Crypto tax evasion is 'pervasive'(ft.com)
ft.com
Crypto tax evasion is 'pervasive'
https://www.ft.com/content/5707abb8-fb86-4b3d-b7e0-4bc716c12b36
74 comments
Isn't tax evasion one of the major use cases for crypto?
No...? Most crypto is pretty bad for tax evasion because the blockchain provides a permanent public record. There is pseudonymity which when done carefully can provide privacy, but crypto is primarily for digital transactions that get blocked (e.g., credit card companies banning adult content sellers).
[deleted]
I genuinely can't think of use cases other than tax evasion, and 'discrete' purchases.
Things may have changed, but for awhile it was the cheapest way to buy stuff online in high-risk legal markets like precious metals if you wanted the transaction to clear in under 30 minutes. CC have high fees in high risk markets, wires are expensive for some customers, ACH takes 1+ days. Crypto clears quickly and can't be reversed so some sellers discounted it significantly against credit.
They estimated the average tax liability of noncompliers to be between $200 and $1087. Also wouldn't the fact that Norway requires to declare wealth in crypto no matter how small the amount likely inflate the number of noncompliers quite a bit? In most countries you are only create a taxable event when exchanging to fiat or other crypto.
IMO there should be more reasonable limits to how much you are allowed to sell before being liable for taxes. The amount of time it takes to properly file crypto taxes can be multiple hours especially if you do on-chain trading and need to report every invidual shitcoin exchange and so on.
I feel like a significant amount of the tax office's resources would be freed by just allowing something like 5€k a year to be sold tax free.
IMO there should be more reasonable limits to how much you are allowed to sell before being liable for taxes. The amount of time it takes to properly file crypto taxes can be multiple hours especially if you do on-chain trading and need to report every invidual shitcoin exchange and so on.
I feel like a significant amount of the tax office's resources would be freed by just allowing something like 5€k a year to be sold tax free.
How much of the tax evasion would disappear if we could pay taxes on crypto in crypto? The fact that the regulators scare banks away from allowing transfers to/from crypto exchanges whilst the IRS and HMRC demand taxes to be paid in USD or GBP makes the space prone to non-compliance and stifles innovation. So, either support legitimate crypto businesses and exchanges or let me pay tax on my meme coin gains in meme coin.
Privileging USD for tax payments is a big part of why USD has value. There is zero upside to the US to allow payments in anything else.
Isn't that by design? Many/most crypto schemes are designed to democratize access to money and thus they disintermediate traditional players (banks, central banks, etc.). Of course governments and tax authorities are one such traditional player, so they will be disintermediated. The government calls it "tax evasion", while the crypto world calls it a feature.
> Of course governments and tax authorities are one such traditional player, so they will be disintermediated. The government calls it "tax evasion", while the crypto world calls it a feature.
Where do these people think tax revenue goes? Into a big black hole? The money goes to pay for the justice system (which protects property rights, prevents people from killing each other), build and maintain infrastructure of all kinds (roads, bridges, mass transit, sewage systems, water treatment facilities), education, etc.
Without the government we'd be much, much worse off.
Where do these people think tax revenue goes? Into a big black hole? The money goes to pay for the justice system (which protects property rights, prevents people from killing each other), build and maintain infrastructure of all kinds (roads, bridges, mass transit, sewage systems, water treatment facilities), education, etc.
Without the government we'd be much, much worse off.
> Without the government we'd be much, much worse off.
Who is “we” here?
In some countries tax revenue goes to improving services, in some countries it goes to the President’s brother-in-law, in some countries it goes to military incursions that are morally repugnant.
Tax, like cryptocurrency, isn’t intrinsically good or bad. They are both tools that could be used for benevolent or malevolent purposes depending on who is using them.
Who is “we” here?
In some countries tax revenue goes to improving services, in some countries it goes to the President’s brother-in-law, in some countries it goes to military incursions that are morally repugnant.
Tax, like cryptocurrency, isn’t intrinsically good or bad. They are both tools that could be used for benevolent or malevolent purposes depending on who is using them.
That's why I'd argue each service should be 'taxed' at the point of use. If you like a road, pay the toll. If you like sewage, build a septic system or pay for treatment. If you want to help Ukraine, fly on over or donate to the cause.
Great idea. I can save on money by shitting in the street instead of paying for treatment. I'll just dump my trash as well. This way only things that everyone absolutely has to use, or things the fabulously wealthy want, will be funded. What could go wrong?
Sure you could. In fact many do in places like San Francisco where regulations and taxes and construction costs are so high many end up homeless then poop all over the streets.
Where I live there is absolutely no public sewage and I built my own system and so did most my neighbors, because as it turns out in our low tax libertarian enclave of mostly poor people, the vast majority prefer 10k once every few decades on a septic system over living in shit or getting in feuds with their neighbors for shitting on their road or lawn (there are no public roads here thank god). Your paranoia turned out unfounded.
Where I live there is absolutely no public sewage and I built my own system and so did most my neighbors, because as it turns out in our low tax libertarian enclave of mostly poor people, the vast majority prefer 10k once every few decades on a septic system over living in shit or getting in feuds with their neighbors for shitting on their road or lawn (there are no public roads here thank god). Your paranoia turned out unfounded.
Ah, it’s the taxes and regulations that cause the homeless to shit on the street. Surely if there were pay toilets all over the Bay Area the homeless wouldn’t do that anymore.
Your “low tax libertarian enclave” where folks evidently can afford to drop $10k occasionally sure doesn’t sound like it’ll scale up to 12 million people.
Your “low tax libertarian enclave” where folks evidently can afford to drop $10k occasionally sure doesn’t sound like it’ll scale up to 12 million people.
It scales fine, you can have private waste treatment en masse. Why should someone pay for my shit? Why is it their fault if I poop? It makes no sense.
Also you can build your own septic for 5k if you do your own work. I'm honestly in shock you'd poop in the street to save the 40 or so a month it costs at worst, considering when I lived in the city I was billed sewage and it came out about the same as the amortized cost of my septic system. The only people pooping in the streets were the homeless or the odd mentally ill person. I realize people like you are the real problem who will poop on others stuff to save a buck, but that honestly seems a mental health issue that public sewage systems wont solve.
Also you can build your own septic for 5k if you do your own work. I'm honestly in shock you'd poop in the street to save the 40 or so a month it costs at worst, considering when I lived in the city I was billed sewage and it came out about the same as the amortized cost of my septic system. The only people pooping in the streets were the homeless or the odd mentally ill person. I realize people like you are the real problem who will poop on others stuff to save a buck, but that honestly seems a mental health issue that public sewage systems wont solve.
> It scales fine
How does this work in Manhattan? How about for a single apartment complex? It doesn’t scale. It works if you’re in a low density area benefiting from the taxes pulled from high density areas.
> Also you can build your own septic for 5k if you do your own work.
Something like 40% of Americans couldn’t field a $400 expense.
> I'm honestly in shock you'd poop in the street to save the 40 or so a month it costs at worst
You’re in shock after discussing a place where it happens?
How does this work in Manhattan? How about for a single apartment complex? It doesn’t scale. It works if you’re in a low density area benefiting from the taxes pulled from high density areas.
> Also you can build your own septic for 5k if you do your own work.
Something like 40% of Americans couldn’t field a $400 expense.
> I'm honestly in shock you'd poop in the street to save the 40 or so a month it costs at worst
You’re in shock after discussing a place where it happens?
>How does this work in Manhattan? How about for a single apartment complex? It doesn’t scale.
Waste treatment system similar to many public systems. Charge by drain units, sewage pipe size, or maybe metered. Point is sewage treatment plant can be funded on individual apartment basis.
> works if you’re in a low density area benefiting from the taxes pulled from high density areas.
My area is far poorer than Manhattan but virtually everyone has a private septic system, and I've never seen poop in the street. You were previously paying for public poop now your just paying privately in lieu of publicly, and of course the homeless still probably shit in the street.
Also rural septic systems are almost never publicly funded.
>Something like 40% of Americans couldn’t field a $400 expense.
In practice in places like Manhattan you'd be paying for sewage monthly (when I lived in city that charged cost of sewage it was about 40 of my water bill). In rural areas septic is usually owned as part of mortgage or as debt services, if one cannot pay outright. All of which is amortized pretty close to real cost of sewage most anywhere.
>You’re in shock after discussing a place where it happens?
I'm in shock because having lived in areas that charge individually for sewage, the very few that don't spend the $1-$2 a day are either brutally poor or mentally ill, its just not a thing that people like you poop in the streets anyplace I've lived that charges near full rate for sewage treatment. As it were, the vast majority given the $1.40 a day to spare, will pay it to not have to poop outside or let it accumulate in their home, and if unable or unwilling to do so it is nearly always a symptom of something else that public sewers won't solve.
Waste treatment system similar to many public systems. Charge by drain units, sewage pipe size, or maybe metered. Point is sewage treatment plant can be funded on individual apartment basis.
> works if you’re in a low density area benefiting from the taxes pulled from high density areas.
My area is far poorer than Manhattan but virtually everyone has a private septic system, and I've never seen poop in the street. You were previously paying for public poop now your just paying privately in lieu of publicly, and of course the homeless still probably shit in the street.
Also rural septic systems are almost never publicly funded.
>Something like 40% of Americans couldn’t field a $400 expense.
In practice in places like Manhattan you'd be paying for sewage monthly (when I lived in city that charged cost of sewage it was about 40 of my water bill). In rural areas septic is usually owned as part of mortgage or as debt services, if one cannot pay outright. All of which is amortized pretty close to real cost of sewage most anywhere.
>You’re in shock after discussing a place where it happens?
I'm in shock because having lived in areas that charge individually for sewage, the very few that don't spend the $1-$2 a day are either brutally poor or mentally ill, its just not a thing that people like you poop in the streets anyplace I've lived that charges near full rate for sewage treatment. As it were, the vast majority given the $1.40 a day to spare, will pay it to not have to poop outside or let it accumulate in their home, and if unable or unwilling to do so it is nearly always a symptom of something else that public sewers won't solve.
> Waste treatment system similar to many public systems.
So we agree it doesn’t scale. You can’t have 1,000 people each digging their own septic system around an apartment complex. What you’re proposing is adding cost and complexity to sewage in order to ensure you only pay for your shit.
> Also rural septic systems are almost never publicly funded.
Indeed, but literally all of the infrastructure up and down the supply chain that makes a $5k septic system available to you is.
> In rural areas septic is usually owned as part of mortgage or as debt services, if one cannot pay outright.
Ah, so you’d rather the poor pay interest on the ability to shit? Surreal.
> brutally poor or mentally ill
Yes, and I don’t think those people ought to be unable to shit in dignity. The libertarian dream is a nightmare.
So we agree it doesn’t scale. You can’t have 1,000 people each digging their own septic system around an apartment complex. What you’re proposing is adding cost and complexity to sewage in order to ensure you only pay for your shit.
> Also rural septic systems are almost never publicly funded.
Indeed, but literally all of the infrastructure up and down the supply chain that makes a $5k septic system available to you is.
> In rural areas septic is usually owned as part of mortgage or as debt services, if one cannot pay outright.
Ah, so you’d rather the poor pay interest on the ability to shit? Surreal.
> brutally poor or mentally ill
Yes, and I don’t think those people ought to be unable to shit in dignity. The libertarian dream is a nightmare.
>So we agree it doesn’t scale. You can’t have 1,000 people each digging their own septic system around an apartment complex. What you’re proposing is adding cost and complexity to sewage in order to ensure you only pay for your shit.
The asinine approach of using a rural septic system on a Manhattan apartment doesn't scale. Metering water consumed in most cases is pretty good at finding sewage use, and water metering exists in most apartments or at least every one I've lived in.
>...complexity...
On the contrary, your system is a complicated one that instead of metered sewage or water one has an army of tax collectors who meter our earnings & property & spending, who in practice toss people in a cage when they don't pay up rather than just stop the service.
>Indeed, but literally all of the infrastructure up and down the supply chain that makes a $5k septic system available to you is.
Sure but under my proposal everyone pays for services consumed, if you think rural people are stealing your infrastructure taxes to build septic systems by all means that's an argument to 'tax' at point of consumption, since we're cheating you apparently. (Now we know you really are against paying taxes for others poop!)
>Ah, so you’d rather the poor pay interest on the ability to shit? Surreal.
Well in practice they pay interest either way, privately or via inflation and public debt gov uses to expand their scope.
>Yes, and I don’t think those people ought to be unable to shit in dignity. The libertarian dream is a nightmare
Mentally ill and the poor shit in public largely because housing is unaffordable and it isn't convenient to have to hike a long way to take a shit. If you have democratic assent and are so sure people are eager to fund the shitting of the homeless, by all means go out and open a public shittery next to them, sounds like you'll get the support.
The asinine approach of using a rural septic system on a Manhattan apartment doesn't scale. Metering water consumed in most cases is pretty good at finding sewage use, and water metering exists in most apartments or at least every one I've lived in.
>...complexity...
On the contrary, your system is a complicated one that instead of metered sewage or water one has an army of tax collectors who meter our earnings & property & spending, who in practice toss people in a cage when they don't pay up rather than just stop the service.
>Indeed, but literally all of the infrastructure up and down the supply chain that makes a $5k septic system available to you is.
Sure but under my proposal everyone pays for services consumed, if you think rural people are stealing your infrastructure taxes to build septic systems by all means that's an argument to 'tax' at point of consumption, since we're cheating you apparently. (Now we know you really are against paying taxes for others poop!)
>Ah, so you’d rather the poor pay interest on the ability to shit? Surreal.
Well in practice they pay interest either way, privately or via inflation and public debt gov uses to expand their scope.
>Yes, and I don’t think those people ought to be unable to shit in dignity. The libertarian dream is a nightmare
Mentally ill and the poor shit in public largely because housing is unaffordable and it isn't convenient to have to hike a long way to take a shit. If you have democratic assent and are so sure people are eager to fund the shitting of the homeless, by all means go out and open a public shittery next to them, sounds like you'll get the support.
It also goes toward funding foreign wars and criminals (depending on your political leanings).
Perhaps things aren't so binary on either side.
Some people using crypto are criminals, terrorists, and (perhaps less concerning albeit more numerous) tax-evaders. Some aren't.
And on the other side, some (much?) government spending is inefficient, highly-politicized, and perhaps contrary to someone's moral compass (e.g. the average American citizen sends $11.34 each year to Israel, or sends Uncle Sam a whopping $140/yr -- out of their own pockets -- to fund the 'War on Drugs' which disproportionately puts black men into prison for small amounts of personal cannabis possession). So yes, gov tax spending builds roads and defends property rights - but that doesn't mean it's all good. A reasonable person can take issue with both the size and targets of much of the spending.
Anyways, my point isn't to debate the pros/cons of particular government spending examples, but rather that the average person has not just reason but also a duty to assess how government spending happens, whether or not that aligns with their values, and to vote and organize appropriately to try to change that.
If you're already a bit more libertarian, skeptical of federal monetary policy, morally conflicted about how your tax dollars are spent, in tech with a love of technology, then ya you probably are going to like the fact that crypto is outside of the normal system.
Some people using crypto are criminals, terrorists, and (perhaps less concerning albeit more numerous) tax-evaders. Some aren't.
And on the other side, some (much?) government spending is inefficient, highly-politicized, and perhaps contrary to someone's moral compass (e.g. the average American citizen sends $11.34 each year to Israel, or sends Uncle Sam a whopping $140/yr -- out of their own pockets -- to fund the 'War on Drugs' which disproportionately puts black men into prison for small amounts of personal cannabis possession). So yes, gov tax spending builds roads and defends property rights - but that doesn't mean it's all good. A reasonable person can take issue with both the size and targets of much of the spending.
Anyways, my point isn't to debate the pros/cons of particular government spending examples, but rather that the average person has not just reason but also a duty to assess how government spending happens, whether or not that aligns with their values, and to vote and organize appropriately to try to change that.
If you're already a bit more libertarian, skeptical of federal monetary policy, morally conflicted about how your tax dollars are spent, in tech with a love of technology, then ya you probably are going to like the fact that crypto is outside of the normal system.
> Of course governments and tax authorities are one such traditional player, so they will be disintermediated. The government calls it "tax evasion", while the crypto world calls it a feature.
There's an old quote along the lines of "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it". First said, probably, by Jean de La Fontaine in the 17th century, but probably more widely known from its use by Master Oogway in "Kung Fu Panda".
It is not hard to think of ways that governments could stop much crypto tax evasion, at the cost of a general lowering of financial privacy. The crypto world might think that people would not put up with that, but most people already willingly give up much financial privacy for the convenience of credit and debit cards.
For most people its not all that big a leap from the amount of privacy they have given up to their bank for a credit card and the amount of privacy they'd have to give up to allow tax evaders to be stopped, and if their taxes are higher because of too much crypto tax evasion they will have no problem making that leap.
There's an old quote along the lines of "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it". First said, probably, by Jean de La Fontaine in the 17th century, but probably more widely known from its use by Master Oogway in "Kung Fu Panda".
It is not hard to think of ways that governments could stop much crypto tax evasion, at the cost of a general lowering of financial privacy. The crypto world might think that people would not put up with that, but most people already willingly give up much financial privacy for the convenience of credit and debit cards.
For most people its not all that big a leap from the amount of privacy they have given up to their bank for a credit card and the amount of privacy they'd have to give up to allow tax evaders to be stopped, and if their taxes are higher because of too much crypto tax evasion they will have no problem making that leap.
Most, if not virtually all, crypto users use exchanges, and unless they're conducting pure crypto transactions, or trading directly in cash, they use a bank at some point.
> democratize access to money
Is that the latest euphemism? Tell me, where can I get the money? A lot of it, please.
Is that the latest euphemism? Tell me, where can I get the money? A lot of it, please.
Start mining.
Try saving the local currency in a country with a government that is actively debasing its currency to fund the ventures of its aristocracy, and you will understand that having access to a secure, transferable store of the value of your work is not universal, but a privilege assured by the power of trillions of dollars of fighter jets.
Gold and many other useful commodities are valuable with or without fighter jets backing them.
Yes, but not transferable.
Commodity money has been a thing in many times in history.
Why isn't it today?
In fact it is in many rural lawless areas where there is effectively no state, like gold mining regions of Brazil/Guyana/west africa
Fiat dominates in strong nation states because in part everyone needs it for taxes.
Fiat dominates in strong nation states because in part everyone needs it for taxes.
Mining, airdrops, or minting your own
The Communists of the 20th century should have used it in their sales pitch. After all, redistribution is all about democratizing access to money, capital, and land.
Works where archive.ph is blocked:
https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=3704096032869&w=SxACgOAl0H...
FT calls crypto "hopium".
https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=3704096032869&w=SxACgOAl0H...
FT calls crypto "hopium".
US Government is mad that people have figured out how to evade taxation as well as their Senators.
Good
I think this is unsurpring given that the crypto userbase seems to consist mostly of speculators and criminals.
Believe it or not, there are people that think real innovation is happening in crypto, and they also make investments and pay taxes.
If you search around for crypto tax software, you'll find there's actual demand from people that want to pay taxes on their crypto.
If you search around for crypto tax software, you'll find there's actual demand from people that want to pay taxes on their crypto.
> you'll find there's actual demand from people that want to pay taxes on their crypto.
I think that’s more of a “need to” thing rather than “want to”, yes even for the people that aren’t using crypto for criminal activity.
I think that’s more of a “need to” thing rather than “want to”, yes even for the people that aren’t using crypto for criminal activity.
Paying taxes overall is a "need to" thing to most, so nothing new with regarding to crypto.
There's also a group that's against the Federal Reserve, but that belief system tends to be congruent with the "taxation is theft" group
> the "taxation is theft" group
Let's be real here. With compounding, total taxation takes away 90% of income. If that's not theft, I don't know what is. There would be an appropriate level of taxation that would be fair, perhaps 10%.
Let's be real here. With compounding, total taxation takes away 90% of income. If that's not theft, I don't know what is. There would be an appropriate level of taxation that would be fair, perhaps 10%.
With compounding, the potential earnings of someone who is taxed but invests over 50 years of work compared to someone else that isn't taxed but does the same investments comes out to about 50% gains of the second over the first.
If someone is taxed and doesn't or can't save, or their retirement gets screwed up, or they make enough to get taxed but not enough to invest significantly, or finds themselves in any of a myriad of screwy situations, then they only make 5-7% by diligently saving up the same amount that the first two would have been investing year over year.
95% of their potential income is lost by not investing reasonably. If someone were magically able to not pay taxes, they gain 150% of the good-retirement investment and taxes scenario.
Given the constant nickel and diming, the gotchas, the shuffling of money back and forth, and the outsized impact on investment, I completely agree that a flat 10% absolute level of taxation, not a red cent over, would be reasonable. It's also super important to invest, and to keep dropping money into your investments over time that you never touch, just use a diverse and sensible fund, and don't pull it out until you retire.
Not only is it theft of the future, it's wasted and misspent in awful ways. Sure am glad all our representatives are getting so wealthy, though. Wonderful people, that lot.
If someone is taxed and doesn't or can't save, or their retirement gets screwed up, or they make enough to get taxed but not enough to invest significantly, or finds themselves in any of a myriad of screwy situations, then they only make 5-7% by diligently saving up the same amount that the first two would have been investing year over year.
95% of their potential income is lost by not investing reasonably. If someone were magically able to not pay taxes, they gain 150% of the good-retirement investment and taxes scenario.
Given the constant nickel and diming, the gotchas, the shuffling of money back and forth, and the outsized impact on investment, I completely agree that a flat 10% absolute level of taxation, not a red cent over, would be reasonable. It's also super important to invest, and to keep dropping money into your investments over time that you never touch, just use a diverse and sensible fund, and don't pull it out until you retire.
Not only is it theft of the future, it's wasted and misspent in awful ways. Sure am glad all our representatives are getting so wealthy, though. Wonderful people, that lot.
> With compounding, the potential earnings of someone who is taxed but invests over 50 years of work compared to someone else that isn't taxed but does the same investments comes out to about 50% gains of the second over the first.
It might be too complicated to say. Someone who doesn't pay income tax, maybe. Depending on assumptions.
But I worked out at some point that >50% of my time spent working was being redirected towards the tax office - my income because it was taxed when I earned it (+ any stealthy payroll taxes), taxed again when it was spent and if it was invested in the middle it got taxed a third time for fake "capital gains" from money creation.
When you look at government spending (typically 40-50% of GDP in the West) and consider that most of that is probably malinvestment (by lack-of-alternatives-to-tax they're taking from the most economically productive members of society) you've probably lost more than half your wealth vs a no tax society. There is friction everywhere.
It might be too complicated to say. Someone who doesn't pay income tax, maybe. Depending on assumptions.
But I worked out at some point that >50% of my time spent working was being redirected towards the tax office - my income because it was taxed when I earned it (+ any stealthy payroll taxes), taxed again when it was spent and if it was invested in the middle it got taxed a third time for fake "capital gains" from money creation.
When you look at government spending (typically 40-50% of GDP in the West) and consider that most of that is probably malinvestment (by lack-of-alternatives-to-tax they're taking from the most economically productive members of society) you've probably lost more than half your wealth vs a no tax society. There is friction everywhere.
Currently less than 4% of Americans save any money. To assume that any would save enough to compound instead of spend in the absence of taxes is naive.
That logic seems a bit circular. I don't endorse the 90% figure because I haven't thought about it, but for the sake of argument if you were faced with a choice where 90% of your income would be redirected away from you vs not saving it'd be expected that nobody would save.
So you can't argue that lack of savings under the current system implies no savings under a low-tax system. It is pretty reasonable to suggest that a big contributing factor to the lack of savings is precisely what the tax system does to savers.
So you can't argue that lack of savings under the current system implies no savings under a low-tax system. It is pretty reasonable to suggest that a big contributing factor to the lack of savings is precisely what the tax system does to savers.
So you think the hardworking 4% should suffer like the rest of them? Even though they pay more taxes? Taxation is supposed to be fair, but your approach isn't.
It seems like you're assuming motivation where it doesn't exist. I'm simply stating that your belief that paid taxes would be compounded to 99% of income is quite a fantastic claim. Besides, there's no proof that the "hardworking" are necessarily more saving than those who aren't. Sometimes the highest earning have the highest rates of debt, ie, they don't save.
Do you think that the minority of the population which saves money works harder than the majority that does not save money?
* I think that the 4% number is dubious but it's not material to the question.
* I think that the 4% number is dubious but it's not material to the question.
I'm just going off of the documented personal savings rate.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
Yes that's entirely the point. Ideally peoples' share of wealth should go down with time. Return on capital after taxes shouldn't enable people to continue growing their wealth relative to society forever. They should have to actually do work to earn more.
That's an opinion held by slavers. It most assuredly is antithetical to the opinion held by the people.
> With compounding, total taxation takes away >99% of income
That does not compute.
Perhaps you could explain that.
That does not compute.
Perhaps you could explain that.
I haven't yet checked this yet for correctness, but the approach to go about doing such a calculation is at https://chatgpt.com/share/8145329b-b009-46f6-a9cf-7703f49588...
It says the answer is a 90% loss (not 99% or higher), which still is quite bad. Again, this is pending me doing the calculations myself.
Regarding taxes, a total tax burden of 50% was used to account for all taxes (income, sales, property, etc.)
Even this calculation by GPT doesn't take into account the "investment gain" taxes one would have to pay at the end, which would bring the loss percentage above 90.
It says the answer is a 90% loss (not 99% or higher), which still is quite bad. Again, this is pending me doing the calculations myself.
Regarding taxes, a total tax burden of 50% was used to account for all taxes (income, sales, property, etc.)
Even this calculation by GPT doesn't take into account the "investment gain" taxes one would have to pay at the end, which would bring the loss percentage above 90.
I think he was aiming for disposable income, rather than all income.
I think it is lies.
[deleted]
And here I am being a fool paying quarterly estimated taxes on my staking income and capital gains.
I also pay my crypto taxes. They need to replace "non-compliance" with "non-enforcement" in this article.
In fact, I would love to see some of the "lol taxes" people have some enforcement action taken against them.
The only reason wage-tax "compliance" is so high is because there's a system in place to automatically extract as much tax as possible and make you file a refund for the difference.
I think you would find equal amounts of "non-compliance" in any cash or barter based business.
In fact, I would love to see some of the "lol taxes" people have some enforcement action taken against them.
The only reason wage-tax "compliance" is so high is because there's a system in place to automatically extract as much tax as possible and make you file a refund for the difference.
I think you would find equal amounts of "non-compliance" in any cash or barter based business.
As do I, using Coin Ledger in years I've traded. Almost all transfers from crypto to fiat happen via exchanges and banks, and I can't imagine it would be difficult at all for the government to get their hands on a list of such ACH transactions.
I believe that the amount of "untraceable" crypto that exists is extremely low.
Go try to buy some crypto in the US without KYC. It's already pretty tightly controlled.
Go try to buy some crypto in the US without KYC. It's already pretty tightly controlled.
[deleted]
[deleted]
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/treasury-irs-issue-final-regula...