Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins? - page 7.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 12:53:31 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 12:48:56 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 07:53:09 AM

The arbitrator would evaluate the economic value of the development and if it was high enough, tell the hold-outs to yield up possession.

No arbiter is going to force people off their land.

...snip...

There is a market in arbitrators. Ones that are pro-growth will have an advantage. Certainly they will tell people to sell. The actual forcing off the land will be done by defence agencies.

No. No arbiter is going to order aggression. Not and keep getting customers. Are you going to address my examples?

Sorry that's not your decision. If someone is costing someone else money, an arbitrator will take the case on.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 12:48:56 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 07:53:09 AM

The arbitrator would evaluate the economic value of the development and if it was high enough, tell the hold-outs to yield up possession.

No arbiter is going to force people off their land.

...snip...

There is a market in arbitrators. Ones that are pro-growth will have an advantage. Certainly they will tell people to sell. The actual forcing off the land will be done by defence agencies.

No. No arbiter is going to order aggression. Not and keep getting customers. Are you going to address my examples?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 12:48:56 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 07:53:09 AM

The arbitrator would evaluate the economic value of the development and if it was high enough, tell the hold-outs to yield up possession.

No arbiter is going to force people off their land.

...snip...

There is a market in arbitrators. Ones that are pro-growth will have an advantage. Certainly they will tell people to sell. The actual forcing off the land will be done by defence agencies.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 11:34:45 AM

...snip...

To be honest, I'm not even sure you're right here. Whenever I've gone to the Emergency room with no money, I get a bill. If I don't pay it, which I didn't in one case, it went on my credit and ruined it. It was never paid by the taxpayer as far as I know.

So if you can't pay what happens? My understanding is that they have to treat you.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 07:53:09 AM

The arbitrator would evaluate the economic value of the development and if it was high enough, tell the hold-outs to yield up possession.

No arbiter is going to force people off their land. At best, he'll specify the value of the land. "I don't want to sell" is a valid statement for any property. In other words, Build around them. Leave them the fuck alone.

Now, you specify that you want to find a solution that ends conflict. Do you really? Or do you want to find a solution that lets you get your way? Let's look at which of our proposed solutions really ends the conflict on the matter.

Your solution:
Group A wants to build a road/railway/whatever through Group B's land. They take a vote, and Group A ends up in the majority. But before construction can begin, Group B gets up a petition, and forces another vote. This time, Group B ends up in the majority. Group A does the same. and so forth. Conflict not resolved, just continued using proxies.

My solution:
Group A wants to build a road/railway/whatever through Group B's land. Group B says no. Group A decides to leave them the fuck alone, and builds around Group B. The road is built, nobody got forced out of their homes, and the conflict is resolved.

dancupid

hero member

Activity: 955

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 11:07:40 AM

Quote from: dancupid on July 08, 2012, 10:55:52 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2012, 04:08:23 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

No of course he didn't ..........

I give up. You guys are just too retarded to understand or too lazy to try and I not your prent nor your kindergarten teacher, nor a policitian trying to convert you. Good luck figuring it out (maybe e-reading my post in chronological order will help).

Good night

We understand. You don't want to have to pay for health care. But you do want health care. What's not to understand?

You don't have to pay for health care in the UK - a homeless person can walk into a hospital and will receive full health care - they don't ask for id or anything. Access to health care is not conditional on providing anything.

For a homeless person, he is taxed when he spends money. Its 20% VAT on his goods except cigarettes and alcohol where he pays over 60%.

You may think that 20% tax on all his spending is not much but he has been doing it since he first got pocket money and will carry on doing it until he dies. Even if he never pays a penny income tax in his life, he pays for his health care through alcohol, cigarettes and VAT.

VAT isn't National Insurance - he pays for walking on the roads, and being hassled by the police - but he doesn't pay for health care (other than paying for educating children who will eventually become doctors). I have no problem with this btw. I think health care is a human right - like education.

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: doobadoo on July 08, 2012, 11:38:02 AM

Quote from: bitdragon on July 06, 2012, 10:32:36 AM

I consider Bitcoins to provide Capital gains and those is not taxed where I live.

Where on this wonderful earth is it capital gains free? And why don't all the hedgefunders move there?

plenty of places, and they have.

doobadoo

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitdragon on July 06, 2012, 10:32:36 AM

I consider Bitcoins to provide Capital gains and those is not taxed where I live.

Where on this wonderful earth is it capital gains free? And why don't all the hedgefunders move there?

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 11:31:05 AM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 11:27:03 AM

...snip...

If taxpayers get shafted for Emergency room visits, that's the fault of a government mandate that you would support, not the fault of the voluntary health insurance.

Well if you take that part away, then your case starts to make sense. Have you any proposals on how to take it away when your compatriots seem to keep voting in politicians who promise never to remove it?

To be honest, I'm not even sure you're right here. Whenever I've gone to the Emergency room with no money, I get a bill. If I don't pay it, which I didn't in one case, it went on my credit and ruined it. It was never paid by the taxpayer as far as I know.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 11:27:03 AM

...snip...

If taxpayers get shafted for Emergency room visits, that's the fault of a government mandate that you would support, not the fault of the voluntary health insurance.

Well if you take that part away, then your case starts to make sense. Have you any proposals on how to take it away when your compatriots seem to keep voting in politicians who promise never to remove it?

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 09:53:33 AM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 09:39:39 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 09:32:51 AM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 09:25:06 AM

...snip...

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts. The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies. The patent holders don't have published price lists. The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged. The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option. It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs. Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

Who said anything about "compulsory insurance"? - that IS a tax.

Our American system is screwed up for the same reason that yours is - forcing people to pay for shit they don't want. Prescription drugs are just another example of government interference creating rising costs.

How about just plain old private health insurance? VOLUNTARY health insurance that if you don't buy its your own fucking fault?

Our system is fine. Really look at the charts. We have better health care than you and it costs about half as much.

Voluntary health insurance is a free-loaders scheme. You guys insist that emergency rooms treat regardless of whether or not someone has insurance. That means the taxpayer gets shafted.

It all comes back to what I said - people have to pay for their care. I have no sympathy with the idea of "voluntary" when it means that I as taxpayer end up paying the bill.

Can you edit this idiot statement:

"Voluntary health insurance is a free-loaders scheme. You guys insist that emergency rooms treat regardless of whether or not someone has insurance. That means the taxpayer gets shafted. "

If taxpayers get shafted for Emergency room visits, that's the fault of a government mandate that you would support, not the fault of the voluntary health insurance.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: dancupid on July 08, 2012, 10:55:52 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2012, 04:08:23 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

No of course he didn't ..........

I give up. You guys are just too retarded to understand or too lazy to try and I not your prent nor your kindergarten teacher, nor a policitian trying to convert you. Good luck figuring it out (maybe e-reading my post in chronological order will help).

Good night

We understand. You don't want to have to pay for health care. But you do want health care. What's not to understand?

You don't have to pay for health care in the UK - a homeless person can walk into a hospital and will receive full health care - they don't ask for id or anything. Access to health care is not conditional on providing anything.

For a homeless person, he is taxed when he spends money. Its 20% VAT on his goods except cigarettes and alcohol where he pays over 60%.

You may think that 20% tax on all his spending is not much but he has been doing it since he first got pocket money and will carry on doing it until he dies. Even if he never pays a penny income tax in his life, he pays for his health care through alcohol, cigarettes and VAT.

dancupid

hero member

Activity: 955

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2012, 04:08:23 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

No of course he didn't ..........

I give up. You guys are just too retarded to understand or too lazy to try and I not your prent nor your kindergarten teacher, nor a policitian trying to convert you. Good luck figuring it out (maybe e-reading my post in chronological order will help).

Good night

We understand. You don't want to have to pay for health care. But you do want health care. What's not to understand?

You don't have to pay for health care in the UK - a homeless person can walk into a hospital and will receive full health care - they don't ask for id or anything. Access to health care is not conditional on providing anything.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 09:39:39 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 09:32:51 AM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 09:25:06 AM

...snip...

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts. The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies. The patent holders don't have published price lists. The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged. The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option. It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs. Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

Who said anything about "compulsory insurance"? - that IS a tax.

Our American system is screwed up for the same reason that yours is - forcing people to pay for shit they don't want. Prescription drugs are just another example of government interference creating rising costs.

How about just plain old private health insurance? VOLUNTARY health insurance that if you don't buy its your own fucking fault?

Our system is fine. Really look at the charts. We have better health care than you and it costs about half as much.

Voluntary health insurance is a free-loaders scheme. You guys insist that emergency rooms treat regardless of whether or not someone has insurance. That means the taxpayer gets shafted.

It all comes back to what I said - people have to pay for their care. I have no sympathy with the idea of "voluntary" when it means that I as taxpayer end up paying the bill.

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 09:32:51 AM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 09:25:06 AM

...snip...

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts. The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies. The patent holders don't have published price lists. The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged. The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option. It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs. Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

Who said anything about "compulsory insurance"? - that IS a tax.

Our American system is screwed up for the same reason that yours is - forcing people to pay for shit they don't want. Prescription drugs are just another example of government interference creating rising costs.

How about just plain old private health insurance? VOLUNTARY health insurance that if you don't buy its your own fucking fault?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 09:25:06 AM

...snip...

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts. The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies. The patent holders don't have published price lists. The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged. The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option. It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs. Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 09:23:18 AM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 09:17:17 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 09:08:59 AM

Of course it is. Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you. It has huge benefits. People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered. People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care. So its not 100%.

You're so used to criticizing Americans like a typical propagandized European that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, if you want people to pay for their own healthcare, why not just have private insurance?

I've lived in America. I've seen your system and it sucks. You don't have a free market in health - you have a set of patent monopolists gouging the sick at the very time they are in fear of death. And anyone who says its wrong gets called a "communist."

Private insurance is fine with one condition. It has to be compulsory. I've met a lot of Americans with no insurance and it stinks. You wait until you are very sick and then drive to to an emergency ward for taxpayer treatment. I know that people who do that probably don't set out to be free-loaders but its basically shafting the taxpayer.

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 09:17:17 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 09:08:59 AM

Of course it is. Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you. It has huge benefits. People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered. People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care. So its not 100%.

You're so used to criticizing Americans like a typical propagandized European that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, if you want people to pay for their own healthcare, why not just have private insurance?

I've lived in America. I've seen your system and it sucks. You don't have a free market in health - you have a set of patent monopolists gouging the sick at the very time they are in fear of death. And anyone who says its wrong gets called a "communist."

Private insurance is fine with one condition. It has to be compulsory. I've met a lot of Americans with no insurance and it stinks. You wait until you are very sick and then drive to to an emergency ward for taxpayer treatment. I know that people who do that probably don't set out to be free-loaders but its basically shafting the taxpayer.

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 09:08:59 AM

Of course it is. Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you. It has huge benefits. People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered. People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care. So its not 100%.

You're so used to criticizing Americans like a typical propagandized European that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, if you want people to pay for their own healthcare, why not just have private insurance?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 08:59:02 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 08:57:05 AM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 08, 2012, 08:54:24 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 08:45:56 AM

If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care. If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

Wow you are so emotional.

Can you point to an example of someone who is using the NHS for free? I'm just wondering what type of person you have in mind?

Let's not ask stupid questions, shall we? If everyone who uses NHS is paying 100% of their health bills, then such a program isn't even necessary, is it?

Of course it is. Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you. It has huge benefits. People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered. People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care. So its not 100%.

Topic: Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins? - page 7. (Read 11426 times)