Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27675. (Read 26712678 times)

Never heard of it but its in Hong Kong and lists in pounds for me, does it detect your local currency ?

Just like in the US, the opposition party loves to blast the current government for overtaxing and wasting money.  Only to do even worse when they get to power.   

When they were in power, those neocons who set up the "impostômetro" created a huge public debt by borrowing money at 40% interest per year or more.  Even today, 12 years after they lost the national government, more than half of all the tax revenue goes to pay interest on that debt, which only keeps growing.  (THAT is real armed robbery, because if the government tried to reject that debt, even with popular support, it would probably be toppled in short time.)  Still, "taxing Dilma" stands a good chance of winning a second term, with support not only from the lower- and middle-class "parasites" but from business people in general.

Oh yeah - Brazilians love there tax regime - it's so efficient!
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/04/22/study-finds-brazils-state-to-be-tax-guzzling-inefficient/

You cannot stay one day in Brazil without hearing someone complain about high taxes and poor public services. According to this narrative, the prices of everything from cars to beauty products are inflated by opaque taxes even as the nation struggles with sub-standard hospitals, inadequate public transport and other services.

Now a study from a consulting company, Brazilian Institute of Planning and Taxation (IBPT), seems to bear out the common perception about Brazil’s tax burden. It ranked Brazil last in a list of the 30 countries judged by taxation versus quality of services.

Topping the list was the US, Australia and South Korea. Among emerging markets, Slovakia ranked 11th and Uruguay 13th. Surprisingly, even Argentina, with its problems with inflation and chaotic economic policies, ranked higher than Brazil.

The IBPT based its study on figures measuring the tax burden (government revenue relative to gross domestic product) from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) against the latest findings for the Human Development Index (HDI) of the United Nations Development Programme.

When Brazil returned from dictatorship to democracy in 1986, its tax burden was 22 per cent of GDP. Today this is over 36 per cent. Among its peers in the so-called BRICS group of large emerging nations, Russia’s tax burden is 23 per cent, China 20 per cent, India 13 per cent and South Africa 18 per cent.

Brazilians say they work five months a year to pay their taxes to the government. Now they are beginning to demand a return for their money. Last year, during nation-wide protests in June, citizens demanded “Fifa standard” hospitals, mimicking the international football organisation’s demands that Brazil build state-of-the-art stadiums for this year’s World Cup. But to some extent it is not only the government’s fault that Brazilians pay high taxes.

The problem is cultural. “It’s a problem of the government and the society. There is a mindset here that public resources belong to nobody. Brazilians don’t realize how much tax they actually pay,” says Carlos Melo, a political scientist at Insper.

Last year, the government passed a law forcing companies to spell out for consumers on receipts each tax included in their bill. In a receipt at a gas station at March this year, for example, from R$100 paid for the petrol, R$28.63 was taxes. “The state is too big and very inefficient, it raises a lot and ends up doing little,” says Melo.

The danger for the government will be when more Brazilians wake up to the problem. If the information on the receipts is not enough, the IBPT spells it out even more plainly in another initiative, the “impostômetro” - an electronic display in the centre of São Paulo that shows in real-time the amount of tax collected at any given moment for that year.

If Brazil’s government keeps growing at this rate, one wonders how many more “0″s the impostômetro will have to add to keep pace.

Explanation

Man, I realize that you're an intellectual guy and have made significant accomplishments in other fields, but I sincerely hope that the trust you gained in those arenas hasn't influenced people to assign value to your opinion on bitcoin. There's a high possibility (a certainty, if you wanted to use my opinion) that you are providing them terrible advice. I'll admit that it's generally healthy to approach things like bitcoin with skepticism, and people should be encouraged to do their due diligence on matters like these, but your conclusions go well beyond that.

This article is garbage. Sure you got most of the facts right, but you ignore a large part of the equation. The economy is all relative, and it's never stopped evolving at any point in human history. Bitcoin doesn't need to be without flaws to succeed, and it doesn't need to replace fiat. When comparing apples and oranges, pointing out the inconveniences associated with eating oranges does not justify sticking with apples. What if the apple becomes rotten and filled with worms? I'm guessing you'll happily peel that orange, not caring one bit how many rotten apples you could trade it for.

Bitcoin has flaws. There aren't many people with a deep understanding of the technology that would dispute that. What you're not taking into consideration is the fiat banking system has some monumental flaws that also risk its value going to zero if not addressed in time. The striking difference between the two is that bitcoin can be changed, copied, forked, and have services built on top it to address these things, while the alternative can only adjust the speed at which it approaches collapse. So you're correct that bitcoin, in the current form has near 0 chance of replacing fiat as a result of it's superiority and consumer trust, you're wrong that it needs those things in order to do so.

Something which an academic should know. Especially one paid with public money.

People twist, bend and distort the facts in order to reinforce rather than challenge their own world view and entrenched dogmatic academics are people.

LOL. Fair point - I didn't understand what you were talking about.  I don't think the fact that I didn't know what a nota fiscal is, and that you seem somehow proud that you could scare a half street full of vendors into shutting up shop because you were waving them, really undermines my point.

So you don't like crypto and you don't use fiat - you're a nota fiscal fan?

Tax Inspector! Tax Inspector!

Most intelligent people 300 years ago thought people could be owned, leeches were medicine, and that outer space was filled with ether. The logical fallacy you are making is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum. 

You stole someone's lunch in order to respond to my stupid post.

That's condescending as fuck. You're trying to imply that, agreeing with public services and charging taxes to fund them, is a prerequisite for being intelligent. That's absolute and utter bullshit.

BTW people please don't think he represents academics in general. I'm one and I take great offense.

There are some professors in our public universities who think that they should be privatized, and then charge fees that only the rich could pay.  But they stand no chance of prevailing, because that would require a change in the Constitution which was written by a popular Assembly, and would have to go through Congress whose members elected by the people would not risk their voters' wrath by doing that.  On the contrary, politicians who improve and expand public education have had a big advantage in elections.

Guess what: most intelligent people understand that government and public services are a good thing, and that taxes are necessary to have them.  Even if each man would rather pay no taxes himslelf, usually he wants other people to pay taxes, votes for candidates who are in favor of taxes in general, and has no sympathy at all for those who try to evade taxes, no matter how technolgically clever are their tricks.  It is the tax evaders, not the government, who are stealing from the (tax-paying) people.

Well, I believe that my work as teacher, as bad as it is, is infinitely more productive than running internet gambling sites, writing computer games, and many other "private industry" things. 

And, by the way, I did work in industry too (during my undergrad years, and after my Ph.D.) And industry did fund some of my research.

just numbers on a computer right? wait a minute......


heh

So far, so good.

An empty promise!!    No gold or precious metals backing it,no material assets backing it.............nothing 

the bank note is a promise

Statements like the one quoted below get me everytime. Isn't this statement also true for every central bank fiat currency, IE the USD? The USD is only worth what we believe its worth, in that what we are willing to trade for the $1.


If anyone has better insight as to why or how this statement is true for bitcoin, but not for fiat. Please, please let me know. I'm awaiting enlightenment

No surprise there - after all we've already witnessed your remarkable ability to twist, bend and distort the facts in order to reinforce rather than challenge your own world view.  It seems quite a common trait amongst entrenched dogmatic academics.

Explanation

Yes.  Jorge thinks bitcoin is a dangerous ponzi and makes an argument there by first presenting a stawman argument in the form of an extreme false dichotomy.

Is this news?  He has seemed fairly transparent in his views of bitcoin.

I personally think he is wrong.

But who knows?