Re: Taxes in the digicash world

SUMMARY: A: Quotation. B,C,D: usual rehash E: Interesting conclusions A) At 06:17 AM 7/30/96 -0500, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) wrote:
The question is, how can the government TECHNICALLY collect taxes? .... Let's say, maybe this tax would work: every time someone verifies that a piece of digital cash is valid, s/he has to pay the government a little percentage of the amount. Since digital banks are easier to control than other participants of the market, this kind of tax legislation is easier to enforce. .. Another alternative that I see is property taxes and poll taxes, or taxes on some commodities such as oil. But incomes seem to be hard to track.
B) Basically, you can either tax income, consumption, transactions, ownership, and the right to do business. Ownership of land and easily traced tangibles, like houses and cars, still works, but isn't a big enough source of revenue for current government appetites, and taxing consumption (i.e. purchase) of these items is also revenue-limited. US-based corporations are regulated - by taxing profits, they're given an incentive to report all their consumption, generating a recording stream that fingers employees, contractors, and other corporations, making their incomes more visible. Similarly, business licensing raises the visibility of people who might otherwise engage in profitable services (typically in the name of protecting the consumer through quality control), and often creates transaction records such as building permits. C) Taxing bank _transactions_ isn't realistic - it encourages people to use offshore banks, and it's a major change in the way US taxes work. Even with payee-and-payer-anonymous digicash, when the digicash gets stored in an account for translation to treecash, the bank can tell which account, though they can't tell when and from whom you got the digicash, and if they pay interest they must report it, so that tells the IRS your average balance, letting them play the traditional game of "you received $X in your bank account, prove that it wasn't taxable income" (again, unless you're banking offshore.) D) As long as you're buying physical stuff, it's generally either small-volume (e.g. handicrafts and artwork) or made by corporations that are relatively traceable, because they're forced to report their incomes, or else it's material that's purely black-market anyway, like dope. But today's economy is moving away from manufacturing and mostly into services; the low-paid stuff like lawnmowing and babysitting helps support poor people, but isn't a big revenue impact. The interesting problems occur when both your source of income and most of your consumption are communication-based intangibles - consulting, electronic paperwork, writing software, writing entertainment, selling electronically-delivered wares, laundering money, laundering software, laundering entertainment, buying software, buying entertainment, buying consulting for your business. Since the services and payment can both be delivered invisibly, that _can_ let lots of people get under the radar. E) I think the battleground for taxation and control over the digital economy will be fought in two or three areas. One is wiretapping, of course, to protect us from narco-porno-taxevaso-terrorists; attempting to control the key management structure will be a big part of this, since it lets you trace the players as well as the money. (Even if they don't get your private keys, and can only force registering of, say, snail-address along with public keys, that gives them much of the game.) A related push is censorship, probably with mandatory authorship identification ostensibly to enforce content labelling. But the other big push will be for licensing of computer practitioners and software - there's been some attempt at this already, partly from the serious safety folks and partly from the state-level business-licensing meddlers, but I think we'll see far more of it as the government realizes that it's a big hook for retaining tax visibility. Because the software business is extremely portable and geography-independent, much of the tracking will be from the demand side. Software for some reasonably large fraction of use may need to be certified by either a licensed practitioner or a corporation that can be liable. After all, we _need_ to protect the integrity of the National Information Infrastructure to preserve American jobs and protect our kids! # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # Dispel Authority!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Bill Stewart wrote:
...Ownership of land and easily traced tangibles, like houses and cars, still works, but isn't a big enough source of revenue for current government appetites...
I think Bill needs to re-examine this statement. If the ONLY source of taxes was realty, the only limit to the amount it can be taxes is the asset base of the country's population. Taxes on land can be arbitrarily high just as long as the land owner can pass his costs on to tenants and customers. If my rent went up five times and everything I bought increased in price ten fold but I paid no direct taxes, would I be any worse (or better) off? The purpose of taxes is to fund government. As long as everyone thinks the suffering is pretty much evenly spread, there are few complaints--at least until it becomes impossible to live on what's left. Please understand, I not for ANY taxes. As I said to someone in private e-mail, if it were up to me, I'd fund the last days of the government with a going-out-of-business sale. It would help people make the transition and would dispose of "public" assets in a more or less orderly fashion. (How much am I bid for this lovely half acre lot in beautiful Yosemite park?) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
participants (2)
-
Bill Stewart
-
Sandy Sandfort