Has anyone reported bitcoin capital gains or losses on their taxes?

[Dan The Man]

I'm curious about how much of a hassle will it be to try to explain where your money is coming from. My dollars are routed through an exchange which turns them into Bitcoins which are moved into a mostly anonymous (so far) Mt Gox account where they are traded. I have no way to actually prove the source of Bitcoins which are later converted back into dollars.

[1715460861]

1715460861

[1715460861]

1715460861

[RyNinDaCleM]

AFAIK, Gox is the only one that reports such activity! If you just cash out mining profits, it would fall under self employed income. I would treat the first sell as income, then any gains/losses from that.
But, I'm sure there's an [Other] option for claiming capital gains.

However, If you put it all back into BitCoins, then it's unrealized gains and you don't have to claim it!

For the record: I'm not a tax law expert! =)

[miscreanity]

I consider Bitcoin to be the equivalent of a tax haven. Therefore, hell-f*@$ing no.

How would an audit work if your transactions were no longer necessary to the integrity of the blockchain and had been culled?

Which transactions could be verified as yours without exposing your wallet to gov't inspection for verification of ownership?

Why in the world would you want to prostrate yourself as a sacrificial lamb to be made an example of?

Too risky to even consider, especially for anyone with substantial amounts of BTC. There are methods of protecting your tax status internationally against domestic gov't reporting requirements. Bitcoin assets and profits could easily be transferred to such a vehicle; many nations provide for a limited tax-free disbursement of funds from foreign sources. In the US, it's about $90k/year, which is like a ~$150k/year taxable salary.

[casascius]

Has anyone filed a tax return since significant capital gains ever happened?  Bubble was in June, taxes aren't due until next April in the US, the year hasn't even ended.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I think governments will need to go to a consumption based tax in future because of bitcoin.

[tvbcof]

I think governments will need to go to a consumption based tax in future because of bitcoin.

I think it would be more likely that they instruct people to declare their Bitcoin activity in the same way they do with other things like PM's.  People who fail to do so will simply be breaking the law.  I hope so at least since a consumption tax is highly regressive and thus unfair and damaging to society (in my opinion.)

[Cluster2k]

When I converted bitcoins into dollars through BitPiggy and that money hit my real bank account, I declared the money as income.  Tax costs have always been included in my calculations for mining profitability.

[epetroel]

If I've made anything by the end of the year (big if) I'd plan to report it as capital gains - just like I would if I were trading stocks, commodities or forex.

[Bitcoin Oz]

If you have to declare bitcoins its only fair you can claim a rebate for any electricity used to create them and/or store them on your computer. This includes wear and tear and other depreciation costs as well as the elecricity used to access your coins.

How do you treat bitcoins you've mined differently than ones you purchased/earned ?

[epetroel]

How do you treat bitcoins you've mined differently than ones you purchased/earned ?

Treat it like a sole proprietorship (schedule C).  Your product is bitcoins, which you sell for a profit.  Any costs involved in that are deductible or depreciable against that profit (electricity, equipment, etc.)

[BitMagic]

How do you treat bitcoins you've mined differently than ones you purchased/earned ?

Treat it like a sole proprietorship (schedule C).  Your product is bitcoins, which you sell for a profit.  Any costs involved in that are deductible or depreciable against that profit (electricity, equipment, etc.)

Right. And any you bought and sold for profit are taxable as capital gains, like any investment, whether you invested in your brother's lemonade stand or not.

[stic.man]

fuck i hope it's not an issue, already bought a house with some of it

[BitMagic]

fuck i hope it's not an issue, already bought a house with some of it

You're only really at risk if you get audited. But if you get audited, get ready to pay some serious taxes. That sounds like a lot of money to hide from the IRS.

[miscreanity]

So the mere potential of a government threat involving tax liability is going to spawn a cottage industry that does virtually nothing productive other than assist in the navigation of an equally incomprehensible and financially-parasitic entity? Of all the absurdity.

Bitcoin offers a means to make governments, banks and their respective hordes of secondary and tertiary industries such as tax accountants and the IRS and countless paper-pushers completely irrelevant. This is the power that everyone seems so willing to give up to someone else - the power to eliminate taxation, not just minimize it; reinventing government functions as utilities instead of a unified, authoritarian force. In effect granting the greatest degree of free will to the individual than has ever been available before. Maybe it's the implied personal responsibility that's scary for people so used to passing it off onto others.

It saddens me that there is still so little revulsion toward the magicians behind the curtain and so much quarter given at the slightest of threats. We may not have to literally shed much blood to foment a modern revolution, if any at all, but battles of various types must still be fought.

When a business does wrong by us, we choose to take our business elsewhere. When a government wrongs us, do we stop providing support to that government or leave the country? Internationalize to protect yourself from the dying paradigm that is the all-powerful nation-state, lest it drag you down as well.

Take whatever positives you can from the following resources and put them into action:

• Bye Bye Big Brother
• Casey Research
• International Living
• Sovereign Investor
• Sovereign Man

[Dan The Man]

Oh, sorry I was talking about people who wanted to pay taxes but were unsure of the legal standing of Bitcoin trading. I like the services provided by my government and don't mind paying my share.

[miscreanity]

Oh, sorry I was talking about people who wanted to pay taxes but were unsure of the legal standing of Bitcoin trading. I like the services provided by my government and don't mind paying my share.

I apologize if my post seemed confrontational. If you are a US citizen there is some information which might be relevant. Legal counsel or tax professional advice might not even be sufficient since this is still new and fairly obscure legislation; adding Bitcoin into the mix results in multiple unknowns.

The legal standing certainly hasn't been officially determined yet, although in the US any financial instrument or income-generating asset valued over USD$10,000 and held outside of the US must be declared; not necessarily taxable, but the Gestapo IRS must be informed of its existence by using a TDF 90-22.1 (PDF) form. I see no reason for Bitcoin to escape similar treatment, since it is basically a supranational currency outside of any regional jurisdiction. Oh, did you get the memo about the new TPS reports?

Be warned: if you do report your Bitcoin holdings, you may be risking more than you bargained for. The initial reaction of most governments in the face of potentially threatening uncertainties is to shoot first and ask questions later.

No service that any gov't provides is anything that couldn't be provided as a utility. If emergency services of police, fire and medics (to name a few) were paid for on a utility and/or per-use basis, there would be little to no justification for the bureaucracies that dwarf the actual work force. The same goes for conflict mediation and legal services. There is empirical evidence that shows private contract services which develop just such a utility system cut costs while providing a better level of service.

Control of commerce through the money supply has historically marked the transition from a government that respects its constituents to one that demonizes them. In the latter stages of a government's lifespan, arbitrary retribution can be exceptionally harsh.

The services I linked to in my previous post provide extensive information on how to protect yourself and your assets from needless government waste and aggression. Make use of them if you can.

[BitMagic]

Be warned: if you do report your Bitcoin holdings, you may be risking more than you bargained for. The initial reaction of most governments in the face of potentially threatening uncertainties is to shoot first and ask questions later.

Sucks for you, I guess. I'm reporting my capital gains, regardless. Hope that doesn't ruin the party for you insane lolbertarians. Hilarious link, btw. Content ftw!

[casascius]

I plan to pay my taxes on USD I have gained through Bitcoin (mining and trading)... I plan to just count the income into my bank account as what I made, and deduct the costs of buying BTC and mining them (electricity, equipment, etc.)... which my accountant feels should be reasonable and simple enough.  My accountant doesn't share the opinion that the IRS wants to "stick it" to people dealing in Bitcoin, they ostensibly just want a reasonable and accurate calculation of profits made and taxes paid consistent with the law.  And that where the law is unclear with respect to the new technology, that a reasonable best guess interpretation is made that doesn't blatantly skew toward not paying taxes.

This year, Bitcoin has been a windfall for me, and I can't really hide it (Bloomberg BusinessWeek sort of told the whole world)

As the tax year draws to a close, I have been deliberately incurring expenses which may or may not produce a profit in the end (such as producing physical bitcoins and offering software development bounties) to promote Bitcoin - which I believe I can legitimately deduct as business expenses because they are arguably expenses and efforts incurred to improve the value of BTC I have been holding.

per my accountant, I am advised to BEWARE if I bought BTC earlier in the year, made a profit on it by selling it, bought BTC afterwards, and took a loss.  In the US, according to him, if I don't sell those BTC by the end of the year to "Realize" the loss, AND keep my hands off them for 30 days, I run the risk of being on the hook for capital gains (which become taxable the moment it's sold for a gain) but not able to offset them with the losses (which only get realized if I sell AND DO NOT BUY THEM RIGHT BACK for 30 days).  Instead the capital losses would roll forward from year to year, and I could deduct them later, but only against future capital gains, and/or up to $3,000 per income per year (which could be a long time, or never, if the gains are substantial).  The 30 day rule is biased towards taxing gains: the government is apparently happy to take a piece of my "gains" unconditionally, but will only cut me a break on "losses" under relatively narrow conditions.  Don't get stuck with a scenario where you have both gains and losses but the rules force you to pay on the gains without the benefit of offsetting the losses.

[BitMagic]

The 30 day rule is biased towards taxing gains: the government is apparently happy to take a piece of my "gains" unconditionally, but will only cut me a break on "losses" under relatively narrow conditions.  Don't get stuck with a scenario where you have both gains and losses but the rules force you to pay on the gains without the benefit of offsetting the losses.

It's not biased, it's to prevent a scam called "wash sales," where you constantly realize and accrue tax credits on downtrends, but only pay once on the uptrend.

[FlipPro]

Everyone should here should report their gains/losses just so they can be on point with the law. 

[miscreanity]

Sucks for you, I guess. I'm reporting my capital gains, regardless. Hope that doesn't ruin the party for you insane lolbertarians. Hilarious link, btw. Content ftw!

Which country are you going to be reporting in? I'll be sure to avoid it until the backlash forces change.

I plan to pay my taxes on USD I have gained through Bitcoin (mining and trading)... I plan to just count the income into my bank account as what I made, and deduct the costs of buying BTC and mining them (electricity, equipment, etc.)... which my accountant feels should be reasonable and simple enough.  My accountant doesn't share the opinion that the IRS wants to "stick it" to people dealing in Bitcoin, they ostensibly just want a reasonable and accurate calculation of profits made and taxes paid consistent with the law.  And that where the law is unclear with respect to the new technology, that a reasonable best guess interpretation is made that doesn't blatantly skew toward not paying taxes.

Key word. Of course, no examples have been made of those using new technologies such as BitTorrent. Attacking and punishing people for using a new technology instead of understanding it and creating a progressive environment is obviously the first step taken, because the middle-men would never fight progress to save themselves.

Government is the ultimate middleman.

All in the name of "fairness" right? Do you think it would be worthwhile to keep all of your gains and make use of them as you see fit, or send them off to any number of governments that have proven more than willing to use your funds to bail out banks and give habitual drug addicts their narcotics and provide tax-free salaries to politicians? What is "fair"?

Governments do good in early stages, when they're manageable. As people relegate more of their responsibilities to a central authority, it builds to a momentum that can no longer be controlled - it becomes destructive.

Anonymity is your first line of defense. Pointing the way to your assets just makes the tax-man's job that much easier.

This year, Bitcoin has been a windfall for me, and I can't really hide it (Bloomberg BusinessWeek sort of told the whole world)

As the tax year draws to a close, I have been deliberately incurring expenses which may or may not produce a profit in the end (such as producing physical bitcoins and offering software development bounties) to promote Bitcoin - which I believe I can legitimately deduct as business expenses because they are arguably expenses and efforts incurred to improve the value of BTC I have been holding.

This isn't directed toward you (in fact, I'm glad to see people making a profit), casascius, but the system itself. Do you see the absurdity? Intentionally taking actions that could produce losses, not for the purpose of progress but just to avoid penalty? What kind of bureaucratic idiocy is that?

per my accountant, I am advised to BEWARE if I bought BTC earlier in the year, made a profit on it by selling it, bought BTC afterwards, and took a loss.  In the US, according to him, if I don't sell those BTC by the end of the year to "Realize" the loss, AND keep my hands off them for 30 days, I run the risk of being on the hook for capital gains (which become taxable the moment it's sold for a gain) but not able to offset them with the losses (which only get realized if I sell AND DO NOT BUY THEM RIGHT BACK for 30 days).  Instead the capital losses would roll forward from year to year, and I could deduct them later, but only against future capital gains, and/or up to $3,000 per income per year (which could be a long time, or never, if the gains are substantial).  The 30 day rule is biased towards taxing gains: the government is apparently happy to take a piece of my "gains" unconditionally, but will only cut me a break on "losses" under relatively narrow conditions.  Don't get stuck with a scenario where you have both gains and losses but the rules force you to pay on the gains without the benefit of offsetting the losses.

Once again: how many conditional variations and rules need to be taken into account just to be sure you're compliant? Which rule open a loophole and caused the problem that created this snowball effect in the first place? Why spend all this extra time figuring out what has to be done when you could just be doing what you're good at? What's the point of even paying someone else to maintain such a bureaucratic monstrosity with your assets simply for the redistribution of your funds to destinations without any decision from you? Isn't that taxation without representation?

It's not biased, it's to prevent a scam called "wash sales," where you constantly realize and accrue tax credits on downtrends, but only pay once on the uptrend.

Prevention of "wash sales" because of a deficiency in the tax code that created a loophole? What happens if an issue is found with the 30-day rule? Another piece of tax code intended to patch yet another hole in a mess that never had to exist initially? Why?

A peasant serf in the middle ages might have difficulty imagining a democratic republic, thinking the existing system was all that held society together. People today seem to reject the notion of independence and direct democracy, assuming that taxation and centralized government is inevitable. What seems an innocent law today can easily spin out of control, especially with authorities that have already proven their detachment from general society. The existing system does hold the existing society together, but that doesn't mean individuals can't transcend the deranged aspects; many corporations already do. This is also how society evolves.

Keeping most of your BTC balance in the Bitcoin system offers a good amount of protection even if reported. However, playing the authority's tax game is like playing poker against the house. The house always wins in the end. If you're lucky or skilled, you won't go home broke; if you have a home left.

Internationalization using the information available from the links in my earlier post allows even the individual to put governments in their place - to make them work for your money instead of just demanding and taking it. If the rules amount to theft, you can just say no; if they're conducive to reasonable investment, you can put your money to work in their jurisdiction.

It's very simple: look at governments as businesses that need your investment to function. This is the difference between a business like the modern Microsoft (could be equated with Singapore) that provides products (Xbox, research division, etc) which are worthwhile and encourage your investment versus a business like Microsoft pre-Google (who else, the US) that relied on manipulative business practices to create high barriers to competition and foist a deficient product on its customer base, largely ignoring opposition.

If a government offers you a low tax rate or no taxation at all to put your wealth into its financial system, what's bad about that? When another government makes threats, demanding numerous taxes and concessions just for the privilege of being associated with it, where's the benefit?

My overall point is that there is a choice between genuine freedom and an illusion. I'd rather be surrounded by free individuals who understand self-sufficiency and responsibility than those who give up everything and settle for happiness in slavery because it's easier.

Now I'm going back to my post in front of the stock exchange to await a rubber bullet to the face (not really, it won't do much good until the IRS is occupied).

[Elwar]

Of course. I report everything to the IRS. I am a good citizen. I love the IRS. They are a bunch of great guys that get a bad rap.

 

[infofront]

Taxes on bitcoin?
Bwahahaha
That goes against the whole point, as far as I'm concerned.

[BTCurious]

Taxes on bitcoin?
Bwahahaha
That goes against the whole point, as far as I'm concerned.

So you think the point of bitcoin is tax evasion?

[stic.man]

turbotax specifically had a blog post which encouraged dodging taxes using bitcoins

[stic.man]

let me amend that, they encourage you to use the honor system in regards to bitcoin, my apologies

http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/2011/07/18/bitcoins-the-taxless-currency/

[BitMagic]

I know this is pointless, because you're one of those "taxation is slavery" idiots, but I'll respond nonetheless.

Once again: how many conditional variations and rules need to be taken into account just to be sure you're compliant?

However many are required to patch loopholes that prevent scamming of the intentions of the tax code. And yes, the intentions are very, very clear, as indicated by the closing of loopholes.

Prevention of "wash sales" because of a deficiency in the tax code that created a loophole? What happens if an issue is found with the 30-day rule? Another piece of tax code intended to patch yet another hole in a mess that never had to exist initially? Why?

No, a patch for a mess that existed because there was no patch.

A peasant serf in the middle ages might have difficulty imagining a democratic republic, thinking the existing system was all that held society together. People today seem to reject the notion of independence and direct democracy, assuming that taxation and centralized government is inevitable.

There is nothing "inevitable" about it, only that the majority of people (in my country at least) agree that there are aspects of life that get completely, utterly destroyed without law (yeah, taxes pay for judges and police). I'm done arguing this garbage with you. Feel free to skip out on your taxes, and then I hope you are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by your local law enforcement.

let me amend that, they encourage you to use the honor system in regards to bitcoin, my apologies

http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/2011/07/18/bitcoins-the-taxless-currency/

Oh for god's sake. Do any of you idiots read anything? There are two places on that page that say anything about taxes and bitcoin: 1)The title (the taxless currency), and in the tax section: "However while taxes aren't generated by the government, if you buy and sell bitcoins, it becomes taxable income."

Yes, they use the words "honor system," but in the US, income is income, and it is taxable. Paying your income tax, while not enforced 100% (you have to be audited before it's enforced), is still a legal requirement, whether you choose to ignore the law or not. This is what that document means by "honor system": If you murder your neighbor but don't get caught, you're on the honor system to report yourself.

[miscreanity]

I know this is pointless, because you're one of those "taxation is slavery" idiots, but I'll respond nonetheless.

Insults are juvenile and history is replete with examples of taxation creating domestic slavery.

A familiar example is taxation without representation. Slavery is "a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune" - any citizen of a nation that can incarcerate its own without due process of law, and confiscate or freeze assets with the same lack of procedure, is granted the privilege of autonomy which can be revoked at any time. This is not freedom based on personal responsibility, and the argument that it's for the citizens' own "safety" suggests that all are guilty until proven innocent.

Taxation is nothing more than a usage fee for services rendered. However, there is a threshold beyond which taxation is forced, regardless of the quality provided or even which services are offered. There is sufficient infrastructure and technology available today to fully eliminate monolithic government and heavy-handed, illegitimate financial imposition.

However many are required to patch loopholes that prevent scamming of the intentions of the tax code. And yes, the intentions are very, very clear, as indicated by the closing of loopholes.

So instead of one point of failure, there will be multiple points of failure; fixing one problem creates others. Fighting entropy demands simplicity, not complexity.

Governments eventually become massive points of failure. They both make laws and enforce them. They collect wealth from the populations they govern. They direct the police and militia, lending further ability to enforce laws and collect taxes irrespective of any other factors.

Controlling a government means the entire nation is owned; in the case of Europe and the US, that ownership is primarily by the major banks.

No, a patch for a mess that existed because there was no patch.

A hole was dug in the ground because there was no hole? What's the purpose of the hole (tax system)? When blindly following decrees without exercising reason and asking 'why', the activities are meaningless.

There is nothing "inevitable" about it, only that the majority of people (in my country at least) agree that there are aspects of life that get completely, utterly destroyed without law (yeah, taxes pay for judges and police). I'm done arguing this garbage with you. Feel free to skip out on your taxes, and then I hope you are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by your local law enforcement.

I pay reasonable prices based on the quality of goods and services provided, no matter the field or industry involved. There is no need for authoritative taxation to facilitate business and commerce or even contracts and law.

Besides, what government can prosecute on an international scale when there is disparity between national laws, and no basis for taxation from an individual? The only losers are the same politicians who effectively pay no taxes, yet reap the benefits of the systems they govern - supported by you.

What you consider tax fraud, others consider archaic subservience. Would you accept a doctor's prognosis if he reeked of alcohol and were slurring his words, or would you opt for a second opinion? Nations act like drunkards when they're flush with undue amounts of power and influence. I will take my business to sober nations that respect business and the individual rather than intoxicated brutes with penchants for violent outbursts on the warpath against freedom.

If you're unwilling to discuss a topic, even if the end result is arriving at an agreement to disagree, your fate is sealed.

Oh for god's sake. Do any of you idiots read anything?

Emotions and patience are among the most difficult things to master. The result of success is a clear sense of reason.

[BitMagic]

Insults are juvenile and history is replete with examples of taxation creating domestic slavery.

Ahaha, I was totally just taking a potshot. You are insane.

A hole was dug in the ground because there was no hole? What's the purpose of the hole (tax system)? When blindly following decrees without exercising reason and asking 'why', the activities are meaningless.

It was a pointless tautology. Here: "It was patched, because there was a hole." The wash sale law hasn't led to another hole. You're falsely implying it has, and by extension, all additions to the tax code do. This is a faulty argument.

So instead of one point of failure, there will be multiple points of failure; fixing one problem creates others. Fighting entropy demands simplicity, not complexity.

Yes, this is perfectly rational. Maybe we should go back to Windows 95, because, you know, plugging security breaches has just been a failed fight with entropy.   (Wrong, it's been a failed fight with destructive greed that, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, constantly looks for weaknesses). Again, I see nothing to suggest that complexity necessarily implies more failure.

Emotions and patience are among the most difficult things to master. The result of success is a clear sense of reason.

Happy to be reasoned, successful, and also love calling you an idiot.

[miscreanity]

Ahaha, I was totally just taking a potshot. You are insane.

Ad hominem. Again, immature; defensive ridicule is the sign of a lazy mind. If you can't defend your position logically, it's better to not say anything at all.

A hole was dug in the ground because there was no hole? What's the purpose of the hole (tax system)? When blindly following decrees without exercising reason and asking 'why', the activities are meaningless.

It was a pointless tautology. Here: "It was patched, because there was a hole." The wash sale law hasn't led to another hole. You're falsely implying it has, and by extension, all additions to the tax code do. This is a faulty argument.

Yes, it was intended as such. Many laws are pointless as well, only serving to cover up mistakes (or sometimes intentional "errors") that generally introduce additional riders which produce more problems than they solve.

Your rebuttal is just a different perspective; I offer that there would be no hole if the present tax system did not exist. I futher suggest that the present tax system is destructive and has built a byzantine morass of legislation that obfuscates the legitimate utilization of taxpayer wealth while precluding meaningful reform. Therefore, unless tax system bloat in most of today's nations is torn down to a point of stability, additional changes will serve to disguise and exacerbate the root problem while trapping the citizenry in an escalating cost-basis.

There was no suggestion that it already has been taken advantage of, only that it could be. Your assertion that there is no hole is tenuous because, as mentioned above, any law at higher levels rests upon prior legislation that may be mis- or re-interpreted by judicial decree. Indeed, there have been many instances of politicians proposing "solutions" that benefit only themselves or a lobbying interest, and judicial decisions that have overturned prior rulings.

The relevant quote:

It's not biased, it's to prevent a scam called "wash sales," where you constantly realize and accrue tax credits on downtrends, but only pay once on the uptrend.

Prevention of "wash sales" because of a deficiency in the tax code that created a loophole? What happens if an issue is found with the 30-day rule? Another piece of tax code intended to patch yet another hole in a mess that never had to exist initially? Why?

Moving on...

So instead of one point of failure, there will be multiple points of failure; fixing one problem creates others. Fighting entropy demands simplicity, not complexity.

Yes, this is perfectly rational. Maybe we should go back to Windows 95, because, you know, plugging security breaches has just been a failed fight with entropy.   (Wrong, it's been a failed fight with destructive greed that, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, constantly looks for weaknesses). Again, I see nothing to suggest that complexity necessarily implies more failure.

As entertaining as the fight video was, including a few more informative links would help. Perhaps an analysis of the 30-day rule or a study on entropy.

Anyway, good example. Windows was riddled with security holes and bloat; instead of fixing the underlying codebase, additional features were heaped on. Microsoft finally deciding to take the correct steps to remedy that situation: the entire platform was audited, heavily redesigned and cleaned up. Much of it was simplified and standardized throughout, much more so than before. That also allowed for cleaner implementation of newer features and more reliable updates to existing ones.

Isomorphisms abound: whether "destructive greed" from political corruption or malware, the end result is damage. Mitigating that is not done by obscuring the core, but by redesigning it with updated techniques that fundamentally strengthen it. I agree that complexity alone does not lead to failure, so long as the overall system is stable; complexity built from a faulty or damaged base increases the potential for collapse. If an unstable base is not addressed, adding patches to it counter-intuitively destabilizes the system further instead of helping.

Since western nations have settled into a habitual pattern of adding complexity by way of attempts at legislating problems out of existence, the underlying decay will force a familiar pattern of behavior which involves surreptitious theft until blatant abuse of power becomes the only option available to maintain existing governments. We have seen the early stages of that with bank bailouts since the 1980s and recent nationalization of certain major corporations. Those are the easy targets - individual citizens are in the crosshairs, but will be persuaded to offer themselves up by the the millions, only to be devoured by their respective nations.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~George Santayana

Happy to be reasoned, successful, and also love calling you an idiot.

Rationalization is not reason. Nor is self-aggrandizement and/or proclamation of "success" a certification of reputability.



If you have a particular area of expertise and would like to discuss concepts, I'd be glad to learn and share ideas. A flame-war isn't productive.

[skilo]

Stop using banks then you wont have to worry about the tax man. Find a local source to give you cash for your btc or buy gold with your btc then sell the gold privately.

Bitcoins aint none of the tax mans buisness anyway imho.

If i had the capital i would give you cash for your BTC or gold, But the way gold is skyrocketing right now you might be better off hanging onto gold (if you have any that is)

[BitMagic]

As entertaining as the fight video was, including a few more informative links would help. Perhaps an analysis of the 30-day rule or a study on entropy.

Be warned: if you do report your Bitcoin holdings, you may be risking more than you bargained for. The initial reaction of most governments in the face of potentially threatening uncertainties is to shoot first and ask questions later.

I don't even have to say anything to make you look stupid. Go back and click on all my references. I'm sure you'll see their relevance if you spend a little time thinking about it.

Your rebuttal is just a different perspective; I offer that there would be no hole if the present tax system did not exist.

I would argue that your arguments are moot if you didn't exist. Go back to school.

[miscreanity]

I don't even have to say anything to make you look stupid. Go back and click on all my references. I'm sure you'll see their relevance if you spend a little time thinking about it.

The only stupid thing I've done in this thread is reply to you after having seen your persistently childish replies elsewhere. Maybe that's the only form of communication you understand?

Your links are to sites that are irrelevant to the topic; pictures of faces and balls, the latter of which you don't seem to have, hiding behind ridicule as your only replies. I provided links to information that supports what I've said. Where's the substance to your argument?

Your rebuttal is just a different perspective; I offer that there would be no hole if the present tax system did not exist.

I would argue that your arguments are moot if you didn't exist. Go back to school.

A shame, you don't have the decency to be civil or even support your position. Enjoying your trolling?

Ignorance regarding the history of government actions during crises means you need an education (oh, look - more relevant information). If you had one, you'd be aware of the rapidly growing potential for wholesale confiscation of assets by government and the dangers that precedent promotes. Have fun when your neighbor reports you as a terrorist after a dispute...

I won't be expecting a reply with any backing of value, only more insults; but it's still nice to hope fools might grow a brain someday. If you're under 30 years of age, you can be excused for being young & dumb. If you're over 30 and still this immature, well - you're just pathetic. Either way, I don't have time for stagnant minds. Bye.

For anyone else with an interest in freedom and moving forward instead of struggling in a dying system, hopefully you gained something from this thread; there's a world of opportunity out there.

[BitMagic]

Your links are to sites that are irrelevant to the topic; pictures of faces and balls, the latter of which you don't seem to have, hiding behind ridicule as your only replies. I provided links to information that supports what I've said. Where's the substance to your argument?

You don't get it, still? I was making fun of your linking the dictionary definition of a phrase that was completely stupid and irrelevant.  I was making fun of your irrelevant linking.

This place turns me into a total asshole, because you people are just so, so stupid.

[miscreanity]

You don't get it, still? I was making fun of your linking the dictionary definition of a phrase that was completely stupid and irrelevant.  I was making fun of your irrelevant linking.

This place turns me into a total asshole, because you people are just so, so stupid.

Since you're apparently unable to participate in a conversation as a mature and rational individual, you do not warrant humour or respect from me. The ineptly ignorant ridicule from you has been dismissed. Now, you're just a fun target to rile up.

Here's the fully-valid rationale for your edification: Bitcoin is a world-wide phenomenon and there are those who read this forum without knowing English as their native language. Spend time with people from various non English-speaking countries and you'll notice that certain idioms and idiosyncrasies might not be so easily understood by those from other cultures. Your own ignorance and closed-mindedness is on display. What have you contributed to this discussion?

Assuming everyone knows what a certain phrase means is asinine, as was your feeble attempt at being funny. You don't seem to think there's a reason for certain items that might seem of dubious import to you, even though none of it was explicitly for you. I'll translate that into something moronic enough for you to hopefully understand: "hurr durr, no1 uze lnks 4 nethng i thnk iz obveus or i cal u a DUM!"

Neither of us have talked with each other, but the first thing you do is throw out ad hominem attacks when you haven't a clue what your target's reasoning is? Grab your foot and shove it all the way down your throat like the phallus-swallowing douche you are. The approach you followed is the same as insulting a random person on the street, expecting him to either instantly turn into your buddy or cower in the presence of your petty tyranny. Try that with me in person, if you can manage to get your swollen ass out of your parents' basement.

Use the right term to describe yourself: you're not worthy of being called an asshole - you're a little bitch. You mad bro? Maybe you should punch your computer, since you don't use it for anything worthwhile. Get a life that involves more than terrible efforts at bad jokes or just go play a dating game.

I'm smiling while letting a custom natural language processor designed for my graduate computer science course run through this thread. You're so worthless, even the algorithm is rating your text: inconsequential fail.

There - you've received a reply that's stooped to your communication level, so there's no way I can further explain your retarded actions. Do you really want to continue this? I don't - it's as vile as you.

[Sargasm]

Don't feed the troll.

[deepceleron]

fuck i hope it's not an issue, already bought a house with some of it

You're only really at risk if you get audited. But if you get audited, get ready to pay some serious taxes. That sounds like a lot of money to hide from the IRS.

You're only really at risk of being audited if you brag on a public forum where the IRS can subpoena your account info and IP address history.

BTW, if Madoff ponzi losers get to write off their losses, we should be able to also! This was allowed because it was considered theft - theft losses can be written off. You can perhaps write off the value of mybitcoin holdings in dollar, at the time they went poof, etc. if you want to be creative.

[BitMagic]

Just gonna leave this right here...Miscreanity, that link is probably relevant for you. And if it isn't, well, it is now. I've reported this thread to the IRS.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=106778,00.html

[Elwar]

I will repeat. On a public forum you say this:

Of course. I report everything to the IRS. I am a good citizen. I love the IRS. They are a bunch of great guys that get a bad rap.


BB w@tchz U

[miscreanity]

To reiterate: a certain loser whose name here starts with 'B' and ends with 'c' is utterly transparent and a squealing, naked little bitch; unable to compete as anything but an intellectually-stunted schoolyard bully when faced with someone who calls bull on his blustering inanities.

Let's reassess the facts (n.b. rules are subject to change at the whim of politicians):

• IRS hooey doesn't apply to non-Americans
• No national organization even officially recognizes Bitcoin yet
• The case has just been reinforced in regard to the IRS being the US version of Nazi Germany's Gestapo
• Nothing I've offered is illegal in western nations (yet): the same methods presented are those typically reserved for legal asset protection among high net-worth individuals and organizations

If you choose to ignore your own nation's predatory tax-related activities, you are at risk whether you're compliant with their rules or not.

The 'reporting' done by the bitch (who would be executed for crimes against humanity had such things been done during WWII, if not dismembered before then by angry citizens) should be example enough of how easy it is for someone with an axe to grind to turn anyone they dislike into mutton. The bitch is also obviously limited in capacity for distinguishing between tax fraud and legitimate planning. Unlike the bitch's dull mental faculties presume, I am fully compliant with the tax laws I'm subject to.

As for anyone else: what USD$1 discrepancy could your government find deep within its tax laws to build a case and turn you into a criminal? Who would know the truth, and would it matter to anyone else? There doesn't even need to be a factual claim, as the above childish act clearly displays. You would have no recourse or means of protection if you hadn't taken steps to ensure you were diversified outside of your home country when that kind of event takes place.

Having all of your assets in one country is the same as having one bank account. If that account is ever frozen for an extended period or the contents seized, how will you survive?

[miscreanity]

BTW, if Madoff ponzi losers get to write off their losses, we should be able to also! This was allowed because it was considered theft - theft losses can be written off. You can perhaps write off the value of mybitcoin holdings in dollar, at the time they went poof, etc. if you want to be creative.

It would help to be part of the class that creates, revises and enforces the rules in order to be granted the same privileges. If you aren't, that special treatment is probably out of reach.

I'd still be very wary of claiming losses from Bitcoin-related holdings - anything unfamiliar is highly likely to be flagged and/or investigated as potential fraud rather than granted leeway, especially in times of economic duress. Even GoldMoney, which has been around and officially registered globally for a decade, continues to trigger warnings with several national tax agencies. The universal government motto should be: "When in doubt, use your clout!"

I will repeat. On a public forum you say this:

Of course. I report everything to the IRS. I am a good citizen. I love the IRS. They are a bunch of great guys that get a bad rap.


BB w@tchz U

I agree, to an extent. If I thought the consequences of speaking up were outweighed by the benefits of remaining silent, I wouldn't have said anything. The problem is, there are too few protecting themselves and that leaves those on the side of freedom outnumbered. I'd rather risk ire than watch as liberty around the world becomes further eroded until I have to fight to the death (literally or figuratively) for mine.

Extremism is building throughout the world with a growing polarization: on one hand, there is the oppression of Sharia law and on the other is western totalitarianism. The former promotes intolerance and death while the latter institutes slavery through indentured servitude. Neither are acceptable to me.

When a person discovers what freedom to own oneself means, he will live and die as a free man regardless of the costs.

[btc_artist]

It's boringly simple.  Follow the laws of the land where you live concerning income / capital gains.  Full stop.

[miscreanity]

It's boringly simple.  Follow the laws of the land where you live concerning income / capital gains.  Full stop.

If it were simple, why is there so much debate? There is much more to this than capital gains laws.

Yes, when in Rome... However, that applies to conducting one's interpersonal behavior. If my private assets are not in Rome, what then? What if I become a Roman citizen? Does Rome then have a claim on those assets held in other countries? Who owns me: myself or a government? How, why and to what extent? Not as simple anymore.

Does it make any sense for a business operating and generating income exclusively in Singapore to pay taxes to the UK government just because its owner is a citizen there? Should a German national having his savings at a bank located in the UAE be subject to an account seizure by the FCTO? When a US citizen owns property in Brazil, what right is there to any share of the property by the owner's government?

There's a boggling morass of compensation clauses in tax legislation around the world that have been produced under the guise of "fairness" but primarily result in politicians getting their cut no matter what actions they choose to pursue or whether it's the will of the people or not. If these taxation activities had not be legitimized by those in power, they would be considered extortion and fraud.

People tend to conflate morality with ownership: if one person has more than another, that must be "immoral" or "unfair" simply based on the disparity. Not paying your "fair share" is blindly assumed to be reprehensible, but according to whom? There is often no examination of the process by which the assets were obtained. It's a focus on quantity (of assets) to the exclusion of quality (of owner).

An individual investor might diversify across various sectors (agriculture, finance, mining, etc); a company can do the same, diversifying across various regional jurisdictions. The protection offered is the same: distribution of risk - if one region becomes hostile or unprofitable, there are others that can provide a way to survive and thrive. Corporations have been internationalizing themselves for ages. This is not caused by loopholes; attempts to artificially and forcefully control investment leave those loopholes as incentives to keep capital from fleeing entirely until it can be trapped and the loopholes closed, solidifying control and an exclusive power base (this has been the pattern for every empire and today's governments are following the same path).

Individuals can internationalize the same way as corporations do. If all of a person's assets and investments are in one country, such as Argentina, and people are forced to keep their money in a risky economy, the chances for losses are greater and the incentive to make use of that money domestically is reduced. This is the same response companies have to politicians' perpetual desire to do dumb things, and there's nothing preventing the individual from protecting himself the same way. It is the most effective form of wealth protection possible.

[BitMagic]

The 'reporting' done by the bitch (who would be executed for crimes against humanity had such things been done during WWII, if not dismembered before then by angry citizens) should be example enough of how easy it is for someone with an axe to grind to turn anyone they dislike into mutton. The bitch is also obviously limited in capacity for distinguishing between tax fraud and legitimate planning. Unlike the bitch's dull mental faculties presume, I am fully compliant with the tax laws I'm subject to.

Well, originally I just pointed the IRS to this thread, which wouldn't have done too much (too much leg work for them). But I've decided to actually report you, specifically, Ramon. They now have your contact address, workplace, and plenty of online accounts to gather enough personal info for any investigation, if they like. I sure hope you've paid your taxes.

For someone who "thought the consequences of speaking up were outweighed by the benefits of remaining silent," you sure didn't protect your online identity much. (FYI, I wasn't really even going to bother with this, but you got so excited! Hard to back away from. I do like your taste in music, though).

[Giraffe.BTC]

It's boringly simple.  Follow the laws of the land where you live concerning income / capital gains.  Full stop.

If it were simple, why is there so much debate? There is much more to this than capital gains laws.

Yes, when in Rome... However, that applies to conducting one's interpersonal behavior. If my private assets are not in Rome, what then? What if I become a Roman citizen? Does Rome then have a claim on those assets held in other countries? Who owns me: myself or a government? How, why and to what extent? Not as simple anymore.

Does it make any sense for a business operating and generating income exclusively in Singapore to pay taxes to the UK government just because its owner is a citizen there? Should a German national having his savings at a bank located in the UAE be subject to an account seizure by the FCTO? When a US citizen owns property in Brazil, what right is there to any share of the property by the owner's government?

There's a boggling morass of compensation clauses in tax legislation around the world that have been produced under the guise of "fairness" but primarily result in politicians getting their cut no matter what actions they choose to pursue or whether it's the will of the people or not. If these taxation activities had not be legitimized by those in power, they would be considered extortion and fraud.

People tend to conflate morality with ownership: if one person has more than another, that must be "immoral" or "unfair" simply based on the disparity. Not paying your "fair share" is blindly assumed to be reprehensible, but according to whom? There is often no examination of the process by which the assets were obtained. It's a focus on quantity (of assets) to the exclusion of quality (of owner).

An individual investor might diversify across various sectors (agriculture, finance, mining, etc); a company can do the same, diversifying across various regional jurisdictions. The protection offered is the same: distribution of risk - if one region becomes hostile or unprofitable, there are others that can provide a way to survive and thrive. Corporations have been internationalizing themselves for ages. This is not caused by loopholes; attempts to artificially and forcefully control investment leave those loopholes as incentives to keep capital from fleeing entirely until it can be trapped and the loopholes closed, solidifying control and an exclusive power base (this has been the pattern for every empire and today's governments are following the same path).

Individuals can internationalize the same way as corporations do. If all of a person's assets and investments are in one country, such as Argentina, and people are forced to keep their money in a risky economy, the chances for losses are greater and the incentive to make use of that money domestically is reduced. This is the same response companies have to politicians' perpetual desire to do dumb things, and there's nothing preventing the individual from protecting himself the same way. It is the most effective form of wealth protection possible.

Typical rationalization by the selfish and greedy.  You live in our society, so pay your share or get the fuck out.  Fucking traitor.

[miscreanity]

You're only really at risk of being audited if you brag on a public forum where the IRS can subpoena your account info and IP address history.

Precisely; none of that has taken place in this thread.

A contemplative discussion was begun and information regarding asset protection has been provided. That information is relevant for any and all individuals living, working or residing in any country. In fact, supportive information for the reporting of Bitcoin assets to US tax authorities was provided.

Just like the assumption regarding some of my links, the emotional reactions toward the tax information and thoughts provided assumed what I spoke of was only pertaining to the US. It is true that the information is applicable to the US as well, but the responses were derogatory and bordering on zealotry, as thought the world outside of America doesn't exist.

Nowhere have there been claims of wrong-doing or malicious intent; the conceptual discussion has been objective and pertaining to defensive measures. At worst, a suggestion of avoidance regarding becoming a guinea pig in setting precedent was mentioned. It was already pointed out that once wealth leaves the Bitcoin system, even if functioning as a tax haven, it is subject to whatever rules are applicable to the instrument the wealth has been transferred into. The issue of wealth that remains in the Bitcoin system is a different matter that wasn't broached because of one individual's ill temper.

Yes, I should've ignored the troll. Even with that admission, any actions taken to offline status move into a clearly-defined precedent, especially if that happens with international significance. The emotional reactions taken offline by a certain participant in this thread have been uncalled for and these actions may be seen as grounds for harassment with serious legal repurcussions, including both civil and criminal slander and libel suits in multiple juridictions.

If the challenge is to be persisted in after witnessing multiple lengthy replies of lucid clarification from myself and considering the extensive measure of legal contacts that accrue in some industries, then it will be met will the fullest extent of legal defense. Reminder: offline harassment is a clear case - in some instances a felony.

Note the following statements that were made prior to the threat of offline action, then the initial direct statement implying good-natured discourse (again, nation-agnostic) and multiple escalating offers for the instigating offender to cease hostilities (after which the offender's comments were addressed indirectly):

Nothing I've offered is illegal in western nations (yet): the same methods presented are those typically reserved for legal asset protection among high net-worth individuals and organizations

...

... I am fully compliant with the tax laws I'm subject to.

Which country are you going to be reporting in? I'll be sure to avoid it until the backlash forces change.

If you have a particular area of expertise and would like to discuss concepts, I'd be glad to learn and share ideas. A flame-war isn't productive.

There - you've received a reply that's stooped to your communication level, so there's no way I can further explain your retarded actions. Do you really want to continue this? I don't - it's as vile as you.

Now that that's done...

Typical rationalization by the selfish and greedy.  You live in our society, so pay your share or get the fuck out.  Fucking traitor.

Everything you need to protect your assets the way the "selfish and greedy" do has been handed to you on a silver platter, but that's selfish and greedy? If I'm using that information and the same is given to you, it cannot logically follow that making use of the information is selfish or greedy. Please explain your view, preferably without the profanity.

Who determines what the "share" is? You? Me? Some nameless, faceless person who has barely a vague idea about either of us, or the drunkard subsisting on government hand-outs? What if Ireland demanded that all persons holding an Irish passport had to pay taxes to the nation, even if income were made in the US? Would America stand for that?

Get out of where? Mine is a sentiment that's part of a small, but rising global chorus. It's a mindset of live and let live. I don't dictate to you and don't dictate to me; I don't pay your way, you don't pay mine. Is that so threatening?

These aren't necessarily easy questions, nor is there an easy answer at this point.

[Joseph sterns]

Gotta say that this thread went out of wack by a couple keyboard warriors ( man I live that term ) very cool of you to rat out another user of the bitcoin community because of an argument.

Re to OP everyone should be paying taxes on btc I have every intention of complying to US law especially since it goes to benefitting us as a society to much greed has caused this world to spiral downhill and those adding to the mess does nothing to help, sad but true there are more selfless people in this world than those who want to help. If you want to evade taxes and then brag about how to do so on a online forum on an IP that can be linked to you certainly deserves to get fucked royally by the Feds, not claiming anything on bitcoin will certainly be a downfall for it if everyone in the community of bitcoin use it to evade taxes, do the right thing if you want bitcoin to survive as a currency do your part and don't be part of the selfless if you do may luck and god be with you but you do nothing for us other than add to the already ongoing criminal activity to bitcoin which will most likely be the end of it

2 cents

[BitMagic]

Yes, I should've ignored the troll. Even with that admission, any actions taken to offline status move into a clearly-defined precedent, especially if that happens with international significance. The emotional reactions taken offline by a certain participant in this thread have been uncalled for and these actions may be seen as grounds for harassment with serious legal repurcussions, including both civil and criminal slander and libel suits in multiple juridictions.

Gotta say that this thread went out of wack by a couple keyboard warriors ( man I live that term ) very cool of you to rat out another user of the bitcoin community because of an argument.

Welcome to the real world, bitches.

[Joseph sterns]

You sir are a toolbag perhaps it's the world you live in but ever since the playground era (childhood for the fools) being a tattle tale gets you one thing - zero respect

If you can live with that you should check your pants because your missing a set of balls. No offense to the women of this community if you tattle then your just a C***

Be cool and pay your taxes

And about fire safety. Be cool!! Hope some people get that reference lol

[Primitive Caveman]

You sir are a toolbag perhaps it's the world you live in but ever since the playground era (childhood for the fools) being a tattle tale gets you one thing - zero respect

If you can live with that you should check your pants because your missing a set of balls. No offense to the women of this community if you tattle then your just a C***

Be cool and pay your taxes

And about fire safety. Be cool!! Hope some people get that reference lol

If he wasn't doing something wrong there'd be nothing to rat about. If bitcoin is going to get anywhere, it needs to look legitimate, not childish. People like miscreanity and Atlas are doing everything in their power to make it look like a community of conspiracy theorists and fools.

And seriously, you're using a schoolyard analogy? We're (supposed to be) adults here. If you want to play like a grown-up, you have to suffer the grown-up consequences for your actions. We aren't first graders here.

[makomk]

No, a patch for a mess that existed because there was no patch.

The mess exists because the tax code as it stands is absurd. Unrealised losses and unrealised gains aren't symmetric; if you have an unrealised gain then you haven't seen a penny of the money and quite possibly never will so it makes sense not to pay tax on them, but unrealised losses mean you're actually out real money. (Then again, it's not the only messed-up part of the tax code in the US; the handling of stock options from jobs is insane and designed to deliberately overvalue them, meaning that people can end up paying more in tax on them than they could ever have actually made from them.)

[BitMagic]

You sir are a toolbag perhaps it's the world you live in but ever since the playground era (childhood for the fools) being a tattle tale gets you one thing - zero respect

I guess my fool life is over now that I don't have any respect from tax-evading scam artists and extremist libertarians.

People like miscreanity and Atlas are doing everything in their power to make it look like a community of conspiracy theorists and fools.

You forgot the important bit. Thieves. They're actually thieves.

No, a patch for a mess that existed because there was no patch.

The mess exists because the tax code as it stands is absurd. Unrealised losses and unrealised gains aren't symmetric; if you have an unrealised gain then you haven't seen a penny of the money and quite possibly never will so it makes sense not to pay tax on them, but unrealised losses mean you're actually out real money.

It's perfectly symmetrical, unless by symmetrical you meant uneven.

[Joseph sterns]

If you actually read my post I am for the overall success of bitcoin, I am with you 100% on people paying tax on them but whose business is it for you to go and tattle tale about someone elses life choices I said nothing about not paying taxes.

The schoolyard era was merely trying to say that people who tattle never get any respect and has been that way for as long as I can remember at least in my book and hasnt changed even though I am an adult now. People who don't pay taxes should be getting in troubled but it's their choice to do so pointing the finger at them is just a low thing to do and that was my point not anything else..

This post was directed at primitive.

Your life may not be over sure but that still doesn't change the fact that you went and tattled on someone over an argument people must pay taxes on bitcoin but there should be no reason you go and tell on someone it's not any of your business

[amencon]

Yes, I should've ignored the troll. Even with that admission, any actions taken to offline status move into a clearly-defined precedent, especially if that happens with international significance. The emotional reactions taken offline by a certain participant in this thread have been uncalled for and these actions may be seen as grounds for harassment with serious legal repurcussions, including both civil and criminal slander and libel suits in multiple juridictions.

Gotta say that this thread went out of wack by a couple keyboard warriors ( man I live that term ) very cool of you to rat out another user of the bitcoin community because of an argument.

Welcome to the real world, bitches.

This isn't the real world.

[BitMagic]

Yes, I should've ignored the troll. Even with that admission, any actions taken to offline status move into a clearly-defined precedent, especially if that happens with international significance. The emotional reactions taken offline by a certain participant in this thread have been uncalled for and these actions may be seen as grounds for harassment with serious legal repurcussions, including both civil and criminal slander and libel suits in multiple juridictions.

Gotta say that this thread went out of wack by a couple keyboard warriors ( man I live that term ) very cool of you to rat out another user of the bitcoin community because of an argument.

Welcome to the real world, bitches.

This isn't the real world.

It is, now. Fantasy's gotta end some time.

[BitMagic]

This was just too good not to post. He claims he's a defense attorney, until I suggest his writing is so terrible, it can't be true. He claims reporting someone for breaking the law is akin to "outing" a gay person. I told him being gay wasn't illegal. I also asked him if it was "none of his business" if someone was shot right next to him.

Yes, you are about to hear a "defense attorney" tell you that he wouldn't report a shooting "depending on the circumstances."

This is what we're working with, people.

[btc_artist]

On the internet, anyone can be a "lawyer" :p

[Joseph sterns]

its nice of you to censor out most of the conversation we? I dont think anyone cares about what you have to say other than yourself

[BitMagic]

its nice of you to censor out most of the conversation we? I dont think anyone cares about what you have to say other than yourself

No problem we I think censorship is bad I'm a censorship attorney you love to write without any punctuation I can tell. we?

[Joseph sterns]

What do you do all day other than put up hate comments does your imaginary girlfriend listen to all your bullshit to? im not going to try to ebattle you i said it already its like winning the special olympics doesnt matter if you win or not you are still retarded.

Do you want to try more stuff you grammar nazi? perhaps I can write a whole paragraph for you with mistakes and you can try to pick out every single one

I forgot to capitalize an I but I left it out so you can pick at it

[BitMagic]

What do you do all day other than put up hate comments does your imaginary girlfriend listen to all your bullshit to? im not going to try to ebattle you i said it already its like winning the special olympics doesnt matter if you win or not you are still retarded.

Do you want to try more stuff you grammar nazi? perhaps I can write a whole paragraph for you with mistakes and you can try to pick out every single one

I forgot to capitalize an I but I left it out so you can pick at it

[BTCurious]

Why do I keep clicking this thread?

Is there an "ignore thread" button somewhere?

[btc_artist]

Why do I keep clicking this thread?

Is there an "ignore thread" button somewhere?

Unfortunately with SMF, once you participate in a thread, it will always show up when you click on "new replies to your posts".

[BTCurious]

That sucks.


At least let's make the discussion something interesting:


Who would win?

[cypherdoc]

BitMagic:





miscreanity:

[miscreanity]

Who would win?

My money's on Cap'n Crunch.

[gewure]

That sucks.


At least let's make the discussion something interesting:


Who would win?

giant squid! everyone knows that!°!

[BitMagic]

Miscreanity is a stand-up guy.

[adamstgBit]

is their tax when you barter one good for an other?

[BTCurious]

That sucks.


At least let's make the discussion something interesting:


Who would win?

giant squid! everyone knows that!°!

But it doesn't even have proper jaws!

[BitMagic]

is their tax when you barter one good for an other?

sigh.

[miscreanity]

Miscreanity is a stand-up guy.

BitMagic's a decent fellow as well.

is their tax when you barter one good for an other?

sigh.

Yes, and it's been there for a long time. I don't agree with it, but most contemporary national tax laws create a situation wherein all transactions of any kind or size are technically taxable. Since the general stance is that ignorance of the law is no defense, what you don't know will hurt you.

[TiagoTiago]

Why do I keep clicking this thread?

Is there an "ignore thread" button somewhere?

Unfortunately with SMF, once you participate in a thread, it will always show up when you click on "new replies to your posts".

If you click on the "notify" link, and you confirm you wanna unwatch the topic, does that remove it from the new replies to threads you're participating list? What if you reply but set it to not notify you of replies (in the Additional Options section) ?

[cypherdoc]

If you click on the "notify" link, and you accept to unwatch the topic, does that remove it from the new replies to threads you're participating list? What if you reply but set it to not notify you of replies (in the Additional Options section) ?

ROFLMAO!!!

[BitMagic]

Since the general stance is that ignorance of the law is no defense, what you don't know will hurt you.

Just out of curiosity, do you disagree with this, generally?

[miscreanity]

Since the general stance is that ignorance of the law is no defense, what you don't know will hurt you.

Just out of curiosity, do you disagree with this, generally?

No, I agree with the principle. My issue with it is that excessive complexity and conditionals in tax codes have made the tenet unrealistic to comply with, even for many law specialists.

If there has to be one, I'd be much more agreeable toward the oft-promoted flat universal tax, or a system of flat national taxation for corporations (including provinces/regions/states) and only flat local/regional tax for individual citizens and local businesses. This would be similar to software licenses in which educational/private use is free or a nominal fee versus commercial use requiring fully paid licenses. The simpler and less open to interpretation things are at all levels, the easier it is for everyone.

Your perspective?

[FreeMoney]

Yes, and it's been there for a long time. I don't agree with it, but most contemporary national tax laws create a situation wherein all transactions of any kind or size are technically taxable. Since the general stance is that ignorance of the law is no defense, what you don't know will hurt you.

It will eh? So not just some tiny chance that trading your mostly broken moped for an old lawnmower will get you 'hurt' but certainty? This is news to most I'm sure. This seems to be a nerve for a lot of people, but the fact is if you fail to report a transaction even most cash transactions you will be completely fine. The IRS is bumbling and busy and watching porn and doesn't care about your $300 of labor or tools or toys, don't be afraid.

[BitMagic]

Since the general stance is that ignorance of the law is no defense, what you don't know will hurt you.

Just out of curiosity, do you disagree with this, generally?

No, I agree with the principle. My issue with it is that excessive complexity and conditionals in tax codes have made the tenet unrealistic to comply with, even for many law specialists.

If there has to be one, I'd be much more agreeable toward the oft-promoted flat universal tax, or a system of flat national taxation for corporations (including provinces/regions/states) and only flat local/regional tax for individual citizens and local businesses. This would be similar to software licenses in which educational/private use is free or a nominal fee versus commercial use requiring fully paid licenses. The simpler and less open to interpretation things are at all levels, the easier it is for everyone.

Your perspective?

I also agree with it generally.

My problem with flat taxes is the boilerplate: a 9% income tax on someone who spends 80% of their income on basic housing and food is a big freaking deal. a 9% tax on someone who spends 1% of their income on basic housing and food is meaningless. This is problematic.

[notme]

Since the general stance is that ignorance of the law is no defense, what you don't know will hurt you.

Just out of curiosity, do you disagree with this, generally?

No, I agree with the principle. My issue with it is that excessive complexity and conditionals in tax codes have made the tenet unrealistic to comply with, even for many law specialists.

If there has to be one, I'd be much more agreeable toward the oft-promoted flat universal tax, or a system of flat national taxation for corporations (including provinces/regions/states) and only flat local/regional tax for individual citizens and local businesses. This would be similar to software licenses in which educational/private use is free or a nominal fee versus commercial use requiring fully paid licenses. The simpler and less open to interpretation things are at all levels, the easier it is for everyone.

Your perspective?

I also agree with it generally.

My problem with flat taxes is the boilerplate: a 9% income tax on someone who spends 80% of their income on basic housing and food is a big freaking deal. a 9% tax on someone who spends 1% of their income on basic housing and food is meaningless. This is problematic.

I've usually heard this proposed along with a pre-bate check on goods up to the poverty line, so basic necessities.  Then we are only taxed on the extra we consume.

[BitMagic]

I've usually heard this proposed along with a pre-bate check on goods up to the poverty line, so basic necessities.  Then we are only taxed on the extra we consume.

I've usually heard any kind of pre-bate check is considered to be an unfair social safety net that would work better in the free market.

I'm not actually picking a fight, but I have literally never heard a big-R Republican, big-L Libertarian, or even little-l libertarian support basic subsistence/healthcare provided by the state to any degree.

That being said, it's not a terrible idea. But it still doesn't get at the one big problem non-libertarians and libertarians will always be embittered over, and where this discussion is eventually heading: if you have more money than someone else, do you deserve it?

[notme]

I've usually heard this proposed along with a pre-bate check on goods up to the poverty line, so basic necessities.  Then we are only taxed on the extra we consume.

I've usually heard any kind of pre-bate check is considered to be an unfair social safety net that would work better in the free market.

I'm not actually picking a fight, but I have literally never heard a big-R Republican, big-L Libertarian, or even little-l libertarian support basic subsistence/healthcare provided by the state to any degree.

That being said, it's not a terrible idea. But it still doesn't get at the one big problem non-libertarians and libertarians will always be embittered over, and where this discussion is eventually heading: if you have more money than someone else, do you deserve it?

No no no.... Not a probate on expenses.... Just on the sales taxes for those expenses.  Same as we have now in the US.  You don't pay taxes if you are below the poverty line.

[notme]

And you deserve it if you earned it.  If daddy (or mommy) gave it to you, then it depends on the individual.  Rich brats cause a lot of problems.

[BitMagic]

No no no.... Not a probate on expenses.... Just on the sales taxes for those expenses.  Same as we have now in the US.  You don't pay taxes if you are below the poverty line.

Ah, gotcha. Also not a terrible idea, but it's largely unpopular with American conservatives, who believe everyone should pay something in taxes.

I was talking about fixed percentage income taxes,  but we can talk about sales taxes, too.

At what point do you set the "poverty line"? I know how it's set here in the US. So you tax someone who spends 89% of their income on food, rent and health, but not someone who spends 90%?

The issue is around fairness. Graduated fairness based on what you need to survive.

And you deserve it if you earned it.  If daddy (or mommy) gave it to you, then it depends on the individual.  Rich brats cause a lot of problems.

What if you earned it by siphoning CPU cycles using embedded javascript code? What if you were exploiting child labor in China (where it's legal), and your customers didn't know? In short, does it matter how you earned it to deserve it? Who decides and enforces that?

[notme]

No no no.... Not a probate on expenses.... Just on the sales taxes for those expenses.  Same as we have now in the US.  You don't pay taxes if you are below the poverty line.

Ah, gotcha. Also not a terrible idea, but it's largely unpopular with American conservatives, who believe everyone should pay something in taxes.

I was talking about fixed percentage income taxes,  but we can talk about sales taxes, too.

At what point do you set the "poverty line"? I know how it's set here in the US. So you tax someone who spends 89% of their income on food, rent and health, but not someone who spends 90%?

The issue is around fairness. Graduated fairness based on what you need to survive.

And you deserve it if you earned it.  If daddy (or mommy) gave it to you, then it depends on the individual.  Rich brats cause a lot of problems.

What if you earned it by siphoning CPU cycles using embedded javascript code? What if you were exploiting child labor in China (where it's legal), and your customers didn't know? In short, does it matter how you earned it to deserve it? Who decides and enforces that?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with 89 vs 90%.  I'm saying everybody gets a prebate at the same level, regardless of income.  Yes, there are situations where people earn money unfairly, but I don't see that as something the government should be responsibile for policing.  (police-ing... Policing looks weird to me, so I want to be clear).  That should be left to social forces.  The problem with governments saying they will take care of things is they don't, yet everyone quits worrying about it because it's supposed to be taken care of.

[BitMagic]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with 89 vs 90%. 

Oh, I was saying that someone just under the poverty line (90%) gets a full prebate on their "flat-distributed" % tax. Someone just over it (89%) get's absolutely no benefit. This is my argument for graduated taxes.

Yes, there are situations where people earn money unfairly, but I don't see that as something the government should be responsibile for policing.

So, in essence: rule of law rests in your own hands. John Doe finds it an offense to his sensibilities when his daughter downloads internet porn, and so he crushes her head in with a baseball bat for her impropriety. Acceptable?

It's an extension of "John Q doesn't like Coca-Cola paying nothing for 5-year-olds in china to bottle, so he decides to not buy Coca-Cola anymore."

More realistic: what happens when Eric Prince decides he'd like an island and doesn't want the natives with it, in this no-law land of yours?

[deepDown]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with 89 vs 90%. 

Oh, I was saying that someone just under the poverty line (90%) gets a full prebate on their "flat-distributed" % tax. Someone just over it (89%) get's absolutely no benefit. This is my argument for graduated taxes.

In most EU countries, one does not pay taxes at the first XX euros his/hers yearly income, than he pays some low tax at the next YY EUR, and than higher percentage for next ZZ euros he earned (if he earned that much) and so on until some large percentage that is usually set for all income over 100K EUR for example.

So it is gradual for everyone. And if, say, the no tax limit is set at 15K EUR, there is not much difference for guy earning 16K euros and 15K euros per year.  The first one would pay maybe 10% of one thousand euros while the second won't pay any taxes.

[notme]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with 89 vs 90%. 

Oh, I was saying that someone just under the poverty line (90%) gets a full prebate on their "flat-distributed" % tax. Someone just over it (89%) get's absolutely no benefit. This is my argument for graduated taxes.

Yes, there are situations where people earn money unfairly, but I don't see that as something the government should be responsibile for policing.

So, in essence: rule of law rests in your own hands. John Doe finds it an offense to his sensibilities when his daughter downloads internet porn, and so he crushes her head in with a baseball bat for her impropriety. Acceptable?

It's an extension of "John Q doesn't like Coca-Cola paying nothing for 5-year-olds in china to bottle, so he decides to not buy Coca-Cola anymore."

More realistic: what happens when Eric Prince decides he'd like an island and doesn't want the natives with it, in this no-law land of yours?

That's not acceptable, and the father should be put in jail.  Police should stop violent crimes.  I didn't say no laws.  I feel information should be widely available and the markets should decide what is acceptable.  Governments should prevent violent crimes within their boarders and defend their citizens from foreign invasion.  Little else is acceptable to me.  Luckily, I haven't yet had to deal with the dilemma of paying to support the monstrosity we have allowed to form.  I haven't yet made enough, and avoiding that dilemma is what has kept me complacent.

Trust me, I understand how nasty things can get, but I firmly believe that the only way to fight that is awareness: spreading information.  We are more capable than ever of sharing information all over the globe.  Big governments don't aid in awareness; they restrict the flow of information.

And just to be clear, the sales tax with a pre-bate is not how it is actually done in the US, or anywhere as far as I know.  We have progressive taxes very similar to Europe, and no national sales tax at all.  Most states have a small sales tax (4-6%) and a few have exemptions for things like food and clothes.  I think Alaska is the only state where citizens get checks, and that's because the oil is state owned.  Oh how different WV would be if coal/gas companies had to pay more than a few thousand dollars a month to destroy a mountain range.

[BitMagic]

In most EU countries, one does not pay taxes at the first XX euros his/hers yearly income, than he pays some low tax at the next YY EUR, and than higher percentage for next ZZ euros he earned (if he earned that much) and so on until some large percentage that is usually set for all income over 100K EUR for example.

So it is gradual for everyone. And if, say, the no tax limit is set at 15K EUR, there is not much difference for guy earning 16K euros and 15K euros per year.  The first one would pay maybe 10% of one thousand euros while the second won't pay any taxes.

I like this a lot. But I don't think it's popular with libertarian movements.

I feel information should be widely available and the markets should decide what is acceptable.  Governments should prevent violent crimes within their boarders and defend their citizens from foreign invasion.  Little else is acceptable to me. 

Trust me, I understand how nasty things can get, but I firmly believe that the only way to fight that is awareness: spreading information.

I think you misunderstand the power that market share has on freedom of information. One of the first things to go in unregulated markets is necessary information to the consumer. Take a 5 second look at big media. There were Nobel Prizes in Economics awarded on this topic.

In addition, my point was that control over someone's financial life (the way unregulated banking, retail, and massive corporations maintain with discretion over pensions, loans, and property they own) can destroy lives as thoroughly as violence. This is why we have federal regulations regarding finance, and those regulations need to be funded.

Oh how different WV would be if coal/gas companies had to pay more than a few thousand dollars a month to destroy a mountain range.

I can't imagine a single captain of industry ever advocating higher taxes on business.

[notme]

As long as we don't lose our freedom to publish, the Internet ensures anyone can make themselves heard if they really try.  If the media fails to deliver the information, more people will turn to independent reporting.  It's quickly becoming very difficult to hide, an you can't stop independent publishing (at least in the US) without violating the first amendment.

And governments should protect individuals from violent corporations as well as violent people.  As I've said, that's where I draw the line.  Stand up for any individual (person or corporation, since our council of numbskulls likes to treat them as the same) who is having their rights or property forcibly encroached upon.

I was comparing the natural resource situation to Alaska.  Since the state owns the oil, they pay people to drill it, sell it and use/distribute the proceeds.  Here in WV, the companies pay small monthly fees to remove the top of the mountain the get the coal.  The companies then own the coal and sell it for huge profits.  The largest mining company has had as many "sludge pool" failures as they have pools.  These toxic lakes break open an flow in to the water supply, and wipe out houses.  The removed vegetation leads to mudslides an flooding.

Those who have had property destroyed have simply been told there was unanticipated rain and they won't be compensated because the insuance company call it an "act of god".  I know how people can walk on others.  We have ahitloads of regulation that can't be understood without the help of the oligarchy of lawyers, yet we are failing miserably in actually protectih people and their property.

[BitMagic]

As long as we don't lose our freedom to publish, the Internet ensures anyone can make themselves heard if they really try.  If the media fails to deliver the information, more people will turn to independent reporting.  It's quickly becoming very difficult to hide, an you can't stop independent publishing (at least in the US) without violating the first amendment.

You've obviously never heard of anything related to the measures in front of Congress to hamstring net neutrality in favor of gatekeepers working the "free market."

I know how people can walk on others.  We have ahitloads of regulation that can't be understood without the help of the oligarchy of lawyers, yet we are failing miserably in actually protectih people and their property.

And yet those regulations, working or no, are the only thing standing between you and toxic mountain sludge. You expect the companies to handle this for you as they currently do everything they can to skirt regulations and responsibility for the damage they're doing right now?

[notme]

As long as we don't lose our freedom to publish, the Internet ensures anyone can make themselves heard if they really try.  If the media fails to deliver the information, more people will turn to independent reporting.  It's quickly becoming very difficult to hide, an you can't stop independent publishing (at least in the US) without violating the first amendment.

You've obviously never heard of anything related to the measures in front of Congress to hamstring net neutrality in favor of gatekeepers working the "free market."

I know how people can walk on others.  We have ahitloads of regulation that can't be understood without the help of the oligarchy of lawyers, yet we are failing miserably in actually protectih people and their property.

And yet those regulations, working or no, are the only thing standing between you and toxic mountain sludge. You expect the companies to handle this for you as they currently do everything they can to skirt regulations and responsibility for the damage they're doing right now?

The regulations do more to keep competitors out than they keep the big guys in line.

[miscreanity]

My problem with flat taxes is the boilerplate: a 9% income tax on someone who spends 80% of their income on basic housing and food is a big freaking deal. a 9% tax on someone who spends 1% of their income on basic housing and food is meaningless. This is problematic.

Good point. A flat tax would be the most "fair" by ratio relative to income, but not according to an individual's share of the whole. And it is problematic in the long-term; the poor (and middle classes) perpetually struggle harder to survive and the wealthy lose their social support structure which is composed of the former.

I've usually heard this proposed along with a pre-bate check on goods up to the poverty line, so basic necessities.  Then we are only taxed on the extra we consume.

Yes, basically the American Fair Tax proposal.

At what point do you set the "poverty line"? I know how it's set here in the US. So you tax someone who spends 89% of their income on food, rent and health, but not someone who spends 90%?

I've never looked into how the poverty level is determined; I'd guess it's determined on a statistically-derived basis - can you provide an explanation or link?

What if you earned it by siphoning CPU cycles using embedded javascript code? What if you were exploiting child labor in China (where it's legal), and your customers didn't know? In short, does it matter how you earned it to deserve it? Who decides and enforces that?

Exactly. That's the core issue that I'm concerned about: the management. As it stands, management has control over both creation of the rules and enforcement. Human fallibility as the wildcard has historically led to abuse of that situation for individual or oligarchic gain. Bitcoin has the potential to function as more than just money, offering a means to temper less-than-reasonable human traits...

Oh, I was saying that someone just under the poverty line (90%) gets a full prebate on their "flat-distributed" % tax. Someone just over it (89%) get's absolutely no benefit. This is my argument for graduated taxes.

Instead of graduated taxation, what about graduated support up to a minimum threshold? This is effectively negative income tax, a key element of which is elimination of minimum wage laws. Note that it would exacerbate existing problems if introduced in conjunction with current welfare programs. A possible solution could be citizen election to participate in only one system or the other, or a mandatory shift over time using the same binary method.

Note this criticism:

"... workers would decrease labor supply (employment) by two to four weeks per year because of the guarantee of income equal to the poverty level."

It should be pointed out that, despite workers essentially taking an extra 2-4 weeks of vacation per year, they're still part of the work force. In addition, the extra time off provides the chance for people to relax and recuperate - health benefits have been noted from periodic vacationing. Those willing to sustain themselves at that minimum level are free to do so while an incentive to work is still maintained. Any interested in exceeding that baseline are just as free to do so.

Meanwhile, the reporting responsibility can fall to businesses alone. It could be left up to the individual to request the government supplement, possibly through the respective employer(s). Policing ~30 million businesses in the US is much more reasonable and effective than an order of magnitude above that number in individual citizens, not counting illegal immigrants (which is an entirely different issue).

The benefits to elimination of minimum wage laws are multiple: for one, businesses gain the flexibility to pay free market rates; those businesses are also free to hire as many employees as realistically needed without minimum wage associated legislation-induced fiscal distortions, creating more jobs; employees still receive a baseline income.

There are some who will still slip through the cracks, but the opportunity will be readily present in a more robust system - at least until the robot invasion takes all the menial jobs.

In addition, my point was that control over someone's financial life (the way unregulated banking, retail, and massive corporations maintain with discretion over pensions, loans, and property they own) can destroy lives as thoroughly as violence. This is why we have federal regulations regarding finance, and those regulations need to be funded.

Again, the issue here is management; an unbiased, purely objective regulator experiencing no benefit from illegitimate actions would keep the existing system working - but humans are still part of it. So is another layer of regulation to make sure the regulators are doing their jobs really necessary? Wouldn't it make more sense to change the system's structure to support effective regulation rather than add another layer of the same?

[Bigpiggy01]

What if you were exploiting child labor in China (where it's legal)

I think you mean India/Vietnam it carries the death penalty here  It does occasionally occur but mainly way out in the boonies and is fairly regularly cracked down on.

[BitMagic]

Again, the issue here is management; an unbiased, purely objective regulator experiencing no benefit from illegitimate actions would keep the existing system working - but humans are still part of it. So is another layer of regulation to make sure the regulators are doing their jobs really necessary? Wouldn't it make more sense to change the system's structure to support effective regulation rather than add another layer of the same?

I don't think the issue is management. It's about incentive. Private firms fall under the same problems of human management that public ones do, because of their human fallibility, by your characterization. The question is what is the driver of decision-making that is most responsive to actual human misery? "The bottom line" surely perpetuates this misery when the interests of the meek do not align with the interests of the rich. Any representation, however broken, is better than none.

In the US, specifically, the private sector worries about public opinion if it affects profits. That happens when people are both 1) wise to the problem, and 2) manage to find a way to undermine profits for their personal needs (which is very, very difficult to do). The public sector worries about public opinion when people simply show up on their door, physically. The representative system, however broken, requires positive public opinion to function. The unrepresentative "free market" only requires ignorant buyers, and they spend enormous amounts to make sure that ignorance abounds.

Don't get me wrong. Bureaucracy sucks, hard. But you can protest bad bureaucratic decisions and see large-scale policy change and protection. When you successfully boycott business, all you get is "less bad."

[miscreanity]

I don't think the issue is management. It's about incentive. Private firms fall under the same problems of human management that public ones do, because of their human fallibility, by your characterization. The question is what is the driver of decision-making that is most responsive to actual human misery? "The bottom line" surely perpetuates this misery when the interests of the meek do not align with the interests of the rich. Any representation, however broken, is better than none.

In the US, specifically, the private sector worries about public opinion if it affects profits. That happens when people are both 1) wise to the problem, and 2) manage to find a way to undermine profits for their personal needs (which is very, very difficult to do). The public sector worries about public opinion when people simply show up on their door, physically. The representative system, however broken, requires positive public opinion to function. The unrepresentative "free market" only requires ignorant buyers, and they spend enormous amounts to make sure that ignorance abounds.

Again, good points. We seem to be talking about the same thing, just from different angles: I view management as ignoring public opinion because the incentive that drives its motive is coming from an unintended source, primarily corporations and related organizations (especially financial firms) with enough influence to affect the human fallibility in management positions (i.e. buying/lobbying politicians).

If a population is dis- and misinformed, or even actively deluding itself, a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation can arise. This was exactly what happened with America's transition from Bush to Obama. How many Occupy Wall Street protesters realize just how dependent the world's economies are on major financial institutions and the consequences that would result if they actually did fail? At this point, the consequences would likely cause a lot of deaths in the developed world.

A free market naturally promotes a meritocracy (it also demands self-responsibility) with full representation based on transfer of wealth ("voting with your dollars"), otherwise corporate profits wouldn't mean anything. No centrally-managed representation necessary; it's currently the closest thing to a direct democracy in existence. Government has acted as a single point of failure: while regulation used to protect against predatory actions, the regulated and regulators are now effectively the same; the result is that regulation harms those it used to protect and protects those it was meant to guide.

Direct democracy certainly wouldn't have been a workable system without a highly connected society and an equally pervasive economic structure. I think the supporting infrastructure has been viable for over 20 years, but existing access, social awareness and perspectives simply haven't developed until recently. Even the potential of a meritocracy can be confusing or intimidating for some people. Free markets aren't perfect, as there will always be facets that can be taken advantage of, but the flexibility and freedom offered are far more than arises from central management - especially as it ages.

Don't get me wrong. Bureaucracy sucks, hard. But you can protest bad bureaucratic decisions and see large-scale policy change and protection. When you successfully boycott business, all you get is "less bad."

I agree to a large extent. Two points to touch on: success can be defined quite a few ways, and certain forms of protest are more effective than others.

The only thing that sustains a government is its power base - the population. I don't know of any bankers or politicians who build railways or design water treatment plants (or ever have; pols coming from real work environments have become rare). If the people are working and maintain the nation, the government can function. Once insulated from the population, but still reaping the benefit of support, it is free to go against public opinion.

A similar situation arises with corporations; vendor lock-in can be highly detrimental to clients as the company can then force a direction. If the business is boycotted, it may make concessions to a "less bad" point, but unless it rearranges its structural behavior it is almost guaranteed to fail. Profit is generally a much more rapid indication of decision validity than any feedback in politics, which can more readily be distorted or misguided. In any case, when support erodes, governments and businesses must either adapt or die.

The difference between the kind of success in protesting that leads to more of the same versus real change is use of alternatives which make the offending institutions irrelevant. In the Bank Transfer Day article, it was pointed out that ~400,000 people withdrawing their assets from major banks would start to cause a real issue. You can bet Bank of America would have to change (if it can) or lose relevance as a financial firm (if gov't bailouts didn't occur). That's the kind of protesting that would also force genuine change in government. It's already happening with persistently elevated unemployment levels (and associated expiration of benefits), but I think the tipping point is still a ways off.

I can see the potential for instituting change by sheer force of direct protest, but it will still be quite a while before there are enough Ron Pauls in American government to shift the tide. In effect, that form of protest is like a frontal siege on a fortress - even with persistently overwhelming numbers, heavy losses will be incurred. Wouldn't it be faster and less destructive to starve the ivory tower inhabitants out?

[BitMagic]

Again, good points. We seem to be talking about the same thing, just from different angles: I view management as ignoring public opinion because the incentive that drives its motive is coming from an unintended source, primarily corporations and related organizations (especially financial firms) with enough influence to affect the human fallibility in management positions (i.e. buying/lobbying politicians).

How many Occupy Wall Street protesters realize just how dependent the world's economies are on major financial institutions and the consequences that would result if they actually did fail?

Government has acted as a single point of failure: while regulation used to protect against predatory actions, the regulated and regulators are now effectively the same; the result is that regulation harms those it used to protect and protects those it was meant to guide.

All of these statements are reasonable, but you're right that we're passing each other on the important bits; a premise is left unsaid: money is the problem with government. It's big business with it's ability to buy government that assists the removal of public opinion as a pressure point for politicians.

We're talking about sources of power. If that source is financial, it is very very easily transformed into violence and manipulation. A simple case in point: can you imagine the U.S. government using military police with assault rifles to intimidate, harass, and loot the public without serious backlash, and the media not have a shitstorm? No. How about when a private corporation does this? Oh wait. Guess who's still the biggest private military contractor in the U.S.? Guess why? Because they  spent millions on public relations to hide their dirty side. When you're faced with dwindling profits, the first response is not "How do I improve my product?" It's "How do I improve my image?" If the answer is lie, cheat and steal, that is what is done. If your life is in the public eye, like politicians, you get less leeway.

There are a lot of holes in my argument. But this takes the cake: Why do you think that the first time you heard about Herman Cain's repeated sexual harassment problems was when he's running for president? Because public opinion matters when you represent people.

Don't get me wrong. Business does many, many things better than government. Allocation of scarce normal goods, merit-based advancement, responsiveness to customers, and competition are often valuable results from free-market operations when they aren't tainted by market power. But business is not in the business of preventing poverty,  supporting healthcare that's good for the population, embracing competition, and protecting human rights. These cost money to enforce.

Wouldn't you rather have that money under the scrutiny of people that can make changes just by opening their mouths, instead of mobilizing full-on consumer-changing behavior? I would.