BITCOIN as an alternative to regular currency

Post Reply
User avatar
alexmr2
Posts: 708
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:32 am

ShaunWhite wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:21 pm
alexmr2 wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:32 pm
In terms of morals I've never understood why average people are so proud to pay tax (legalised extortion) when those at the top have ways around it.
Morals aren't about whether you personally gain or lose, or what other people do, they're about doing the right thing despite the consequences. People are proud to be taxpayers because they're contributing to society rather than being parasites, that's not a difficult concept to understand.
The system is rigged against the poor :) some of the biggest parasites, by far in terms of volume, are politicians :roll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azq0S0DKS50
User avatar
gazuty
Posts: 2415
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:03 am
Location: Green land :)

alexmr2 wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:32 pm
Tax avoidance (not evasion) isn't that what the rich do anyway?
Not really (except in certain kleptocracies). Take Australia for instance.

If the number of taxpayers is shrunken down to 100 this is what happens. Taken from https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Resear ... statistics

If we rank our 100 people by their taxable incomes:

people with the top 3 taxable incomes paid 29% of all net tax
the next 6 paid 19% of all net tax
the next 31 paid 40% of all net tax
the next 35 paid 12% of all net tax
the final 25 didn't pay any tax.

The bottom 60% of Australian socitety paid in 12 % of all tax and the bottom 25% of society didn't pay a zac.

I can tell you I am one of the people in the top 3 and I'm doing the heavy lifting.

People complain in Australia and in other western societies about the "rich" not paying their share - but it is generally not true (there will always be examples here and then that don't fit this narrative, but overall, the progressive nature of scaled tax in the western world tends towards these results).
sionascaig
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:38 am

gazuty wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:12 am
alexmr2 wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:32 pm
Tax avoidance (not evasion) isn't that what the rich do anyway?
Not really (except in certain kleptocracies). Take Australia for instance.

If the number of taxpayers is shrunken down to 100 this is what happens. Taken from https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Resear ... statistics

If we rank our 100 people by their taxable incomes:

people with the top 3 taxable incomes paid 29% of all net tax
the next 6 paid 19% of all net tax
the next 31 paid 40% of all net tax
the next 35 paid 12% of all net tax
the final 25 didn't pay any tax.

The bottom 60% of Australian socitety paid in 12 % of all tax and the bottom 25% of society didn't pay a zac.

I can tell you I am one of the people in the top 3 and I'm doing the heavy lifting.

People complain in Australia and in other western societies about the "rich" not paying their share - but it is generally not true (there will always be examples here and then that don't fit this narrative, but overall, the progressive nature of scaled tax in the western world tends towards these results).
Interesting stuff - wish we had an equivalent in UK...

I take it self-employed are separate from this?
User avatar
gazuty
Posts: 2415
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:03 am
Location: Green land :)

sionascaig wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:21 am
I take it self-employed are separate from this?
This includes self employed. It’s all taxpayers. I am self employed (beyond BF) and am in these stats.
User avatar
jamesedwards
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

sionascaig wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:21 am
gazuty wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:12 am
alexmr2 wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:32 pm
Tax avoidance (not evasion) isn't that what the rich do anyway?
Not really (except in certain kleptocracies). Take Australia for instance.

If the number of taxpayers is shrunken down to 100 this is what happens. Taken from https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Resear ... statistics

If we rank our 100 people by their taxable incomes:

people with the top 3 taxable incomes paid 29% of all net tax
the next 6 paid 19% of all net tax
the next 31 paid 40% of all net tax
the next 35 paid 12% of all net tax
the final 25 didn't pay any tax.

The bottom 60% of Australian socitety paid in 12 % of all tax and the bottom 25% of society didn't pay a zac.

I can tell you I am one of the people in the top 3 and I'm doing the heavy lifting.

People complain in Australia and in other western societies about the "rich" not paying their share - but it is generally not true (there will always be examples here and then that don't fit this narrative, but overall, the progressive nature of scaled tax in the western world tends towards these results).
Interesting stuff - wish we had an equivalent in UK...

I take it self-employed are separate from this?
In the UK:
The top 1% (gross incomes over £164k) earn 11.8% of all income, yet contribute 26.9% of total tax receipts.
The next 9% earn 21.5% of all income, yet contribute 31.6% of total tax receipts.
The next 40% earn 41.4% of all income and contribute 31.6% of total tax receipts.
The remaining 50% earn 25.3% of all income, yet contribute 9.9% of total tax receipts.

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

Without the rich we are screwed, and yet they are treated as pariahs despite propping up our economy.
User avatar
alexmr2
Posts: 708
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:32 am

IMO lots of negativity towards something already established to serve a function is an indicator to buy. The refusal of the majority to adapt to something new can be an opportunity.

I'm sure most traders are aware that wealth is usually created/grown by being contrarian and buying something when no one is interested rather than during the hype.

Obviously there's still a risk:reward to it, and in cryptos case the potential down and upsides are both high.

I'm still not confident that the stock market (and other assets) have reached the bottom though. I see a long recession ahead
User avatar
jamesedwards
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

Surely crypto has to be one big ponzi scheme? But it's still only 1% of the total world economy, so still money to be had trading it IMO. The recent downturn seems to have stabilised now and I've chosen this moment to nip back in. 8-) or :( ?
verance
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:59 am

jamesedwards wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:53 am
sionascaig wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:21 am
gazuty wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:12 am


Not really (except in certain kleptocracies). Take Australia for instance.

If the number of taxpayers is shrunken down to 100 this is what happens. Taken from https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Resear ... statistics

If we rank our 100 people by their taxable incomes:

people with the top 3 taxable incomes paid 29% of all net tax
the next 6 paid 19% of all net tax
the next 31 paid 40% of all net tax
the next 35 paid 12% of all net tax
the final 25 didn't pay any tax.

The bottom 60% of Australian socitety paid in 12 % of all tax and the bottom 25% of society didn't pay a zac.

I can tell you I am one of the people in the top 3 and I'm doing the heavy lifting.

People complain in Australia and in other western societies about the "rich" not paying their share - but it is generally not true (there will always be examples here and then that don't fit this narrative, but overall, the progressive nature of scaled tax in the western world tends towards these results).
Interesting stuff - wish we had an equivalent in UK...

I take it self-employed are separate from this?
In the UK:
The top 1% (gross incomes over £164k) earn 11.8% of all income, yet contribute 26.9% of total tax receipts.
The next 9% earn 21.5% of all income, yet contribute 31.6% of total tax receipts.
The next 40% earn 41.4% of all income and contribute 31.6% of total tax receipts.
The remaining 50% earn 25.3% of all income, yet contribute 9.9% of total tax receipts.

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

Without the rich we are screwed, and yet they are treated as pariahs despite propping up our economy.
Income tax is progressive. Isn't the problem that really rich people don't earn a lot of taxable income (relatively)? They own companies (that pay a very low % tax) which allows their wealth to compound without tax before eventually paying some CGT.

The top 1% own 43% of global wealth.
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 22675
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ

verance wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:49 am
The top 1% own 43% of global wealth.
Flawed argument. Not completely, just generally.

Disney has halved in value in a few months. That valuation was probably unrealistic a few months ago and is probably more realistic now.

You can't tax unearned income, because a lot of it just doesn't exist. A valuation of an asset is not really wealth. It's only realised if you can sell it at the value you gave it and most assets you could never do that on.

Most small businesses are worthless because if you had to run it with direct employee replacements they would never be viable. Yet in the eyes of this 'wealth narrative' they are great places to avoid paying tax.
henbet22
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:28 pm

From the ifs briefing/article

Company owner-managers can access lower tax rates than employees or the self-employed by, among other things, taking income out of their companies in the form of (more lightly taxed) dividends rather than salary. A change in the labour market away from employment towards self-employment therefore has a substantial effect on the public finances. The OBR forecasts that revenues will be £3.5 billion lower in 2021–22 as a result of growth in incorporations outstripping employment growth, and an additional £1 billion lower as a result of further growth in self-employment.

These figures are in addition to the already substantial revenue forgone through giving lower taxes to these groups. HMRC estimates that lower NICs rates for the self-employed relative to employees cost £5.1 billion each year and lower taxes for company owner managers cost £6.0 billion each year. These figures equate to £1,240 per self-employed person and £9,040 per company owner-manager on average, where the averages mask the fact that most tax savings are going to high-income individuals.

The differential tax treatment of employees, the self-employed and company owner-managers creates a tax system that is complex, unfair and inefficient. Ideally, a new government would set out a long-term vision for how to tax different ways of working. Even if the next government does not wish to take action to improve the tax system, it will have to face the public finance consequences of growing numbers of individuals choosing to work in more lightly taxed forms.[13]
verance
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:59 am

Euler wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:56 am
verance wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:49 am
The top 1% own 43% of global wealth.
Flawed argument. Not completely, just generally.

Disney has halved in value in a few months. That valuation was probably unrealistic a few months ago and is probably more realistic now.

You can't tax unearned income, because a lot of it just doesn't exist. A valuation of an asset is not really wealth. It's only realised if you can sell it at the value you gave it and most assets you could never do that on.

Most small businesses are worthless because if you had to run it with direct employee replacements they would never be viable. Yet in the eyes of this 'wealth narrative' they are great places to avoid paying tax.
Yeah, agree generally. Definitely wouldn't include small businesses, but say if someone owns 10%+ of a company worth over 50bn is there an issue with charging them 1% tax? They can sell 1% of their holding and pay the proceeds or pay on the 1% valuation from other sources (or borrow against the shares).

Currently billionaires can borrow against the valuation of their assets, effectively unlocking the value, but without paying any tax.
henbet22
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:28 pm

I think its the general gentle gaming/cooking of the books that happen at the 1% and 9% and some of the 40% level that is the issue. Lots of tax beneficial divives not lots of income tax.
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 22675
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ

henbet22 wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:37 am
The differential tax treatment of employees, the self-employed and company owner-managers creates a tax system that is complex, unfair and inefficient. Ideally, a new government would set out a long-term vision for how to tax different ways of working. Even if the next government does not wish to take action to improve the tax system, it will have to face the public finance consequences of growing numbers of individuals choosing to work in more lightly taxed forms.[13]
This is the problem with think tanks, it's all paperwork and theory, not practical.

If you forced small business owners to pay themselves minimum wage most would go bust. Force them to become a 'normal' employee and it doesn't work.

Just in the same way that if you force all employees to act like small business owners it wouldn't work.

These are people that took the risk and consequences of going out on their own and having the drive to make it work. Despite that, many still fail, but the government still gets it's rake from them.

Only a few really succeed in a spectacular way and then become punch bags for higher taxation.

If you focus on equality of outcome, you will kill all innovation and risk taking. It's a bit like penalising a sports person because they trained harder than their opponent who sat on the sofa smoking 20 a day, while downing a few beers while eating his takeaway.

You could make everybody level in that respect, or create incentives for people to get off the sofa.

If you want an easier life it's there, but don't expect to get paid the same as other who decided to do better.
User avatar
alexmr2
Posts: 708
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:32 am

jamesedwards wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 2:13 am
Surely crypto has to be one big ponzi scheme? But it's still only 1% of the total world economy, so still money to be had trading it IMO. The recent downturn seems to have stabilised now and I've chosen this moment to nip back in. 8-) or :( ?
Couldn't the dollar or pound be called a Ponzi scheme in the same way? They are all established currencies except that the BTC supply is finite and known

Technical analysis tells me it will half again, stay around 10k for x years then go back up. I think there's some psychological opportunity there as the crowd panic sells and then rushes to join the next push up (if it happens). I do think these things are here to stay but wouldn't bet more than 1-2% of savings on it
Screenshot_20220626-171635_Chrome.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
henbet22
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:28 pm

I don't disagree that there is risk attached with striking out on ones own but I think that is mitigated slightly by the tax incentives which is why there is a year on year growth. But with covid and Brexit it's a tough place to be right now. On an anecdotal level, in the industry that I dip in and out of I meet people who charge 800-1200 per day and are not VAT registered. (I wish I could make 800 per day!) Anecdotal. Very small sample I know!! But they could be working only 80-100 days per year. Go big or go home etc :D
Post Reply

Return to “Cryptocurrency”