14 ms·

How do you make and implement such a thing without turning it into the mother of all money laundries?

njarboe 8y ago
Life would be so much better without an income tax. It's a bad idea to tax people trading with each other. Win/win actions are something that should be encouraged. I'd support some kind of national land value tax in the US if we nullified the 16th amendment at the same time.
- drenvuk 8y ago
  I don't agree with this. Wealth was tied to land in the past but not anymore. If there were something that could be equated with a land as a resource then I'd support the effort but an income tax is more of a catch all for the various ways that wealth can be generated. I think it's a rule that should be used in a more effective (and simpler) manner but I definitely still support an income tax.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Asset taxes is effectively that. But assets are a lot easier to hide than income, and there's nothing stopping wealthy people from moving somewhere else. France's asset tax is estimated to have caused large amounts of capital to leave the country.
    - drenvuk 8y ago
      This might be a silly question but when do you think there will be a global tax? Something akin to a world government tax? The US has it to some extent when it taxes citizens outside the country but even that can be escaped. There was someone who said something like "Don't tax money that can move." It would be interesting to see all of the countries figure out a way for it to happen anyway.
      - mandelbrotwurst 8y ago
        I suppose that would happen as soon as there were an entity with the capability to (i.e. means of enforcement) and interest in doing so.
      - ekianjo 8y ago
        That would be akin to be back in serf mode. If you can't escape taxes anymore, there is nothing preventing a "worldwide government" to tax people to death. I guess this is when people may want to move to Mars or something.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        A global tax would be feasible if all governments are on good terms, and are willing to cooperate on their taxes and surveillance of assets. I do not predict this happening any time soon. The US taxes citizens abroad, but you get to deduct taxes paid to your country of residence. Since the US has relatively low taxes, this usually means citizens abroad pay no taxes to the US. It may be more nuanced than that. I have never filed taxes while living abroad, this is just my immediate recollection.
        philliphaydon 8y ago
        Huh. US tax isn’t Low?!? And I think in Singapore you’re forced to pay tax. They ask you if you’re a US citizen here and treat your income tax differently. I could be wrong tho. I’m not American so I don’t need to worry about double tax.
        manfredo 8y ago
        > Huh. US tax isn’t Low?!? I'm not sure if you read my comment correctly. > The US taxes citizens abroad, but you get to deduct taxes paid to your country of residence. Since the US has relatively low taxes, this usually means citizens abroad pay no taxes to the US. I am saying that taxes in the US are low, which is why citizens abroad usually don't have any more taxes to pay after deducting the taxes paid to their country of residence.
    - darawk 8y ago
      That's why you should tax only fixed, country specific assets, such as land and intellectual property. They are protected by the government, therefore they cannot be hidden from the government.
      - chii 8y ago
        > intellectual property this type of property is notoriously easy to hide! Taxing income is the least worst. The best is taxing capital gains/profits from corporations.
        darawk 8y ago
        > this type of property is notoriously easy to hide! Not if you want it to be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright.
        jsty 8y ago
        IP offshoring is a big tax avoidance strategy already. Not that it couldn't be made harder to exploit, but it's not a fait accompli to simply tax the IP resident in a country.
        chongli 8y ago
        You tax it at the point of enforcement. If someone wants to avoid paying the tax, then everybody gets to copy their stuff for free. It seems straightforward to me.
        stickfigure 8y ago
        Sure, because we don't have an asset tax. If we had an asset tax, you'd have to register your IP. If you don't register your IP, you don't get protection. Not too different from real estate; if you don't have title, you don't own it. I haven't considered all the economic consequences of this, but it does seem like enforcement is a minor problem.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - XorNot 8y ago
      France's asset tax did no such thing. The wealthy in France have received numerous tax breaks under the Macron government which is why the yellow jacket protests are happening. France's asset tax was effectively protested by the wealthy doing what they always do - threatening to leave loudly, maybe taking some time off in one of their overseas residences, and then doing absolutely nothing.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        France's asset tax is estimated to to have caused $125 billion to leave the country since 1998: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax
        XorNot 8y ago
        Far more then $6 billion / year leaves most western countries as tax avoidance schemes. It's not about whether their money left, its about whether they and their businesses left. Which they never do (unless they were going to do it anyway - i.e. outsourcing).
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Isn't wealth generation something that should be supported also? Tax the rentiers not the producers. Not all rich people are the same. Most high income people hide their income as capital gains, in any case. I wonder what the total value of land is in the US compared to buildings and other assets (subtract land value from stock values) and what the tax rate would have to be to replace the income tax?
  - darawk 8y ago
    The solution is LVT's on things that behave 'like land', such as intellectual property, domain names, etc.
stcredzero 8y ago
Actually implement Patreon's rules of conduct and abide by them. What Patreon has been doing doesn't even fit with what Jack Conte said they were doing, and what their terms of service actually say. The reason given why Sargon of Akkad was banned, was because he used some unsavory language to try and offend white nationalists on a YouTube stream apart from Patreon and not on his own channels. And yet, some searching revealed that Patreon has other creators who use the same language on Patreon who were not banned. Furthermore, there is funding of groups engaging in violence on Patreon, but this isn't being banned in accordance to their terms of service. (Many say this is because those groups are farther left leaning.) How does Go Fund Me keep from turning into the mother of all money laundries?
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  I’m totally disinterested in a political discussion here, I’m just asking about how your idea could comply with anti-laundering, KYC laws and regulations. As to how GoFundMe works, they cooperate with law enforcement and say so in their TOS, as well as adhering to KYC for withdrawal. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-Requirements-to-Withdraw https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-...
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    There would have to be an implementation of KYC. My idea, at least initially, would be to vet lists of creators manually, based on current prominence in social media.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      That's only necessary if the service is subject to US jurisdiction, directly or indirectly. No service that's subject to any nation's jurisdiction could be considered truly "censorship-free". Because, you know, said nation could censor it.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
mirimir 8y ago
Some of us don't believe that online payment systems need concern themselves with that. Especially if preventing money laundering basically means having no online privacy.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  People believe all kinds of things, but unless there’s more than a snowball’s chance in hell of changing the law to accommodate their beliefs, I spend my limited time considering other viewpoints. I don’t see any chance of these laws changing in favor of your beliefs, and I’m having this discussion in the world as it exists.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Hey, I bet that you violate Saudi anti-pornography laws every day. Perhaps alcohol-abuse laws, as well.
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      Definitely, and as a result I wisely stay the hell out of Saudi Arabia. I’m also known to avoid North Korea while I’m at it. I certainly don’t try to change their legal system from my keyboard.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Unfortunately, just staying out of the US doesn't protect you from them. You're just lucky that Saudi Arabia etc don't have the reach.
        colejohnson66 8y ago
        Exactly. Can you imagine if Saudi Arabia tried to have you extradited for a crime that was illegal there, but legal here? On a side note, isn’t that what’s happening with Kim Dotcom?

Life would be so much better without an income tax. It's a bad idea to tax people trading with each other. Win/win actions are something that should be encouraged. I'd support some kind of national land value tax in the US if we nullified the 16th amendment at the same time.

drenvuk 8y ago
I don't agree with this. Wealth was tied to land in the past but not anymore. If there were something that could be equated with a land as a resource then I'd support the effort but an income tax is more of a catch all for the various ways that wealth can be generated. I think it's a rule that should be used in a more effective (and simpler) manner but I definitely still support an income tax.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Asset taxes is effectively that. But assets are a lot easier to hide than income, and there's nothing stopping wealthy people from moving somewhere else. France's asset tax is estimated to have caused large amounts of capital to leave the country.
  - drenvuk 8y ago
    This might be a silly question but when do you think there will be a global tax? Something akin to a world government tax? The US has it to some extent when it taxes citizens outside the country but even that can be escaped. There was someone who said something like "Don't tax money that can move." It would be interesting to see all of the countries figure out a way for it to happen anyway.
    - mandelbrotwurst 8y ago
      I suppose that would happen as soon as there were an entity with the capability to (i.e. means of enforcement) and interest in doing so.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      That would be akin to be back in serf mode. If you can't escape taxes anymore, there is nothing preventing a "worldwide government" to tax people to death. I guess this is when people may want to move to Mars or something.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      A global tax would be feasible if all governments are on good terms, and are willing to cooperate on their taxes and surveillance of assets. I do not predict this happening any time soon. The US taxes citizens abroad, but you get to deduct taxes paid to your country of residence. Since the US has relatively low taxes, this usually means citizens abroad pay no taxes to the US. It may be more nuanced than that. I have never filed taxes while living abroad, this is just my immediate recollection.
      - philliphaydon 8y ago
        Huh. US tax isn’t Low?!? And I think in Singapore you’re forced to pay tax. They ask you if you’re a US citizen here and treat your income tax differently. I could be wrong tho. I’m not American so I don’t need to worry about double tax.
        manfredo 8y ago
        > Huh. US tax isn’t Low?!? I'm not sure if you read my comment correctly. > The US taxes citizens abroad, but you get to deduct taxes paid to your country of residence. Since the US has relatively low taxes, this usually means citizens abroad pay no taxes to the US. I am saying that taxes in the US are low, which is why citizens abroad usually don't have any more taxes to pay after deducting the taxes paid to their country of residence.
  - darawk 8y ago
    That's why you should tax only fixed, country specific assets, such as land and intellectual property. They are protected by the government, therefore they cannot be hidden from the government.
    - chii 8y ago
      > intellectual property this type of property is notoriously easy to hide! Taxing income is the least worst. The best is taxing capital gains/profits from corporations.
      - darawk 8y ago
        > this type of property is notoriously easy to hide! Not if you want it to be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright.
        jsty 8y ago
        IP offshoring is a big tax avoidance strategy already. Not that it couldn't be made harder to exploit, but it's not a fait accompli to simply tax the IP resident in a country.
        chongli 8y ago
        You tax it at the point of enforcement. If someone wants to avoid paying the tax, then everybody gets to copy their stuff for free. It seems straightforward to me.
        stickfigure 8y ago
        Sure, because we don't have an asset tax. If we had an asset tax, you'd have to register your IP. If you don't register your IP, you don't get protection. Not too different from real estate; if you don't have title, you don't own it. I haven't considered all the economic consequences of this, but it does seem like enforcement is a minor problem.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - XorNot 8y ago
    France's asset tax did no such thing. The wealthy in France have received numerous tax breaks under the Macron government which is why the yellow jacket protests are happening. France's asset tax was effectively protested by the wealthy doing what they always do - threatening to leave loudly, maybe taking some time off in one of their overseas residences, and then doing absolutely nothing.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      France's asset tax is estimated to to have caused $125 billion to leave the country since 1998: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax
      - XorNot 8y ago
        Far more then $6 billion / year leaves most western countries as tax avoidance schemes. It's not about whether their money left, its about whether they and their businesses left. Which they never do (unless they were going to do it anyway - i.e. outsourcing).
- njarboe 8y ago
  Isn't wealth generation something that should be supported also? Tax the rentiers not the producers. Not all rich people are the same. Most high income people hide their income as capital gains, in any case. I wonder what the total value of land is in the US compared to buildings and other assets (subtract land value from stock values) and what the tax rate would have to be to replace the income tax?
- darawk 8y ago
  The solution is LVT's on things that behave 'like land', such as intellectual property, domain names, etc.

stcredzero 8y ago

Actually implement Patreon's rules of conduct and abide by them. What Patreon has been doing doesn't even fit with what Jack Conte said they were doing, and what their terms of service actually say. The reason given why Sargon of Akkad was banned, was because he used some unsavory language to try and offend white nationalists on a YouTube stream apart from Patreon and not on his own channels. And yet, some searching revealed that Patreon has other creators who use the same language on Patreon who were not banned. Furthermore, there is funding of groups engaging in violence on Patreon, but this isn't being banned in accordance to their terms of service. (Many say this is because those groups are farther left leaning.) How does Go Fund Me keep from turning into the mother of all money laundries?

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
I’m totally disinterested in a political discussion here, I’m just asking about how your idea could comply with anti-laundering, KYC laws and regulations. As to how GoFundMe works, they cooperate with law enforcement and say so in their TOS, as well as adhering to KYC for withdrawal. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-Requirements-to-Withdraw https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-...
- stcredzero 8y ago
  There would have to be an implementation of KYC. My idea, at least initially, would be to vet lists of creators manually, based on current prominence in social media.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's only necessary if the service is subject to US jurisdiction, directly or indirectly. No service that's subject to any nation's jurisdiction could be considered truly "censorship-free". Because, you know, said nation could censor it.
    - stcredzero 8y ago

mirimir 8y ago

Some of us don't believe that online payment systems need concern themselves with that. Especially if preventing money laundering basically means having no online privacy.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
People believe all kinds of things, but unless there’s more than a snowball’s chance in hell of changing the law to accommodate their beliefs, I spend my limited time considering other viewpoints. I don’t see any chance of these laws changing in favor of your beliefs, and I’m having this discussion in the world as it exists.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Hey, I bet that you violate Saudi anti-pornography laws every day. Perhaps alcohol-abuse laws, as well.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    Definitely, and as a result I wisely stay the hell out of Saudi Arabia. I’m also known to avoid North Korea while I’m at it. I certainly don’t try to change their legal system from my keyboard.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Unfortunately, just staying out of the US doesn't protect you from them. You're just lucky that Saudi Arabia etc don't have the reach.
      - colejohnson66 8y ago
        Exactly. Can you imagine if Saudi Arabia tried to have you extradited for a crime that was illegal there, but legal here? On a side note, isn’t that what’s happening with Kim Dotcom?