Hal Finney writes:
Imagine Ann is a doctor who wants to ply her trade without taxation. Patients go a local high res medical net booth, which Ann runs from long distance using several real time digital mixes. To do this, Ann spends most of each day in her expensive home VR room.
So we are imagining a future scenario in which medicine is commonly if not universally practiced via these remote means? Or do we have two classes of doctor, the anonymous virtual ones and the identified ones that you go and see in person? I ask because at least some of the difficulties Ann faces seem due to her virtual practice.
Non-anonymous docs would choose virtual or real based on travel/intimacy tradeoffs. Urban general practicioners might see most people in person, while rural docs and specialists would have more virtual customers. Btw, how hard is it to have real-time digital mixes? I imagine you could learn a lot about virtual/real mappings from lots of "random" communication lines failures. Imagine all "leaf" lines into homes can be broken on command from long-distance.
Patients pay Ann in untraceable cash, which she uses to pay for groceries and other net services. Her cover story about why she spends so much time in her home VR room, and how she pays for groceries, is that she is a receptionist for some sham company.
The need for a cover story raises the question of from whom Ann has to keep her secrets. In a society where (we will stipulate) 30% avoid taxation, the moral significance of not paying taxes will be different than it is today. We had some interesting posts in an earlier discussion on this list describing the situation in Italy ...
I think the question is whether 30% income tax evasion via crypto is realistic given that the authorities aggressively try to prevent it. Of course with lax enforcement evasion may be high, but as in your example that has nothing to do with cryptography.
Ann has many collegues which she does business with regularly, including equipment suppliers, a pharmacist, a nurse practitioner, emergency substitutes, and various specialists. Ann has never met any of these people in person, and they all show each other fake faces, voices, and even rythms of walking and speaking. Ann's social life outside VR is entirely divorced from her work life.
Well, that last part is true for me already; I telecommute to a company 300 miles away and have no social life with my co-workers.
For some people, such as yourself, the cost of this may be small. For many other people I know, who socialize mostly with co-workers, the cost would be very large. The question is whether it is realistic to think that 30% of workers would find this cost low enough to tolerate.
The other part of this scenario, where Ann interacts with her co-workers via fake faces, does seem disturbing. I could imagine, though, that this might be common in such a culture. Maybe everyone pretties themselves up when on the videophone. If there is widespread understanding that most faces are at least somewhat false, then perhaps going all the way to a completely faked up face would seem more acceptable. But to someone from my generation it will be hard to accept.
It would be hard to accept for me as well. It would be a further alienation of the workplace from what feels comfortable and natural. Not only couldn't you show your face or voice, you might be afraid to tell them new jokes you heard via your public persona, or recommend a restaraunt or play you went to.
It is possible that we might see a more performance-based certification rather than a recommendation based one. My wife is a physical therapist, and she had to pass a licensure exam given by the state which qualifies her to practice. ...
This scenario does seem possible for jobs where you do lots of very similar tasks. In this case a tester can just watch you do a dozen random such tasks (assuming they can verify that you don't keep repeating the test till you get a random result you like). But for most jobs, I think, the tasks are longer term, so that it is important to see your actual performance over many years. And even with small jobs sometimes it is their ability to handle rare events that is most important.
The risks of being caught will depend on factors we don't know, like the technology and legal system. Rather than assuming that tax rates are the same, it might be more plausible to assume they have gone up in order to keep revenues stable.
The question I pose is whether agressive enforcement can prevent this 30% evasion scenario. If yes, the evasion is << 30%, so assuming constant taxes is appropriate.
This problem may be somewhat specific to the medical scenario, but I suspect that many other professions are going to have trouble switching to a cash basis. Anyone whose customers are businesses, for example, will face the problem that the businesses' books will need to show that an expense is justified in order to deduct it. This will be a major problem for the "anonymous firm" we have discussed occasionally.
A very good point. Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/