6 ms·

Something tells me these guys are more motivated by tax evasion than by saving the environment.

by sbt 7y ago

return1 7y ago
Seasteading is not motivated by environmental concerns , but mainly by libertarian concerns to escape regulations and governments. How would they evade taxes in international territory where there are no taxes? [edit since i m blocked from replying]: - US is unique in taxing worldwide income. I would assume the colonists would renounce any other citizenship anyway, and the colony does not have taxes. - They could not move any financial assets or to the colony unless it is somehow recognized internationally. There is no way to evade taxes. - The only possible way to tranfer assets is to convert them to cryptocurrency , which presumably would only be useful in the colony. And there 's probably not going to be a way to move large sums of money out of the colony, unless international banks agree to cooperate with it. [and a tangent] It's "interesting" to contrast the reactions of HN 2019 compared to 10 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=194028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=194028
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  They would evade taxes from moving from where they currently live (and pay those taxes, which they're not able to evade via fancy constructs) to "Nowhere Land" where they (apparently) are not taxed at all. Alas, "Nowhere Land" may figure at one point that they need to generate income for basic maintenence and other necessary expenses. Basic maintenance, which can be very, very costly out at sea.
- jdblair 7y ago
  There are taxes in international waters. If you are a US citizen you owe income tax no matter where you earn your income. Hiding your income and not paying income tax is evading taxation. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxp...
rufusroflpunch 7y ago
The founder of the Seasteading Institute, Patri Friedman (son David Friedman and grandson of Milton Friedman), is a libertarian anarchist. So yeah, undermining the concept of the nation-state is really built into the DNA of the whole venture. It goes beyond tax avoidance.
- jtms 7y ago
  Sorry to detract from your main point, but how is it possible to be an anarchist and a libertarian at the same time? Those are fairly mutually exclusive based on my understanding.
  - felipeko 7y ago
    The libertarian type of anarchism is called anarcho-capitalism. It's based on property rights and the non aggression principle.
    - orthoxerox 7y ago
      How do they deal with the unquestionable fact that aggression exists?
      - klyrs 7y ago
        I'm no expert, but I believe that the historical response is "yar, matey" In other words: bigger guns
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        The non-aggression principle means that you shouldn't start the aggression, it doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself.
        dllthomas 7y ago
        Which sounds uncontroversial, but there are devils in detailing what constitutes aggression.
chr1 7y ago
If you are always buying groceries at the store next door, and one day find a store with better prices, would buying from the new store be "payment evasion"? The same applies to governments if your current one doesn't provide the service you need you have all the rights to try to find a better one. And whether you move to an existing country or try to create a new one doesn't make a big difference.
- kyralis 7y ago
  This is disingenuous. The store next door isn't providing you with any services beyond the grocery transactions you engage in. A country, on the other hand, largely does. If you actually move from one country to another legitimately, cut ties with the former, and engage solely with the services of the latter, then no one's going to accuse you of tax evasion either. Governments are much less transactional than it's often popular to make them out to be, because there are whole lot of background, foundational services that they provide the people seem to like to pretend simply appear out of thin air.
  - chr1 7y ago
    > cut ties with the former, and engage solely with the services of the latter, then no one's going to accuse you of tax evasion either. If your worry is that an existing government will allow some rich people to register as living on seastead and not pay taxes, then this doesn't have anything to do with seastead, and is only a failure of the government. If US allowed such a scheme there would not be any need to build a seastead, any corrupt government in any small country would be happy to provide all that is needed for a fraction of the cost. On the other hand very similar thing is already happening in places like Russia where families of many government officials live in US and Europe using the money stolen back in home. (One city mayor even got a US green card requiring to live half of the year in the US, at the same time keeping his post and giving speeches on how bad is USA). > because there are whole lot of background, foundational services that they provide the people seem to like to pretend simply appear out of thin air. That is because the services that governments provide are bundled, which makes it hard for people to see what is the foundational service they are paying for and which is something that no one wants but has to buy because some bureaucrat 50 years ago managed to pass a law. Experiments with seastead governments would help to make the bundles more explicit.

Something tells me these guys are more motivated by tax evasion than by saving the environment.

by sbt 7y ago

Something tells me these guys are more motivated by tax evasion than by saving the environment.

Seasteading is not motivated by environmental concerns , but mainly by libertarian concerns to escape regulations and governments. How would they evade taxes in international territory where there are no taxes? [edit since i m blocked from replying]: - US is unique in taxing worldwide income. I would assume the colonists would renounce any other citizenship anyway, and the colony does not have taxes. - They could not move any financial assets or to the colony unless it is somehow recognized internationally. There is no way to evade taxes. - The only possible way to tranfer assets is to convert them to cryptocurrency , which presumably would only be useful in the colony. And there 's probably not going to be a way to move large sums of money out of the colony, unless international banks agree to cooperate with it. [and a tangent] It's "interesting" to contrast the reactions of HN 2019 compared to 10 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=194028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=194028

CaptainZapp 7y ago
They would evade taxes from moving from where they currently live (and pay those taxes, which they're not able to evade via fancy constructs) to "Nowhere Land" where they (apparently) are not taxed at all. Alas, "Nowhere Land" may figure at one point that they need to generate income for basic maintenence and other necessary expenses. Basic maintenance, which can be very, very costly out at sea.
jdblair 7y ago
There are taxes in international waters. If you are a US citizen you owe income tax no matter where you earn your income. Hiding your income and not paying income tax is evading taxation. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxp...

rufusroflpunch 7y ago

The founder of the Seasteading Institute, Patri Friedman (son David Friedman and grandson of Milton Friedman), is a libertarian anarchist. So yeah, undermining the concept of the nation-state is really built into the DNA of the whole venture. It goes beyond tax avoidance.

jtms 7y ago
Sorry to detract from your main point, but how is it possible to be an anarchist and a libertarian at the same time? Those are fairly mutually exclusive based on my understanding.
- felipeko 7y ago
  The libertarian type of anarchism is called anarcho-capitalism. It's based on property rights and the non aggression principle.
  - orthoxerox 7y ago
    How do they deal with the unquestionable fact that aggression exists?
    - klyrs 7y ago
      I'm no expert, but I believe that the historical response is "yar, matey" In other words: bigger guns
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      The non-aggression principle means that you shouldn't start the aggression, it doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself.
      - dllthomas 7y ago
        Which sounds uncontroversial, but there are devils in detailing what constitutes aggression.

chr1 7y ago

If you are always buying groceries at the store next door, and one day find a store with better prices, would buying from the new store be "payment evasion"? The same applies to governments if your current one doesn't provide the service you need you have all the rights to try to find a better one. And whether you move to an existing country or try to create a new one doesn't make a big difference.

kyralis 7y ago
This is disingenuous. The store next door isn't providing you with any services beyond the grocery transactions you engage in. A country, on the other hand, largely does. If you actually move from one country to another legitimately, cut ties with the former, and engage solely with the services of the latter, then no one's going to accuse you of tax evasion either. Governments are much less transactional than it's often popular to make them out to be, because there are whole lot of background, foundational services that they provide the people seem to like to pretend simply appear out of thin air.
- chr1 7y ago
  > cut ties with the former, and engage solely with the services of the latter, then no one's going to accuse you of tax evasion either. If your worry is that an existing government will allow some rich people to register as living on seastead and not pay taxes, then this doesn't have anything to do with seastead, and is only a failure of the government. If US allowed such a scheme there would not be any need to build a seastead, any corrupt government in any small country would be happy to provide all that is needed for a fraction of the cost. On the other hand very similar thing is already happening in places like Russia where families of many government officials live in US and Europe using the money stolen back in home. (One city mayor even got a US green card requiring to live half of the year in the US, at the same time keeping his post and giving speeches on how bad is USA). > because there are whole lot of background, foundational services that they provide the people seem to like to pretend simply appear out of thin air. That is because the services that governments provide are bundled, which makes it hard for people to see what is the foundational service they are paying for and which is something that no one wants but has to buy because some bureaucrat 50 years ago managed to pass a law. Experiments with seastead governments would help to make the bundles more explicit.