Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 10:23:37 AM *
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 10120 times)
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 02:55:05 PM
 #21

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

The NHS is one of the examples where public provision of a service through forced taxation is a necessary evil. 

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil"..unless you're evil.
1480847017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847017
Reply with quote  #2

1480847017
Report to moderator
1480847017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847017
Reply with quote  #2

1480847017
Report to moderator
Bitcoin addresses contain a checksum, so it is very unlikely that mistyping an address will cause you to lose money.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480847017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847017
Reply with quote  #2

1480847017
Report to moderator
1480847017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847017
Reply with quote  #2

1480847017
Report to moderator
1480847017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480847017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480847017
Reply with quote  #2

1480847017
Report to moderator
Scott J
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile WWW
July 07, 2012, 03:10:25 PM
 #22

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

The NHS is one of the examples where public provision of a service through forced taxation is a necessary evil. 

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil"..unless you're evil.
Sadly, is this world, you often have to pick the lesser of two evils.

If forcing people to pay tax prevents a greater evil then so be it.

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 03:46:45 PM
 #23

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

The NHS is one of the examples where public provision of a service through forced taxation is a necessary evil. 

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil"..unless you're evil.
Sadly, is this world, you often have to pick the lesser of two evils.

If forcing people to pay tax prevents a greater evil then so be it.

No, you don't. In this world or any other. What you said is called a "cop-out"

Furthermore, people like you pose a problem for me that transcends me being able to tolerate you. You are attempting to oppress me through the state. I don't want the healthcare that you seem determined to rob people to fund, and I don't like you pointing a gun at my head telling me I have to "pay or else".

The alternative is to pay for your own goddam healthcare. If its too expensive, its your own fucking fault for allowing the government to subsidize healthcare at all in the first place. Government subsidies raise the price, free market competition lowers it - how hard is that to understand?!?

BlackBison
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 253



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 04:05:45 PM
 #24

Option 3 for me.

Taxes are a fraud just like government !

Not where I live.  If you happen to live in a place that can't run its public services efficiently, you have my sympathy.

May I ask where that is you live?

UK just like me. I live in London.

Potholes everywhere, MP expenses scandal, huge useless incompetent army, crappy NHS healthcare ... it sucks.



Crappy NHS healthcare in a city with some of the best private hospitals in the world?  Go private and be happy!  Its far cheaper to go private in the UK that it is in the US.



Well that guy is so desperate for money he wouldn't return $100 worth of btc to someone who overpaid him by accident, so I don't think his broke ass will be affording private medical care any time soon.

Scott J
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile WWW
July 07, 2012, 04:29:40 PM
 #25

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

The NHS is one of the examples where public provision of a service through forced taxation is a necessary evil. 

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil"..unless you're evil.
Sadly, is this world, you often have to pick the lesser of two evils.

If forcing people to pay tax prevents a greater evil then so be it.

No, you don't. In this world or any other. What you said is called a "cop-out"

Furthermore, people like you pose a problem for me that transcends me being able to tolerate you. You are attempting to oppress me through the state. I don't want the healthcare that you seem determined to rob people to fund, and I don't like you pointing a gun at my head telling me I have to "pay or else".

The alternative is to pay for your own goddam healthcare. If its too expensive, its your own fucking fault for allowing the government to subsidize healthcare at all in the first place. Government subsidies raise the price, free market competition lowers it - how hard is that to understand?!?
I do pay for my own healthcare - through taxes.

Free market competition in health care only works for those that can afford it.

In your ideal society, what happens to the people that can't afford to pay for their healthcare?

niko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.


View Profile
July 07, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
 #26

Depends on the country. In a country full of selfish, ignorant, narcissistic morons - no.

They're there, in their room.
Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 04:57:03 PM
 #27


I do pay for my own healthcare - through taxes.

Free market competition in health care only works for those that can afford it.

In your ideal society, what happens to the people that can't afford to pay for their healthcare?


1. No, you don't. You pay PART of your healthcare - the rest you are demanding taxpayers pay. You either want taxpayer money or you don't - if you don't, you don't need socialized medicine to help pay for it. If you do, then you're not paying it all yourself, are you?

2. Free market competition brings prices DOWN. The high healthcare costs you claim people can't pay are a DIRECT RESULT of people like you demanding that others are robbed to pay for crooks to run the system. What incentive does the government have to reduce prices? Answer: None

3. In a FREE society, people will cater to the poor because that is where the largest revenues are. Ask the ghost of Sam Walton. Its your government programs that screw the poor the most.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 05:02:23 PM
 #28

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

The NHS is one of the examples where public provision of a service through forced taxation is a necessary evil. 

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil"..unless you're evil.
Sadly, is this world, you often have to pick the lesser of two evils.

If forcing people to pay tax prevents a greater evil then so be it.

No, you don't. In this world or any other. What you said is called a "cop-out"

Furthermore, people like you pose a problem for me that transcends me being able to tolerate you. You are attempting to oppress me through the state. I don't want the healthcare that you seem determined to rob people to fund, and I don't like you pointing a gun at my head telling me I have to "pay or else".

The alternative is to pay for your own goddam healthcare. If its too expensive, its your own fucking fault for allowing the government to subsidize healthcare at all in the first place. Government subsidies raise the price, free market competition lowers it - how hard is that to understand?!?



Funny thing is, its not true.  Before making such assertions, look up a few facts and figures.  UK health care, both public and private, is very cheap. 

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
July 07, 2012, 05:09:35 PM
 #29

1. No, you don't. You pay PART of your healthcare - the rest you are demanding taxpayers pay.

Insurance also pays out for the unlucky from those who pay in. Your insurance premium is not just for your healthcare costs.
wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile WWW
July 07, 2012, 05:27:06 PM
 #30

Go Cryptoanarchist go! You are someone I would like to share a society with.

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 05:32:12 PM
 #31

Go Cryptoanarchist go! You are someone I would like to share a society with.

Thank you.  Smiley

All I ask is that people like yourself do your best to not fund people like those I'm arguing against. Cut them off and don't fear their armed henchmen.
Gareth Nelson
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722


View Profile
July 07, 2012, 05:53:40 PM
 #32

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).

Easiest way to get caught is by living a good lifestyle that obviously costs money to maintain while reporting an incredibly low income.

Whether or not you agree with the principles behind taxation, it's irrational to willingly expose yourself to the liability (including possible jail time) from not paying them.

On top of that, if you do happen to make use of any government-provided facilities then it seems only right to pay for them, even if the only way to pay currently is by giving a % of your total income.


These days it's even worse as now not only does the government look out for loopholes but we have a whole bunch of people who are actively lobbying the government to take more tax (think: UK uncut, occupy wallstreet etc - side note: why do some of these people talk about "overthrowing the state" when going to their protests when the protests are about giving the state more power and more funding?)
Scott J
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile WWW
July 07, 2012, 06:05:51 PM
 #33


I do pay for my own healthcare - through taxes.

Free market competition in health care only works for those that can afford it.

In your ideal society, what happens to the people that can't afford to pay for their healthcare?


1. No, you don't. You pay PART of your healthcare - the rest you are demanding taxpayers pay. You either want taxpayer money or you don't - if you don't, you don't need socialized medicine to help pay for it. If you do, then you're not paying it all yourself, are you?

2. Free market competition brings prices DOWN. The high healthcare costs you claim people can't pay are a DIRECT RESULT of people like you demanding that others are robbed to pay for crooks to run the system. What incentive does the government have to reduce prices? Answer: None

3. In a FREE society, people will cater to the poor because that is where the largest revenues are. Ask the ghost of Sam Walton. Its your government programs that screw the poor the most.
1. Some people pay in more than they receive back through public services.

2/3. Even in a system with lower cost health care due to the free market, there will still be people who cannot afford to pay. They may be living month to month, or they may even be destitute and have no money whatsoever. What happens to them?

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 06:10:02 PM
 #34

side note: why do some of these people talk about "overthrowing the state" when going to their protests when the protests are about giving the state more power and more funding?)

Exactly, I call those people the result of single mother parenting. To them, money is something that just is handed out from a magical authority, not something that requires actual labor to produce.

As far as paying taxes goes, its easy to not pay them - don't make any taxable income. Don't leave ANY evidence of your wealth for them to see. Pay your rent late so you look like a brokedick to those around you. Don't leave them anything to take.

Now if you go to clubs at night in your brand new mercedes..you're gonna draw attention.


1. Some people pay in more than they receive back through public services.

2/3. Even in a system with lower cost health care due to the free market, there will still be people who cannot afford to pay. They may be living month to month, or they may even be destitute and have no money whatsoever. What happens to them?

1. Yes, most people do. Those are the people being robbed of the rewards of their productivity.

2/3. In a free market system, where anyone can provide healthcare to anyone, the market will aggressively trade with the poor. Again, look at Wal-Mart. They might not get as good of service, just like a poor person can't afford as nice of anything as a rich person, but they'll get poor people healthcare. Shopping at Wal-Mart isn't as nice as other stores, but poor people are content to shop there, and Wal-Mart is happy to cater to them.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
July 07, 2012, 06:22:22 PM
 #35

Free market competition brings prices DOWN.

Sometimes, and only temporarily. Depending on the nature of the product, it quite often only borrows from the future. Since you're such a strong advocate of the free market, then you should be educated on the free market. If you wish to make statements about the free market, then be specific about the particular dynamics of the free market you are discussing, otherwise you'll simply come off as a brainwashed fool.

You see, I don't have a problem with defenders of the free market - just individuals who vehemently defend it without understanding it. And that's a big problem with most on this forum - they just spout what they read in their heavily biased books on economic theory.

Consider a market in X. The quantity of X left in the world is small, and its price, accordingly, is high. X is consumed, because, allegedly, it helps cure Y.

Now, according to your theory, competition will bring the price of X down. So, enter competition. In fact, let's establish that new competition is inevitable, because the price of X is currently so high. New entrepreneurs enter the market, and begin their harvesting of X. More of X hits the market, and the price comes down, as supply has risen. Basic economics, right?

Except the supply of X has not risen. In its consumption, the ultimate worldwide potential supply of X has actually dropped. The future price of X must now rise significantly to account for that. And so the price rises significantly, and as a result, the harvesting of X becomes more desirable, as more effort, technology and participants enter the market until X no longer exists.

The problems:

Free market advocates fail to distinguish between markets as the one I described, and markets in which a mostly theoretically infinite production exists, as in services. That's the first problem. The second problem is that ultimately, all markets depend on the first type of market. Those two problems can be summarized as genuine ignorance of market dynamics.

The third problem is the market's inability to properly attach a value to X. As it turns out, X, in its consumption, was not being used efficiently or appropriately at all, given the general ignorance of what X could be used for. But, since the participants in the market for X were in general, ignoramuses, X no longer exists. This is ignorance as well.
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 06:26:27 PM
 #36

@FirstAscent

Your scenario doesn't prove anything.

So are you saying that goods are provided better at the point of a gun?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
July 07, 2012, 06:28:26 PM
 #37

@FirstAscent

You have too many inaccurate statements here to point each out.

So are you saying that goods are provided better at the point of a gun?

Point out the inaccurate statements. Start a new thread if you wish. Or engage me via PM.
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 06:30:30 PM
 #38

@FirstAscent

You have too many inaccurate statements here to point each out.

So are you saying that goods are provided better at the point of a gun?

Point out the inaccurate statements. Start a new thread if you wish. Or engage me via PM.

Let's start with "Sometimes, and only temporarily."

No, competition always drives down price. That's basic logic. Monopoly prices are higher to maximize revenue if there is no one to offer an alternative.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
July 07, 2012, 06:36:16 PM
 #39

Let's start with "Sometimes, and only temporarily."

No, competition always drives down price. That's basic logic. Monopoly prices are higher to maximize revenue if there is no one to offer an alternative.

Incorrect. You need to understand the dynamics of X. Increased competition does not really increase supply. It only moves it from its source to the consumer. And once consumed, the actual supply is decreased further and permanently depleted. At best, you will see a temporary price decrease which will be more than offset by the future rise in prices due to the permanent total supply depletion available at the source. Again, your understanding of the full process is deficient.
Scott J
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile WWW
July 07, 2012, 06:37:42 PM
 #40

@FirstAscent

You have too many inaccurate statements here to point each out.

So are you saying that goods are provided better at the point of a gun?

Point out the inaccurate statements. Start a new thread if you wish. Or engage me via PM.

Let's start with "Sometimes, and only temporarily."

No, competition always drives down price. That's basic logic. Monopoly prices are higher to maximize revenue if there is no one to offer an alternative.
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.

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!