4 ms·

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, lar

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.
randyrand 7y ago
Sure, but I think OP is referring to avoiding future taxes as still tax evasion, even if all current debts are settled.

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.

randyrand 7y ago

Sure, but I think OP is referring to avoiding future taxes as still tax evasion, even if all current debts are settled.