6 ms·

This is even worse if you are a student who receives government aids: transactions are regarded as income (whether loss or profit) by the social insurance insti

by Jhsto 9y ago

This is even worse if you are a student who receives government aids: transactions are regarded as income (whether loss or profit) by the social insurance institution. So in other words, if you buy Bitcoin for 1000 euros and sell it at 500, you have made efficiently 500 euros in "income." With the notion of the parent post, this makes trading unviable, because if you exceed 12K€ in income a year (in any form, be that employment etc.), you have to start paying back your living aids.

Symbiote 9y ago
If a student has money to gamble on Bitcoin, perhaps they don't deserve the grants.
- sgtmas2006 9y ago
  Getting in early was an option as well.
  - acdha 9y ago
    In that case they wouldn’t be showing losses, though, would they?
- ryanlol 9y ago
  These are not really grants.
notahacker 9y ago
Whilst the apparent double counting doesn't seem fair, it also doesn't seem like a good idea for students who rely on government aid for their living costs to be speculating in risky exotic financial assets...
- mcny 9y ago
  This is kind of off topic but we should really get rid of all income thresholds for government services and safety nets. They divide people and make them resent one another. I think we should instead make these programs available to all otherwise qualifying applicants (New York excelsior can keep the state residency requirement but should not be allowed to say it applies only to people who make under $125k a year). If we "can't afford" to offer a program to all qualifying people regardless of income that means we don't have the political will to make the program happen and should get rid of it.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    On the whole I think there's likely to be rather more resentment bred by cutting the subsidies of people that need them to ensure people that don't need them have equal access...
  - brownbat 9y ago
    I sympathize with the consistency of a "pure universal" approach to policy, but like many purist policy philosophies, I don't think it would survive rigorous implementation. For so many reasons. Chief among them, maybe, people are generally reluctant to support governments engaged in transfers of resources from themselves to billionaires.
    - dictum 9y ago
      An instance of "ignorance is bliss": people would rather see transfers of resources from themselves to billionaires through corporate welfare (often advocating for it in hopes of a better local economy) and special interest lobbying than direct, documented and smaller cash transfers.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      If you provide the billionaire with food stamps, but tax them at 10% of their net worth (which would reduce them to a mere millionaire in ≈65 years), I'm not sure whether anyone would complain about the food stamps.
      - mcintyre1994 9y ago
        Wouldn't the billionaire just leave and move somewhere that doesn't reduce their total worth every year?
        marvin 9y ago
        This happens even in Norway, where the wealth tax is 0.85% of net worth per year. So you'd have to have some wealth tax everywhere the well-off would want to move.
- Jhsto 9y ago
  I understand where you are coming from, but let me add that this method of counting income applies to any investment income. So say you put money into an index fund, but something unexpected happens. If you need to liquidate your savings while being a student, the government will slap your fingers for trying to think long-term. Either way, I admit this only affects the poor -- if you are a bit better off you should be able to afford to incorporate an LLC for 2500€ (half a year rent where I live). By making yourself the sole owner of the company, you can get around all these problems, as juridically the LLC is a separate entity from you doing all the trading. This kind of setting is legal, but practically off limits for many. Government aid for students is also practically unconditional in Finland and usually covers your rent and then some, basically making your own life instantly ramen profitable. This sounds utopistic to many, and it certainly is, but I think so much potential is lost by the government discouraging young people to take risks on their own.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    So say you put money into an index fund, but something unexpected happens. If you need to liquidate your savings while being a student, the government will slap your fingers for trying to think long-term. Not really much of a concern, as you would have to be wealthy enough to have spare money to put into an index fund while retaining enough liquid assets to cover your living expenses. By making yourself the sole owner of the company, you can get around all these problems, as juridically the LLC is a separate entity from you doing all the trading. This kind of setting is legal, but practically off limits for many. Not even remotely true. SMLLCs are disregarded entities for tax purposes, so their transactions are taxed directly to their owners. And legally, the concept of veil-piercing applies to SMLLCs generally, and especially to undercapitalized SMLLCs (meaning any LLC without sufficient independent assets to pay off all liabilities against it).
    - Jhsto 9y ago
      > Not even remotely true. SMLLCs are disregarded entities for tax purposes, so their transactions are taxed directly to their owners. And legally, the concept of veil-piercing applies to SMLLCs generally, and especially to undercapitalized SMLLCs (meaning any LLC without sufficient independent assets to pay off all liabilities against it). This is true in Finland, which has fewer forms of corporations than the US for example. The corporation can decide to not pay out all of its earnings to its sole shareholder, but in such situation, the company needs to pay an additional 20% tax for the retained amount of money, for conducting a successful year of operations. This is rarely a good idea, but in this case where the owner is subject to constraints of personal income imposed by the government, it might make sense.
craigsmansion 9y ago
If one is a student who receives government aid, maybe one shouldn't be speculating in crypto-currencies.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  You do realize that many students spend a portion of their income on beer and pizza even while getting government aid. I can't say crypto currency is any better, but whatever.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Pizza is food. People need food to survive. They don't need cryptocurrency...for anything.
    - 234213wefsdf 9y ago
      cryptocurrency is money. People need money to survive.
Hamuko 9y ago
I believe that any student buying Bitcoin for 1000 euros while receiving student benefits from the Finnish social security system should have all of their benefits immediately revoked. Same if they decided to invest 1000 euros of social security benefit money on ivory.

by Jhsto 9y ago

Symbiote 9y ago

If a student has money to gamble on Bitcoin, perhaps they don't deserve the grants.

sgtmas2006 9y ago
Getting in early was an option as well.
- acdha 9y ago
  In that case they wouldn’t be showing losses, though, would they?
ryanlol 9y ago
These are not really grants.

notahacker 9y ago

Whilst the apparent double counting doesn't seem fair, it also doesn't seem like a good idea for students who rely on government aid for their living costs to be speculating in risky exotic financial assets...

mcny 9y ago
This is kind of off topic but we should really get rid of all income thresholds for government services and safety nets. They divide people and make them resent one another. I think we should instead make these programs available to all otherwise qualifying applicants (New York excelsior can keep the state residency requirement but should not be allowed to say it applies only to people who make under $125k a year). If we "can't afford" to offer a program to all qualifying people regardless of income that means we don't have the political will to make the program happen and should get rid of it.
- notahacker 9y ago
  On the whole I think there's likely to be rather more resentment bred by cutting the subsidies of people that need them to ensure people that don't need them have equal access...
- brownbat 9y ago
  I sympathize with the consistency of a "pure universal" approach to policy, but like many purist policy philosophies, I don't think it would survive rigorous implementation. For so many reasons. Chief among them, maybe, people are generally reluctant to support governments engaged in transfers of resources from themselves to billionaires.
  - dictum 9y ago
    An instance of "ignorance is bliss": people would rather see transfers of resources from themselves to billionaires through corporate welfare (often advocating for it in hopes of a better local economy) and special interest lobbying than direct, documented and smaller cash transfers.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    If you provide the billionaire with food stamps, but tax them at 10% of their net worth (which would reduce them to a mere millionaire in ≈65 years), I'm not sure whether anyone would complain about the food stamps.
    - mcintyre1994 9y ago
      Wouldn't the billionaire just leave and move somewhere that doesn't reduce their total worth every year?
      - marvin 9y ago
        This happens even in Norway, where the wealth tax is 0.85% of net worth per year. So you'd have to have some wealth tax everywhere the well-off would want to move.
Jhsto 9y ago
I understand where you are coming from, but let me add that this method of counting income applies to any investment income. So say you put money into an index fund, but something unexpected happens. If you need to liquidate your savings while being a student, the government will slap your fingers for trying to think long-term. Either way, I admit this only affects the poor -- if you are a bit better off you should be able to afford to incorporate an LLC for 2500€ (half a year rent where I live). By making yourself the sole owner of the company, you can get around all these problems, as juridically the LLC is a separate entity from you doing all the trading. This kind of setting is legal, but practically off limits for many. Government aid for students is also practically unconditional in Finland and usually covers your rent and then some, basically making your own life instantly ramen profitable. This sounds utopistic to many, and it certainly is, but I think so much potential is lost by the government discouraging young people to take risks on their own.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  So say you put money into an index fund, but something unexpected happens. If you need to liquidate your savings while being a student, the government will slap your fingers for trying to think long-term. Not really much of a concern, as you would have to be wealthy enough to have spare money to put into an index fund while retaining enough liquid assets to cover your living expenses. By making yourself the sole owner of the company, you can get around all these problems, as juridically the LLC is a separate entity from you doing all the trading. This kind of setting is legal, but practically off limits for many. Not even remotely true. SMLLCs are disregarded entities for tax purposes, so their transactions are taxed directly to their owners. And legally, the concept of veil-piercing applies to SMLLCs generally, and especially to undercapitalized SMLLCs (meaning any LLC without sufficient independent assets to pay off all liabilities against it).
  - Jhsto 9y ago
    > Not even remotely true. SMLLCs are disregarded entities for tax purposes, so their transactions are taxed directly to their owners. And legally, the concept of veil-piercing applies to SMLLCs generally, and especially to undercapitalized SMLLCs (meaning any LLC without sufficient independent assets to pay off all liabilities against it). This is true in Finland, which has fewer forms of corporations than the US for example. The corporation can decide to not pay out all of its earnings to its sole shareholder, but in such situation, the company needs to pay an additional 20% tax for the retained amount of money, for conducting a successful year of operations. This is rarely a good idea, but in this case where the owner is subject to constraints of personal income imposed by the government, it might make sense.

craigsmansion 9y ago

If one is a student who receives government aid, maybe one shouldn't be speculating in crypto-currencies.

paulie_a 9y ago
You do realize that many students spend a portion of their income on beer and pizza even while getting government aid. I can't say crypto currency is any better, but whatever.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Pizza is food. People need food to survive. They don't need cryptocurrency...for anything.
  - 234213wefsdf 9y ago
    cryptocurrency is money. People need money to survive.

Hamuko 9y ago

I believe that any student buying Bitcoin for 1000 euros while receiving student benefits from the Finnish social security system should have all of their benefits immediately revoked. Same if they decided to invest 1000 euros of social security benefit money on ivory.