New Hampshire bill to allow taxes to be paid in Bitcoin falls short

[Dart18]

As for experience I do pay using an exchange.

But here is the problem.
The exchange wont accept the payment thru bitcoin.
It needs to be converted to our own currency first. Asked myself why? It is like there is always a line that separates the two.
Why can't I just directly pay my bills using bitcoin or Ethereum? Is there a problem with that?
If they reason out because it is fluctuating every minute, then it is wrong.
They shouldn't have started their company in the first place because that will happen in 10 to 30 more years.

It's a fault of the both end. One would not start if he knows no one will follow him.

[1714183242]

1714183242

[alyssa85]

People should be hoarding Bitcoin. It's going up in value. This however doesn't mean that people aren't using Bitcoin. There is a vibrant peer to peer ecosystem where people conduct business with each other every single day. People just aren't really spending their coins on groceries and whatnot, and why would they? That's what debit/credit cards are for.

People have an incentive to spend that what loses purchasing power and that thing also happens to be the most convenient form of money for day to day transactions locally. Bitcoin hoarding sounds great to me. Everything you spend through centralized payment gateways such as ShitPay ends up on the market anyway, so more selling pressure.

Ask what the people think about spending Bitcoin around the $3000 low. They hate themselves. Replacing spent coins is something they haven't heard of or don't want to do.

And this in a nutshell is why the cryptocurrency ecosystem is dying. If you refuse to spend your coins, then the service providers will close the option to pay in cryptocurrency. That in turn undermines the foundation and use-case for cryptocurrency.

If you don't want to spend bitcoin, at least spend altcoins to ensure that the ecosystem doesn't die.

[Hydrogen]

Income taxes in the united states were passed back in 1913.

The original tax percentage paid in 1913 was 6% income tax for the wealthy. 1% income tax for everyone else.

Tax levels are much, much, higher today than they were under the original vision of income taxes passed a little more than a century ago.

We've gone from paying 1% income taxes in 1913. To 40% to 50% taxes in some cases.

Do we really need more taxes? Perhaps tax cuts are the correct policy to pursue with more responsible and better budgeting on the part of governments.

[gentlemand]

Tax levels are much, much, higher today than they were under the original vision of income taxes passed a little more than a century ago.

When you think about how all pervasive government has become it's quite staggering. It's in every single element of our entire lives. In some areas well over half the population will either by employed by government or is dependent on its handouts.

I'm sure if you'd shown that to the founding fathers they'd fucking puke.

It's gone way too far to roll back but having respect and prudence for public money would no doubt save vast amounts, let alone collecting it from the corporations exploiting the things government provides and weaselling out of paying their dues. Won't happen though.

[wheelz1200]

OP although I do agree it "feels" like we are going backwards but in all honesty this thread wouldn't even be a thing if we arent lightyears ahead of where we were 5-10 years ago.  Even having a state consider allowing to be paid in crypto is a feat in of itself.  Things progress slowly and in fact I think more and more outlets allow for the payment of bitcoin and even some other alts than in the past.  The road to acceptance has always been a struggle this is no different.

[magneto]

Not surprising.

The whole premise of fiat currencies is that it can be used to pay for debts public and private, i.e. legal tender. Passing this bill would essentially imply that bitcoin is also legal tender when it comes to public debts, which is something that I think has far greater implications than just the legislations of one state.

There is nothing to worried about just because of this news.

[criza]

Not surprising.

The whole premise of fiat currencies is that it can be used to pay for debts public and private, i.e. legal tender. Passing this bill would essentially imply that bitcoin is also legal tender when it comes to public debts, which is something that I think has far greater implications than just the legislations of one state.

There is nothing to worried about just because of this news.

There would be far more negative and positive effects that would occur if this would be implemented; foreseen and unforeseen effects of the implementation of the bill to the country. But, I believe it is just time that would determine the implementation of same bills promoting the use of crypto currency in billing transactions in the Government, with effort and time to study the possible outcomes  I think it would be possible.

[gentlemand]

The whole premise of fiat currencies is that it can be used to pay for debts public and private, i.e. legal tender. Passing this bill would essentially imply that bitcoin is also legal tender when it comes to public debts, which is something that I think has far greater implications than just the legislations of one state.

They could claim that legally it's not all that different from Visa. And ultimately it isn't. It's a method for paying with dollars, albeit a whacky one. Bitpay will be on the front end. It certainly isn't out the back.

You're using Bitcoin to transmit dollars to them. Nothing more.

[HabBear]

We're going backwards partly because people are hoarding their cryptocurrency instead of using it.

Is this really a problem for Bitcoin's future? I don't think so. This "project" is young still. The market is still figuring out what the best utility for Bitcoin is, and obviously a store of value or investment is the primary use at this point. And can you blame anyone for that when the price as movement? No. Bitcoin being an alternative investment is still enabling owners to 1. growth their wealth, and 2. keep some of their wealth outside of government or geo political influence.

I applaud you for using the crypto gift cards, using cryptocurrency regularly helps keep it familiar among the public, i.e., yeah, bitcoin is still a thing.

Question for you and everyone else...how long would the price of Bitcoin need to be stable before people started using it more as a medium for exchange rather than a store of value? Would $10k/BTC for a year be enough? for five years?

[Hallmader]

At this point in time, it is no use preferring to spend Bitcoin rather than fiat. I am using Bitcoin because I need to use it as a currency. Also, I am using it in terms of remittance. But other than that, like paying taxes, I would prefer to use fiat. Why should I use my Bitcoin on it when I know very well that it would double up in a matter of months or year? Fiat on the other hand is not worth saving because it depreciates fast enough.

[alyssa85]

Question for you and everyone else...how long would the price of Bitcoin need to be stable before people started using it more as a medium for exchange rather than a store of value? Would $10k/BTC for a year be enough? for five years?

The fluctuations would need to be similar to that of fiat currencies trading against each other. So no more than 10% in a given year, and on a month-to-month basis, about 2% to 5%.

Anything more than that and people can incur unacceptable losses. The people who accepted bitcoin for services in Jan 2018 and didn't immediately change it to fiat would have lost 50% within six months. No business can sustain losing revenue like that.

This is why I think alts like Doge might be the answer. They don't move much in dollar terms (they fluctuate between $0.0002 and $0.00025)

[TheCoinGrabber]

Tax levels are much, much, higher today than they were under the original vision of income taxes passed a little more than a century ago.

When you think about how all pervasive government has become it's quite staggering. It's in every single element of our entire lives. In some areas well over half the population will either by employed by government or is dependent on its handouts.

I'm sure if you'd shown that to the founding fathers they'd fucking puke.

It's gone way too far to roll back but having respect and prudence for public money would no doubt save vast amounts, let alone collecting it from the corporations exploiting the things government provides and weaselling out of paying their dues. Won't happen though.

And to think governments in the past only ask for taxes when they need to bankroll a war and people are usually left to their own during peace time. The problem is once you give government money, it'll ask for more.

I believe in what people say that government is irresponsible with money coz it's not their money they are spending. Give them money to do something and they'd just spend it inefficiently and the solution to that is more money.

Truly, this is not a joke > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ

[BChydro]

This is why cryptocurrency is not getting anywhere. What is the point of legislators doing loads of work to get a payment method on the books, as in Ohio, if only 10 businesses bother to use it?
We're going backwards partly because people are hoarding their cryptocurrency instead of using it.

It is the choice of the investor what they want to do with the investment and the duty of the legislators is to come up with regulation so that everyone has the freedom to do what ever they like and with time we expect more merchants to accept bitcoin, during the initial phase we had more merchants accepting bitcoin and we will see that phase once again after the regulation.

[wozzek23]

I wish it happened because the more places that start to charge taxes to be paid in crypto the more places will follow that seeing a success.

Of course, it is very risky for us as well because if they do it and then see its not working out they can remove it, we all remember 2017 peak times and how many places accepted bitcoin. We could use it on amazon, on steam and on some other places as well they all accepted but the harder price went down the more they stopped using it because they realized they were making a loss, now after almost 2.5 years they still haven't readded bitcoin to their systems. S,o this new Hampshire bill not passing is either bad or good, if there would have been a good result of this, I wish it stayed and I think that would have happened, but if there would be bad result, I am glad its not there just yet.

[DaftAjax]

This "project" is young still. The market is still figuring out what the best utility for Bitcoin is, and obviously a store of value or investment is the primary use at this point. And can you blame anyone for that when the price as movement? No. Bitcoin being an alternative investment is still enabling owners to 1. growth their wealth, and 2. keep some of their wealth outside of government or geo political influence.

Sure, it's still young~~ 10 years have passed it certainly does not feel young at all. If I'm being honest, it keeps on being a roller coaster ride--being better at times and worse at other times, but at least it's been improving for the most part. But lately, it has become a hindrance, I guess I kinda agree with the OP, holding is quite troublesome.

Question for you and everyone else...how long would the price of Bitcoin need to be stable before people started using it more as a medium for exchange rather than a store of value? Would $10k/BTC for a year be enough? for five years?

A store of value, do you mean like gold and silver? And does Bitcoin have to be stable?

[squatz1]

Tax levels are much, much, higher today than they were under the original vision of income taxes passed a little more than a century ago.

When you think about how all pervasive government has become it's quite staggering. It's in every single element of our entire lives. In some areas well over half the population will either by employed by government or is dependent on its handouts.

I'm sure if you'd shown that to the founding fathers they'd fucking puke.

It's gone way too far to roll back but having respect and prudence for public money would no doubt save vast amounts, let alone collecting it from the corporations exploiting the things government provides and weaselling out of paying their dues. Won't happen though.

The sad thing about the government employing tons of people is the reason that politicians do it. They made government so big so they can keep saying that the economy keeps growing. Cause if you spend tons of money to prop up the economy, by employing tons of people (and then these people owning homes, buying groceries, going to bars, etc) then the economy is going to be better then if you didn't.

Just for a moment I'm disregarding the people that are on welfare or any sort of handout.

But think about -- we as a society rely on the US to employ all of these people or we'd be fucked. Because if you cut all these jobs businesses would fail (cant go to the local pizza place if you got fired, or the local movie theater, etc) So even if you don't directly rely on the government funding (as an employee or welfare recipient -- you still rely on the government in someway.