6 ms·
Ugh, not a cryptocurrency trader, but I recently learned that by having U.S. citizenship from birth, and though I never lived there, I'm responsible for FBARs a
by sekh60 9y ago
Ugh, not a cryptocurrency trader, but I recently learned that by having U.S. citizenship from birth, and though I never lived there, I'm responsible for FBARs and tax-filing in the states. $4000 or so later and I'm compliant now. What a stressful pain that was.
- charlesdm 9y agoYou might also have to pay tax then, if your income exceeds a certain threshold. Good times.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoNo surprise that in both Great Britain and the US, the income tax was first instituted during a time of war. Only during a war, with the demands it places on the public conscience to make sacrifices, would the population acquiesce to an institution so contrary to natural rights and so pernicious to liberty.
- cozzyd 9y agoWhich countries don't have income tax?
- charlesdm 9y agoSmall countries, mostly tax havens. Investment income is not classified as income in most jurisdictions.. so doesn't really matter.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoI think every major economy has an income tax. There's quite a bit of syncronization between political systems, because political and cultural trends tend to transcend borders. There are quite a few countries which do not have global income reporting requirements. Singapore is probably the most notable example. Some European countries absolve non-domicile residents of the requirement to report global income in exchange for a flat annual fee, like 100,000 EUR. So it is possible to live a life without being forced to surrender your natural rights like your wealth and your privacy, but it's expensive.
- zorpner 9y agoThere's got to be a better term than "reverse virtue signaling" to describe how the use of specific terminology (outside of a legal setting) like "pernicious", "females", or "virtue signaling" instantly means that someone can be safely dismissed.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoThis is called ad hominem. No matter how tempting it is, it's better to refrain from it. Focusing on superficial and peripheral qualities like use of particular words, instead of the claim being made, is fundamentally anti-intellectual.
- wtallis 9y agoThere's nothing anti-intellectual about questioning your phrasing. You're just pissed that anyone is calling attention to your rhetorical tactics, because that blunts their effect. And without the flowery language, your comment has almost no substance. Stripping your comment of its rhetorical content to get at the logical meat of the argument is required in order to have an honest intellectual discussion.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoIt's not merely questioning phrasing. It's saying that use of a certain set of words, including "pernicious" and "female", is an indicator of holding beliefs that are so wrong that the comment warrants total dismissal. >>You're just pissed that anyone is calling attention to your rhetorical tactics, But using a word like "female" is not a rhetorical tactic.. You're imparting motives without any evidence beyond broad paranoid generalizations. It might be part of a rhetorical tactic in some particular instance, but I can't assume it indicates that based on the use of the word alone. That would be ridiculous and anti-intellectual. It's Orwellian to effectively blacklist a particular set of words as wrongthink, and it is disingenuous to claim that the use of these words is a "rhetorical tactic", or that calling for comments containing these words to be ignored is merely "questioning the phrasing".
- asfasgasg 9y agoMost new taxes come about at times when the locality creating them is under financial stress. Wars are financially stressful. Thus you'd expect that any given new modality of taxation would be created, with some relatively high probability, in proximity to a war.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoFinancial stress is not exactly the condition correlating with the creation of new taxes. A tax does not relieve financial stress in any general way. If it did, we would constantly raise taxes. What a tax does is enforce a collective use of financial resources. The demand for such enforced collectivism increases when a threat emerges that can only be adequately dealt with using such collective action. A foreign nation, engaged in organized violence, aka war, against a nation, is the most extreme example of a situation where enforcing collective action provides a benefit to the majority, and thus that's when people are most likely to sacrifice their liberty and accept a new tax.