In what currency are the taxes paid to the government? If it must be paid in US dollars regardless of what 'currency' it is earned in then I believe my argument still stands. The reason why a US dollar is not worthless paper is precisely because people need them in order to pay taxes.

And here he goes equivocating. You asked what foreign currencies were taxed. We showed you. There are *non* currencies that are taxed. The fact that they are converted to US currency for purposes of monetary exchange is irrelavent.

And again, what about state income tax?

Regardless of the currency, the government will extract the same value from you - so your currency argument is meaningless.

If I tell you I need x gallons of milk or y liters of milk (where x and y are equal volumes) it makes no difference what particular measurement you use -- in the end, your total worth has gone down the same amount.

<sigh....> Good lord, and this idiot Putin is a fucking educator. I'm beginning to suspct the retarded children he is working with were perhaps normal on the first day of class...

Sometimes the tax is on currencies that the government doesn't print: "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-24130847"

But that's besides the point. You're making a circular argument. You say: US dollars acquire value because people need them to pay taxes. Then you say that the taxes are legitimate because without them the US dollar would have no value.

The first and second propositions depend on one another for their existence. The legitimacy of the taxes cannot be derived from the value they give currency, if the value of the currency only exists because the government can legitimately tax people.

Your argument doesn't work. And does nothing to prove that taxes aren't theft.

"I have no idea why we are discussing currency on this thread. " - welcome to the internet.

tendmote style... is tendmpte stye in effect?

"You asked what foreign currencies were taxed. We showed you."

You didn't show anything. *Damian* brought up the issue of local currencies. Which are always supplemental currencies to the US dollar, pegged to the US dollar,and any tax paid is paid in US dollars.

"The fact that they are converted to US currency for purposes of monetary exchange is irrelavent."

If they are converted to US dollars before any taxes can be paid then that is very relevant. It means precisely what I said - that the US dollar acquires value by virtue of the fact that it is needed to pay tax. Otherwise, from whence comes its value?

None of you have explained this, or even attempted to.

"And again, what about state income tax?"

Derivative of the federal government's right to tax. If the national government has the right to tax then all units subsumed within it have the right to tax.

"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-24130847"

This hasn't even happened yet.

"You're making a circular argument. You say: US dollars acquire value because people need them to pay taxes. Then you say that the taxes are legitimate because without them the US dollar would have no value."

It's not a circular argument because they aren't separate propositions.. It's two different ways of saying the same thing. Taxation is legitimate because without it fiat currency would have no value - currency acquires value by virtue of the fact it is used to pay tax.

"The legitimacy of the taxes cannot be derived from the value they give currency"

Sure it can. Because otherwise the entire economy collapses. You cannot have a fiat currency work any other way.

"And does nothing to prove that taxes aren't theft."

The extent to which you are able to produce or consume in the United States it is because you have US currency, which the government issues. In order for that currency to have any value, and thus enable your production & consumption, it must be taxed. So far from being "theft", taxation allows you to use to produce & consume.

There are very real historical examples which illustrate this. How were British colonies in Africa monetized? They had subsistence farming communities and no need for European currency - it had no value to them. They began using European currency because the British imposed taxes that would only be payable in their currency. This is how these economies became monetized, and demonstrates how currency acquires value.

""I have no idea why we are discussing currency on this thread"

Yes you do which is why you are replying at length to the point. Why people pretend they don't understand the relevance of something when they very clearly do is beyond me. This new trend of "pretend confusion" is annoying in the extreme.

"You didn't show anything. "

Bullshit. I showed you the relavent statement on the IRS website and provided an example of a US citizen earning Euros in Germany still having to pay income tax on it.

"If they are converted to US dollars before any taxes can be paid then that is very relevant. It means precisely what I said - that the US dollar acquires value by virtue of the fact that it is needed to pay tax. Otherwise, from whence comes its value? "

They aren't In my case, they sat as Euros in a bank account in Germany. I converted the eruo value to an equivalent dollar value for purposes of computing the taxes, but they were still euros in the bank or in my pocket. And then I paid them with a bank wire done in euros that were then converted to dollars *by the IRS*, but was withdrawn as Euros when it left my account. Euros all the way.

"The extent to which you are able to produce or consume in the United States it is because you have US currency, "

I neither produced nor consumed in the US the entire time I was working in Germany yet still had to pay income tax. Your logic fails yet again.

The link did not work.

Anyway I looked it up and you need to file a tax return, but there is a foreign tax credit andother exclusions permitted which effectively make it so you're not likely to pay any taxes to the US if you're truly domicile in another country.

The US has an income tax treaty with Germany and has had one since 1990. So I call bullshit on your story.

http://www.pinkernell.de/dbausa.htm

Just for the point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24135021

when the answer to 'Why are Americans giving up their citizenship?' is - to avoid paying tax while not living in America... then i'm not sure how much bullshit calling can be done.

A new tax law that took effect this year. How is this relevant to Draugnar's case?

Also this from your article:

""Some people are spending $4,000-$5,000 a year to do their tax return only to find out they don't owe anything to the US.""

The issue is the complications of the forms being filled out and the information being collected, not the actual taxes paid.

The issue is that US citizens file tax returns for their income regardless of where they live. (a new law may make it more annoying, but it's something - unlike bullshit - which has been going on for a while)

"It's not a circular argument because they aren't separate propositions.. It's two different ways of saying the same thing. Taxation is legitimate because without it fiat currency would have no value - currency acquires value by virtue of the fact it is used to pay tax. "
I don't know how you aren't seeing this, but those are clearly two separate propositions.
Proposition 1) the value of money is derived from taxes.
Proposition 2) taxes are legitimate because money is necessary to pay taxes
Or to put it another way, money is used because one needs to pay taxes,
and taxes gain legitimacy from the use of the currency. But without taxes one doesn't need to use the currency. And without the currency, taxation cannot be legitimate.

If you can't see this, I don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm fairly certain everyone else posting is this thread can see the circular reasoning.

"The extent to which you are able to produce or consume in the United States it is because you have US currency, which the government issues. In order for that currency to have any value, and thus enable your production & consumption, it must be taxed. So far from being "theft", taxation allows you to use to produce & consume.

There are very real historical examples which illustrate this. How were British colonies in Africa monetized? They had subsistence farming communities and no need for European currency - it had no value to them. They began using European currency because the British imposed taxes that would only be payable in their currency. This is how these economies became monetized, and demonstrates how currency acquires value. "
Which is a perfect example of the impetus of forces, giving money value. I'm not arguing that taxes aren't the means by which US dollars acquire value. I'm arguing that the act of taxation itself is illegitimate.

In this case, the British began taxation on people who conducted all their transactions without currency! To force the people to begin using European currency. And you're trying to argue that this is legitimate taxation? This is the perfect example or an instance were the government taxes people to give value to it's currency. And only after the initiation of the tax can you even pretend that it is legitimized by the currency. Because people weren't using the currency before the tax was implemented!

"Yes you do which is why you are replying at length to the point. Why people pretend they don't understand the relevance of something when they very clearly do is beyond me. This new trend of "pretend confusion" is annoying in the extreme."
Far less annoying I assure you than your assumption that you know what I do and do not know. I didn't read the entire thread, and I really have no idea how this currency debate relates to transhumanism. I replied because I find the topic of currency interesting.