Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:41:52 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?
Yes, even w/o risks - 35 (38.5%)
Depends on the risks - 22 (24.2%)
No, even w/ risks - 34 (37.4%)
Total Voters: 91

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?  (Read 10141 times)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:29:14 PM
 #161

Correct.  If someone is doing something that costs me money, I have an interest in acting.  If not, then we don't have a problem. When I do have a problem, we need a system to resolve it peacefully so we don't have to kill one another.
I think you know you're just trolling at this point, but I'm game. If I go to a doctor and pay him for my own healthcare, how does that cost you money? You need to answer this first, or the rest of your post is just more bullshit.

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

EDIT - wtf did you do to the formatting :@

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481326912
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326912

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326912
Reply with quote  #2

1481326912
Report to moderator
1481326912
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326912

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326912
Reply with quote  #2

1481326912
Report to moderator
1481326912
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326912

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326912
Reply with quote  #2

1481326912
Report to moderator
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:32:20 PM
 #162


If you can't leave people the fuck alone...yeah

Correct.  If someone is doing something that costs me money, I have an interest in acting.  If not, then we don't have a problem. When I do have a problem, we need a system to resolve it peacefully so we don't have to kill one another.

Quote
I think you know you're just trolling at this point, but I'm game. If I go to a doctor and pay him for my own healthcare, how does that cost you money? You need to answer this first, or the rest of your post is just more bullshit.

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:35:21 PM
 #163

...snip...

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.

No I want you to pay for your care.  That means that if you don't have cover, I am entitled to ask who gets the bill if you get sick. 

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
 #164

...snip...

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.

No I want you to pay for your care.  That means that if you don't have cover, I am entitled to ask who gets the bill if you get sick. 

Now you're just lying. That's NOT what you want. You want me to pay for my care AND other people's as well. If I don't, you want me to be thrown in prison.

So you're lying. You just said in your last statement "you want me to pay for my care" and that is exactly what I've been saying everyone should do. You actually have the audacity to use my argument against you, against ME!!!

It's ME who WANTS YOU to pay for your own fucking shit - including food and rent too. You're the one asking for handouts, buddy, not me.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:45:56 PM
 #165

...snip...

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.

No I want you to pay for your care.  That means that if you don't have cover, I am entitled to ask who gets the bill if you get sick. 

Now you're just lying. That's NOT what you want. You want me to pay for my care AND other people's as well. If I don't, you want me to be thrown in prison.

So you're lying. You just said in your last statement "you want me to pay for my care" and that is exactly what I've been saying everyone should do. You actually have the audacity to use my argument against you, against ME!!!

It's ME who WANTS YOU to pay for your own fucking shit - including food and rent too. You're the one asking for handouts, buddy, not me.

If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

nevafuse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 248


View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:52:08 PM
 #166

I too would pay taxes. I think taxation is necessary one way or another, I only question the amount needed to be taxed.

I'd pay taxes too if they covered exactly what I wanted them to.  But I doubt the current government could ever shrink that much.

The government is generally quite expert at recovering taxes they have decided you owe, and at changing the rules to ensure you can't sidestep the system simply by using something such as bitcoin (bitcoin is either a currency or "payment in kind" when it comes to receiving it as compensation for selling to others - although it's more difficult for the law to be enforced here, it's still the law that you have to pay taxes).

I realize bitcoin isn't 100% anonymous & you could catch people based on the physical items they own (houses, cars, boats), but seems like a lot of effort, especially if everyone starts doing it.  And once more & more people stop paying taxes, the government won't have the money to pay for better collectors, prisons, or police.

In a completely free market with no regulation, what is to stop several large corporations with economies of scale colluding on price?

Any smaller companies couldn't compete fairly and therefore the price wouldn't be driven down.

Multiple things.  A new competitor with a better price.  A fall out in the collusion (prisoner's dilemma).  If it's a scarce resource, an alternative.  If there's no alternative, a high enough price will make it worth it to research/create an alternative.

FA by referring to a commodity X and showing that deplting that commidty will increase price (if demand is stable) even ina free mrket shows you are the one missing some things. Firstly aleterntives may exist for the utility that X posseses and second with he right level of technology no commodity can ever be depleted because it can always be replenished.

Long term a free market is the most efficient system and therefore prices will be lowest. Does that make it impossible for short term cartels to exist (and please lt me note that most monopolies are caused by the interferene of goverments)? No. But that is only short term such cartels can never be stable long term. Just look at the prsioners dilemma as an example. In the end one of the cartel members will attempt to overthow the other. Alternatively a newplayer might come into exitence and go into competition with he catel. Eventually this will happen.

This!

Yup, don't wanna to go to prison. Get all the appropriate people, a well known reputable tax man and a lawyer. But that's thinking in the clouds. Unless you have 100Ghash/s machines to pay for all of it.

So you chose "Depends"?

I dont have a problem paying taxes Smiley

That's rare.

I wonder if the thread starter is a tax office investigator?

It's a trap!  I was surprised someone didn't say something early.  But I'm not & doubt anyone on this thread can live off bitcoins enough to make it worth the IRS's while ATM.  And full disclosure - I chose "Depends."

So your view is that the baby dies?

I'm doubt anyone here wants babies to die or anyone for that matter.  But when it comes to feeding my family - that comes first.  Having a free market system doesn't mean babies have to die.  I'm sure there will still be doctors that do pro bono work or charities to help pay for it.  I think most people in this thread against socialized healthcare just want choice.  They may choose to help a baby they know, but could care less about an alcoholic or crack addict.

=============================================

I'm actually quite surprised by the vote results.  I personally think the "Depends" people could be lumped in with the "No" people so it is still 2/3s that wouldn't pay taxes.  1/3 is still a lot of people that would continue paying their taxes even w/o risks.  I think one of the greatest benefits of bitcoin is the ability to pay only exactly what you want to pay because it is so difficult to steal (if you take the right security measures).  And the first thing on that list of things to stop paying for is probably taxes.

The only reason to limit the block size is to subsidize non-Bitcoin currencies
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
 #167



If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:57:05 PM
 #168



If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

Wow you are so emotional.  The NHS requires that care be free at the point of delivery.  Everyone pays - just not at the time they are sick.

Can you point to an example of someone who you think is using the NHS for free?  I'm just wondering what type of person you have in mind?  

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 01:59:02 PM
 #169



If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

Wow you are so emotional.

Can you point to an example of someone who is using the NHS for free?  I'm just wondering what type of person you have in mind? 

Let's not ask stupid questions, shall we? If everyone who uses NHS is paying 100% of their health bills, then such a program isn't even necessary, is it?
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 02:08:59 PM
 #170



If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

Wow you are so emotional.

Can you point to an example of someone who is using the NHS for free?  I'm just wondering what type of person you have in mind?  

Let's not ask stupid questions, shall we? If everyone who uses NHS is paying 100% of their health bills, then such a program isn't even necessary, is it?

Of course it is.  Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.  

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you.  It has huge benefits.  People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered.  People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care.  So its not 100%.

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 02:17:17 PM
 #171



Of course it is.  Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.  

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you.  It has huge benefits.  People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered.  People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care.  So its not 100%.

You're so used to criticizing Americans like a typical propagandized European that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, if you want people to pay for their own healthcare, why not just have private insurance?
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 02:23:18 PM
 #172



Of course it is.  Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.  

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you.  It has huge benefits.  People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered.  People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care.  So its not 100%.

You're so used to criticizing Americans like a typical propagandized European that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, if you want people to pay for their own healthcare, why not just have private insurance?

I've lived in America.  I've seen your system and it sucks.  You don't have a free market in health - you have a set of patent monopolists gouging the sick at the very time they are in fear of death.  And anyone who says its wrong gets called a "communist."

Private insurance is fine with one condition.  It has to be compulsory.  I've met a lot of Americans with no insurance and it stinks.  You wait until you are very sick and then drive to to an emergency ward for taxpayer treatment.  I know that people who do that probably don't set out to be free-loaders but its basically shafting the taxpayer. 

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 02:25:06 PM
 #173



Of course it is.  Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.  

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you.  It has huge benefits.  People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered.  People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care.  So its not 100%.

You're so used to criticizing Americans like a typical propagandized European that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, if you want people to pay for their own healthcare, why not just have private insurance?

I've lived in America.  I've seen your system and it sucks.  You don't have a free market in health - you have a set of patent monopolists gouging the sick at the very time they are in fear of death.  And anyone who says its wrong gets called a "communist."

Private insurance is fine with one condition.  It has to be compulsory.  I've met a lot of Americans with no insurance and it stinks.  You wait until you are very sick and then drive to to an emergency ward for taxpayer treatment.  I know that people who do that probably don't set out to be free-loaders but its basically shafting the taxpayer. 

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 02:32:51 PM
 #174

...snip...

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts.  The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies.  The patent holders don't have published price lists.  The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged.   The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option.  It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs.  Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 02:39:39 PM
 #175

...snip...

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts.  The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies.  The patent holders don't have published price lists.  The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged.   The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option.  It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs.  Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

Who said anything about "compulsory insurance"? - that IS a tax.

Our American system is screwed up for the same reason that yours is - forcing people to pay for shit they don't want. Prescription drugs are just another example of government interference creating rising costs.

How about just plain old private health insurance? VOLUNTARY health insurance that if you don't buy its your own fucking fault?
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 02:53:33 PM
 #176

...snip...

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts.  The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies.  The patent holders don't have published price lists.  The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged.   The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option.  It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs.  Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

Who said anything about "compulsory insurance"? - that IS a tax.

Our American system is screwed up for the same reason that yours is - forcing people to pay for shit they don't want. Prescription drugs are just another example of government interference creating rising costs.

How about just plain old private health insurance? VOLUNTARY health insurance that if you don't buy its your own fucking fault?

Our system is fine.  Really look at the charts.  We have better health care than you and it costs about half as much.

Voluntary health insurance is a free-loaders scheme.  You guys insist that emergency rooms treat regardless of whether or not someone has insurance.  That means the taxpayer gets shafted.  

It all comes back to what I said - people have to pay for their care.  I have no sympathy with the idea of "voluntary" when it means that I as taxpayer end up paying the bill.

dancupid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 954



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 03:55:52 PM
 #177

No of course he didn't ..........

I give up. You guys are just too retarded to understand or too lazy to try and I not your prent nor your kindergarten teacher, nor a policitian trying to convert you. Good luck figuring it out (maybe e-reading my post in chronological order will help).

Good night

We understand.  You don't want to have to pay for health care.  But you do want health care.  What's not to understand?

You don't have to pay for health care in the UK - a homeless person can walk into a hospital and will receive full health care - they don't ask for id or anything. Access to health care is not conditional on providing anything.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 04:07:40 PM
 #178

No of course he didn't ..........

I give up. You guys are just too retarded to understand or too lazy to try and I not your prent nor your kindergarten teacher, nor a policitian trying to convert you. Good luck figuring it out (maybe e-reading my post in chronological order will help).

Good night

We understand.  You don't want to have to pay for health care.  But you do want health care.  What's not to understand?

You don't have to pay for health care in the UK - a homeless person can walk into a hospital and will receive full health care - they don't ask for id or anything. Access to health care is not conditional on providing anything.

For a homeless person, he is taxed when he spends money.  Its 20% VAT on his goods except cigarettes and alcohol where he pays over 60%. 

You may think that 20% tax on all his spending is not much but he has been doing it since he first got pocket money and will carry on doing it until he dies.  Even if he never pays a penny income tax in his life, he pays for his health care through alcohol, cigarettes and VAT.

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 04:27:03 PM
 #179

...snip...

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts.  The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies.  The patent holders don't have published price lists.  The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged.   The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option.  It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs.  Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

Who said anything about "compulsory insurance"? - that IS a tax.

Our American system is screwed up for the same reason that yours is - forcing people to pay for shit they don't want. Prescription drugs are just another example of government interference creating rising costs.

How about just plain old private health insurance? VOLUNTARY health insurance that if you don't buy its your own fucking fault?

Our system is fine.  Really look at the charts.  We have better health care than you and it costs about half as much.

Voluntary health insurance is a free-loaders scheme.  You guys insist that emergency rooms treat regardless of whether or not someone has insurance.  That means the taxpayer gets shafted.  

It all comes back to what I said - people have to pay for their care.  I have no sympathy with the idea of "voluntary" when it means that I as taxpayer end up paying the bill.

Can you edit this idiot statement:

"Voluntary health insurance is a free-loaders scheme.  You guys insist that emergency rooms treat regardless of whether or not someone has insurance.  That means the taxpayer gets shafted. "

If taxpayers get shafted for Emergency room visits, that's the fault of a government mandate that you would support, not the fault of the voluntary health insurance.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 04:31:05 PM
 #180

...snip...

If taxpayers get shafted for Emergency room visits, that's the fault of a government mandate that you would support, not the fault of the voluntary health insurance.

Well if you take that part away, then your case starts to make sense.  Have you any proposals on how to take it away when your compatriots seem to keep voting in politicians who promise never to remove it?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!