We create a decentralized internet and one of the first thing someone does is create an app based on taxation. Well this guarentees I’m never using Devolution.
Taxation pays for a civilised society.
Don’t want to pay taxes? Don’t use roads, sewage systems, the internet and a whole lot else that I CBA pointing out to you.
Arguing against any of the above or indulging in whatabouttery merely shows you up as a hypocrite. Those who try to punt crypto as some sort of “defense” against taxation are the worst enemies of crypto/DLT/call-it-what-you-like.
Devolution is entirely voluntary so I don’t see it as taxation but voluntary contributions to fund projects or social programs. A form of decentralized governance. I think you’re drastically misunderstanding the project.
Totally agree with this.
Most services cost money, but being able to choose if, how, when, where, and exactly what you are being taxed for is exponentially more empowering than what we have now
Subscription sounds so much less weighted than taxation. The latter sounds like forced membership, where as the former does not. Words are really important around this topic.
You have to have enforcement or there’s too much freeloading. Taxation itself is not bad, as the founder movement of USA pointed out in Boston, it’s abuse of taxation that’s the problem. All power can be abused, so the problem is more of democracy that tax IMO, but I think there are powerful lobbies who push misleading ideas about tax for their own enrichment.
As a result, for some the word tax has become equivalent to abuse of power, but the two are not the same, and I think it’s the latter we should focus on.
Switching to a voluntary model plays into the hands of the wealthy so called philanthropist, who uses his wealth as he pleases, not least for his own benefit under cover of charity.
Is anyone going to start arguing for Jeff Bezos’ ideas here? Or Zuckerberg’s charity etc?
Let’s focus on democratising power through decentralisation, and see if taxation works better when the system is transparent and accountable. I think that is the promise of Devolution and the vision behind it, though I don’t mean to speak for @Glen_Simister here. He may of course have a different view.
And simple, to me if tax was very simple then it works as a collection of wealth for a societies benefit. So a % of all income or what you have in liquid assets/wealth every year would be a simpler. A single % and any deals/gifts in between etc. are all OK, unless they leave the tax jurisdiction, then they are taxed on leaving.
something like this where the rules are so simple, primary school kids know what they are. No accountants and no lawyers involved. Then penalise evasion and avoidance in the same way and harshly.
The bigger issue is what is it spent on and why, I don’t want to get into that part But health, education and zero homeless must be priority 1.
But what would all the accountants and lawyers do?
A land value tax would just about cover all bases, imo. It stops rent seeking on the biggest game of monopoly of them all - land. It is what gives the wealthy huge power and leverage. Without it, them spending their money on other crap is of little consequences to most people.
Sure, we have intellectual property and other monopolies which can trap people, but restricting access to essential shelted and useful location is the big one.
Wealth without power is relatively benign, imo. Working out how to separate the two is the challenge. Just stripping the wealthy of their assets seems like the wrong route to preventing abuse of power to me.
Agree, but liquid assets like shares/cash in bank etc. seems reasonable, not to strip them, but they should pay a flat rate on any profits above the rate of inflation. So if you have £500 you are tax free over inflation on any gains, but after that it is a standard flat rate. No schemes and no stripping really, just fair play.
There are a set of rules that avoid lawyers and accountants called odroit or something, I cannot remember it right now, but something like 7 laws is all you need.
Damn you @dirvine You’ll have me duckduckgoing odroit or something and I’ll get nothing else done all day …
Think it is this, but have not checked recently https://www.unidroit.org/
I take issue with this though. Wealth is seen as a weapon and therefore confiscation is therefore seen as a solution. However wealth in isolation is relatively harmless - the power it can buy is the problem. Defusing what power can be bought seems like a more peaceful and civilised approach.
I’m going to read through this – later
So disagree with me or try to come up with a better solution than the same old same old and you’re an enemy of crypto? Be liberal/statist and you’re an enemy of crypto? That’s a logic fallacy in the making if I ever heard one.
Honestly you’re in the thick of crowdfunding, daps, DOAs, crowdsales, etc etc, people raising funds without the need of government but STILL you think the only way to fund something is with taxation?
If you refuse to pay taxes you are sent to jail. If you use the services and oppose taxation you are branded a hypocrite. Bit of a catch 22. Where would you propose someone go to be free of taxation given there is no land left free of government and taxation? Seems the only place left to go is space and the middle of the ocean.
First, please don’t take it too personal but I’m not really that concerned about what extreme libertarians regard as a logical fallacy.
Secondly, do NOT try to put words into my mouth. Nowhere do I state that taxation is the only way to pay for anything. However, its quite simple, if you try to avoid paying tax whilst taking advantage of all that others tax money has paid for you are a thief, a hypocrite and an enemy of society.
I look forward to your next missive delivered by pigeon from your off-grid hovel in the mountains of Wyoming or wherever. Should you want to build your Utopia from seacrete outside any nations territorial waters, that’s just fine. Be interesting to see just how long that society could hold itself together without some form of taxation as well. Quite apart from the fact that the technologies you would need to use for anything like that were developed initially because people of various nations DID pay tax and funded the research in universities and, yes in military research establishments too. Paid for by taxes, whether paid willingly or not.
You want your cake and to eat it too. I’m calling that greed, theft and hypocrisy.
@mods Again this is veering off-topic - Please feel free to move wherever you think appropriate.
Wait a tick. Say take the road for example. How is using it a thievery if my money is being used to pay for it? Taxation is theft. I didn’t elect to give it to the government. It was forcibly taken. I didn’t choose specifically what to do with it. So how do you get to say it’s theft to use a service or product paid for with funds that were forcibly taken at gunpoint from the populace? Put it another way. If a store owner points a gun at your head and compels you to buy their widget is it theft to use their widget once you’ve been compelled to buy it?
An enemy to society? Who’s society? How do you define your society? If you mean a state based on coercion and violence yes I do oppose that. I believe in voluntary interaction. Just because things are doesn’t mean they must always be that way.
No argument with that,
However the rest of your spiel is semantic dancing on a pinhead to try and wriggle out of the plain and simple fact you are a hypocrite who wants something for nothing.
Please feel free to have the last word because I see no point in discussing this with you any further.
Bye now and have a nice day.
EDIT: @mods Again please feel free to pull or move this and related posts, its got zilch relevance to the original topic
I thought David was saying it was taxing increases on the wealth over inflation. Not on the original amount.
So if you had 500 pounds one year then then next year it would be zero tax on it if it did not increase beyond 500 * (1 + inflation)
As to accountants well they would be employed to keep the company books and ensure money is not being stolen by employees or management. Also they show how financial the company is and if the company is actually making a profit or loss.
Also I would suggest we need to get away from the mantra that “If we are not increasing then we are dying” Companies need to work their business such that they can operate without the aggressive expansionism.
The real reason most have to keep expanding and absorbing other business is their base business methodology is not sustainable and they need the increased market share in order to sustain themselves. Thus killing the small business. Its all about the mighty dollar for most now and consumerism.
UBI will never work while the ones making the laws are the ones who will benefit from increasing prices on those receiving the UBI. It will make the UBI of little benefit.
But this implies a violation of consent. If it’s based on physical location then you’re making the false assumption everyone can leave. Even more so if you tax them more in order to leave, so now its not only the cost of leave but an added tax on top of it making it even more expensive to leave. That’s not consent. A lot of people can’t afford to move from one town to another let alone from one nation to another. We aren’t all rich middle and upper class types that can just hop on a plane whenever we want.