pull down to refresh
136 sats \ 15 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 13h \ on: The Increasing Impact of Bitcoin’s Ancient Supply bitcoin
Bitcoin is increasingly ossifying into a speculative commodity/SoV and losing its original purpose and capacity as a MoE.
As a SoV speculative commodity Bitcoin presents no serious threat to fiat money and the basis of fiat monetary power, which is its hegemony over MoE.
Sly bankers and governments have effectively captured and controlled how the protocol is perceived and used via regulation, sanctions, surveillance and taxation leverage.
Yeah these guys suck.
What's your #1 wish for adoption in terms of:
- Earning sats, and
- Spending sats?
reply
Removal of tax upon MoE use of Bitcoin.
When we zap or buy a coffee with LN/sats there should be no tax liability imposed as a result of that transaction.
If the merchant receiving those sats subsequently pays their supplier with those sats again there should be no additional tax liability imposed on them.
This would allow fair competition for MoE/payments use between sats and fiat- that fair competition currently does not exist.
reply
Onerous taxes also deter sales, making it more scarce.
I hope they get rid of the tax also, but there is a good chance making bitcoin easier to spend will actually be price negative, at least initially.
I think eliminating the tax will be like allowing the ETF. Lots of resistance, and then when it finally happens it will seem beyond obvious that it was going to happen for a good few years before it finally does.
reply
That didn't really answer my question, but let's go through it:
no tax liability imposed
As in no cap gains tax? Agree, but realize if Bitcoin is official money, there are still cap gains and losses (through FX) unless the whole asset gets exempted.
While I am of the opinion that all taxation (and if I have to choose, especially on assets, productivity or trade) is theft, but in lieu of soft-anarchy being reality:
- It would be best for Bitcoin if in case of an individual, the state taxing FX gains and losses should have high exempts, like you take the median income, you do it 2x or 3x and that's the exemption for FX 1
- For a business, FX gains/losses as a form of cap gains is kind of normal 2, so there, it should be acceptable if one accepts taxation. If you as a country then print too much or tax too much, you will lose local businesses and your econ will go shitters.
In the end, I think that the harder your government taxes and the more "special rules" are made for Bitcoin, the less adoption will be seen by you, because they're actively working against trade-of-the-freest-kind.
Footnotes
-
but this will mean there will be a battle with shitstonkers trying to ride that too, so we should be careful what we wish for. It failed in the US, where the Bitcoin position was great and now it's probably going to lead to more nastiness in the future because of all the dishonest shittokens riding the same status as Bitcoin due to retarded bills. ↩
-
about a gazillion years ago opti was doing EU / US / HK GAAP reconciliation for multinationals and these definitely had FX gains & losses that were ultimately taxed as cap gains too, so there is imho no case to be made for businesses, except to treat BTC accounts as if it was just foreign currency, like holding GBP in a USD accounting setup. Would at least make it standardized straight. ↩
reply
You misunderstand my answer.
I stated remove tax liability on MoE/payments use of BTC.
In other words when someone uses Bitcoin as a MoE/payment there is should be no tax.
This is not removal of CGT- where BTC is held as a speculative commodity seeking CG.
So, when you spend BTC there should be no tax- but currently in almost all jurisdictions spending of BTC is considered an asset disposal and so taxed for CG.
This is what I disagree with because it strongly discourages use of BTC as a payments protocol...removing a free market in payments...in favour of fiats hegemony.
Apparently in some countries like Germany and Portugal , if BTC is held for a certain time maybe one year or more then disposal is not taxed. This could be a solution. It still discourages short term speculation but allows use as a payment protocol tax free (once held for 12 months).
My preferred solution would be disposal for fiat is taxed as a CG- disposal for goods or services is not, at least up to an annual limit.
Bitcoin is a payments protocol and will ultimately fail if not used as a payments protocol.
The unfair, untrue and sly assertion by tax authorities that Bitcoin is always a speculative commodity and not a payments protocol undermines BTCs entire utility as a MoE payments protocol...its changes the narrative and usage of Bitcoin toward being a speculative commodity plaything- taxed, tracked and traced and increasingly not used for payments.
As payments use becomes increasingly rare the argument to ban private custody upon KYC/AML pretext becomes stronger and harder to resist... but they probably don't need to ban MoE use anyway because they have already so strongly obstructed payments via discriminatory tax treatment.
reply
I don't think I misunderstood, I'm just saying that for example an EU business transacting in USD is also taxed on cap gains if USD rises against EUR. Thus, if you're asking for a special status: Bitcoin > USD everywhere outside of the US then that's a hard sell and will be seen as favoritism. I'm not against it, I just don't think it realistic. I think KY made a law for state taxes like that recently though, but I can't help but feel that this is an outlier.
I do agree that for individuals tax on Bitcoin gains is nonsense and it could be easily fixed by making a very high cap so that the average person doesn't get taxed at all. It's anyway not worth the effort in most cases.
Personally, I'd like to see no tax at all, unless it's for damages, i.e. environmental tax.
reply
If a European business holds USD and makes payments in USD because they believe USD will hold value more likely than Euro they clearly have intent to make gain via capital gain.
If a citizen or business holds BTC because they want to make p2p payments free of rentseeking censorship capable intermediaries they are not clearly intending CG.
To tax citizens and businesses who hold BTC for reasons of integrity and enabling free market competition in monetary payments protocols is anti-competitive state monopolistic protectionism and inequitable.
Milei has stated his intention to allow people freedom of choice in payments protocols as this creates a healthy competitive free market in money, free of state sponsored monopolistic fiat debt leveraged usury. I believe he is 100% correct on this and a free market in monetary protocols would most likely strengthen any economy where it is adopted.
Bankers and governments have misused their fiat hegemony too long and are clearly will be very reluctant to relinquish it.
We need to examine why- because it is we who pay the rent on their fiat usury and debasement.
P.S. I agree that allowing a capped exemption for people (especially where they spend sats rather than sell for fiat) would be a great step in the right direction and would enable at least some increased competition in the MoE payments marketplace.
I think that a stubborn cohort of “early “Bitcoiners will start working on things they consider worthwhile. And they will ONLY sell their work for Bitcoin. Not just because they don’t need other people’s money but as a matter of principle too.