Few Americans Reporting Cryptocurrency Gains

[viper1152012]

Audit my bitcoin account if you can find it....

Good luck

 

[Archaea]

Is the government going to allow deductions for losses? That's the big question.

assumedly on the same order as stock market losses (max $3k per year) -- which is a crock in it's own right. (we'll tax you as much as you make going up, but we'll only give you credit for losing up to 3 grand).

There's some good discussion on this topic in this thread as of late:

https://hardforum.com/threads/taxes-on-cryptocurrency.1951387/page-4#post-1043485722

 

[ProfessorUtopia]

...Short version: it's not theft any more than rent is...

Putting a few false assumptions aside, our disagreement on the nature of taxes is philosophical. Thus, arguing over the semantics is rather pointless. Still, I hope you’ll consider the following, with an open mind:

If I tell you you’ve implicitly agreed to a contract by way of incidentally finding yourself in territory I’ve declared to be under my control, then take your money under threat of being thrown in a cage, and in return I give you something you either didn’t ask for, want, or could have simply acquired yourself if I had let you keep your money in the first place, have I stolen from you?​

Let me, perhaps, surprise you with my answer to that question: Maybe.

If a person decides, even in retrospect, complying is more to their benefit than resisting, they haven’t been stolen from; they’ve, at worst, been extorted.

If, on the other hand, you were to decide you wanted no part of anything I was offering, have I not stolen from you?

I believe I have. I also believe, holding a ceremony in which >50% (of those whom are allowed or inclined to participate) say it’s okay for me to do that, doesn’t change the nature of the acts I’ve committed.

The point I’m going for here is simply this: My belief that taxation is theft, and your belief that it isn’t, aren’t as mutually exclusive as one might initially assume.

You are, of course, free to believe as you like. We’ll just be here, carrying the torch of liberty, in case you change your mind.

 

[tetris42]

Putting a few false assumptions aside, our disagreement on the nature of taxes is philosophical. Thus, arguing over the semantics is rather pointless.

While I'm sure we have some disagreements on philosophy also, my disagreement with you is on LOGIC. Saying taxation is theft implies you had something and it was taken from you by someone else, simple as that. If that's all that was happening, your point would be sound. However, you're overlooking how YOU already took things from the other person, by choice or not. Your entire argument seems to rest on omitting key information.

Still, I hope you’ll consider the following, with an open mind:

If I tell you you’ve implicitly agreed to a contract by way of incidentally finding yourself in territory I’ve declared to be under my control, then take your money under threat of being thrown in a cage, and in return I give you something you either didn’t ask for, want, or could have simply acquired yourself if I had let you keep your money in the first place, have I stolen from you?​

See, you're still not backing up far enough. You're starting from the position that you already have money. Where did you get your money? You're BORN into a territory. You start receiving the benefits literally from the day before you are born. By the time you're old enough to even have money, you've acquired DEBT to where you were born to.

But hey, let's answer your question at face value. What you're describing are basic territory rights. You said I've found myself in your territory under your control. There's 3 ways to go about this that I see:

1. Since it is under your control, that means your rules are the law of the land and I've accepted the consequences of those by entering your territory. To simply enter your territory and refuse to accept your laws would just be foolhardy, you were there first and established the rules. Under this interpretation, I haven't been stolen from, instead I've had to pay the price of coming onto your land.

2. I can refuse to recognize your authority over the land, thinking I have just as much equal right to it as you do. Under this interpretation, you HAVE stolen from me, because I never wanted to be bothered. This interpretation however also negates the concept of land property rights, because even though you were there and claimed ownership first, I believe no one can own the land, it belongs to nature / it's just there. What I have on my person could be considered my property, but under this interpretation, neither of us can own the land. So if you're arguing from kind of a naturalist perspective, that land cannot be owned, then yes, you have stolen from me.

3. I can refuse to recognize your rules, because I see them as unreasonable. The fact that I've entered on your land is irrelevant to me. Since I determine for myself what is reasonable or not, I decide what the rules should be, therefore I have been stolen from. Since I don't recognize your rules, that also means I also have no respect for your land ownership, since the two are intertwined. This is not because I don't think land can be owned, but because I like my rules better than yours. Since you took items from me and put me in a cage, your rules were more powerful than mine. This is essentially the "might makes right" perspective. By refusing to recognize your rules and going with mine instead, I'm essentially testing my might against yours. In this scenario, I've lost.

Again, this is logic. The philosophy only comes in from which option you go with. I suspect under this scenario you believe in land ownership AND you've been stolen from. So either you're a "might makes right" kind of person, or your stance is logically inconsistent. If you think I'm missing something, by all means, go ahead.

If a person decides, even in retrospect, complying is more to their benefit than resisting, they haven’t been stolen from; they’ve, at worst, been extorted.

If, on the other hand, you were to decide you wanted no part of anything I was offering, have I not stolen from you?

It has nothing to do with whether they think it's to their benefit or not. I could think I've been ripped off for what I'm getting (like you said I could believe I've been extorted), but that's not the same as theft. If I believe you own the land and enter it anyway, that implies I'm abiding by your rules. I'm only being stolen from if I do NOT recognize your land ownership.

The point I’m going for here is simply this: My belief that taxation is theft, and your belief that it isn’t, aren’t as mutually exclusive as one might initially assume.

They really are, but logic and belief don't always go together.[/quote][/quote]