Topic: Taxation [discussion] - page 4. (Read 4042 times)

On the matter of public education: I'm going to assume you're from the west and/or live in a capitalistic society.

I believe we can both agree that monopolies are bad, yes?  Fall in quality, rise in price.  Assuming the state is an entity, like any other individual or company, why would it be appealing for the government to own almost every school?  Wouldn't different schools competing for the same prospective students aim to improve their quality of education at a reasonable price, as opposed to everyone paying for the same schools (whether or not you attend them, go to private schools, or home school,) owned by the same entity, providing a similar service without worry of losing customers (students.)

We can compare the quality of state-owned schools to privately-owned colleges to draw a conclusion.  I don't have data at hand, but, in my personal experience, my local high school was a death trap of bullies, avoiding the ghetto, and studying for the TAKS test (a state test) more than studying stuff that actually mattered.  If you can't afford private education or a parent who can stay at home to teach you, you are coerced into going to the state school; it's involuntary, and students, on average, suffer.  OTOH, my local college provides a phenomenal service and the professors are all marvelous; compared to high school, even my worst professors would've made good HS teachers.  It's a safe environment with a lot of nice folk (excluding this weird trend of shooting up schools we're having lately.)

Thus, I believe the question becomes, "How could the average person afford private schools?"  But then we must go into another topic; the quality of an individual's career.  Assuming people are continuing to work for near minimum wages, state schools appear to be a must.  Everything's interlinked and related, and it's a tricky subject, that of taxes.  It pretty much boils down to a dependency on government due to the removal of certain liberties (for whatever reason, but I'll assume they're all a form of, "It's for your safety/own good.")

You want the state to get my money, you advocate for the state, you feel that you benefit by the states existence. Therefore, you would personally gain from this.

What is this force you are talking about? Never mentioned one.
I'm talking about doing this out of free will.

But there will be a force coming for us, if we try to use Bitcoin as tax escape.

Why do you assume I want your money with his idea?
I don't want a personal gain from this, I want a gain for everybody.


Please reread the topic and count the insults towards me and the insults I have used.

If you really want to make the world a better place then advocating more coercion and calling others stupid is not the best way to start.

Correct, it's a bad idea all on its own.


Good for you, now make it a better place with your money. Leave mine out of your schemes.


Just because you don't know of/don't like any other way doesn't make this statement true.


Says the guy who wants our money to fund his ideas.

I was expecting a lot of resistance to this idea, but I didn't expect that amount of hate.

States do exist for a reason, because you are stronger, if you are not alone.
Despite all the negative things happening in those we still have states, because there is some benefit to it.

I'm not an "old folk" btw.

Come on dude, that first P.S. was really unnecessary.

How about a better idea:

If you think we can do things better by pooling our money together, why don't you CONVINCE me that it's worth my (our) money. You know, instead of building the abuse into the system.

If it's really better for everyone, why do you have to do it by force?

You are throwing too much stuff into one pot. Just, because people messed up a lot of things in public education doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm thinking a great deal about how we could make the world a better place.
You just want to classify me as unthinking manipulated robot, because you don't care to do so. I think you have a big problem trusting other people (maybe because you were disappointed a lot?).



I see, but the world is getting closer together every day. I know people don't want to embrace paying money, but there is no other way.

Indeed a lot of people think they are the victim/ are just doing what they have the right to do while robbing others. My guess is, you are one of them.

Hey Birdy buddy, you sound dumb.

You want a tax, which literally means "let's pool our money together and decide together what to do with it". But you're dumb, about as dumb as a monkey. I don't want to pool my money with a monkey and then negotiate with him what to do with it. What if he wants to eat the money? Or throw it away? Or build bombs?

Screw you, you can take my money from my cold dead hands.


P.S. nothing personal, I don't know you I'm just trying to make a point.

P.S.S. Pro-tip: never assume that new technology has to adapt to old folks like you. Usually new technology presents a new world which is different than the old.

Statist jibber jabber... it's everywhere. BUT WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS??!

If the internet sales tax law shit goes through, bitcoin is going to see one hell of a bump.

So those who don't wish to be robbed are the real robbers. Orwellian doublespeak at its best.

I was basically saying the 2 communities would be separate and mutually exclusive.  Therefore you wouldn't be paying for the people that want to live alone & they wouldn't be able to use your services.  Kinda of like France vs Somalia.  Regardless, good luck supporting this alt chain.  I think very few people would choose an alt chain where random people take money out of their accounts, but to each their own.

Previous robbery is not a justification for future robbery. I thought that was pretty obvious even for a person with public education.
People were less educated in the past because they were poorer, not because private education sucked.
States didn't take over because their way was superior, but because education is the key to control the youth and thus
the whole population over time. And because they could (by force), of course.

Anybody with eyes can see that public education has been a disaster. It's insanely expensive, doesn't give useful skills to the students
(for the most part), and it produces unthinking robots (like you) who are easily manipulated.

We essentially are paying for those that are not willing to contribute, so they rob us of money
Unless they are erimits.

I see that a lot of people here are are very ego-centric and it will be very difficult to agree on something.
But there are benefits to gain, if we do.

The other taxes are erased automatically by switching to Bitcoin, because there are no taxation rules for this yet.
You can also wait until there are taxation rules for Bitcoins, but I don't think it will be better.

We all have different levels of what we are willing to contribute to support a community.  Some people would rather live alone on their own without having to deal with taxes.  And others would prefer the state of things now.  I don't have a problem with either option, but bitcoin should support both.  Integrating a tax model will only cater to one of those groups.

A flat amount will not work due to the nature of Bitcoin, so we can only work with %.

The steps to do so wouldn't be that hard.
Once we have agreed on an amount (let's say 10%), we implement the system in all clients. If a majority accepts this change (think of this: We would actually be able to vote how much we want to pay!), the states only need to say yes and can obtain money.

Nope.

How would giving them more money lessen their abilities? You think they would just say "Hey thanks, now we can erase these other taxes"?
Things don't work that way. Btw the only fair tax rate is zero, in my opinion.