3 ms·
I don't see why it's ironic. Whether something is useful or not, and whether it's increases in value should be covered under financial taxes like any other comm
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I don't see why it's ironic. Whether something is useful or not, and whether it's increases in value should be covered under financial taxes like any other commodity are separate issues.
- neuro_imager 9y agoCommodity: noun, plural commodities. 1.an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service. 2.something of use, advantage, or value. 3.Stock Exchange. any unprocessed or partially processed good, as grain, fruits, and vegetables, or precious metals. 4.Obsolete. a quantity of goods. So if you're saying its a commodity (and therefore should be taxed), it has value (and has to be based on something). But semantics aside, taxation is theft, even more so in this case - there's no justifiable reason to hand over a portion of the gains to a government that had no involvement in the creation of the source of revenue.
- s73ver_ 9y ago"But semantics aside, taxation is theft," No, not in the slightest.
- dang 9y ago> taxation is theft Please keep generic ideological tangents off HN. They lead to angry-samey discussion rather than thoughtful-curious. Fortunately that didn't happen in this case, but then not all sparks lead to wildfires, even in a dry forest.