Has anyone at MaidSafe considered setting up an amazon affiliate account? Making Amazon purchases via an affiliate link would be an easy way for forum members to support the cause!
2 Likes
Amazon are evil tax cheats who treat their employees like robots.
We should avoid using them wherever possible - for most things I find that there are plenty of alternatives if you google them.
5 Likes
Dude weâre building a decentralized internet that will allow ANYONE on the planet to evade taxes. I think the fact that theyâre âtax cheatsâ is beside the point. Iâd be more concerned with the fact they ratted out and refused to support whistle blowers like Manning and Snowden. Also Amazon has been known to actively censor books. So evil yes but not for the reasons you stated.
Also dude you canât really bash Amazon and then cheer Google. Google is just as evil as Amazon, perhaps even more so. It reports all itâs data to the CIA just like Facebook. Iâm really surprised maidsafe uses Google so much but I suppose it canât be helped what with itâs popularity in tech circles these days.
7 Likes
Its not going to allow tax evasion, one would have to be an idiot to attempt that with this alone, and tax evasion is not universally desirable, some correction of distribution is crucial until we find a better way to flatten things out. SAFE will have ever make states and corporations more transparent, which will produce advantages for individuals far in excess of what tax evasion on an individual basis ever could.
Evasion of taxes on âunearned income.â and grifting off others labor and what should be otherâs income is even less acceptable than the first instance of the theft. And the âcharityâ and giving back through bond/debt chains is less acceptable still.
Sooooo how are you going to tax someone if they refuse to share their anonymous transaction details with you? Or are you forgetting that transactions and communications on SAFE are private and anonymous?
Can I buy a couple nouns? Who, what, where are you talking about? Seriously be more specific in your ranting. You use way too many generalizations. I have no idea what your rambling about. What unearned income by whom? Who is grifting off of whom? Who has stolen from whom and how can you prove there was any coercion involved? And what is this chairity and giving back through bond and debt? I have absoluelty no idea what thatâs about. Donât assume because you know what youâre referring to that others do as well.
Tax evasion may not be universally desired but neither is taxation universally desired. So Iâd say there should be an opt out clause on taxation or an opt in application FOR taxation. It should be voluntary rather than involuntary.
The old fashioned way at the entrances and exits of the black boxes with the burden of proof on the citizen. Sooner or later in a bill of materials someone has to buy or sell something tangible otherwise all the bits are for naught, think of it as resource based accounting.
As for the second part all I can say is I would have agreed with you 100% if you had asked me in 1999 and I fought coming to my present perspective, which is diametrically opposed, every step of the way. Without out having to go through all of that, where the two versions of me could agree and where the argument would never get started is if we have independent self sufficient people to start with, living in a situation with no strings or cords attached and none on the horizon. But in current terms, I wouldnât tax Elon Musk, but Iâm not sure Donald Trump should have any wealth or even be free.
Black boxes? What black boxes? If I go the farmers market and buy a cabbage with cash or safecoin thereâs nothing to track whether I bought a cabbage or for how much I paid. Same deal if I build a bookcase and sell that. [quote=âWarren, post:6, topic:9686â]
As for the second part all I can say is I would have agreed with you 100% if you had asked me in 1999 and I fought coming to my present perspective, which is diametrically opposed, every step of the way. Without out having to go through all of that, where the two versions of me could agree and where the argument would never get started is if we have independent self sufficient people to start with, living in a situation with no strings or cords attached and none on the horizon. But in current terms, I wouldnât tax Elon Musk, but Iâm not sure Donald Trump should have any wealth or even be free.
[/quote]
Notice you havenât actually answered any of the questions I posed? Also why should we cater to special interests and not tax x while taxing y based on some particular political sensitivities? It seems that just shifts power from one group to another and is a game of âMy turn to be the tyrant,â which is complete bollocks if you ask me. Enough with catering tho this special interest or that special interest. Enough with all the games. A tax is a tax is a tax itâs just coercion. Itâs coercion with the excuse of redistribution. Weâll have the bloody SAFE network isnât that enough? So people invest in the SAFE network that automatically redistrubutes value across the whole network. Tell me again why do we need taxes? Just sell your fiat money for safecoin and youâre done.
With the MAID sale and future Satoshi endowmentâŚwe should be ok.
1 Like
Automatically redistributes value- a tax.
As far as the deep sea currency divers, they have to come up for air occasionally and that is when you whack em with a tax. But again, the tax case in which I am most interested is unjust or non-constructive enrichment which against societies reserve of effort is like counterfeiting a currency. Re-distribution is always a corrective for distribution.
Someday we will get rid of taxes.
No coercing money out of people at gunpoint = a tax. The buying and selling of safecoing, and farming thereof is totally voluntary. No one is going to come to your house and force you to sell your fiat or your goods for safecoin and use the network.
Could you please STOP doing that! Just speak plainly. Deep sea currency divers? Non-constructructive enrichment? Honestly dude just cut the jargon and speak English.
No one is forcing you to retain your citizenship or live in any country. You can revoke your US citizenship and avoid taxes with a soveriegn citizenship. Most donât want that, but I wouldnât alliw the rich to do it and in anyway still do business in US or even divest the US economy with assets intact.
- Funny you assume everyone you talk to lives in the U.S. Iâm not American, neither are a lot of the people on this forum. Try to keep that in mind.
- Just because one is avoiding taxation or is against taxation does not mean they are rich. The rich are not the only ones against coercion. 3. One could but in order to do so one would have to be independently wealthy in order to compensate for things like terriffs. I also find it hillarious when people talk about living in any country when a plane ticket to the next city or province is cost prohibitive. Stop living in a fantasy land. Also stop assuming that everyone can just pick up and go wherever. Some of us have medical issues to consider and not everyone can drive. Hello reality check. Also why should those that believe in non aggression move? It seems that those who are initiated violence are the ones that should move. And please point out this patch of land to which you would have anarchists move that is government free?
But I think youâre missing the point I was making. And again your dodging the question. How does one tax a person when that individual refuses to submit their financial information and uses anonymous currency and keeps their financial transactions private? SAFE = anonymous communication + anonymous finances + anonymous data storage.
No assumption and youâre making the points Iâd make. Tax isnât that big a deal if applied uniformly (not regressive flat tax) and people play an active civic role. As for not being able to tax into the gaps this was hashed out in other threads and the people who thought taxation couldnât get in had to give up in the end seeing that it could. Its like the delusion of people trying to think states canât stop capital flight. The problem with the New Deal is it didnât go far enough. Freedom is ultimately political, not economic, economics is not the answer its only a special case of the political and can never rise above the political. We will solve the problem of scarcity (economics) together not apart, and together reach a post economic age. How we get there matters. But untill we have something that gets rid of taxes or also replaces its pros, until then taxes need to stay. Adding a BI to something like SAFE might work so also might a resource based economy. But getting the war mongers out of power is a commumication and education issue and is politcal. One key is that in societies where everyone has enough no one gives a damn about paying taxes because work and contrubution arenât a problem. Its broken societies where its a problem. Think of a paper money using society or even a metal coin using society- their is an overhead on that currency just to keep the paper up and the coins in good shape. Now profit is a more problematic overhead, their is an absolute need to keep profit constructive as opposed to criminal. That is a huge overhead. Profit amonts to a tax in a society that allows it and state tax is just a means to support the necessary commons, thatâs all it is.
How does that solve the problem of coercion inherent in taxation? So youâre coercing and exercising violence against everyone instead of a select group. That solves nothing. The problem isnât inequality the problem is that taxation is a form of violence.
Link and citation please.
Whether youâre manipulating money (economics), public opinion (politics) or militant might (warfare) itâs all just a function of power and a means of bending the universe to your will. Freedom is the degree to which one can choose for oneself, ergo it is a degree and distribution of power. Whether one obtains that power via money, public opinion or weaponry is a moot point and often multiple methods are required to secure oneâs freedom. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Basic income funded by what? And SAFE IS a resource economy. So in as much as we start trading goods and services for safecoin weâll be participating in a resource based economy.
Also economic as many people sign up for the military because they need a well paying job. And war IS profitable. Whole empires run on war including the U.S. Empire which is based on the Roman Empire model. War is a racket.
Citation, examples and proof please. In my experience the middle class take the squeeze and suffer the most in statist societies.
Oh yeah sure it is. That and paying off the banks, paying for politicians whims. paying for wars, paying for services you donât support, paying for whatever. Look dude whenever you give up control of your own money you get screwed. Worse yet is when youâre forced to give up control of your money. Commons my ass. The commons can bite me. I opt for direct action to help whom I choose to support rather than letting some authority divvy up funds to help âthe commons.â I donât trust authorities, I donât trust government not to screw everyone and anyone. Thatâs why I believe this project is so important. To give people back their freedom. So they can choose what to do with their own data, their own money and communicate how and with whom they choose and not have government dictating what to do with their lives.
Youâre going to be disapponted. Again the problems are political not economic, the bad economics is a symptom. Your missing political economy. The issue is power, and money not being the basis for it. You canât sell your political power. Everyone could have a bunch of money and even be free to buy and sell what they wish and still not be free. You can get beyond a state but you wonât get beyond a common wealth. SAFE is a first step but we must use it to get rid of employers and corporations and go with something, flat volutary and cooperative.
Everything but the OP and the first response is just an off-topic personal debate 
3 Likes
You have offered zero proof of this: both that economics are not politics or vice versa and that the problems are solely political not economic and that bad economics is just a symptom.
I agree the issue is power. Money = a form of power. How is money not the basis for it?
I disagree. People buy and sell their political power all the time. Theyâre called bribes, lobbying and political favours.
If Iâm free to buy and sell whatever I wish how am I not free? How do you define freedom?
Oxymoron. A commonwealth is a state or a congregation of states. I know, I live in one. Helloooo⌠does anyone remember the British Commonwealth. It still exists. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (if Iâm forgetting some please feel free to add them), theyâre all part of the commonwealth. Iâd say thatâs pretty statist.
Getting rid of all employers means getting rid of all employees. Which means getting rid of buying and selling services and product for profit. I donât see that happening any time soon nor would I agree to it. A cooperative still needs to make profit. Even if we get everyone into cooperatives and the only trade that happens is between cooperatives (a bit insane if you ask me) weâve only compounded the original question which is is coop a treating coop b fairly and to mutual satisfaction? In short weâre back to the original employee vs employer battle anyway. Might as well handle it on an individual basis.
Please take the political debate to a topic in off-topic.
Please keep to the specific topic of âAmazon Affiliateâ
Thank you
1 Like