TheTinyDot - Showing how a small part of the population controls the rest to pay taxes etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs#!
Topic: Why are people so eager to pay tax? - page 7. (Read 13586 times)
I do have issue when someone steals from me under threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned. That part people seem to gloss over as a necessary evil to get all of those free goodies.
Ah, the impeccable logic of a seventeen year-old. But you see, lots of people stay outside society. They are not kidnapped and brought back en masse. So that reasoning falls already on the premises.
But they are still people who legally have to pay income tax on their earnings or else they will go to jail. Staying out of society just means you are good at evading your kidnappers for a while.
Quote
True, you can't pick and choose. You can't go "I want this road, but not that one - heart surgery but not hand surgery" which would be a great deal more bureaucratic and expensive. That why we go with a baseline instead, which is indeed remarkably different across societies and leaves plenty of room for arguments, but all civilizations has had one and for a very good reason.
Logic.
Logic.
But you can choose if you want heart surgery but not hand surgery. For a little bit longer medical treatment is still private.
Again, it falls back to what government provides instead of acknowledging that the money comes via force.
Both are entitled to use any services for which they are eligible. As they should be...
So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?
Correct. There is no general link between paying income tax and being able to use government services. Many policies, for example social security for blind children and mental health services, benefit people who will never pay a cent of income tax in their lives and cost way more in government money than healthy people.
Ok, that is fine. I just see far too often people complaining that using Bitcoin to not pay taxes should result in that person not being able to use any of the government services. As if it is hypocritical.
But when it comes down to it, the theft is what I have issue with. Not what you do with the loot. I am not against government services, though I believe it can be done more efficiently if paid per use, but if the money is gained voluntarily then I have no issue with it.
I do have issue when someone steals from me under threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned. That part people seem to gloss over as a necessary evil to get all of those free goodies.
The goodies are not free and doing what is necessary to pay for them is not evil. For example, coast guard staff must be paid salaries and people who live 1000s of miles from the sea must pay a share of those salaries just as much as people who live near it and actually benefit.
I do have issue when someone steals from me under threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned. That part people seem to gloss over as a necessary evil to get all of those free goodies.
Ah, the impeccable logic of a seventeen year-old. But you see, lots of people stay outside society. They are not kidnapped and brought back en masse. So that reasoning falls already on the premises.
True, you can't pick and choose. You can't go "I want this road, but not that one - heart surgery but not hand surgery" which would be a great deal more bureaucratic and expensive. That why we go with a baseline instead, which is indeed remarkably different across societies and leaves plenty of room for arguments, but all civilizations has had one and for a very good reason.
Logic.
Both are entitled to use any services for which they are eligible. As they should be...
So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?
Correct. There is no general link between paying income tax and being able to use government services. Many policies, for example social security for blind children and mental health services, benefit people who will never pay a cent of income tax in their lives and cost way more in government money than healthy people.
Ok, that is fine. I just see far too often people complaining that using Bitcoin to not pay taxes should result in that person not being able to use any of the government services. As if it is hypocritical.
But when it comes down to it, the theft is what I have issue with. Not what you do with the loot. I am not against government services, though I believe it can be done more efficiently if paid per use, but if the money is gained voluntarily then I have no issue with it.
I do have issue when someone steals from me under threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned. That part people seem to gloss over as a necessary evil to get all of those free goodies.
Bitcoin is the first store of value that you can send anonymously, digitally, and without involving central authorities. None of your other examples are as useful.
Sure, that's correct but it's not really the whole picture. Cash in an envolope works too. And it's quite hard to acquire Bitcoins anonymously unless you buy it for cash from someone local.
But Bitcoin is unique in its cheap international transactions, while still being somewhat pseudonymous, I'll give you that. I just don't see the potential in anonymous tax-avoidance as something groundbreaking compared to its other virtues.
Of course, if you can keep all your trading in a closed system, that would be very difficult to impossible to tax correctly. But that's nothing intrinsic to Bitcoins. In fact, whatever else you can trade in such as gold, cash, collectibles, seashells or whatever, is probably more suited for avoiding taxes since you don't have to worry about the public ledger.
Bitcoin is the first store of value that you can send anonymously, digitally, and without involving central authorities. None of your other examples are as useful.
People put way too much emphasis on Bitcoin's public ledger. You only need one honest wallet/mixer like EasyWallet, a Silk Road account or a dedicated mixer like BitcoinFog to make your coins untraceable. Using multiple such services in a row means you are safe provided any one service didn't keep logs.
You may not be able to use Bitcoin to avoid taxes legally, but from a practical point of view as long as you can still conduct Bitcoin transactions anonymously you can use Bitcoin to avoid taxes.
Of course, if you can keep all your trading in a closed system, that would be very difficult to impossible to tax correctly. But that's nothing intrinsic to Bitcoins. In fact, whatever else you can trade in such as gold, cash, collectibles, seashells or whatever, is probably more suited for avoiding taxes since you don't have to worry about the public ledger.
Both are entitled to use any services for which they are eligible. As they should be...
So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?
Correct. There is no general link between paying income tax and being able to use government services. Many policies, for example social security for blind children and mental health services, benefit people who will never pay a cent of income tax in their lives and cost way more in government money than healthy people.
Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?
Nope. It doesn't have that property.Don't be pedantic.
You may not be able to use Bitcoin to avoid taxes legally, but from a practical point of view as long as you can still conduct Bitcoin transactions anonymously you can use Bitcoin to avoid taxes. The Blockchain may be public, but provided the likes of Mike Hearn don't succeed in getting blacklists and similar 'taint' concepts implemented ways to transact anonymously will continue to exist.
It would be better if core developers stay out of politics rather than keep trying to insist that Bitcoin has nothing to do with taxes or illegal activity.
Ahh ok, I didn't know that, I assumed they had a bloody revolution same as everywhere else, understandable the confusion mix with kokjo now.
He just left out the Saxon's (germans) taking over Denmark in the 1400's (the nobles chose a saxon king to avoid war) and he also left out the wars with sweden, norway (oops, not denmark) and germany since then.
And the 1848 revolution was threatening to get bloody but the king decided to fold and appease the angry landlords.
You misread the image. Its income tax only that they don't pay. The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low. For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.
The lousy scumbag thief! What right does he have to keep his income so low that he pays no income tax? He should be forced to work at a productive job! What gives him the right to be a parasite on society and work those low-paying jobs that should be reserved for children?
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?
Tell you what.
Abolish all taxes beyond the local (city or county) level.
Expel or assimilate non-local service providers providing service in the local area.
Institute "pay cost" for use on all services provided by non-local entities.
Then we can talk about greed.
Until then, the greedy who want me to pay for their services can take a flying leap.
That's exactly what this guy is trying to do in Nevada. I'm moving there if he succeeds.
All you heroes who want to avoid taxes are not making any friends with those of us who must make up for your greed. Do you think all the services you use are free?
Tell you what.
Abolish all taxes beyond the local (city or county) level.
Expel or assimilate non-local service providers providing service in the local area.
Institute "pay cost" for use on all services provided by non-local entities.
Then we can talk about greed.
Until then, the greedy who want me to pay for their services can take a flying leap.
I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.
You misread the image. Its income tax only that they don't pay. The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low. For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.
So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?
No, it's those people that are less skilled, less intelligent, and less strong.
So, do they not use government services?
The stronger make their life a misery, so it compensates.
So it is ok to get government services without paying for them?
Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.
If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes. There are plenty around.
If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes. There are plenty around.
I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.
You misread the image. Its income tax only that they don't pay. The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low. For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security.
So those people do not want to contribute their fair share?
No, it's those people that are less skilled, less intelligent, and less strong.
So, do they not use government services?
The stronger make their life a misery, so it compensates.
Oil companies get military escorts for their tankers and skate from taxes every year.
Why would you pay for that?
I think the proper question is why do oil companies not pay?
Exactly, if an oil company wants a government service, they should just pay for that service instead of making the rest of us pay for it.
Oil companies get military escorts for their tankers and skate from taxes every year.
Why would you pay for that?
I think the proper question is why do oil companies not pay?
about Denmark: civil rights was introduced gradually from 1788 to 1800 for the farmer population, the non land owners. From the age of 4 until the age of 40 you was obliged to live and work in the shire they were born in as the property of the local count!
The end of monarchy as the only political power happend in 1841 as the king, Frederik the 7'th, didn't care much about politics and the elitist citizen group demanded that he stepped down. A rally was organized and when they reached the royal castle (the current parliament), Frederik the 7'th responded by the famous words: "I'm happy to announce that your current demands have already been met and the royal ministry have already been dissolved".
I guess he was scared by what was happening around Europe. Denmark had the whimpist "revolution" by far. following this, power was divided between the 152 members of the first constitutional assembly. The division in social classes was apparent in selecting the domains of governmental institutions.
The current ruling party today "Socialdemokraterne" originated in 1871 as a socialist union movement fighting police in the streets. However today, Denmark living on the mercy of strict monetary policies, together with the rest of Europe and the fact that budgets are always agreed upon with the opposition, means that the notion of Denmark as a "socialist country" is nothing but a sour insult to the lefties around here!
Because of that, Socialdemokraterne today have a historical low public support, only around 15% as of yesterday. The same as in 1898.
The end of monarchy as the only political power happend in 1841 as the king, Frederik the 7'th, didn't care much about politics and the elitist citizen group demanded that he stepped down. A rally was organized and when they reached the royal castle (the current parliament), Frederik the 7'th responded by the famous words: "I'm happy to announce that your current demands have already been met and the royal ministry have already been dissolved".
I guess he was scared by what was happening around Europe. Denmark had the whimpist "revolution" by far. following this, power was divided between the 152 members of the first constitutional assembly. The division in social classes was apparent in selecting the domains of governmental institutions.
The current ruling party today "Socialdemokraterne" originated in 1871 as a socialist union movement fighting police in the streets. However today, Denmark living on the mercy of strict monetary policies, together with the rest of Europe and the fact that budgets are always agreed upon with the opposition, means that the notion of Denmark as a "socialist country" is nothing but a sour insult to the lefties around here!
Because of that, Socialdemokraterne today have a historical low public support, only around 15% as of yesterday. The same as in 1898.
Ahh ok, I didn't know that, I assumed they had a bloody revolution same as everywhere else, understandable the confusion mix with kokjo now.
So...some people who do not pay income taxes should be eligible to use government services?
Oil companies get military escorts for their tankers and skate from taxes every year.
Why would you pay for that?
Jump to: