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

[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?