Why is evading tax not as bad as scamming people? Isn't it really just scamming the public (i.e. everyone)?
Usually in this context the "evaders" will refer to it as tax resistance or tax protest. It is a form of civil disobedience. The government being disobeyed, of course, is unlikely to see it that way, and in a modern context, would call it evasion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance
The Indian example is especially poignant because refusing to pay salt taxes was one of their key strategies for achieving independence from the British, and they managed to do it without firing a shot. So yeah I'd say refusing to pay the salt tax was a big win morally and probably saved a lot of lives.
What the best examples typically have in common is that the government in question didn't possess the consent of the governed. In the case of the British WTRL the refrain was "No vote, no tax." If the government won't let women vote then what right does it have to tax them? Women weren't able to indicate consent (or lack thereof) via the political process, and they were ultimately successful in their argument that this taxation without representation was unjust. Incidentally this line of thinking was expanded upon decades later across the pond in the US, which ultimately decided via the 26th amendment that it was immoral to draft men into the army when they were still too young to vote, and lowered the voting age to 18.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_acts_of_tax... for hundreds of examples you might or might not agree with ...!
Your argument doesn't make sense. The example you cite are examples of protest against unjust taxation not that "the government is not entitled" to any of my crypto. As you yourself elaborate in the following paragraphs. Are you seriously suggesting parallels between the crypto bros and Gandhi in that they are both participating in civil disobedience? Oh. Please.
And SBF is just a modern day MLK because both are referred to by TLAs!
This doesn't seem to want crypto or finance exchanges. Thistle people just want the benefits of the government without paying for it.
That's just fraud.
Governments can get most of their revenue with little economic distortion by taxing stuff where evasion is much harder: Fuel taxes and property taxes.
You may believe there's a better way for the government to tax us, but that's not how the system works currently.
Crypto being used for tax evasion is a good reason for it to be regulated out of existence.
Regulating it with a heavy hand will do more harm than good. Those innovators will just move offshore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money
But a system that takes the concept of ledgers, and makes it tied to pseudonymous addresses instead of persons, is distributed across the world, resilient to tampering, and which gives its users control over their money, and which has been in use for 15 years is
1. “Not innovative”, and
2. That in the span of 30,000 years that 15 years is enough time to really tell if this is something that will survive or if it’s just a dumb idea that will die out.
I think that Bitcoin is a wonderful system, and I think that more people should take time to study Bitcoin in detail. Do not let the crypto bros and the people that only care about measuring Bitcoin in dollars distract you from the real point of Bitcoin.
Well, it is innovative, in the same sense a jet engine is. What you don't do with jet engines is using them to keep static structures in the air indefinitely. You use steel beams or concrete for that.
Crypto tech as cash alternative is pretty much jet engine as a steel tower alternative.
I don't personally own any beer hats. But I see how they are useful at a baseball game for example.
Thanks for reminding me that beer hats exist. Now, if only I can find a store that sells beerhats for BTC :thinking_face:
Yes, let them move offshore. Being able to more easily commit tax fraud and money laundering isn't the kind of innovation we need to keep.
I also think that businesses avoiding tax by not reporting cash are putting themselves into an unfair position against businesses that are legally operating, and I'd have a preference that businesses doing this should be shut down. If you're running a thin margin business and your competitor is able to price themselves better by committing tax fraud, then you need to also commit tax fraud to compete, and that's a race to the bottom that's not good for anyone.
You can also compare apples and oranges, but the comparison might not be useful.
If you are Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi, other rules apply to you, because they are the ones who write the rules or lobby for them.