11 ms·

What about the idea that it acts as a balancing weight to the perverse incentives for countries to debase their currency? Radically if the relationship to taxat

What about the idea that it acts as a balancing weight to the perverse incentives for countries to debase their currency? Radically if the relationship to taxation was more of a voluntary customer relationship it could lead to better outcomes, ignoring how many more problems it might bring. Thoughts?

endisneigh 5y ago
Focusing on democratic nations specifically for a moment - I don't see how it could be a balancing weight. Presumably all issues with a country and its handling of their own currency could be resolved solely through democratic political means. No technical solution - cryptocurrency or otherwise - necessary. I don't really understand your second point. Taxation by definition is involuntary. I won't discuss the merits of taxation (vs. detriments) but a "voluntary taxation" system would result in a prisoners dilemma where no one would pay taxes. Eventually the government that implements such a thing would be no longer able to fund itself and in quick succession find itself literally bankrupt.
- nolantait 5y ago
  For example, Keynsian economics requires everyone to be forced to save through a central banking system. Otherwise the whole thing collapses. Keynsian economics has dominated the last 100 years of politics. Crypto gives you an escape which puts a check politicians who would be forced to be less spendy. The only other way of enforcing this would attack the ways in which politicians trade favor which seems impossible. I can't see a single reason to stop spending as a politician if you can print money. Your political time horizon is shorter than the detrimental effects of your spending so the voting population is unable to de-obfuscate the cause of their purchasing power falling rapidly. I usually hear people blame the rich as a knee-jerk reaction instead.
  - bserge 5y ago
    Oh, why would they be less spendy when they can just take your crypto escape away by physical force?
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      Can they? If people buy P2P without KYC, how can force be applied? Further, is there the will to have people's property confiscated via violence? If so, where are we democratically? Where does state power end? Why does state power make sense against non violent non consenting citizens, but not against true oligarchs manipulating our political system? At some point it becomes obvious the whole system is a farcical power hierarchy. Crypto is one thing this system will struggle to steal.
      - danaris 5y ago
        > is there the will to have people's property confiscated via violence? ...yes? This has been a fairly common practice since the dawn of civilization. If you do bad things, you get your stuff taken away. The idea that this can be circumvented by creating cryptocurrency, whether or not it can ever be made a de jure currency, is libertarian techbro wishful thinking of the highest order.
  - lottin 5y ago
    > Keynsian economics requires everyone to be forced to save through a central banking system Utterly bizarre...
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >For example, Keynsian economics requires everyone to be forced to save through a central banking system. Where did you get this strange idea from? You can literally buy anything with your money to save in real assets or at least non monetary savings like bonds. If anything, low interest rates tell you you should stop saving in money but they don't force you to save or stop saving in money. Nobody is here to tell you what you should do as an individual actor.
    - nolantait 5y ago
      The money exists in a closed system controlled by a central banking system. You might move your money around but the control remains. I didn't mean to imply that my free will is at risk with our current system. Only to point out that the Keynesian model has a hard time existing if the money supply is determined by a gold standard. And back then I could buy the same things. I'm also not disavowing the great tools we have to control our economy. Just exploring ideas outside the narrow focus on greater and greater taxation in a world becoming more resistant to it every year. If the US were forced back to a gold standard could they continue being Keynsian in the way they have been over the last 20 years?
alexfoxgill 5y ago
Voluntary tax is charity. The whole point of tax is that it applies to everyone by some set of rules that democracy has arrived at.
- nolantait 5y ago
  A customer relationship is different in that the feedback loop between your wants/desires and the governing body is more immediate. The rules that were arrived at seem to be less about effectiveness than about special interests. Not to say the ideas I was asking everyones opinion on are a panacea but taxation as ideology is not beyond reproach. Are there alternatives that curb the bad incentives and force a better game with better outcomes?
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    No ideology is beyond reproach. That doesn't mean any single person has the right to circumvent the law at will; instead, we discuss it and make a change as a society. Taxes are no different from other laws in this respect. Just because someone doesn't like them doesn't mean they should get to disregard the law. If that were the case, we should be free to ignore any law we don't like.
    - nolantait 5y ago
      Right. But every change in the societal order will be illegal by definition. Its more that our capabilities to rebel are increased over time. We would all be in feudal bondage if machines didn't reorganize our relationship between workers and the state. Women would not have the rights they do without birth control, etc... Taxes work because we can (imperfectly) enforce them. What happens when we can't?
      - lottin 5y ago
        What happens? A failed state.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
ivalm 5y ago
Inflation (at levels that it happens in developed countries) is good, as it forces people to spend on goods and services or invest in productive enterprises. It is actively bad for the society if one can just sit on money. Taxation is as voluntary as it can be in democracy given that you elect the government which sets the rate and then pay into commons. You can’t rely on purely voluntary contribution as then people would simply not contribute. Society gets into tragedy of the commons all the time where the global optimum requires contributions that are locally disavantageous, this is why we must have contribution to commons.
- jackt89 5y ago
  You will have your money's value stolen from you through inflation. You will be forced to consume. And you will be happy.
  - ivalm 5y ago
    Society grows through investment. This comes either through capital inflow or consumption, and honestly success of the US lies in the “consumption.” It’s the thing that brought so much convenience and material well-being to our lives. So “consume and be happy” is unironically true. In as much as the entire concept of money is purely intersubjective we should shape it for societal good. Again, you won’t lose real value if you keep your money invested (and for example do TIPS if you want low risk).
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      > Society grows through investment. This comes either through capital inflow or consumption Society grows through production. People invest their time and effort in the first place, not money. Consumption is the final non-efficient cause of production. The efficient cause is savings, which represent unconsumed goods and values. Consumption is the end of production, a dead end, as far as the productive process is concerned.
  - NoGravitas 5y ago
    I don't know about you, buddy, but most people are forced to consume practically all of their income to keep their family fed and to keep a roof over their heads. Having savings that could be eroded by inflation is not really a relatable problem to have, in general.
bserge 5y ago
My first thought is you can share your thoughts with the armed people at your door if you decide to push your voluntary taxation idea. They'll probably listen to you as they're giving you a free ride to your new home. Point is, it's not a balancing weight when the state has the actual power. Broader point: instead of focusing on changing and improving the actual social/political system, people build fantasy escape solutions through technology. But it's all based on the assumption that the current liberal, democratic society is an immutable right for everyone. It's not.
- nolantait 5y ago
  It is a balancing weight because the states military power depends on a landed citizenry that is easily taxed. If you remove the easily taxed part you also remove the military power part. Not advocating a lawless return to strong man tribalism. But I don't follow the idea that changing the abilities of a government to easily enforce taxation means they will remain effective at enforcing through more expensive means.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Cryptocurrencies do not exactly make it harder to enforce taxes on a landed citizenry. The government is what enforces land property in the first place, and if you're late on your taxes they'll just put a tax lien on your land and ultimately stop enforcing your property rights on it.
    - nolantait 5y ago
      Assuming you can't also choose to move yourself and your assets to another country offering better terms. That's how the dynamics are changing. Peter Thiel and New Zealand are a small picture of the future to come. Countries will compete. How much of wealth is really tied up in land? If I can zap my wealth from one side of the world to another without anyone being able to stop me is it really easier to stop capital flight?
      - 5y ago
joe_the_user 5y ago
Radically if the relationship to taxation was more of a voluntary customer relationship it could lead to better outcomes The fundamental outcome of this "voluntary taxation" scheme would be that the wealthy would gain an extra layer of control over the actions of the state, aside from the vast influence this group already has (and the wealthy no doubt would be the ones able to make taxes voluntary in this way, notably). Which is to say argument accept the fundamentally antidemocratic direction that bitcoin pushes society in but tries to paint a prettier face on it.
- nolantait 5y ago
  Voluntary taxation might be taken as just asking people to pay taxes which I am thinking is a bit of a strawman. If instead you chose to pay for the services you wanted and subsidized services for others you could end up with the same system we have in total expenditure but with an added layer of feedback where government services "compete" for the polity. Naturally reducing the overall bloat of our institutions. I don't think that re-engineering the incentives around taxation means we have to go full Ayn Rand. I also don't think any of these ideas will come about from people deciding. The natural advantage the wealthy have in choosing where to locate their capital will force this outcome with governments coming kicking and screaming the whole way down.
lottin 5y ago
What incentives do countries have to debase their currency in your opinion?

endisneigh 5y ago

Focusing on democratic nations specifically for a moment - I don't see how it could be a balancing weight. Presumably all issues with a country and its handling of their own currency could be resolved solely through democratic political means. No technical solution - cryptocurrency or otherwise - necessary. I don't really understand your second point. Taxation by definition is involuntary. I won't discuss the merits of taxation (vs. detriments) but a "voluntary taxation" system would result in a prisoners dilemma where no one would pay taxes. Eventually the government that implements such a thing would be no longer able to fund itself and in quick succession find itself literally bankrupt.

nolantait 5y ago
For example, Keynsian economics requires everyone to be forced to save through a central banking system. Otherwise the whole thing collapses. Keynsian economics has dominated the last 100 years of politics. Crypto gives you an escape which puts a check politicians who would be forced to be less spendy. The only other way of enforcing this would attack the ways in which politicians trade favor which seems impossible. I can't see a single reason to stop spending as a politician if you can print money. Your political time horizon is shorter than the detrimental effects of your spending so the voting population is unable to de-obfuscate the cause of their purchasing power falling rapidly. I usually hear people blame the rich as a knee-jerk reaction instead.
- bserge 5y ago
  Oh, why would they be less spendy when they can just take your crypto escape away by physical force?
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    Can they? If people buy P2P without KYC, how can force be applied? Further, is there the will to have people's property confiscated via violence? If so, where are we democratically? Where does state power end? Why does state power make sense against non violent non consenting citizens, but not against true oligarchs manipulating our political system? At some point it becomes obvious the whole system is a farcical power hierarchy. Crypto is one thing this system will struggle to steal.
    - danaris 5y ago
      > is there the will to have people's property confiscated via violence? ...yes? This has been a fairly common practice since the dawn of civilization. If you do bad things, you get your stuff taken away. The idea that this can be circumvented by creating cryptocurrency, whether or not it can ever be made a de jure currency, is libertarian techbro wishful thinking of the highest order.
- lottin 5y ago
  > Keynsian economics requires everyone to be forced to save through a central banking system Utterly bizarre...
- imtringued 5y ago
  >For example, Keynsian economics requires everyone to be forced to save through a central banking system. Where did you get this strange idea from? You can literally buy anything with your money to save in real assets or at least non monetary savings like bonds. If anything, low interest rates tell you you should stop saving in money but they don't force you to save or stop saving in money. Nobody is here to tell you what you should do as an individual actor.
  - nolantait 5y ago
    The money exists in a closed system controlled by a central banking system. You might move your money around but the control remains. I didn't mean to imply that my free will is at risk with our current system. Only to point out that the Keynesian model has a hard time existing if the money supply is determined by a gold standard. And back then I could buy the same things. I'm also not disavowing the great tools we have to control our economy. Just exploring ideas outside the narrow focus on greater and greater taxation in a world becoming more resistant to it every year. If the US were forced back to a gold standard could they continue being Keynsian in the way they have been over the last 20 years?

alexfoxgill 5y ago

Voluntary tax is charity. The whole point of tax is that it applies to everyone by some set of rules that democracy has arrived at.

nolantait 5y ago
A customer relationship is different in that the feedback loop between your wants/desires and the governing body is more immediate. The rules that were arrived at seem to be less about effectiveness than about special interests. Not to say the ideas I was asking everyones opinion on are a panacea but taxation as ideology is not beyond reproach. Are there alternatives that curb the bad incentives and force a better game with better outcomes?
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  No ideology is beyond reproach. That doesn't mean any single person has the right to circumvent the law at will; instead, we discuss it and make a change as a society. Taxes are no different from other laws in this respect. Just because someone doesn't like them doesn't mean they should get to disregard the law. If that were the case, we should be free to ignore any law we don't like.
  - nolantait 5y ago
    Right. But every change in the societal order will be illegal by definition. Its more that our capabilities to rebel are increased over time. We would all be in feudal bondage if machines didn't reorganize our relationship between workers and the state. Women would not have the rights they do without birth control, etc... Taxes work because we can (imperfectly) enforce them. What happens when we can't?
    - lottin 5y ago
      What happens? A failed state.
- shkkmo 5y ago

ivalm 5y ago

Inflation (at levels that it happens in developed countries) is good, as it forces people to spend on goods and services or invest in productive enterprises. It is actively bad for the society if one can just sit on money. Taxation is as voluntary as it can be in democracy given that you elect the government which sets the rate and then pay into commons. You can’t rely on purely voluntary contribution as then people would simply not contribute. Society gets into tragedy of the commons all the time where the global optimum requires contributions that are locally disavantageous, this is why we must have contribution to commons.

jackt89 5y ago
You will have your money's value stolen from you through inflation. You will be forced to consume. And you will be happy.
- ivalm 5y ago
  Society grows through investment. This comes either through capital inflow or consumption, and honestly success of the US lies in the “consumption.” It’s the thing that brought so much convenience and material well-being to our lives. So “consume and be happy” is unironically true. In as much as the entire concept of money is purely intersubjective we should shape it for societal good. Again, you won’t lose real value if you keep your money invested (and for example do TIPS if you want low risk).
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    > Society grows through investment. This comes either through capital inflow or consumption Society grows through production. People invest their time and effort in the first place, not money. Consumption is the final non-efficient cause of production. The efficient cause is savings, which represent unconsumed goods and values. Consumption is the end of production, a dead end, as far as the productive process is concerned.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  I don't know about you, buddy, but most people are forced to consume practically all of their income to keep their family fed and to keep a roof over their heads. Having savings that could be eroded by inflation is not really a relatable problem to have, in general.

bserge 5y ago

My first thought is you can share your thoughts with the armed people at your door if you decide to push your voluntary taxation idea. They'll probably listen to you as they're giving you a free ride to your new home. Point is, it's not a balancing weight when the state has the actual power. Broader point: instead of focusing on changing and improving the actual social/political system, people build fantasy escape solutions through technology. But it's all based on the assumption that the current liberal, democratic society is an immutable right for everyone. It's not.

nolantait 5y ago
It is a balancing weight because the states military power depends on a landed citizenry that is easily taxed. If you remove the easily taxed part you also remove the military power part. Not advocating a lawless return to strong man tribalism. But I don't follow the idea that changing the abilities of a government to easily enforce taxation means they will remain effective at enforcing through more expensive means.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Cryptocurrencies do not exactly make it harder to enforce taxes on a landed citizenry. The government is what enforces land property in the first place, and if you're late on your taxes they'll just put a tax lien on your land and ultimately stop enforcing your property rights on it.
  - nolantait 5y ago
    Assuming you can't also choose to move yourself and your assets to another country offering better terms. That's how the dynamics are changing. Peter Thiel and New Zealand are a small picture of the future to come. Countries will compete. How much of wealth is really tied up in land? If I can zap my wealth from one side of the world to another without anyone being able to stop me is it really easier to stop capital flight?
    - 5y ago

joe_the_user 5y ago

Radically if the relationship to taxation was more of a voluntary customer relationship it could lead to better outcomes The fundamental outcome of this "voluntary taxation" scheme would be that the wealthy would gain an extra layer of control over the actions of the state, aside from the vast influence this group already has (and the wealthy no doubt would be the ones able to make taxes voluntary in this way, notably). Which is to say argument accept the fundamentally antidemocratic direction that bitcoin pushes society in but tries to paint a prettier face on it.

nolantait 5y ago
Voluntary taxation might be taken as just asking people to pay taxes which I am thinking is a bit of a strawman. If instead you chose to pay for the services you wanted and subsidized services for others you could end up with the same system we have in total expenditure but with an added layer of feedback where government services "compete" for the polity. Naturally reducing the overall bloat of our institutions. I don't think that re-engineering the incentives around taxation means we have to go full Ayn Rand. I also don't think any of these ideas will come about from people deciding. The natural advantage the wealthy have in choosing where to locate their capital will force this outcome with governments coming kicking and screaming the whole way down.

lottin 5y ago

What incentives do countries have to debase their currency in your opinion?