minitel stopped because we stopped using it.
If you stop using USD for bitcoin your government will take tax in bitcoin
In Zimbabwe they stop using their currency and start using dollars even to pay taxes because nobody there was fool enough to use a 10000% inflation currency.
Topic: The taxation argument and the french Minitel (Read 987 times)
What the government does or does not is something that we decide. The government does not dictate the direction society should take. It should merely follows it. And to do so it often has to adapt.
That's the theory and it is often a tad different in practice. Why would a government support a currency other than its own, undermine its value? The governments hate competition, that's why USA banned Liberty Dollars (ok, there was a bit more to it than just competition). But I think it is enough to look at USA's reactions at countries abandoning USD as a currency for international trade transactions (especially oil).
Not to mention BTC is not somethings the govts. can control, regulate, print or easily ban, and govts actually want more power to assert dominance and control over their citizens.
Even if the government accepted bitcoin I am not paying taxes until we have a real democracy again, A democracy where people vote for individual legislation not for Corporate sponsored dictators once every 4 years.
I should choose where my tax contributions are spent, I have no problem contributing to hospitals, schools and roads but I will not pay for an elite of MP's Lords, Judges and bankers, I will not pay for Bail outs of failed banks, Ian Duncan Smiths £39 taxpayer funded breakfast, I will not pay for George Osbourns 2nd OR 3rd home, I will not pay for wars started in aggression for resources.
Fuck Statism, my thoughts on Taxs - Do not feed the beast, Don't pay for your childrens enslavement.
We do not forgive,
We do not forget,
We are legion,
Expect us
/Rant
I should choose where my tax contributions are spent, I have no problem contributing to hospitals, schools and roads but I will not pay for an elite of MP's Lords, Judges and bankers, I will not pay for Bail outs of failed banks, Ian Duncan Smiths £39 taxpayer funded breakfast, I will not pay for George Osbourns 2nd OR 3rd home, I will not pay for wars started in aggression for resources.
Fuck Statism, my thoughts on Taxs - Do not feed the beast, Don't pay for your childrens enslavement.
We do not forgive,
We do not forget,
We are legion,
Expect us
/Rant
This tax argument has two aspects to it:
1. Network effect: When you have to pay taxes in dollars, this creates a strong network effect because everybody needs dollars to pay their taxes, which makes it hard for another currency to compete.
2. Backing by legislation: Money and state have always been much more intertwined as most libertarians would like to believe. The ability to collecting USD debt is backed by state force. That's why many see alternative currencies merely as play money. So someone owes you BTC, so what? See pirateat40 at al.
1. Network effect: When you have to pay taxes in dollars, this creates a strong network effect because everybody needs dollars to pay their taxes, which makes it hard for another currency to compete.
2. Backing by legislation: Money and state have always been much more intertwined as most libertarians would like to believe. The ability to collecting USD debt is backed by state force. That's why many see alternative currencies merely as play money. So someone owes you BTC, so what? See pirateat40 at al.
The USA government is more akin to an empire at the moment, and no one tells an empire what to do, not even its subjects.
The French people have always been (historically) more powerful towards their government. But in an age where the western world looks to the USA as an example, all I can see are dark times ahead.
The French people have always been (historically) more powerful towards their government. But in an age where the western world looks to the USA as an example, all I can see are dark times ahead.
What the government does or does not is something that we decide. The government does not dictate the direction society should take. It should merely follows it. And to do so it often has to adapt.
The government should not have absolute command, but it does. This is especially true in the USA. The USA is dominated by their government, and it exists for its own sake as well as for the nation. Please tell me of a government that serves, that is what they should do, but none do this. All governments, either democratic, communist or dictatorship, they all command and control. They are beacons of power and the ultimate authority. This is not right and just but it is reality.
Well, in my particular example, the government finally stopped supporting the minitel and started offering the same services on internet.
Also, I'm no expert on monetary history but IIRC the dollar originally was a currency used by people, derived from a german silver coin called the thaler. The word "quarter" for instance comes from a piece of this coin, that was cut in four.
What the government does or does not is something that we decide. The government does not dictate the direction society should take. It should merely follows it. And to do so it often has to adapt.
The government should not have absolute command, but it does. This is especially true in the USA. The USA is dominated by their government, and it exists for its own sake as well as for the nation. Please tell me of a government that serves, that is what they should do, but none do this. All governments, either democratic, communist or dictatorship, they all command and control. They are beacons of power and the ultimate authority. This is not right and just but it is reality.
Often we hear from bitcoin opponents the taxation argument. In a nutshell: « USD has value at least because you can pay your taxes with it. You can't do that in bitcoins. »
I'll try to forget a minute that I'm not too happy about having to pay taxes on my income, as I think there is a much less political way to tackle this argument anyway. Basically, it just consists of reminding people that the Law, and how the government works, is supposed to be something that we agree on. It is not supposed to be some external power we should comply to with no control whatsoever. It's not a force of nature like earthquakes or asteroids. It's nothing more than a convention.
Let me take an exemple. Before internet, in France there was the Minitel. It was a neat invention for the time. It was mostly a governmental project, and as such among the main uses of this thing, were many administrative, public services, like telephone indexes, meteorology, access to public data and whatnot. And among those things, I'm pretty sure there was the possibility to declare your income in order to pay income tax.
As a matter of fact, the Minitel was so useful for lots of stuff that it was still used by lots of people much after everyone realized it should all be replaced by internet. Actually, it was still used at the beginning of this century (I personally used one to get some results of an exam, for instance).
Anyway, my point: when the internet came in, some people could easily have said: "This internet thing sucks. You can't do X with internet, but you can with the minitel." Just replace X with whatever service was available on the minitel on that time, but not on internet (believe me, there were plenty). Whoever was making that claim was right in a sense, but totally wrong in an other.
Such a person would totally have failed to understand the meaning of the verb "can". Even if some service was not available at this very moment on internet, the technological features of internet made it so clearly superior to the minitel that it was quite clear that at some point, those services would eventually be available on internet.
Now, if people really love paying taxes, and if bitcoin becomes popular enough, there is nothing, at least conceptually, preventing the government to start accepting bitcoins as a payment of income tax.
What the government does or does not is something that we decide. The government does not dictate the direction society should take. It should merely follows it. And to do so it often has to adapt.
I'll try to forget a minute that I'm not too happy about having to pay taxes on my income, as I think there is a much less political way to tackle this argument anyway. Basically, it just consists of reminding people that the Law, and how the government works, is supposed to be something that we agree on. It is not supposed to be some external power we should comply to with no control whatsoever. It's not a force of nature like earthquakes or asteroids. It's nothing more than a convention.
Let me take an exemple. Before internet, in France there was the Minitel. It was a neat invention for the time. It was mostly a governmental project, and as such among the main uses of this thing, were many administrative, public services, like telephone indexes, meteorology, access to public data and whatnot. And among those things, I'm pretty sure there was the possibility to declare your income in order to pay income tax.
As a matter of fact, the Minitel was so useful for lots of stuff that it was still used by lots of people much after everyone realized it should all be replaced by internet. Actually, it was still used at the beginning of this century (I personally used one to get some results of an exam, for instance).
Anyway, my point: when the internet came in, some people could easily have said: "This internet thing sucks. You can't do X with internet, but you can with the minitel." Just replace X with whatever service was available on the minitel on that time, but not on internet (believe me, there were plenty). Whoever was making that claim was right in a sense, but totally wrong in an other.
Such a person would totally have failed to understand the meaning of the verb "can". Even if some service was not available at this very moment on internet, the technological features of internet made it so clearly superior to the minitel that it was quite clear that at some point, those services would eventually be available on internet.
Now, if people really love paying taxes, and if bitcoin becomes popular enough, there is nothing, at least conceptually, preventing the government to start accepting bitcoins as a payment of income tax.
What the government does or does not is something that we decide. The government does not dictate the direction society should take. It should merely follows it. And to do so it often has to adapt.
Jump to: