Will bitcoin = public sector workers rioting??

[cryptoanarchist]

Been thinking about this for a while now. As bitcoin takes hold and the value continues to skyrocket, what will become of those left holding the bag? Public sector workers live off stolen money. What is going to happen to them when their money becomes worthless? Who are they going to blame?

Us???

There are a lot of public sector workers who are willing to kill you to get what they want (cops). All I'm saying is, with things going the way they are, we might want to start preparing for this outcome.

[1714702856]

1714702856

[1714702856]

1714702856

[1714702856]

1714702856

[1714702856]

1714702856

[1714702856]

1714702856

[Hawker]

As long as we still need schools, hospitals, police, roads and all, why does the currency make any difference?

[herzmeister]

If people evade taxes with crypto-currencies, states will tax first and foremost real estate. You have to live somewhere you know.

I don't like today's nation states either though, they're indeed a Single Point Of Failure, a relic of history, a questionable authority, a false security as a social safety net of last resort, and, logically-philosophically speaking, an infinite regress when questioning their legitimacy.

I'd prefer to see crypto-currencies make us migrate to the synthesis of social-libertarian and market-libertarian ideas, which would look somewhat like the Mondragón Model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

[Pente]

If people evade taxes with crypto-currencies, states will tax first and foremost real estate. You have to live somewhere you know.

For me, this is the correct way for a government to collect taxes. All taxes should be based on land. Governments own land, they don't own people.

Why should someone that moved to another country, pay taxes to the USA just because they were born there?

[Mike Christ]

If people evade taxes with crypto-currencies, states will tax first and foremost real estate. You have to live somewhere you know.

For me, this is the correct way for a government to collect taxes. All taxes should be based on land. Governments own land, they don't own people.

Why should someone that moved to another country, pay taxes to the USA just because they were born there?

It's harder to hide the truth that way   Not that it matters now, what with the truth being so readily available.

[User705]

Actually in the early democracies taxes were voluntary.  Crypto if successful will eventually be used to resist taxation since it can't be seized.  Public sector workers will have to go and do the same thing in the private sector but at an appropriate compensation level.

[lightfoot]

Oddly enough "public sector" workers do work....

*shakes head*

[lightfoot]

Actually in the early democracies taxes were voluntary.  Crypto if successful will eventually be used to resist taxation since it can't be seized.  Public sector workers will have to go and do the same thing in the private sector but at an appropriate compensation level.

And those democracies don't exist now because.....

*rolls eyes* Come on, I love Galt's Gulch as much as the rest of you, but you notice there are no doctors, toilet cleaners, trash men, and so forth there. Funny that, where is the best and most motivated sanitation engineer?

C

[Hawker]

Actually in the early democracies taxes were voluntary.  Crypto if successful will eventually be used to resist taxation since it can't be seized.  Public sector workers will have to go and do the same thing in the private sector but at an appropriate compensation level.

How do you reckon that will happen?  Value added tax will be unaffected.  Payroll taxes will be unaffected.  Land taxes will be unaffected.  Fuel, tobacco and alcohol taxes will be unaffected.  

Where exactly is the "resistance" to tax in a crypto currency?

[Mike Christ]

Actually in the early democracies taxes were voluntary.  Crypto if successful will eventually be used to resist taxation since it can't be seized.  Public sector workers will have to go and do the same thing in the private sector but at an appropriate compensation level.

They couldn't have been taxes if they were voluntary:

tax  (tæks)
 
— n
1.   a compulsory financial contribution imposed by a government to raise revenue, levied on the income or property of persons or organizations, on the production costs or sales prices of goods and services, etc

It's interesting to note, then, that without taxes, they still got things done

Also: it's funny how they worded that definition.  An involuntary contribution is more easily defined as theft or esp. ransom.

[User705]

@Hawker
The resistance comes from the inability to seize the wealth or tax through inflation.  If one choses to cheat and not charge VAT, Alcohol tax, land tax or whatever else it becomes much harder to collect it.  You have to physically spend more to come over and collect it from each individual member of society then you can possible get from the actual tax and in the process make the tax collectors visible and much hated.  The reason taxation by money printing works so well is that it costs so little to do.  Government can print 1% of total nation wealth and it costs very little compared to going to every household to collect 1% from them.
@MikeChrist
Yes you are correct.  I was referring to governmental/public works contributions.  In ancient Greece taxes were regarded as derogatory to the dignity of a free citizen.  Citizens were expected to help the city as part of being proud to be citizens.  Someone wanting to do something will do a better job then someone paid to do it and an even better job then someone forced to do it or pay for it.
@lightfoot
Relax.  Those democracies were the foundation for the current ones.  It was simply a historic reference not some sort of desire to return to ancient times.  There is nothing wrong with government solving local issues.  The problem arises when it starts dictating minutia from thousands of miles away on to different people in a one size fits all solution and then charging huge taxes to fix problems no one needs or wants fixing.

[Hawker]

@Hawker
The resistance comes from the inability to seize the wealth or tax through inflation.  If one choses to cheat and not charge VAT, Alcohol tax, land tax or whatever else it becomes much harder to collect it.  You have to physically spend more to come over and collect it from each individual member of society then you can possible get from the actual tax and in the process make the tax collectors visible and much hated.  The reason taxation by money printing works so well is that it costs so little to do.  Government can print 1% of total nation wealth and it costs very little compared to going to every household to collect 1% from them.
...snip...

If one ( presumably a shopkeeper) chooses to cheat and not charge VAT, one goes bankrupt because one has paid VAT on the goods when buying them.  That's assuming one is willing to go to jail as well.

You can't buy land without registering your legal title.  You can't register legal title unless you have paid stamp duty.

PAYE is deducted from payrolls by employers - you don't get to opt out.

I can go on.  A change to Bitcoin won't change the tax collection procedures that are often centuries old and work fine.

[User705]

You keep picturing a system that doesn't exist in reality.  There's lots of vat tax cheating now.  There's lots of jobs done for cash opting out of paye now.  You don't wonder how and why they do it now?  It's possible that if crypto gets bigger it only makes that easier to do not harder.  Currently there are few assets you can own that are not subject to easy government seizure and or debasement.  Public sector workers should be buying crypto as a cheap form of insurance just in case.

[Hawker]

You keep picturing a system that doesn't exist in reality.  There's lots of vat tax cheating now.  There's lots of jobs done for cash opting out of paye now.  You don't wonder how and why they do it now?  It's possible that if crypto gets bigger it only makes that easier to do not harder.  Currently there are few assets you can own that are not subject to easy government seizure and or debasement.  Public sector workers should be buying crypto as a cheap form of insurance just in case.

Lets make a deal.  I won't accuse you of living in a dream world and you don't accuse me of ignoring reality.  

VAT cheating on goods is negligible.  Tobacco cheating is a bigger issue but even that is only a nuisance.

VAT cheating on services is in that border area between negligible and unimportant.  A 1 man plumber who does your drains for cash is doing you a favour.  You have no way of knowing if he should be VAT registered.  If its a company, they don't dare do cash deals as the customer can inform on them and a VAT audit is every trader's worst nightmare.  

Cryptocurrency doesn't change any of this.  The tax system works.  Its worth saying that even if cryptocurrency made evasion easier, the risk is still huge.  You avoid £100k in tax but your wife leaves you.  Now you have to pay her to shut up and you may end up paying the £100k anyway along with penalties.  

I guess what I am saying is that the system is a lot more resilient that you give it credit for.  But as an Irishman brought up to believe that only fools pay the British taxes, I suppose I am bound to say that

[User705]

Ok.    These are more theoretical discussions then some sort of reality comments so I mean no offense.  Most assets even money itself have been co-opted by governments and are "rented" to the rest of the population with fees and taxes as the "rent".  Most people try to avoid this "rent" as much as possible.  That's just natural like an Irishman wants to avoid paying English taxes.    The system is very resilient and it's been built up that way for a long time but crypto is rearranging the entire way money is handled.  If it survives and expands a lot of things will be very different.  That's a big IF but in your example where you say well if you cheat you have to pay your wife £100K but with crypto no one can force you to pay her or take the assets from you to pay her.  That's the difference.  Contracts, Debt, Taxes all will be upended in ways we can't even imagine if crypto really gets big.

[Hawker]

...snip...
 That's a big IF but in your example where you say well if you cheat you have to pay your wife £100K but with crypto no one can force you to pay her or take the assets from you to pay her.
...snip...

What???

You are in jail until you pay the bitch  sweet lady.  You will pay her unless you fancy spending your life in the prison system.

[Morbid]

first thing you can do to protect yourself is to keep low profile about your interest in bitcoins. you will draw alot of attention on yourself once the media propoganda starts to blame bitcoin holders for destroying exposing the banking sector.

[User705]

...snip...
 That's a big IF but in your example where you say well if you cheat you have to pay your wife £100K but with crypto no one can force you to pay her or take the assets from you to pay her.
...snip...

What???

You are in jail until you pay the bitch  sweet lady.  You will pay her unless you fancy spending your life in the prison system.

I'm holding my tongue as promised but in the world we currently live in people don't go to jail for unpaid debts.  Certainly not for life.

[Wilikon]

I am stuffed! Too much turkey, but that stuffing was killer. And that rosé from France. What a nice touch.

Anyway.

So hmm. Yes. Taxes. So while I was stuffing my face earlier I was thinking about how we should find a way to make taxes as fun as bitcoin. Bitcoin is fun. It is exciting. Why is paying taxes not? Then, just when I was dropping my turkey leg I thought: "Why not have taxes on a ledger, visible for all to see? No one will know who is paying what, etc. But the people paying taxes would know exactly to the cent where it is going and how the machine of government is working. Call it, I don't know "The Most Transparent Government Ever!" T.M.T.G.E Machine for all to see.

The thing about the public sector is when you work for the State you will make sure the laws are not going to apply to you the same as everyone else. It is not a public sector problem, it is human nature. You will find a lobby that will fight to prove you need what you say you need because. That's it.

[Rassah]

VAT and sales taxes can, and will, be avoided more and more as it becomes easier to order stuff from abroad. Anonymous site, existing in a neighboring country with or without VAT, selling for Bitcoin so there is no way to tell where it is, stop the payments, or track that a payment was sent across the border, delivering products in plain brown package for much cheaper than the VAT paying local businesses.

Public sector worker money won't become worthless just because of lowered tax revenues. Government and private debt is continuing to grow, with no plans to stop. That can't just go on for ever without either a huge default, or a huge inflating away of the debt, both of which result in currency value decreasing dramatically.

Movies taught me that the best way to escape a zombie apocalypse is to move to an island. I'm thinking of Dominica. Anyone else want to join me, or have other islands to consider?

[Hawker]

Rassah:
Its worth considering that we can already get goods direct from China via ebay and its made no difference to VAT revenue. There is simply no way a business on the scale of amazon can be run anonymously.  Any online business has to have a returns policy as things get damaged in transit. 

User71: this guy did go to jail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511744/Woman-says-20m-divorce-deal-isnt-This-isnt-declares-tycoons-wife-sum-calls-disgrace.html

If he cheated on tax over the years and if she knew, she has informed on him and that money will have been clawed back.

Its my opinion that, based on these facts, if Bitcoin were adopted as the main UK currency, tax collection would not be an issue.  I am open to been shown to be wrong.

[User705]

He went to jail for a few months.  Taxes and regulations are not voluntary.  The current rise of BTC in China is all about trying to get wealth out of there because it is restricted.  Yes if all of a sudden UK switched to BTC tax collection would go on as normal for a while and then slowly just like bitcoin adoption it would get harder and harder because you can't collect BTC it has to be willingly sent.

[Hawker]

He went to jail for a few months.  Taxes and regulations are not voluntary.  The current rise of BTC in China is all about trying to get wealth out of there because it is restricted.  Yes if all of a sudden UK switched to BTC tax collection would go on as normal for a while and then slowly just like bitcoin adoption it would get harder and harder because you can't collect BTC it has to be willingly sent.

He went to jail until he accounted for his assets. 

I think the only difference between our positions is that you think the state will allow tax evasion and won't lock people up if there is Bitcoin.  Here in the UK, tax evasion does get you imprisoned and you do stay in jail until the missing money is accounted for.  A switch to Bitcoin won't change that.

Perhaps you live in a more gentle state that turns a blind eye to tax evasion?

[davedx]

If people evade taxes with crypto-currencies, states will tax first and foremost real estate. You have to live somewhere you know.

I don't like today's nation states either though, they're indeed a Single Point Of Failure, a relic of history, a questionable authority, a false security as a social safety net of last resort, and, logically-philosophically speaking, an infinite regress when questioning their legitimacy.

I'd prefer to see crypto-currencies make us migrate to the synthesis of social-libertarian and market-libertarian ideas, which would look somewhat like the Mondragón Model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

What makes Bitcoin so much better for tax evasion than, e.g., offshore bank accounts?

At the end of the day, you can always be audited...

[User705]

With coinjoin/zerocoin and blockchain pruning auditing will become useless.  I've posted somewhere before that if bitcoin succeeds the entire asset protection/offshore hiding industry will be hit very hard. 
@Hawker Don't underestimate the cost of tax collection.  Right now it's cheap.  Jailing people works but it's mainly for show because it won't work if you have to jail everyone.  Taxes aren't voluntary and people pay them only up to a point.  As soon as they can get away with it they don't pay them.  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder.  If bitcoin succeeds and will be widespread a new equilibrium will have to be reached and I suspect it will be at a much lower tax rate.

[Hawker]

With coinjoin/zerocoin and blockchain pruning auditing will become useless.  I've posted somewhere before that if bitcoin succeeds the entire asset protection/offshore hiding industry will be hit very hard. 
@Hawker Don't underestimate the cost of tax collection.  Right now it's cheap.  Jailing people works but it's mainly for show because it won't work if you have to jail everyone.  Taxes aren't voluntary and people pay them only up to a point.  As soon as they can get away with it they don't pay them.  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder.  If bitcoin succeeds and will be widespread a new equilibrium will have to be reached and I suspect it will be at a much lower tax rate.

You keep making the same assertion without providing any evidence. 

Please; do us all a favour - point to some form of business that is currently generating VAT income for the government that you think will stop providing VAT income if we use Bitcoin.

[Hawker]

With coinjoin/zerocoin and blockchain pruning auditing will become useless.  I've posted somewhere before that if bitcoin succeeds the entire asset protection/offshore hiding industry will be hit very hard.  
@Hawker Don't underestimate the cost of tax collection.  Right now it's cheap.  Jailing people works but it's mainly for show because it won't work if you have to jail everyone.  Taxes aren't voluntary and people pay them only up to a point.  As soon as they can get away with it they don't pay them.  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder.  If bitcoin succeeds and will be widespread a new equilibrium will have to be reached and I suspect it will be at a much lower tax rate.

You keep making the same assertion without providing any evidence.  

Please; do us all a favour - point to some form of business that is currently generating VAT income for the government that you think will stop providing VAT income if we use Bitcoin.

the uk 2nd hand car industry is a £36billion market.

I reckon a lot more dealers would avoid taxes if accepting bitcoin.

Two problems:  
1. Second car dealers are already unpopular.  All it takes is one customer to inform on them for VAT fraud and they go to jail as it is fraud.  
2. Right now they trade largely in cash so they choose what to report on VAT returns.  I don't see how a switch to Bitcoin changes that.

[User705]

Since I can't prove a hypothetical I'm not sure what you are looking for.  Do you agree that bitcoin provides protection from taxation called money printing?  Do you agree that seizing bitcoins is harder then seizing a bank account or cash?  Do you agree that the nature of bitcoin makes proving that someone owns any specific coins harder then proving you own money in a bank or cash under your mattress?  If your answer is YES then you already agree with

...  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder. ...

If your answer is NO then why?

[Hawker]

...snip...
Bitcoin makes it easy to hide your true earnings. A businessman could have hundreds of btc and alt addresses.

How would a customer know the businessman is not going to declare vat on his sale?

This is why the uk fascist govt likes a central banking system, as everything is tracked.

Please - don't just say things.  The very word "businessman" tells you that the guy is a small timer.  If you are talking about sole traders, then bitcoin is no different from cash.  If you are talking about a company, then hiding earnings requires a conspiracy and its very hard to do.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f98bbc0-2db6-11e2-9988-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2m44AtgSP

Here are 10 ways tax evasion is tracked.  The cheating car dealer will be nailed by 2 and 3.

Take careful note - 9 of the 10 work just fine with Bitcoin.  The offshore bank accounts will be obsolete.

[cryptoanarchist]

Since I can't prove a hypothetical I'm not sure what you are looking for.  Do you agree that bitcoin provides protection from taxation called money printing?  Do you agree that seizing bitcoins is harder then seizing a bank account or cash?  Do you agree that the nature of bitcoin makes proving that someone owns any specific coins harder then proving you own money in a bank or cash under your mattress?  If your answer is YES then you already agree with

...  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder. ...

If your answer is NO then why?

Hawker is a government troll and you're wasting your time trying to talk sense into him. He's the type you're going to have to worry about when the governments collapse along with their phony fiat currency - a career parasite.

[Hawker]

Since I can't prove a hypothetical I'm not sure what you are looking for.  Do you agree that bitcoin provides protection from taxation called money printing?  Do you agree that seizing bitcoins is harder then seizing a bank account or cash?  Do you agree that the nature of bitcoin makes proving that someone owns any specific coins harder then proving you own money in a bank or cash under your mattress?  If your answer is YES then you already agree with

...  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder. ...

If your answer is NO then why?

Hawker is a government troll and you're wasting your time trying to talk sense into him. He's the type you're going to have to worry about when the governments collapse along with their phony fiat currency - a career parasite.

Google "ad hominem" - and if you have an actual response to my pointing out your post is factually incorrect, feel free to post it.

[Hawker]

Since I can't prove a hypothetical I'm not sure what you are looking for.  Do you agree that bitcoin provides protection from taxation called money printing?  Do you agree that seizing bitcoins is harder then seizing a bank account or cash?  Do you agree that the nature of bitcoin makes proving that someone owns any specific coins harder then proving you own money in a bank or cash under your mattress?  If your answer is YES then you already agree with

...  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder. ...

If your answer is NO then why?

Money printing is not taxation.  

No - both rely on your being locked up until you part with the funds.  The currency your bill is denominated in is irrelevant.

If you owe the money, what specific coin is used to pay the bill doesn't matter.  For example, if you want to register your new house, you have to pay stamp duty.  How does it matter what coin you use?

My question was simple.  Can you name an industry that would generate less VAT income under Bitcoin than under Sterling?

[Hawker]

...snip...


Unfortunately, I can't access FT.....

well bitcoin is cash, so obviously theres no difference.

However today the masses of people don't deal with large amounts of cash.
For various reasons credit/ debit cards, b/t, and cheques are the norm.

The businessman is therefore forced to open a "traditional" bank account otherwise he'll lose business.

My point is will people realise bitcoin is cash? Perhaps people won't care?

Plenty of sole traders make millions. Of course large corporations are in bed with govt anyway, and will comply.

Most tax evaders are probably sole traders, builders etc....

Bitcoin is going to put the businessman back in control.......

plus what if a business loses the private key or funds are stolen?
Is it possible to add that to the tax return as a loss?

My bad: http://www.tax-hell.co.uk/ten-ways-hmrc-checks-if-youre-cheating/

We are in agreement.  Bitcoin can be used to evade tax by the people who now use cash to evade tax.  Since that isn't a problem, a move to Bitcoin is no threat to the state.

[Hawker]

...snip...
plus what if a business loses the private key or funds are stolen?
Is it possible to add that to the tax return as a loss?

My bad: http://www.tax-hell.co.uk/ten-ways-hmrc-checks-if-youre-cheating/

We are in agreement.  Bitcoin can be used to evade tax by the people who now use cash to evade tax.  Since that isn't a problem, a move to Bitcoin is no threat to the state.

physical cash takes up a lot of space. So its probably easier to pay the tax, put the cash in a bank, and have an easy life.

But bitcoin is weightless, takes up no space and is ultra portable.

It would be easier if you read how tax evasion is tracked.  Can you access the tax-hell page?

[Hawker]

...snip...
plus what if a business loses the private key or funds are stolen?
Is it possible to add that to the tax return as a loss?

My bad: http://www.tax-hell.co.uk/ten-ways-hmrc-checks-if-youre-cheating/

We are in agreement.  Bitcoin can be used to evade tax by the people who now use cash to evade tax.  Since that isn't a problem, a move to Bitcoin is no threat to the state.

physical cash takes up a lot of space. So its probably easier to pay the tax, put the cash in a bank, and have an easy life.

But bitcoin is weightless, takes up no space and is ultra portable.

It would be easier if you read how tax evasion is tracked.  Can you access the tax-hell page?

Yes, i'm reading it now.....

Its just propaganda, fear and intimidation.

And the only thing i've learnt is that tax collectors are sneaky perverts.

Complete failures of humanity who get a power trip out of stealing other peoples wealth.

Its all common sense measures.  Apart from the offshore bank thing, I don't think you can point to anything that doesn't catch Bitcoin as easily as it catches cash.  So we are in agreement - Bitcoin will be used to evade tax by people who now use cash to evade tax.  Given that its not fully anonymous, it may even be more traceable than cash.

[cryptoanarchist]

Yes, i'm reading it now.....

Its just propaganda, fear and intimidation.

And the only thing i've learnt is that tax collectors are sneaky perverts.

Complete failures of humanity who get a power trip out of stealing other peoples wealth.

LOL...that's Hawker for you!

[Hawker]

Yes, i'm reading it now.....

Its just propaganda, fear and intimidation.

And the only thing i've learnt is that tax collectors are sneaky perverts.

Complete failures of humanity who get a power trip out of stealing other peoples wealth.

LOL...that's Hawker for you!

Jealous much that I sold 900 this week and that I still have over BTC1000 ?  That's not an attractive feature.

[User705]

Since I can't prove a hypothetical I'm not sure what you are looking for.  Do you agree that bitcoin provides protection from taxation called money printing?  Do you agree that seizing bitcoins is harder then seizing a bank account or cash?  Do you agree that the nature of bitcoin makes proving that someone owns any specific coins harder then proving you own money in a bank or cash under your mattress?  If your answer is YES then you already agree with

...  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder. ...

If your answer is NO then why?

Money printing is not taxation.  

No - both rely on your being locked up until you part with the funds.  The currency your bill is denominated in is irrelevant.

If you owe the money, what specific coin is used to pay the bill doesn't matter.  For example, if you want to register your new house, you have to pay stamp duty.  How does it matter what coin you use?

My question was simple.  Can you name an industry that would generate less VAT income under Bitcoin than under Sterling?

If money printing isn't taxation then what is it and why do Governments do it?  Also you keep saying you get put in jail until presumably you reveal your holdings and pay but the current mechanisms that exist simply don't allow that.  Fairly certain in UK you need evidence to get put in jail and bitcoin is superior to even cash in that regard.  Even in jail you are still able to spend bitcoins.  If bitcoin is superior then it may possibly replace cash.  If it does on a wide scale it presents challenges to governments by increasing the problems they currently have with monetary controls.  So yes in the short term bitcoin won't do much to the government and perhaps that's why they don't seem to be concerned but a wide acceptance and usage of it might change that.

[Hawker]

Its all common sense measures.  Apart from the offshore bank thing, I don't think you can point to anything that doesn't catch Bitcoin as easily as it catches cash.  So we are in agreement - Bitcoin will be used to evade tax by people who now use cash to evade tax.  Given that its not fully anonymous, it may even be more traceable than cash.

yeah, we agree, but I think evasion will increase.

very few people use cash today.

people pay through the banking system, which is completely monitored.

bitcoin could empower people to evade tax

Which is a good thing, because the nation state is dying.

I guess where we differ is in perspective.  I look from the point of view of a company and Bitcoin is just a currency from that point of view.  There is no way I would risk losing my business to evade taxes as a decent business supports you for a lifetime while being imprisoned and losing your right to be a company director screws you for a lifetime. 

[Hawker]

Since I can't prove a hypothetical I'm not sure what you are looking for.  Do you agree that bitcoin provides protection from taxation called money printing?  Do you agree that seizing bitcoins is harder then seizing a bank account or cash?  Do you agree that the nature of bitcoin makes proving that someone owns any specific coins harder then proving you own money in a bank or cash under your mattress?  If your answer is YES then you already agree with

...  Bitcoin makes not paying them easier and also makes forcibly collecting them by governments much harder. ...

If your answer is NO then why?

Money printing is not taxation.  

No - both rely on your being locked up until you part with the funds.  The currency your bill is denominated in is irrelevant.

If you owe the money, what specific coin is used to pay the bill doesn't matter.  For example, if you want to register your new house, you have to pay stamp duty.  How does it matter what coin you use?

My question was simple.  Can you name an industry that would generate less VAT income under Bitcoin than under Sterling?

If money printing isn't taxation then what is it and why do Governments do it?  Also you keep saying you get put in jail until presumably you reveal your holdings and pay but the current mechanisms that exist simply don't allow that.  Fairly certain in UK you need evidence to get put in jail and bitcoin is superior to even cash in that regard.  Even in jail you are still able to spend bitcoins.  If bitcoin is superior then it may possibly replace cash.  If it does on a wide scale it presents challenges to governments by increasing the problems they currently have with monetary controls.  So yes in the short term bitcoin won't do much to the government and perhaps that's why they don't seem to be concerned but a wide acceptance and usage of it might change that.

I am happy to talk to you about money printing in another thread.  What I'm not happy to do is use a non-standard definition of "taxation" in this thread.  Its as if I defined "currency" to include "platinum." With respect, we will have to agree to disagree for on that for now 

[User705]

Bitcoin is just a currency.  It's also a currency that allows resistance in cases where government oversteps.  Currently it is being used by the Chinese to resist capital controls.  Maybe it gets used when government wants to tax 99% of your income.  Or it might be used to resist confiscation of wealth based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.  Or do you believe all governments to be infallible at all times?

[cryptoanarchist]

There are lots of pasrasites like Hawker who can make excuses for why its necessary to rob people to prop up the state. They are parasites, after all. They don't know how to create their own wealth, and think they are entitled to yours.

When cryptocoins make it harder for them to steal from you, they will come up with new justifications to outright rob you - violently, if necessary. Guys like Hawker think there is nothing wrong with holding a gun to your head to take your money, because they feel 100% entitled to it.

That's really what this thread is about - what will these nutjobs do when the state can no longer collect revenues for them?

[Hawker]

Bitcoin is just a currency.  It's also a currency that allows resistance in cases where government oversteps.  Currently it is being used by the Chinese to resist capital controls.  Maybe it gets used when government wants to tax 99% of your income.  Or it might be used to resist confiscation of wealth based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.  Or do you believe all governments to be infallible at all times?

In point of fact, the Chinese are using it as a hedge against the inevitable fall of the Yuan.  The Yuan is overvalued and not convertible.  Between now and 2015, it will become fully convertible and fall in value.  The Chinese are investing in anything that protects them from a 10% fall in their savings.  A look at fiatleaks.com doesnt' suggest the money is being converted back into fiat.  The rising prices also suggest the "hedge" analysis is correct.

[Hawker]

Its all common sense measures.  Apart from the offshore bank thing, I don't think you can point to anything that doesn't catch Bitcoin as easily as it catches cash.  So we are in agreement - Bitcoin will be used to evade tax by people who now use cash to evade tax.  Given that its not fully anonymous, it may even be more traceable than cash.

yeah, we agree, but I think evasion will increase.

very few people use cash today.

people pay through the banking system, which is completely monitored.

bitcoin could empower people to evade tax

Which is a good thing, because the nation state is dying.

I guess where we differ is in perspective.  I look from the point of view of a company and Bitcoin is just a currency from that point of view.  There is no way I would risk losing my business to evade taxes as a decent business supports you for a lifetime while being imprisoned and losing your right to be a company director screws you for a lifetime. 

I completely agree. Govt is pure violence. So its much easier to pay your taxes, and have an easy life especially if you earn good money. if you're successful then you really have no choice but to comply.

Humanity is violent by nature.  A good government has a system called separation of powers which reduces violence to the low levels we enjoy in the West today.  Of course, it can be improved on.  But the replacement will also be violent as that is the nature of what we are.  So the only question is, do you have something better?

[User705]

Bitcoin is just a currency.  It's also a currency that allows resistance in cases where government oversteps.  Currently it is being used by the Chinese to resist capital controls.  Maybe it gets used when government wants to tax 99% of your income.  Or it might be used to resist confiscation of wealth based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.  Or do you believe all governments to be infallible at all times?

In point of fact, the Chinese are using it as a hedge against the inevitable fall of the Yuan.  The Yuan is overvalued and not convertible.  Between now and 2015, it will become fully convertible and fall in value.  The Chinese are investing in anything that protects them from a 10% fall in their savings.  A look at fiatleaks.com doesnt' suggest the money is being converted back into fiat.  The rising prices also suggest the "hedge" analysis is correct.

Exactly.  Government is playing around with money and citizens wealth and bitcoin is helping them resist.  And it's even legal for now.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Humanity is violent by nature.  A good government has a system called separation of powers which reduces violence to the low levels we enjoy in the West today.  Of course, it can be improved on.  But the replacement will also be violent as that is the nature of what we are.  So the only question is, do you have something better?

Humans only become violent when they are oppressed.

I want 7 billion individuals governing themselves. No tax. Just leave people alone.

Really?

This is an old discussion on these forums but you need to think about 2 things: (1) oppression requires violence so if humans are only violent when oppressed, why are the oppressors violent? and (2) if you have no tax, how do you pay for social services like preventing child abuse? 

[Hawker]

noob2001:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Violence has never been lower.  It might surprise you to find that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies.  I believe that a perfect society is impossible so any effort to do it will result in intense violence as ideology meets humanity.

The notion that a private charity can enter Muslim homes and check for female genital mutilation without using violence is laughable.  You need a state to prevent child abuse.

You failed to answer the question; if only oppressed people are violent, why are the oppressors violent?

[cryptoanarchist]

Bitcoin is anarchist.

Exactly. A lot of people seem to miss that here. Bitcoin's roots trace back to Timothy May and the CryptoAnarchist Manifesto  -it was designed for the purpose of anarchy, not just as a better paypal like the Hawkers of the world would try to have you believe.

[Hawker]

Bitcoin is anarchist.

Exactly. A lot of people seem to miss that here. Bitcoin's roots trace back to Timothy May and the CryptoAnarchist Manifesto  -it was designed for the purpose of anarchy, not just as a better paypal like the Hawkers of the world would try to have you believe.

Ah but your logic has a weakness.  If an anarchist makes a better spade, is that spade "anarchist?"  Bitcoin is a better Western Union.  That doesn't make it any more "anarchist" than a spade, whoever designed it.

[Hawker]

noob2001:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Violence has never been lower.  It might surprise you to find that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies.  I believe that a perfect society is impossible so any effort to do it will result in intense violence as ideology meets humanity.

The notion that a private charity can enter Muslim homes and check for female genital mutilation without using violence is laughable.  You need a state to prevent child abuse.

You failed to answer the question; if only oppressed people are violent, why are the oppressors violent?

Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Riots happening all over the world? London riots?

I think violence is getting worst. All created by government.

Governments cannot stop gential mutation, unless you want teachers to check kids at school?
How can such disgusting acts be regulated? They can't.

The elites oppress people because they are stupid, and they think taxing people is the right thing to do.

So, when the facts say your assertion is wrong, you say "Sod the facts" and repeat the assertion.  That's fine but it does mean we are done doesn't it? 

[Hawker]

noob2001:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Violence has never been lower.  It might surprise you to find that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies.  I believe that a perfect society is impossible so any effort to do it will result in intense violence as ideology meets humanity.

The notion that a private charity can enter Muslim homes and check for female genital mutilation without using violence is laughable.  You need a state to prevent child abuse.

You failed to answer the question; if only oppressed people are violent, why are the oppressors violent?

Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Riots happening all over the world? London riots?

I think violence is getting worst. All created by government.

Governments cannot stop gential mutation, unless you want teachers to check kids at school?
How can such disgusting acts be regulated? They can't.

The elites oppress people because they are stupid, and they think taxing people is the right thing to do.

So, when the facts say your assertion is wrong, you say "Sod the facts" and repeat the assertion.  That's fine but it does mean we are done doesn't it? 

Considering the world is floating on a sea of debt, what happens if the debt bubble pops? violence will increase.....

you want facts, look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

With respect, its not really on for you to ask me to look up stuff when you say you will not accept reality.  Violence is down.  That is a fact that is really happening in the world we all live in.  If you can't accept that fact, what is there to be said? 

As I said, we are done aren't we?

[Hawker]

noob2001:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Violence has never been lower.  It might surprise you to find that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies.  I believe that a perfect society is impossible so any effort to do it will result in intense violence as ideology meets humanity.

The notion that a private charity can enter Muslim homes and check for female genital mutilation without using violence is laughable.  You need a state to prevent child abuse.

You failed to answer the question; if only oppressed people are violent, why are the oppressors violent?

Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Riots happening all over the world? London riots?

I think violence is getting worst. All created by government.

Governments cannot stop gential mutation, unless you want teachers to check kids at school?
How can such disgusting acts be regulated? They can't.

The elites oppress people because they are stupid, and they think taxing people is the right thing to do.

So, when the facts say your assertion is wrong, you say "Sod the facts" and repeat the assertion.  That's fine but it does mean we are done doesn't it? 

Considering the world is floating on a sea of debt, what happens if the debt bubble pops? violence will increase.....

you want facts, look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

With respect, its not really on for you to ask me to look up stuff when you say you will not accept reality.  Violence is down.  That is a fact that is really happening in the world we all live in.  If you can't accept that fact, what is there to be said? 

As I said, we are done aren't we?

sure. if its past your bedtime, then good night

Its not but good night anyway

[Rassah]

Bitcoin will be used to evade tax by people who now use cash to evade tax.

People who use cash tend to evade taxes
Cash is a pain to use and secure, and is impossible to use online, so not a lot of people use cash.
Bitcoin is like cash from anonymity standpoint, but is as easy to use, store, and use online as bank and credit card money.
More people will use "cash" with Bitcoin, therefore more people will evade tax.

[Hawker]

Bitcoin will be used to evade tax by people who now use cash to evade tax.

People who use cash tend to evade taxes
Cash is a pain to use and secure, and is impossible to use online, so not a lot of people use cash.
Bitcoin is like cash from anonymity standpoint, but is as easy to use, store, and use online as bank and credit card money.
More people will use "cash" with Bitcoin, therefore more people will evade tax.

I agree with you.  Particularly things like gambling taxes will simply be unenforceable. 

My point was that a slight rebalancing of the tax system from declared income to taxes on sales and on property is not a fundamental thread to provision of social services through a state.  The public sector will tick along fine under Bitcoin as it does under fiat.

[mgburks77]

noob2001:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Violence has never been lower.  It might surprise you to find that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies.  I believe that a perfect society is impossible so any effort to do it will result in intense violence as ideology meets humanity.

The notion that a private charity can enter Muslim homes and check for female genital mutilation without using violence is laughable.  You need a state to prevent child abuse.

You failed to answer the question; if only oppressed people are violent, why are the oppressors violent?

I don't take issue with your assertion that the idea that only oppressed people are violent is mistaken but I must point out that the idea that violence has never been lower is not correct. There are several serious challenges to that assertion, which has been made by such luminaries as Steven Pinker, the evolutionary psychologist, recently in his book "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (Viking)".
http://www.zcommunications.org/steven-pinker-on-the-alleged-decline-of-violence-by-edward-s-herman-and-david-peterson.html
or
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/john-gray-steven-pinker-violence-review/#.UbDojdI3B9s

[Hawker]

noob2001:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Violence has never been lower.  It might surprise you to find that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies.  I believe that a perfect society is impossible so any effort to do it will result in intense violence as ideology meets humanity.

The notion that a private charity can enter Muslim homes and check for female genital mutilation without using violence is laughable.  You need a state to prevent child abuse.

You failed to answer the question; if only oppressed people are violent, why are the oppressors violent?

I don't take issue with your assertion that the idea that only oppressed people are violent is mistaken but I must point out that the idea that violence has never been lower is not correct. There are several serious challenges to that assertion, which has been made by such luminaries as Steven Pinker, the evolutionary psychologist, recently in his book "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (Viking)".
http://www.zcommunications.org/steven-pinker-on-the-alleged-decline-of-violence-by-edward-s-herman-and-david-peterson.html
or
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/john-gray-steven-pinker-violence-review/#.UbDojdI3B9s

Interesting.  OK - the Pinker quote has to go.  Turns out he over-egged the pudding.  But the point I was trying to make that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies remains a valid point.  Anyone peddling utopia has a greater probability of having a scheme that requires mass killings than of having a scheme that will indeed result in us all hugging as we sing "Kumbaya."

Thanks for the links.

[User705]

Interesting.  OK - the Pinker quote has to go.  Turns out he over-egged the pudding.  But the point I was trying to make that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies remains a valid point.  Anyone peddling utopia has a greater probability of having a scheme that requires mass killings than of having a scheme that will indeed result in us all hugging as we sing "Kumbaya."

Thanks for the links.

So true and yet when the discussion is about providing every little possible government service including medical service to drunk ankle breakers you don't think that perhaps that is the exact same attempts at creating an unachievable utopia of every problem being taken care of for everyone.  Just the modern twist to it.

[Hawker]

Interesting.  OK - the Pinker quote has to go.  Turns out he over-egged the pudding.  But the point I was trying to make that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies remains a valid point.  Anyone peddling utopia has a greater probability of having a scheme that requires mass killings than of having a scheme that will indeed result in us all hugging as we sing "Kumbaya."

Thanks for the links.

So true and yet when the discussion is about providing every little possible government service including medical service to drunk ankle breakers you don't think that perhaps that is the exact same attempts at creating an unachievable utopia of every problem being taken care of for everyone.  Just the modern twist to it.

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence and drunkenness is the exact opposite of utopian thinking. 

[User705]

A world where all your medical needs are met irregardless of resources, payment for such services or even responsibility for causing those medical problems yourself.  You don't want to say it's an imperfect solution to a problem you are actually saying it's the opposite if an unrealistic utopian scheme?  BTW the eugenics utopia I think you are referring to was caused by eventual lack of funds or perhaps even a simple desire not to pay the escalating costs for the exact free health care you see no problems with today.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-4_Euthanasia_Program

[Rassah]

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence and drunkenness is the exact opposite of utopian thinking.  

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence, drunkedness, and not being responsible enough to set up our own insurance, and punishes such people SEVERELY by allowing them to "slip through the cracks," isn't much of a utopia, either  

[Cameltoemcgee]

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence and drunkenness is the exact opposite of utopian thinking. 

A health system that punishes the healthy financially is the exact opposite of rational thinking. One of the major pillars of psychology is the human response to incentives
and if our society is anything to go by, financial incentives are the most widely spread and motivational motivation tool there is.

Giving unhealthy people no financial incentive to be healthy is right up there as far as bad ideas go when it comes to minimizing harm in society.

[darkmule]

Interesting.  OK - the Pinker quote has to go.  Turns out he over-egged the pudding.  But the point I was trying to make that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies remains a valid point.  Anyone peddling utopia has a greater probability of having a scheme that requires mass killings than of having a scheme that will indeed result in us all hugging as we sing "Kumbaya."

Beware of anyone who says they love humanity.  Because they probably don't like actual humans very much and you're probably on a list of people they need to get rid of for their ideal of humanity to work.

People who say they love humanity either don't know very many humans or are merely claiming to love humanity for a purpose that is almost always nefarious.

Trust misanthropes.

[Hawker]

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence and drunkenness is the exact opposite of utopian thinking. 

A health system that punishes the healthy financially is the exact opposite of rational thinking. One of the major pillars of psychology is the human response to incentives
and if our society is anything to go by, financial incentives are the most widely spread and motivational motivation tool there is.

Giving unhealthy people no financial incentive to be healthy is right up there as far as bad ideas go when it comes to minimizing harm in society.

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.  Given that the US does penalize some sick people and the US health care system is a joke, surely most evidence suggests that encouraging people to get to a doctor asap regardless of cost is a good idea?

[Hawker]

Interesting.  OK - the Pinker quote has to go.  Turns out he over-egged the pudding.  But the point I was trying to make that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies remains a valid point.  Anyone peddling utopia has a greater probability of having a scheme that requires mass killings than of having a scheme that will indeed result in us all hugging as we sing "Kumbaya."

Beware of anyone who says they love humanity.  Because they probably don't like actual humans very much and you're probably on a list of people they need to get rid of for their ideal of humanity to work.

People who say they love humanity either don't know very many humans or are merely claiming to love humanity for a purpose that is almost always nefarious.

Trust misanthropes.

Agree

[Hawker]

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence and drunkenness is the exact opposite of utopian thinking.  

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence, drunkedness, and not being responsible enough to set up our own insurance, and punishes such people SEVERELY by allowing them to "slip through the cracks," isn't much of a utopia, either  

I don't know of any civilised country that does't have an ambulance service for drunks with broken ankles.    We don't need utopia to be civilised.

[User705]

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence and drunkenness is the exact opposite of utopian thinking. 

A health system that punishes the healthy financially is the exact opposite of rational thinking. One of the major pillars of psychology is the human response to incentives
and if our society is anything to go by, financial incentives are the most widely spread and motivational motivation tool there is.

Giving unhealthy people no financial incentive to be healthy is right up there as far as bad ideas go when it comes to minimizing harm in society.

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.  Given that the US does penalize some sick people and the US health care system is a joke, surely most evidence suggests that encouraging people to get to a doctor asap regardless of cost is a good idea?

Surely the health of a society can be qualified and quantified in many different ways that include external factors.  That's like saying financial penalties didn't result in a healthy society in Hiroshima since they all died.  How would one obtain the proof or lack of such evidence in a complex system or am I missing the point of that sentence?  Also when you say the US health system is a joke what does that mean and how would the fact that the US penalizes SOME sick people have bearing on that?

[Rassah]

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.

I'm not sure that's true. Keep in mind that such penalties aren't limited to "if you're sick, you get no health insurance" or "if you have no health insurance, you are screwed."
If insurance companies could charge you based on your weight, your cholesterol level, and other things that directly affect your health that you have full control over, it would create incentives for people to avoid such things. But at present everyone just pays the same premium, regardless of how healthy they are, because most people are lumped together into employer provided insurance pools.
I don't know if there are actual examples of financial penalties for health. Maybe some states have some laws that make doing something unhealthy more expensive? Maybe you could even extrapolate cigarette tax to heart desease statistics? But I wouldn't be surprised if they were positive.

[Hawker]

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.

I'm not sure that's true. Keep in mind that such penalties aren't limited to "if you're sick, you get no health insurance" or "if you have no health insurance, you are screwed."
If insurance companies could charge you based on your weight, your cholesterol level, and other things that directly affect your health that you have full control over, it would create incentives for people to avoid such things. But at present everyone just pays the same premium, regardless of how healthy they are, because most people are lumped together into employer provided insurance pools.
I don't know if there are actual examples of financial penalties for health. Maybe some states have some laws that make doing something unhealthy more expensive? Maybe you could even extrapolate cigarette tax to heart desease statistics? But I wouldn't be surprised if they were positive.

Its an interesting question and I don't know the answer.  Cigarettes are taxed at a point where they are a real burden for the poor.  Yet smoking is primarily a poor person's habit.  In theory, only the rich should smoke but poor people do keep failing to act as models predict

[Hawker]

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence and drunkenness is the exact opposite of utopian thinking. 

A health system that punishes the healthy financially is the exact opposite of rational thinking. One of the major pillars of psychology is the human response to incentives
and if our society is anything to go by, financial incentives are the most widely spread and motivational motivation tool there is.

Giving unhealthy people no financial incentive to be healthy is right up there as far as bad ideas go when it comes to minimizing harm in society.

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.  Given that the US does penalize some sick people and the US health care system is a joke, surely most evidence suggests that encouraging people to get to a doctor asap regardless of cost is a good idea?

Surely the health of a society can be qualified and quantified in many different ways that include external factors.  That's like saying financial penalties didn't result in a healthy society in Hiroshima since they all died.  How would one obtain the proof or lack of such evidence in a complex system or am I missing the point of that sentence?  Also when you say the US health system is a joke what does that mean and how would the fact that the US penalizes SOME sick people have bearing on that?

If you can't see the US health system is a joke, it would be better to let you google it than waste time educating you as to what counts as a good patient outcome and how various countries compare in terms of efficiency in reaching the outcomes.

[User705]

A health system that takes into account that we are prone to violence and drunkenness is the exact opposite of utopian thinking. 

A health system that punishes the healthy financially is the exact opposite of rational thinking. One of the major pillars of psychology is the human response to incentives
and if our society is anything to go by, financial incentives are the most widely spread and motivational motivation tool there is.

Giving unhealthy people no financial incentive to be healthy is right up there as far as bad ideas go when it comes to minimizing harm in society.

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.  Given that the US does penalize some sick people and the US health care system is a joke, surely most evidence suggests that encouraging people to get to a doctor asap regardless of cost is a good idea?

Surely the health of a society can be qualified and quantified in many different ways that include external factors.  That's like saying financial penalties didn't result in a healthy society in Hiroshima since they all died.  How would one obtain the proof or lack of such evidence in a complex system or am I missing the point of that sentence?  Also when you say the US health system is a joke what does that mean and how would the fact that the US penalizes SOME sick people have bearing on that?

If you can't see the US health system is a joke, it would be better to let you google it than waste time educating you as to what counts as a good patient outcome and how various countries compare in terms of efficiency in reaching the outcomes.

The US system is a joke but your claim is it is because it penalizes some sick people?

[Cameltoemcgee]

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.

I'm not sure that's true. Keep in mind that such penalties aren't limited to "if you're sick, you get no health insurance" or "if you have no health insurance, you are screwed."
If insurance companies could charge you based on your weight, your cholesterol level, and other things that directly affect your health that you have full control over, it would create incentives for people to avoid such things. But at present everyone just pays the same premium, regardless of how healthy they are, because most people are lumped together into employer provided insurance pools.
I don't know if there are actual examples of financial penalties for health. Maybe some states have some laws that make doing something unhealthy more expensive? Maybe you could even extrapolate cigarette tax to heart desease statistics? But I wouldn't be surprised if they were positive.

Its an interesting question and I don't know the answer.  Cigarettes are taxed at a point where they are a real burden for the poor.  Yet smoking is primarily a poor person's habit.  In theory, only the rich should smoke but poor people do keep failing to act as models predict

What models? I thought it was generally well known that poor people generally favour toward instant gratification... Its one of the primary reasons that poor people stay poor. In their 1988 paper "A Theory of Rational Addiction," economists Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy argued that shooting heroin is a logical choice when all you're giving up is a crappy existence.

I think its entirely reasonable to expect people to become healthier and for there to be less of a burden on the healthcare system if people get financial incentives to be healthy... How do you train your children to do the right thing? or even most animals for that matter? I guess you could beat them and force them to do them... but we all know that sends the wrong message and just doesn't work very well... Don't we?

[darkmule]

Of course, something like heroin very often leads to exactly the crappy existence you're trying to avoid with the drug.  But there are certainly cases of situational addiction where the habit goes away when the motivation for it does.  For instance, many soldiers developed a heroin habit during Vietnam and then came home and just dropped it.  Many others, though, didn't.

There are really all kinds of addict, though.  Some people get exposed to drugs and completely go into a downward spiral leading to death, while others maintain a habit and more or less normal life.

I think opiate addiction is only very rarely a rational choice.

[Hawker]

...snip...
The US system is a joke but your claim is it is because it penalizes some sick people?

I've dealt with it in the ACA thread and its off topic to this thread so I'll pass.

[Hawker]

Nonsense.  There is no evidence that financial penalties make for a healthy society.

I'm not sure that's true. Keep in mind that such penalties aren't limited to "if you're sick, you get no health insurance" or "if you have no health insurance, you are screwed."
If insurance companies could charge you based on your weight, your cholesterol level, and other things that directly affect your health that you have full control over, it would create incentives for people to avoid such things. But at present everyone just pays the same premium, regardless of how healthy they are, because most people are lumped together into employer provided insurance pools.
I don't know if there are actual examples of financial penalties for health. Maybe some states have some laws that make doing something unhealthy more expensive? Maybe you could even extrapolate cigarette tax to heart desease statistics? But I wouldn't be surprised if they were positive.

Its an interesting question and I don't know the answer.  Cigarettes are taxed at a point where they are a real burden for the poor.  Yet smoking is primarily a poor person's habit.  In theory, only the rich should smoke but poor people do keep failing to act as models predict

What models? I thought it was generally well known that poor people generally favour toward instant gratification... Its one of the primary reasons that poor people stay poor. In their 1988 paper "A Theory of Rational Addiction," economists Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy argued that shooting heroin is a logical choice when all you're giving up is a crappy existence.

I think its entirely reasonable to expect people to become healthier and for there to be less of a burden on the healthcare system if people get financial incentives to be healthy... How do you train your children to do the right thing? or even most animals for that matter? I guess you could beat them and force them to do them... but we all know that sends the wrong message and just doesn't work very well... Don't we?

Um.  We are wildly off topic here.  And you are talking about women WHOSE LEGS ARE BROKEN.  How much more incentive than broken legs are you hoping for?  Rape? Murder? 

[User705]

...snip...
The US system is a joke but your claim is it is because it penalizes some sick people?

I've dealt with it in the ACA thread and its off topic to this thread so I'll pass.

That was your quote.  Which one is the ACA thread?

[Hawker]

...snip...
The US system is a joke but your claim is it is because it penalizes some sick people?

I've dealt with it in the ACA thread and its off topic to this thread so I'll pass.

That was your quote.  Which one is the ACA thread?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90847.0

[Rassah]

I think its entirely reasonable to expect people to become healthier and for there to be less of a burden on the healthcare system if people get financial incentives to be healthy... How do you train your children to do the right thing? or even most animals for that matter? I guess you could beat them and force them to do them... but we all know that sends the wrong message and just doesn't work very well... Don't we?

If you look at it that way, increasing premiums on people who live unhealthy lifestyles could be pretty analogous to "beatings." Higher premiums for bad life choises is still a negative reinforcement. Perhaps having everyone start out with high premiums, and reduce their premiums for every good decision they make is a way to change that to a positive reinforcement system, but I'm not sure whether that would be effective.

We really need to get that 'tricorder" tech that's being worked on finished and out for sale. If you haven't heard of it, there are some universities and private groups working on a hardware attachment for spartphones that will be able to test your heart rate, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and even take blood and other fluid samples to test for many other things, which it will then instantly process and give similar results to what you would get from your annual checkup. The idea is to get these things to places like Africa, where the number of doctors are low, so that nurses and volunteers can quickly test and diagnose people to see if anyone needs to go to an actual doctor, and in developed countries so that people can easily keep track of their health, daily if they wish, to be able to catch any problems like onset of deseases or cancers quickly enough to easily treat them. I can see something like this be implemented with health insurance or medical programs, and possibly give financial or gift rewards for reaching or maintaining certain goals.

[Cameltoemcgee]

Um.  We are wildly off topic here.  And you are talking about women WHOSE LEGS ARE BROKEN.  How much more incentive than broken legs are you hoping for?  Rape? Murder?  

I thought we were talking about the system as a whole, not a specific injury that drunk women are prone to...

We are off topic though, i think that some government workers will most definitely riot if their government can't pay them and they lose their cushy unproductive jobs and the rest of the perks, not all of them though, some will find work elsewhere.

I do wonder though, will they riot against the government who royally shafted them or will they join something similar to the occupy movement?

I think its entirely reasonable to expect people to become healthier and for there to be less of a burden on the healthcare system if people get financial incentives to be healthy... How do you train your children to do the right thing? or even most animals for that matter? I guess you could beat them and force them to do them... but we all know that sends the wrong message and just doesn't work very well... Don't we?

If you look at it that way, increasing premiums on people who live unhealthy lifestyles could be pretty analogous to "beatings." Higher premiums for bad life choises is still a negative reinforcement. Perhaps having everyone start out with high premiums, and reduce their premiums for every good decision they make is a way to change that to a positive reinforcement system, but I'm not sure whether that would be effective.

Fair call, i guess any system that coerces money from people is always going to be suboptimal. If you're taking money from everyone then theres no tangible financial incentive to being healthy... well there is to a degree if you reduce premiums but because alot of people lean toward instant gratification it seems like it would be unlikely to be effective.

I don't think theres any way to get around the financial burden for unhealthiness, all you can do is take away the financial disincentive for being healthy. I guess the only way to do that is have people voluntarily purchase their own health insurance and let the market sort it out.

We really need to get that 'tricorder" tech that's being worked on finished and out for sale. If you haven't heard of it, there are some universities and private groups working on a hardware attachment for spartphones that will be able to test your heart rate, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and even take blood and other fluid samples to test for many other things, which it will then instantly process and give similar results to what you would get from your annual checkup. The idea is to get these things to places like Africa, where the number of doctors are low, so that nurses and volunteers can quickly test and diagnose people to see if anyone needs to go to an actual doctor, and in developed countries so that people can easily keep track of their health, daily if they wish, to be able to catch any problems like onset of deseases or cancers quickly enough to easily treat them. I can see something like this be implemented with health insurance or medical programs, and possibly give financial or gift rewards for reaching or maintaining certain goals.

Awesome idea! Can wait to see one on the shelves.

[RenHoek]

Fiatleak wurde exhumiert:  Smiley

http://fiatleak.dyndns.org/

[mgburks77]

Interesting.  OK - the Pinker quote has to go.  Turns out he over-egged the pudding.  But the point I was trying to make that the serious killing in the 20th century was carried out by people trying to create perfect societies remains a valid point.  Anyone peddling utopia has a greater probability of having a scheme that requires mass killings than of having a scheme that will indeed result in us all hugging as we sing "Kumbaya."

Beware of anyone who says they love humanity.  Because they probably don't like actual humans very much and you're probably on a list of people they need to get rid of for their ideal of humanity to work.

People who say they love humanity either don't know very many humans or are merely claiming to love humanity for a purpose that is almost always nefarious.

Trust misanthropes.

Agree

ha ha ha I agree as well!

Cheers!