SoylentNews

Coinbase Ordered to Report 14,355 Users to the IRS

posted by janrinok on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:22AM   
from the tax-man-cometh dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

The Verge reports

[On November 29], Coinbase suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Internal Revenue Service, nearly a year after the case was initially filed. A California federal court has ordered Coinbase to turn over identifying records for all users who have bought, sold, sent, or received more than $20,000 through their accounts in a single year between 2013 and 2015. Coinbase estimates that 14,355 users meet the government's requirements.

---

Original Submission

• Re:Firetrucks instead of sprinkler systems? Re:Firetrucks instead of sprinkler systems? (Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:19PM (1 child)

  by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:19PM (#605660) Journal

  Had it been left to the Free Market, insurance companies would have gotten so tired of payouts that they'd motivate homeowners to build houses with sprinkler systems (or who knows what other innovation), rather than relying on jacked former high-school football stars driving around in a hilariously big red truck.

  In short, I dispute your claim that the free markets couldn't do a better job.

  No, if insurance companies wanted to motivate homeowners to build houses with sprinkler systems (or who knows what other innovation), they are currently free to do so. Especially in the form of offering discounts. Witness a company like Progressive willing to cut you a discount on car insurance if you install their car monitor and it reveals your driving habits are in a lower risk pool. So why aren't they already doing so? Oh, because they can't offer a deep enough discount to make that worthwhile universally.

  The free market will do a better job if, and only if, there's profit to be made in it. You save over government if, and only if, the government is so inefficient that a company can do it better if there's still profit in it after streamlining. And if people are unwilling to elect a government which is going to require that streamlining as part of government service. (i.e. reform Civil Service protections and government operational methodology to be cheaper with more service than what a profit motive will allow for.)

  You're basically begging the question; that is, you're assuming that which you wish to prove. You can't just let an organization (the one that calls itself "government") to impose a way of doing things then say "See! If there were another way to do it, then government wouldn't be doing it!"

  You're basically introducing facts and assumptions not in evidence, that for any given application the free market will find some way to make it "better", without laying out a comparative ethical framework for what "better" means to society and to business. There's overlap but not complete congruency.

  Law and Order is a service.

  Most of the law that governs your life is different from the law that governs my life; that's because we live under different contractual obligations—you have to make monthly payments for your car, while I don't.

  Because you choose to not own a car. Many don't, but the majority of Americans require one. Require, not an option. Therefore the majority may compel you to participate in the system. You might not like it, but we feel we have the right. Sorry.

  The Authoritarians think in terms of "law by legislation", whereas the Libertarians think in terms of "law by contracts"; the enforcement of contracts is a service like any other, and would only benefit from competition within a market (indeed, that's why it's a good thing there isn't One World Government; competition among law-and-order service providers, even among coercive ones called "governments", is what keeps Tyranny in check).

  As technology improves, it will be increasingly possible to order society through almost solely "law by contracts", and this shift will not only improve the sense of personal liberty, but will also allow society's form to be found more effectively through evolution by variation (supplier competition) and selection (consumer choice).

  Which is fine if you assume all persons are rational actors and equally capable of making informed decisions. And that all persons share enough of a vision of society to take their share of society's challenges and receive their share of society's rewards. They're not. Not on either side of that equation. So some people must be compelled by force - don't do X or your liberty is curtailed by force or you will pay a fine by force.

  (And you also assume that no actor will come out pre-eminently in a way that all competition is dwarfed and then unable to form a truly viable competitive environment. Google (YouTube), and Microsoft would beg to disagree. You would get market dominance by a player who would then only supply just enough to stay ahead of everyone else and take the profits and run with them. But I digress.)

  The libertarian mind might think it fine that police and fire services, for example, should be supplied to only those who can pay for them. Such systems exist (witness Rural/Metro fire.) And I remember back in the 80s people calling for fire, assuming it was a municipal service, and the fire shows up and lets the house burn because they're not a subscriber. Back in the 50's, when no fire services existed in Maricopa County, it was a novel approach. But to have it continuing 70 years later.... no, it's stupid.

  Now we take that one remove further.... Fire breaks out next door. My house burns because of it. The other owner doesn't have the resources to make me whole. Wouldn't it have been nicer to have a fire department respond and save my house from my neighbor's negligence? And if that protection is extended to all people that is equality. And I have every right to expect you to pay for a part of that. Thus we are where we are.

  --
  This sig for rent.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Interesting=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Why buy sprinklers when forced to buy firetrucks? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:50PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:50PM (#605676)

  When you're forced to buy hamburgers, you're going to eat a lot more hamburgers than you might otherwise.

  Parent