If it’s a double tax, then that’s an unfair tax. I was thinking that as long as my safecoins remain on the SAFE network, then it would be unfair for the government to demand tax. But if I convert lots of safecoins into real money, then there is capital gains tax or what it’s called. I think that’s a fair tax, but I could be wrong.
1 Like
By using crypto-currencies, you do agree that taxation is theft even if you disagree politically. If you don’t like it, then please do continue to use fiat money.
2 Likes
Is inflation a fair tax?
How about 0 or negative interest rates?
There are many other examples.
Until they return in gold what they’ve stolen from me so far, I claim the right to recover what was taken from me.
1 Like
Tax on converting safecoins into dollars etc may be fair or unfair, I don’t know, but as the laws in many countries are today, there is capital gains tax on that I think. If that’s an unfair tax it needs to be changed, but as long as the tax exists it has to be paid. Sure, for small amounts governments don’t care about that, but when huge profits are made then people are expected to pay tax.
My bitcoin has 10% gst “goods and service” tax, a exchange is tax by selling a product and the tax is passed onto me on the price I pay for bitcoin. so really only the fiat is taxed because btc is worthless until I exchange it into fiat value.
“If I pay $600 for an iPad in Australia, then $550 is paid to Apple Ireland and out of the $550, $220 is not taxed anywhere in the world,” Dr Ting explained.
“So that means basically around 40 per cent of the payments we make to buy Apple products in Australia has escaped Australian tax and at the same time escaped tax anywhere in the world.”
So the point really is that “law abiding” is not a virtue. You are saying that people get to determine what is fair and unfair. This means that, actually, the value you place on “law abiding” is junior to the value you place on determining what is fair and unfair, and then acting accordingly–if you can get away with it. I agree. But what about people who are in prison because they didn’t pay taxes–didn’t consider they should have to, lied to avoid paying what they didn’t want to contribute, whatever? Is their punishment “fair”? Also, what about the people who pay, not because they think it is fair, but because they are afraid of being hounded and/or imprisoned, or even simply being called a “tax cheat” by others? Who’s to judge what’s fair? If the judge is anyone other than the person paying, it’s theft, or at least extortion. Do you see the contradiction in your terminology?
1 Like
The size of your bank account determines what is fair and what is unfair. The tax law can be open for interruption of the law a company knows to bring there own case to a trail where a citizen defends the charges laid against them.
I’m sorry. I’ve read this over carefully several times and I can’t make any sense out of it. Are you saying that it is somehow “unfair” to have a large bank balance?
I can’t get any anchor on the second sentence to even ask a question as to what you mean.
Could you be more clear? We are, after all, talking ultimately about using force to part someone with money that they may consider that they have earned fairly and in a voluntary fashion.
2 Likes
There is a lot of subjectivity involved in taxes. From a systemic socioeconomic perspective one can argue that in developed countries, the tax is reasonably fair due to the democratic processes that have established them.
Is it fair to put someone in prison because of tax fraud? Personally I would say no, and instead a fine should be used. Is it fair for someone to pay an unfair tax just out of fear of being punished? No, but many people are just greedy as hell so governments need to be a bit tough. 
Democratic policies are not necessarily fair. There was a Civil Rights movement for a reason. Democratic governments oppressed minorities. Democratic governments can tax whomever they choose, but there is no requirement that any law that is passed is fair.
2 Likes
I’d have to say that politicians and bureaucrats are among the most susceptible to that sort of greed. After all, the most profitable investments corporations can make is to buy (or at least rent) politicians and bureaucrats, i.e., those who institute and implement taxes and regulations.
That dynamic tends to subvert any democratic process. But even if the democratic process is done above board it is still corrupt if it enforces that money be taken from people to enact things that they personally find morally reprehensible. For example, money for wars from a pacifist, money for abortions from a “pro-lifer” or tax exempt status for churches that support a “pro-life” campaign “on the backs” of people who believe in abortion.
Everybody stealing from everybody for things that somebody always finds morally reprehensible is a flawed philosophical model. Saying the “there is a lot of subjectivity involved in taxes” is exactly true. It’s subjective mush that covers the acceptability of a violent institution that we just accept because “everybody knows it’s just that way.”
I’m not saying exactly what should be done about it except that if we’re going to tolerate it, at least we can call the practice by it’s right name. If money is collected by initiating a treat of force or violence, it’s theft, whatever else it may be called. Wouldn’t you agree?
5 Likes
Indeed, money collected by the threat of force against the owner’s will is theft.
1 Like
I believe in the government providing a strong social safety net. And I also want individual freedom. So at the moment (no technological singularity yet) there are compromises needed. I would like to see Donald Trump winning the U.S. presidential election 2016. I disagree with Trump about some things like the huge wall and things like that. The important thing however is that Trump will not be manipulated by special interest money. And also, I have the hope that Trump actually will make a radical change that will benefit the whole world. Although I thought Barack Obama would be good too, but something like Obamacare is horrible I think (benefits insurance companies, not the people).
Well. You’re actually the first person I’ve heard saying they hope Trump wins.
So, the problem with big centralised governments is that it always comes with lots of power for a few. And power-hungry people are the ones working hardest to get that power. They’re the ones willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to maintain or grow their status and anyone with morals doesn’t really stand a chance. Power is the problem - whether it’s in a capitalist or socialist state. And even if somehow the most morally sound person became president or whatever, humans still make mistakes. Central points of failure are a huge weakness especially when they control so many aspects of life.
Social services overall are not a bad idea and can be beneficial at a small enough scale where power is decentralised. For example without a state, it would be simple enough for a local community to pool together funds for a few doctors to serve the community. People who couldn’t pay as much or perhaps are in need of seeing a doctor more frequent than most but couldn’t afford extra would be able to work with the community to come to an agreement.
2 Likes
Trump is actually more to the center politically than what it may seem at first. And his political incorrectness and outrageous statements, although sincere, look like a verbal “pro wrestling” show to me. Not something to take too seriously. We will see what happens. My prediction is that Trump will start to move a bit to the left soon. He started with some popular right-wing ideas to get those supporters and later he will attract “Reagan Democrats” and other people more to the left with ideas similar to single-payer healthcare. But that’s just my guess.
Bernie Sanders is interesting too, but he is too much of an establishment politician it seems to me. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are total special interest crony capitalism puppets.
LOL.
What do you think, how does the government get the money and other resources to provide for your safety net, if not by coercing people who “want individual freedom” to give it up?
It’s sad that so many years into this collapse of Western socialism people not only haven’t learned anything, but have reinforced their original ignorant views on freedom and economics.
5 Likes
The only way we ever have individual freedom in society is with an incredibly strong safetynet, one that keeps people from being coreced over money. One that makes work of any kind completely voluntary but regardless provides a good quality of life. Its a society with a right to be idle,
A fair tax rate for people claiming more than 20 million a year in income in the US would be 96% on all all income plus an additional 5% tax on their total assets, no loopholes ever. If they do business in the US they will pay the full amount into the US tax system or be barred from doing business of any kind in the US for 10 years per offense.
Try to flee with the wealth and incur a 96% tax on all assets. Campaign contributions from any source would be considered bribery and a felony with automatic minimum sentence for all involved.
People might say these taxes are outrageous but is someone made a billion in a year the might still retain 40 million. But say they also had 200 million in assets. They’d pay 10 million on that. 30 million net.
Okay Warren…
So what is a fair living. 80k?
So pretend I am a farmer. I have tractors to maintain, fuel to buy, seed to buy, weather to pray for, long hours tilling planting and harvesting. Prices might be up, they might be down, I might have a good crop, I might have a lousy crop, often all of this is caused by things I have zero control over. In a good year I might earn 100k or so. In a bad year I lose big.
If I can get a nice government check for 80k or so, why would I take the risk to run my farm? You yourself said it should be entirely voluntary, and the government should give me a good living wage even if I don’t work, right.
So when I take that nice government check to the store, what is it going to buy? Bread? Bacon? Oranges?
Why would anyone make those? It’s much safer to just collect the government check. Less risk, And you took away the chance of any substantial reward anyway.
Money is just a proxy for work accomplished. If nobody works, money isn’t worth anything because there is nothing to buy with it.
1 Like
80K might have a true zero tax, might be able to get rid of all other forms of tax except that levied on the quite rich. I do see a cliff in the graduation otherwise but that’s ok. I also think getting rid of all other taxes removes a sense of contribution and could allow for dangerious and inaccurate contribution/ patron claimes by the rich, which would reverse the proper psychological effect of destroying the distraction of money and the barring of the pursuit of money for its own sake.
As for farming, its in some people’s blood, they’d literally pay to do it, but in this case they can still turn a profit and keep a chunk, lest they start hitting 20 million a year, then they might take a pretty steep tax hike. I’ve seen some radical farming concepts- two rails and a gantry robot tends a long row of crop doing everything imaginable, it can take on an automated assembly line format even outside.
Funny thing about people who grow up in a society where they don’t stress over money is taxes don’t bug them much either. They can take their generous dole, or get a quite comfortable middle class income without having to get stressed out or go plus sized if they hit the mother load, but if they cash it and/or the asset is sufficient they also hit the tax spike- could still be worth it in some cases. Even with the tax spike its likely to be a good income, but greed is disincentivised.
The best thing Obama did is successfullt raising taxes on the wealthy, in his last couple years.But he didn’t make noise about it so the gun is still loaded as if it were never fired to do it again as we must.
80K * 180 million adults = close to the entire GDP of the US. There isn’t enough money for that.
As always - and what socialists never comprehend - “needs” (real or perceived) are always bigger than the resources (which is why we need to economize)…
1 Like