the Leave Us the Hell Alone Bill and The new bill, H.R. 5777

[justmyname]

Harass or bribe your reps.


http://cointelegraph.com/news/113060/us-rep-stockman-this-is-the-leave-us-the-hell-alone-bill

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113048/us-rep-steve-stockman-introduces-bill-to-protect-cryptocurrencies

[NewLiberty]

Maybe we do have a friend in congress after all?

This proposed bill creates a waiting period of 5 years before any new crypto currency law can be made.
(So it kills the bitlicense nonesense)

It also asks that cryptocurrencies be treated as currencies (not assets) ending the crazy IRS nonsense of adjusting for each and every transaction as a capital gain/loss.

It is the first SANE proposal by the US government.  This guy just has plain old fashioned common sense AND he's in government?  How did that happen?  It would seem impossible if it weren't true.

[The00Dustin]

It also asks that cryptocurrencies be treated as currencies (not assets) ending the crazy IRS nonsense of adjusting for each and every transaction as a capital gain/loss.

My thoughts on this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883790.msg9785132#msg9785132
tldr: You have to keep track of cost basis and calculate gain either way, so the capital gain/loss adjustments have greater potential to help even the average user on taxes than the small transaction exclusion.

[NewLiberty]

It also asks that cryptocurrencies be treated as currencies (not assets) ending the crazy IRS nonsense of adjusting for each and every transaction as a capital gain/loss.

My thoughts on this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883790.msg9785132#msg9785132
tldr: You have to keep track of cost basis and calculate gain either way, so the capital gain/loss adjustments have greater potential to help even the average user on taxes than the small transaction exclusion.

Please consider that transactions less than $200 can not possibly have more capital gain than $200 and are excluded.  This reduces the record-keeping requirements significantly for those with mostly small transactions.

[The00Dustin]

Please consider that transactions less than $200 can not possibly have more capital gain than $200 and are excluded.  This reduces the record-keeping requirements significantly for those with mostly small transactions.

Bob buys 2 BTC @ 30
Bob buys .8 BTC @ 100
Bob buys .4 BTC @ 500
Bob buys .2 BTC @ 1000
Bob buys 3 BTC @ 300
Bob buys 1 BTC @ 300
Bob buys 1 BTC @ 300
Buys continue but aren't relevant for this example

BTC becomes mainstream and Bob starts spending

Bob buys a new toy valued at 299.78 for 1.040434 BTC
Bob buys a new computer monitor valued at 175.34 for .737643 BTC
Bob buys a deck of cards valued at 1.47 for .004935 BTC
Bob buys a tank of gas valued at 53.47 for .173421 BTC
Bob buys more groceries valued at 176.39 for .736482 BTC
Bob buys a gift for his wife valued at 312.69 for 1.003154 BTC
Bob buys a new toy valued at 1145.51 for 2.863775 BTC

Nevermind the fact that Bob will pay the top rate on the nearly $270 gained on the first purchase and the nearly $290 gain on the last purchase.

Nevermind the fact that Bob will not be able to claim the roughly $1350 loss on the grocery purchase.

Simply explain to me how Bob is going to know that he gained nearly $290 on the last purchase without keeping records for all of the small transactions in between.

ETA: Don't tell me my math is wrong, either, if it is wrong, you had to have all those records to figure that out, which doesn't change any of my points given the post is fiction and BTC has clearly displayed volatility that would completely allow for my example to play out with the dollar amounts I mention after the example.

ETA2:  And is my math ever wrong, but I'm not going to touch it.  I calculated at least some of the losses and gains as if the purchase price I listed was for the quantity I listed instead of 1 BTC (I suppose I could pretend those prices were for those quantities since it is a ficticious example, but I doubt I did that consistently).  Regardless, I believe the example and point stand.

[The00Dustin]

To be clear, my point is that you do have to keep a record of each transaction in order to calculate the gain/loss on relevant transactions.  While you don't have to calculate the gain/loss on the many small transactions (or report them to the IRS), that negligible benefit (that most likely simply means not entering as many numbers in your tax program of choice) comes at the cost of not being able to claim the losses on any transactions regardless of size and also possibly (depending on how long BTC are held) often paying higher taxes on the gains you do have to report.

[NewLiberty]

OK, It is a problem.
Maybe slightly less of one depending on how the guidance finally settles out.  Maybe more of one.

Say I have a tool that will compute all this cap gains for you based on block chain data?  Securely, client side, with none of your data retained?
How much is it worth to the US taxpayers?

The tool was developed for tracking purchases in gold and silver, the block chain just makes it easier.
If you want to invest, I can have you talk to the CEO.

[The00Dustin]

Personally, I use Excel to track this, so I place little value on such a tool for my own use.  However, I suppose most users would probably find some benefit in it, since some math is still necessary before numbers can be entered in a tax program to fill out form 8949.  That having been said, due to the potential for liability claims in the US tort system, I wouldn't want to be involved in such a project unless it included lawyers, accountants, and possibly even corporate protection.

[NewLiberty]

Personally, I use Excel to track this, so I place little value on such a tool for my own use.  However, I suppose most users would probably find some benefit in it, since some math is still necessary before numbers can be entered in a tax program to fill out form 8949.  That having been said, due to the potential for liability claims in the US tort system, I wouldn't want to be involved in such a project unless it included lawyers, accountants, and possibly even corporate protection.

Agree on the tort issues.  US is not a great place to do business.
On Lawyers, accountants and corporate protection.
Check, check, and double check.

[2dogs]

.gov will tax an activity if they want stifle its development/adoption; subsidize the activity if they want to stimulate or encourage its growth.

It's pretty clear what their position is.

[NewLiberty]

.gov will tax an activity if they want stifle its development/adoption; subsidize the activity if they want to stimulate or encourage its growth.

It's pretty clear what their position is.

The relationship is more complicated than this.  When something is taxed this also puts the government in the business of that thing, as a partner.  It becomes reliant on the "revenue".  Consider cigarettes and gasoline.  In the production areas they are the most powerful political forces.

Banking companies may be disrupted, so expect places where these have the greatest influence to be the most hostile politically.  NY/Bitlicense/Lawsky should not be a surprise.

[GreenStox]

.gov will tax an activity if they want stifle its development/adoption; subsidize the activity if they want to stimulate or encourage its growth.

It's pretty clear what their position is.

Finally somebody says the truth.

People need to expose them as what they are really doing here.

They just want more tax, more control and destroy bitcoin because its a direct thread to the currently going fiat ponzi schemes.

[NewLiberty]

They just want more tax, more control and destroy bitcoin because its a direct thread to the currently going fiat ponzi schemes.

Its been said that the friend of a conqueror is merely the final victim.  The Government is the Fed's final victim in the ponzi, the government is not the final beneficiary.

Individuals within the governments will oppose it for government use, because it makes corruption so much more difficult with all transactions in the clear.  When we find government officials approving bitcoin for government use (as some have for traffic tickets) we may find the few anti-corruption government officials and seek ways to promote their advancement.

[GreenStox]

They just want more tax, more control and destroy bitcoin because its a direct thread to the currently going fiat ponzi schemes.

Its been said that the friend of a conqueror is merely the final victim.  The Government is the Fed's final victim in the ponzi, the government is not the final beneficiary.

Individuals within the governments will oppose it for government use, because it makes corruption so much more difficult with all transactions in the clear.  When we find government officials approving bitcoin for government use (as some have for traffic tickets) we may find the few anti-corruption government officials and seek ways to promote their advancement.

It's really sad if you think like that, there is no non-corrupt government. It's either corrupt or it's a tyrrany.

If the government gets 100% funding and perfect income then it has more money to do nasty surveilance and police state.

If the government is inefficient and very corrupt then atleast you have some basic freedom.

There is no 3rd way, where the government gets 100% funding and it's nice to people, thats only propaganda.

[NewLiberty]

They just want more tax, more control and destroy bitcoin because its a direct thread to the currently going fiat ponzi schemes.

Its been said that the friend of a conqueror is merely the final victim.  The Government is the Fed's final victim in the ponzi, the government is not the final beneficiary.

Individuals within the governments will oppose it for government use, because it makes corruption so much more difficult with all transactions in the clear.  When we find government officials approving bitcoin for government use (as some have for traffic tickets) we may find the few anti-corruption government officials and seek ways to promote their advancement.

It's really sad if you think like that, there is no non-corrupt government. It's either corrupt or it's a tyrrany.

If the government gets 100% funding and perfect income then it has more money to do nasty surveilance and police state.

If the government is inefficient and very corrupt then atleast you have some basic freedom.

There is no 3rd way, where the government gets 100% funding and it's nice to people, thats only propaganda.

So funny.
Try not to pretend that you know my thoughts, especially if it makes you sad.
Then take a look at the cypherpunk manifesto someday.
Bitcoin is part of the path to making government obsolete and unnecessary. 

Also, when the possibility of corruption in government is diminished, it reduces the incentive for corrupt people to promote government powers.

Even with no government, you still don't want random people parking on your flowerbed, right?

[GreenStox]

So funny.
Try not to pretend that you know my thoughts, especially if it makes you sad.
Then take a look at the cypherpunk manifesto someday.
Bitcoin is part of the path to making government obsolete and unnecessary. 

Also, when the possibility of corruption in government is diminished, it reduces the incentive for corrupt people to promote government powers.

Even with no government, you still don't want random people parking on your flowerbed, right?

Yes but there are more efficient ways to make people do the right thing than: hiring thugs to enforce it (cops), who get paid by stolen money (tax) or counterfeited money (central bank) and whoever opposes their authority gets put in a cage (correctional facility) or get killed.

It seems lunatic if you really think about what they really are, but all those kind words and euphemisms makes you think that we live in a pink world.

[NewLiberty]

So funny.
Try not to pretend that you know my thoughts, especially if it makes you sad.
Then take a look at the cypherpunk manifesto someday.
Bitcoin is part of the path to making government obsolete and unnecessary. 

Also, when the possibility of corruption in government is diminished, it reduces the incentive for corrupt people to promote government powers.

Even with no government, you still don't want random people parking on your flowerbed, right?

Yes but there are more efficient ways to make people do the right thing than: hiring thugs to enforce it (cops), who get paid by stolen money (tax) or counterfeited money (central bank) and whoever opposes their authority gets put in a cage (correctional facility) or get killed.

It seems lunatic if you really think about what they really are, but all those kind words and euphemisms makes you think that we live in a pink world.

Yes, it is a weird trick our minds play upon us.  For example, we pretend that we are not personally responsible when our police kills one of our citizens.

[melody82]

What?  We are not guilty for an idiot cop.  Most of them are good, but you will always have a bad egg in there somewhere.  It is inevitable.

So, I read here that you don't have to track individual transactions smaller than $200?  That is quite the relief.  I have a "friend" that pokes bots on hashnest, and also invested a small amount at scrypt.cc which pays out every ten minutes.  Imagine the nightmare of documenting all of these transactions!  My friend will still need to be careful about the taxes though.

[crazyearner]

Fuck the US government and their bills they have a bill for almost everything it is kinda stupid having rules and more rules and their rules having rules for their rules. Governments need to get a grip of them selfs and get their acts together than passing stupid bills hat make some scenes in a way but in others totally nonsense