Which is Worse: Taxes or Fiat Money? \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Which is Worse: Taxes or Fiat Money?

1182 sats \ 44 comments \ @kepford 11h econ

Taxes are theft.
Fiat is manipulation of the base money in an economy by a few.

If you could snap your fingers and eliminate one forever but no other which would you choose to eliminate?

Fiat - (No money printer)55.2%

Taxes - All Taxes (but not fiat)44.8%

29 votes \ 13h left

view all related items

43 sats \ 0 replies \ @fiatbad 7h

I can't believe this poll is so close.

Fiat is the obvious answer.

I'm shocked. I'm disappointed.

Now I understand why more Bitcoiners aren't fighting to end fiat. They haven't read the must-read book list, apparently. They simply haven't done their homework, I guess.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nkmg1c_ventures 5h

The tax base pales in comparison to the amount of money printed just to keep everything chugging along

194 sats \ 9 replies \ @optimism 11h

That one was easy: taxes. They generally don't let you opt-out of these whereas opting out of fiat is the act of spending it.

100 sats \ 8 replies \ @kepford OP 10h

And yet... one has opposition and the other is invisible.

Virtually no one even understands fiat.

Most people have a much better understanding of taxes.

78 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 10h

Fair, but I think that that is the best reason to choose taxes.

Remove fiat you shall still be coerced no matter how much you learn about taxes
Remove taxes, all you need to do is learn to get rid of that fiat asap.

111 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 10h

This is why I asked the question. Good point. I still disagree but it gets us thinking doesn't it?

My thought is that if you eliminate fiat its dead forever because of bitcoin. And fiat is MUCH harder to fight than taxes.

Taxes are not invisible and if you take away the fiat tool to fund spending and special interests you take away a LOT of power from the state and its cronies. Then you have a situation where taxes will become more pressured as the source of funding things. People are far more likely to push back on that vs. the complex and largely invisible fiat system.

I will add though that one of the worst things about Democracy is how it clouds our thinking about taxes. Under a king people have no illusion what is happening. The King is levying taxes to do what he wants. Much easier to see that it is a forcible taking. Theft.

But we are propagandized to believe that WE are the government in a democracy(or whatever you think the US is). We the people and all that. How can the people steal from themselves? Unless you kill democracy and instead have a voluntary free society its gonna be hard to get rid of taxes.

This is why I don't think this question is an easy one.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 10h

And another thing people have a hard time thinking through is that eliminating taxes doesn't mean you don't pay for services the state is now providing. Its just not gonna be theft.

Its not theft when I voluntarily pay for someone to take away my garbage. That is a fee for service.

Those of us who have studied some econ probably could agree that some things the government provides would be more expensive under a free system. But most if not all would be better and we'd have choice instead of fear of imprisonment.

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h

If you live in the US, many of the things the govt provides would be more expensive. Simply because your money printing is absorbed by foreigners. If you live outside the US, very much less so.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h

Your choice only makes sense if choosing taxes means Bitcoin or gold or land or even stonks are no longer available because of that choice. Like: you won't be taxed but you aren't allowed to spend your fiat; that would make it a different story, because then there is no wealth preservation anymore, just "credits" that get devalued.

It is super easy to hedge against fiat without that, because you just need to spend it. Many bitcoiners still have fiat jobs (I don't but I should; it's one of my mistakes.)

Taxes though; I remember getting the knock on the door. And the threats. And then I had to go to court. And waste tons of money to defend myself against a wrongful government action because their automated system was extrapolating past income on me. Without taxes, I would have been spared that, so maybe I'm biased.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 4h

Maybe the 2 are related?

Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Income Tax amendment passed in 1913.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 3h

For sure they are. But taxes weren't invented in the US nor was fiat.

I was meaning on earth too. Not the US alone.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

When did fiat start in USA?

1776? 1789? 1865? 1877? 1913? 1933? 1971?

Even during the gold standard, banks would issue notes for gold deposits but they were fractional.

A fiat system can work better without a central bank and without fractional reserve banking.

Currencies collapse because governments spend and waste tax dollars.

Fiat is imperfect like most things but taxation is worse

13 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined 10h

Taxes are the "full faith and credit" part of fiat and I think it dies pretty quickly without them.

59 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford OP 10h

Fiat is not the dollar.

The dollar was once pegged to gold.

I didn't say the dollar. I said Fiat.

Guess I should have been more clear. Common confusion.

53 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford OP 10h

Additionally, you could eliminate the FED and NOT eliminate the Treasury. Coining money is not fiat.

See most people have no clue about how the dollar works. I'd say most bitcoiners don't. And I'm not an expert in the slightest. But the many hours I've spend learning about the history of the US money system and economy I know that we once had a non-fiat system here.

Banks issued notes. Dollars are just notes issued by the treasury and were backed by gold. Of course there is trust involved but its entirely different from fiat.

Today since bitcoin exists and doesn't require trust (other than in the protocol / network) we could and likely would eliminate the dollar.

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

The bank notes were not totally backed by gold.

Fractional reserve banking existed during the gold standard too

62 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 2h

Good point. I think there were periods with high reserve rates, though

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

True but I am sure that number varied between banks and seasons etc

18 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 10h

Coining money wouldn't be fiat if the denominations matched the value of materials used.

Pennies and nickels are worth more than their face values, but dimes and quarters much less. Dimes and quarters are fiat because their value comes from government decree.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 10h

Sure. But again, you are describing fiat and mixing that with the coinage. It would be fiat if the coins were traded for arbitrary set amounts. Unless they were treated like paper notes. IE, backed by a physical asset. After all, even paper has a value. Its just very small.

54 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 10h

I get you, but I think fiat currencies would fail much faster without taxing authority behind them.

Part of the demand for fiat is that people have to pay their taxes in it and a lot of the willingness to buy the bonds that are part of creating more fiat is knowing theft can be used to guarantee the nominal yield.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

The root of the problem is government spending which can only be minimized by minimizing taxation of all kinds

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 10h

Maybe. I can see that being possible.

171 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10h

Hard to come up with a decision framework because both are emergent and closely related, fiat is a type of tax.

Arguably fiat distorts the economy more in practice, but not inherently.

I'd also argue fiat is already gone in the material sense, the party is over we're just cleaning up the mess and the economy is nursing a hangover.

Taxes are whackamole, not sure anyone would prefer reversion to the inevitable alternative of serfdom/feudalism. History has proven that scarcity forces trade-offs and we get the trade-offs we deserve.

28 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 10h

It is a hard decision and I left it pretty open ended.

I could have been more clear about meaning fiat and not "the dollar" which doesn't have to be fiat and wasn't originally (to my knowledge).

I mostly think that taxes are easier to fight than fiat. But if you killed fiat bitcoin would mean it would be forever dead. But really, if I think about that then I start to think its just a matter of time till fiat is dead anyway. So maybe taxes would be a better choice.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10h

Yea I don't think the dollar when people say fiat. I immediately go back to diluting gold coins with other metals... been a problem since at least Roman times... likely longer.

I'd disagree and say fiat is much easier to circumvent, you don't have to hold it, you can always adopt a different unit for your own personal balance sheet/earnings statement. People with a clue have done this with gold and lands throughout history, regardless of the prevailing currency. The only tool necessary to circumvent it is knowledge, which between the speed of information today and Bitcoin having less negative trade-offs than gold is why fiat is party is already over in my view.

I think it's incumbent to say if you'd get rid of something you propose an alternative and can defend that alternative as workable. I like to think I'm fairly creative and well-studied in history, but I still couldn't articulate anything other than perhaps post-scarcity that makes better trade-offs than a minimalist tax regime.

58 sats \ 1 reply \ @TNStacker 8h

Same thing

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 7h

I like it. But I accounted for that in the choices.

78 sats \ 1 reply \ @nichro 9h

Fiat is worse. Let them be forced to tax people 99% to find their promises and wars and let's see how apologetic the sheeple remain

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 9h

Indeed, this is a thought I've had. Force the state to be more open about what they are about.

58 sats \ 1 reply \ @m0wer 10h

I chose fiat not thinking about myself but about the whole world.

Most people hate taxes already and try to avoid them. But I also think most people won't ever realize about the fiat scam on their own.

So overall I think fiat is way more harmful than taxes in our world today.

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 10h

I agree. Worldwide, the world mostly is harmed more by this than we in the US.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @flat24 3h

I think the concept of taxes wouldn't be wrong, as long as they're used properly, and that the funds are used wisely and to the benefit of those who contribute them. But fiat money is the biggest theft in history, and taxes in times of fiat money, where the government has the ability to create all the money necessary to run a nation, are an even greater aberration. That is, they print money without a limit, degrading citizens' purchasing power, and at the same time, they want to take another part of the loot from us through taxes.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 3h

So if I point a gun to your head tale your money but use it to help someone else... that's cool?

Its theft. It might be used better or worse. Doesn't change the exchange. Make it voluntary or allow people to opt in/opt

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 3h

Fiat's frictionless monetary inflation is a scam to force "investing" the melting ice cubes (running in a ferret wheel to stay in place) and to collect taxes (at an increasing rate!) on such meaningless "economic activity". They feed each other, but fiat is in the driver's seat.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 4h

the risks associated with fiat is related to fractional reserve banking imo

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 4h

Given the two choices I pick fiat as being the better choice. At least it's gameable.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 5h

Fiat is worse by far. Taxation, or maintenance of the commons, becomes inevitable in sufficiently advanced social system systems. It is unavoidable, the argument is for the specifics of what is taxed, how it is taxed, etc.

Even a hypothetical 10 person Bitcoin citadel is going to need everyone to contribute in some way, that is tax. 10 people will argue over the specifics.

But Fiat:

Humanity thrived for thousands of years under regimes of taxation, to the the ruler, the King, the State. It is sound money, or lack there of, that is causing such social issues in our society today. Fiat, or unbound money, leads to lack of discipline.

It was the unbinding of physical quantities (like gold in storage), from monetary supply that lead to such dramatic devaluations per unit of account. Inflation eats away at peoples savings and purchasing power, it acts as a invisible tax to all economic participants.

If we could eliminate tax entirely, every sufficiently advanced social system would fail. Bad. If we could eliminate fiat (by going back to sound money, where the politician cannot change the monetary supply by fiat), we may trend towards utopia.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 5h

Fiat is worst IMO though

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 5h

If we could eliminate tax entirely, every sufficiently advanced social system would fail. Bad

Nah, most depend on private free markets to make them work. If you killed tax every needed service would have a massive incentive to be met by the market. The ones that are just government scams would die though. But if people wanted them, they could voluntarily pool their resources to meet the needs. Pretty much every government program can or has been done non-violently accomplished. Even security. The transition could be messy but probably not as bad as we think.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 4h

It depends how we define taxation.

The free market providing services, even on a voluntary basis, becomes de facto involuntary tax due to social pressure or necessity. Its just ongoing payment for something. That the monetary flow goes: Me -> Service Provider vs Me-> Gov tax -> Service Provider , may have efficiency gains, but its not so simple.

I consider tax to be maintenance of a service or common property. In the case of Land, that's paying for the state guns to defend it, you cant remove it without removing the defense. Someone is getting paid for the risk.

Could we get better value for our monetary spend to private providers vs Gov distribution to private providers from Taxation? Maybe, but i am also not convinced a private market would always come out cheaper. There are efficiencies and negotiation at scale by governments too.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BeeRye 8h

taxes

taxes,taxes,taxes

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @guerratotal 9h

Taxes, simply put, if you have to pay to maintain something that was never yours... as simple as that, if you stop paying taxes on a piece of land you would lose it, if you stop paying your car you would lose it, your house, etc. Taxes are things of the devil, something satanic.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 5h

What about things that are shared possessions, common possessions. Corporal, physical 'ownership' is just one type.

There is maintenance costs in terms of energy, compute and storage to maintain something even digitally owned by someone.

Running a node is supplying to the commons, and the resource costs are a form of implicit taxation on the participants.