Quote from: darkangel11 on Today at 07:30:29 AM

Quote from: legiteum on September 09, 2024, 04:54:18 PM

Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.

Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.

But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.

It may pass, it may not. The deal is, they're trying to do it. In my eyes this is an attack on privacy. I don't care if people choose to be vocal about their investments. The important thing is that it's their choice. Democrats want to take that right to choose away. It's an attack on privacy.

Republicans want to collect taxes too, and they will respond to crime just like the Democrats do. We already have the same reporting for anybody who puts more than $10,000 cash inside of any US bank, and that's been the law here for the last 50 years.

Quote

Quote

I suspect that any laws that pass Congress will roughly mirror the physical cash controls we have in the US: reporting is only required for very large sums, i.e. amounts that would very likely involve criminal activity. The threshold for cash today is $10,000, but that was passed in the early 1970s, so even the equivalent would be about $100k. This is common sense: the government is after big-time criminals and money launderers, not some average American with $50k in their crypto wallet--it's not worth their time to even check.

If that average American with $50k is forced to reveal how much they hold and on which address, it won't matter who the government is really after. It's like when you get stopped and searched because they think you might carry illegal substances (but you don't) you don't care who they were after.

There are valid government inquiries and invalid ones. If the authorities have probably cause and go through the correct channels and perform a constitutionally legal search, then what is the problem? Yes, police sometimes break the law, and that's part of our system. But the answer is policing the police, not... anarchy where criminals can just attack whomever they want because there are no police at all.

Quote

Quote

And the partisan thing is ridiculous: the law for cash was signed by Republican president Richard Nixon. This is about national security, and every week there's another children's hospital that is crippled in the USA by criminals using crypto for cyberextortion, or another murder-for-hire paid for that way, etc. etc.

Damn! That was brutal. Did you just use the "crypto is used by criminals to cripple children hospitals" argument? I have to save that for future generations who visit this forum.

Please check statistics and tell us all how many children's hospitals were crippled in the US in the last 12 months and how many murderers got paid with bitcoin. I'd really like to see the numbers for that.

This took me about five seconds to look this up:

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/cybersecurity-matter-forces-lurie-childrens-hospitals-communications-mychart-offline

I mean seriously, are you going to try to tell me that crypto has never been used for crime? It's like saying cash has never been used for crime, or the internet has never been used for crime, or the telephone hasn't. All of those things have been regulated over the years, and subject to government subpoenas, and crypto will be no different.