JohnyBigs]

The question is does this apply for equal barter income? Even if they do, is there any tax liability if you exchange $2000 worth of BitCoin for $2000 worth of Gold there is no profit therefore shouldn't be any taxes.

Or I guess the taxable event already has occurred when you barter so the income is realized when the exchange occurs. For example:

1. You exchange $100 of BitCoin for $100 dollars of Silver.
2. You pay tax on $100 of income.
3. If you sell your Silver for Fiat for $100 as you have already claimed the $100 in income. You should theoretically only pay tax on any gains above $100

If there are any accountant's/lawyers here can you please clarify this?

The taxable event there occurred before #1.
Gaining the Bitcoin can be taxable, and you can deduct your costs (mining, electricity and etc) if you kept good records and itemize.
The other exchanges are no more taxable than exchanging dollars for euros (they are not income, they are exchange).
Income tax applies to earned income.
#3 may be taxable if there is a gain, and it would be at capital gain rates, however depending on the type and amount of silver, it may or may not have a reporting requirement. (The New Liberty Dollars do not trigger such a reporting requirement as they are outside the CFTC list)
The gain incurs tax liability either way though.

But don't rely on my advice, listen to your own (paid for) tax lawyer.

It makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure. With your example a mining company that mined 1000oz of gold would list profits on that 1000oz even if they didn't sell any? But it could very well be that way. Or another example it's like a company producing shirts, they produce 100 shirts but haven't sold any, that is not income.

[NewLiberty]

The question is does this apply for equal barter income? Even if they do, is there any tax liability if you exchange $2000 worth of BitCoin for $2000 worth of Gold there is no profit therefore shouldn't be any taxes.

Or I guess the taxable event already has occurred when you barter so the income is realized when the exchange occurs. For example:

1. You exchange $100 of BitCoin for $100 dollars of Silver.
2. You pay tax on $100 of income.
3. If you sell your Silver for Fiat for $100 as you have already claimed the $100 in income. You should theoretically only pay tax on any gains above $100

If there are any accountant's/lawyers here can you please clarify this?

The taxable event there occurred before #1.
Gaining the Bitcoin can be taxable, and you can deduct your costs (mining, electricity and etc) if you kept good records and itemize.
The other exchanges are no more taxable than exchanging dollars for euros (they are not income, they are exchange).
Income tax applies to earned income.
#3 may be taxable if there is a gain, and it would be at capital gain rates, however depending on the type and amount of silver, it may or may not have a reporting requirement. (The New Liberty Dollars do not trigger such a reporting requirement as they are outside the CFTC list)
The gain incurs tax liability either way though.

But don't rely on my advice, listen to your own (paid for) tax lawyer.

It makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure. With your example a mining company that mined 1000oz of gold would list profits on that 1000oz even if they didn't sell any? But it could very well be that way. Or another example it's like a company producing shirts, they produce 100 shirts but haven't sold any, that is not income.

The difference being that Gold is classed as a currency, and as of this year's guidance, so are virtual currencies.

[JohnyBigs]

The question is does this apply for equal barter income? Even if they do, is there any tax liability if you exchange $2000 worth of BitCoin for $2000 worth of Gold there is no profit therefore shouldn't be any taxes.

Or I guess the taxable event already has occurred when you barter so the income is realized when the exchange occurs. For example:

1. You exchange $100 of BitCoin for $100 dollars of Silver.
2. You pay tax on $100 of income.
3. If you sell your Silver for Fiat for $100 as you have already claimed the $100 in income. You should theoretically only pay tax on any gains above $100

If there are any accountant's/lawyers here can you please clarify this?

The taxable event there occurred before #1.
Gaining the Bitcoin can be taxable, and you can deduct your costs (mining, electricity and etc) if you kept good records and itemize.
The other exchanges are no more taxable than exchanging dollars for euros (they are not income, they are exchange).
Income tax applies to earned income.
#3 may be taxable if there is a gain, and it would be at capital gain rates, however depending on the type and amount of silver, it may or may not have a reporting requirement. (The New Liberty Dollars do not trigger such a reporting requirement as they are outside the CFTC list)
The gain incurs tax liability either way though.

But don't rely on my advice, listen to your own (paid for) tax lawyer.

It makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure. With your example a mining company that mined 1000oz of gold would list profits on that 1000oz even if they didn't sell any? But it could very well be that way. Or another example it's like a company producing shirts, they produce 100 shirts but haven't sold any, that is not income.

The difference being that Gold is classed as a currency, and as of this year's guidance, so are virtual currencies.

Where did you get this information? Gold is a commodity or a physical good. The only metals that are classified as currencies are ones physically produced as legal tender from the treasury. Neither can a digital currency be classified as legal currency, unless it is produced from the Treasury.

[justusranvier]

The question is does this apply for equal barter income? Even if they do, is there any tax liability if you exchange $2000 worth of BitCoin for $2000 worth of Gold there is no profit therefore shouldn't be any taxes.

If a supermarket sells 10 tomatoes, they have to report that revenue for tax purposes. It doesn't matter if they get paid in dollars, potatoes, gold, or bitcoins, or air guitars. The same rule applies for individuals who are bartering.

What's a little different is that the customer who is buying tomatoes with dollars normally doesn't treat this as income for tax purposes (selling dollars for tomatoes), but when barter or non-dollar currencies are involved the IRS is more likely to insist that it should be treated as income for both parties, should that transaction ever be audited.

[NewLiberty]

The question is does this apply for equal barter income? Even if they do, is there any tax liability if you exchange $2000 worth of BitCoin for $2000 worth of Gold there is no profit therefore shouldn't be any taxes.

Or I guess the taxable event already has occurred when you barter so the income is realized when the exchange occurs. For example:

1. You exchange $100 of BitCoin for $100 dollars of Silver.
2. You pay tax on $100 of income.
3. If you sell your Silver for Fiat for $100 as you have already claimed the $100 in income. You should theoretically only pay tax on any gains above $100

If there are any accountant's/lawyers here can you please clarify this?

The taxable event there occurred before #1.
Gaining the Bitcoin can be taxable, and you can deduct your costs (mining, electricity and etc) if you kept good records and itemize.
The other exchanges are no more taxable than exchanging dollars for euros (they are not income, they are exchange).
Income tax applies to earned income.
#3 may be taxable if there is a gain, and it would be at capital gain rates, however depending on the type and amount of silver, it may or may not have a reporting requirement. (The New Liberty Dollars do not trigger such a reporting requirement as they are outside the CFTC list)
The gain incurs tax liability either way though.

But don't rely on my advice, listen to your own (paid for) tax lawyer.

It makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure. With your example a mining company that mined 1000oz of gold would list profits on that 1000oz even if they didn't sell any? But it could very well be that way. Or another example it's like a company producing shirts, they produce 100 shirts but haven't sold any, that is not income.

The difference being that Gold is classed as a currency, and as of this year's guidance, so are virtual currencies.

Where did you get this information? Gold is a commodity or a physical good. The only metals that are classified as currencies are ones physically produced as legal tender from the treasury. Neither can a digital currency be classified as legal currency, unless it is produced from the Treasury.

Yes, gold is also a commodity.  Most all currency are also commodities really.  Monex vs comex notwithstanding.

The information comes from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) located in Basel, Switzerland.  This international central banking consortium meets and agrees on what are currencies and how they are exchanged globally.  There isn't a higher authority, unfortunately.  They rank currency assets into Tiered classes.  Central banks exchange these and that forms the basis for relative currency valuations.
The Basel III agreement eliminated the Tier 3 (highest risk) Gold is treated as Tier 1.  Under Basel II "gold bullion held in own vaults or on an allocated basis to the extent backed by bullion liabilities can be treated as cash and therefore risk-weighted at 0%"
Basel III rated it at 50%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III

Legal Tender is a special class of "currency".  It has value based only on the force of law which requires that it be acceptable to settle a debt, and to pay tax.  It is the least valuable form of currency and is considered soft.
So a debt is incurred for eating a meal at a restaurant.  The restaurateur may not refuse the local legal tender for settling that debt, they may however accept anything else that they like instead to settle that debt.

[NewLiberty]

Incidentally, since the charter of the Federal Reserve has as its mechanism the manipulation of the value of the dollar vis-a-vis other currency, now that Bitcoin is in that category, they could decide on any given day to blow over the market in any direction that suits them.
They could short it to nothing and wait for weak hands to sell and then grab it all back.  They can print as much dollars as they like so you can't fight and win, all you can do is weather the storm.
There are whales, and there are leviathan.

[bernard75]

In Germany its official:
After holding BTC for over 1 year makes them tax free. \o/

[freedomno1]

In Germany its official:
After holding BTC for over 1 year makes them tax free. \o/

Nice find goes to add to legal

[bassjoe]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

That also happens to be against the law... let me check my worldwide statute book... everywhere. Anybody that helps you avoid tax liabilities will also be acting illegally.

So you'll need a group of users -- merchants and customers -- willing to flout the law (and possible jail time for conspiracy) in every single country in order to avoid taxes. Good luck with that. Those of us who live in the real world will report taxable income when legally required to do so.

[nobbynobbynoob]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

That also happens to be against the law... let me check my worldwide statute book... everywhere. Anybody that helps you avoid tax liabilities will also be acting illegally.

So you'll need a group of users -- merchants and customers -- willing to flout the law (and possible jail time for conspiracy) in every single country in order to avoid taxes. Good luck with that. Those of us who live in the real world will report taxable income when legally required to do so.

Tax avoidance is wholly legal. It merely means doing whatever legally possible to minimize one's tax liabilities. Who on earth, no matter their political opinions, wants to pay more tax than they have to?

Tax evasion is definitely a crime, but IMO not morally wrong. It's kind of driving-at-90mph-on-an-empty-road-in-Virginia-or-Norway "wrong".

[NewLiberty]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

That also happens to be against the law... let me check my worldwide statute book... everywhere. Anybody that helps you avoid tax liabilities will also be acting illegally.

So you'll need a group of users -- merchants and customers -- willing to flout the law (and possible jail time for conspiracy) in every single country in order to avoid taxes. Good luck with that. Those of us who live in the real world will report taxable income when legally required to do so.

I avoid taxes every time I decide not to buy cigarettes.