Live data from Hacker News

Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

npr.org

401–405 of 405 posts

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on your definition of money. From my point of view, cryptocurrencies are financial assets but not money. They are not an IOU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOU ). Government money is a IOU because you are promised that it (and only it) will be accepted as a payment by the state. Anyway, state money can never be totally replaced at least that the government accept payment taxes in the new currency. And why…

Agreed. Acceptance for tax payment is what imbues money with value.

I read your comments and I think you are missing only a few pieces of the puzzle.

I recommend you to investigate Modern Monetary Theory. It's what made me fill the holes in my understanding (the bigger holes, at least).

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there is money and there is money. Banks create an asset in their balance, but they create a liability at the same time. Only governments spending create net financial assets in the economy (that is not the same that real assets, of course). https://fernandonogueiracosta.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/cu... (If it's too long, see 'vertical transactions')

Will read this but not sure I'll agree. Banks create money and it is fungible with state tax payment money http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Pages/workingpapers/...

It's a different kind of money, because in a case debt is created and in the other no (even if we use the fiction that it is):

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Verti...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/01/bill-mitchell-demysti...

(thanks for the link)

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Acceptance for tax payment is what imbues money with value.

I read your comments and I think you are missing only a few pieces of the puzzle. I recommend you to investigate Modern Monetary Theory. It's what made me fill the holes in my understanding (the bigger holes, at least).

I'm familiar with MMT and my understanding is that sites like positive money push this perspective, that banks create money:

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-mo...

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will read this but not sure I'll agree. Banks create money and it is fungible with state tax payment money http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Pages/workingpapers/...

It's a different kind of money, because in a case debt is created and in the other no (even if we use the fiction that it is): https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Verti... http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/01/bill-mitchell-demysti... (thanks for the link)

I'm going to read these too. I think nakedcapitalism is such a great blog.

I agree one is created as debt which will be destroyed ultimately on repayment. However this is the nub - they create 100 and demand back 110 at a later date, therefore more must be lent in the interim to avoid a deflationary collapse.

Re: Stanford Professor Loses Political Battle To Simplify Tax Filing Process

#405
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They may oppose it ideologically, on the basis that the government should experience as much friction as possible in its efforts to fleece the populace. Such an ideological position is a valid reason to oppose this change. Tax evasion is not a valid ideological policy. Tax minimization, fine, everyone is entitled to deduct as much as the tax code allows. Tax evasion is crossing the line into crime. That's literally…

It's not tax evasion. People comply with the law, they just want it to be as difficult/expensive as possible for the government to continue the program. >If you don't like the tax policy, leave. It's part of the social contract - find somewhere to live where you agree with the social contract. lol? This attitude is the antithesis of democracy. In democracies, we say, "If you don't like it, contact your representative…

> I don't know what it is with HN lately, but a lot of these really vapid, myopic memes have been invading the political threads here.

White noise response, nice. "How dare you post about XYZ".

Don't do this. If you don't have a point to make, then don't post. Internet bytes are cheap, you are not a mod who gets to flag posts.

You're not the first person to come up with the idea of passive-aggressive responses to things you don't like. And if you want to play the "malicious compliance" game then be my guest... but don't be surprised when an IRS agent or a judge pushes your shit in over it.

A lot of libertarians think that judges are beep-boop robots and will drop their spaghetti all over the floor when you whip out the one secret legal maneuver that attorneys don't want you to know about (judges hate him!).

This is very much not the case, at every level that you will ever reach the law is interpreted in a strongly "common law" view towards actual justice that doesn't really care for your strict textualism. The judge is going to take quite a dim view of you whipping out your clever trick and you are going to suffer for it.

Some don't, SCOTUS is notoriously partisan and the East Texas courts are notoriously friendly to patent law (although SCOTUS has repeatedly slapped down their interpretations). But anywhere you're going to get, don't expect your "the flag has a fringe!" arguments to fly.

By and large, the law will still be interpreted with the context of basic human decency. If you try and be a dick and stall the government with baseless legal maneuvering, the human being on the other side of the stand is going to recognize that and you're going to have a real bad time.

Post reply on HN