Cryptoassets: tax for individuals - GOV.UK

CryptoCurrencies

We're Crypto Reddit's Fiji water in a desert of censorship and agendas. Arguably Reddit's best source for uncensored cryptocurrency news, technicals, education, memes and so more!
[link]

UK updates crypto taxation guidance, stressing that crypto like bitcoin are neither currency nor securities - The Block Crypto

UK updates crypto taxation guidance, stressing that crypto like bitcoin are neither currency nor securities - The Block Crypto submitted by prnewswireadmin to cryptonewswire [link] [comments]

UK Bows To Pressure, Likely To Reverse Course On Taxation Of Bitcoin: Will The US Be Next?

UK Bows To Pressure, Likely To Reverse Course On Taxation Of Bitcoin: Will The US Be Next? submitted by montseayo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System submitted by castorfromtheva to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System submitted by Cointelegraph_news to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System submitted by Ranzware to BitNewsLive [link] [comments]

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

UK Parliament Member - Make Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System

UK Parliament Member - Make Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System submitted by coinalibi to u/coinalibi [link] [comments]

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System submitted by n4bb to CoinPath [link] [comments]

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System submitted by Cointelegraph_news to btc [link] [comments]

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System

UK Parliament Member Suggests Making Bitcoin a Payment Option for Local Taxation System submitted by Cointelegraph_news to CoinTelegraph [link] [comments]

Elliptic is meeting HMRC to discuss taxation of Bitcoin in the UK - get your voice heard here

Elliptic has been invited to meet with HMRC, to discuss how Bitcoin should be taxed in the UK.
We're taking along a number of representative Bitcoin users/businesses, but we also want to know the thoughts of the wider Bitcoin community.
Let us know how you would like to see personal taxes, VAT, corporation tax and capital gains tax should be applied to Bitcoin in the UK.
Tom
www.elliptic.co
submitted by ellipticco to BitcoinUK [link] [comments]

Bitcoin taxation in the UK?

In the United States, bitcoin is treated as an item of property and is subject to property tax. Whereas in the United Kingdom, bitcoin is treated as private money and is subject to value added tax, corporate tax, income tax and capital gains tax. Since bitcoin is property in the US, when lost or stolen, there are deductions available. Does it mean that when taxed under UK laws, bitcoin cannot be subject to any deductions or exemptions because it is not property but money? What about when bitcoin is given as a gift - what is the proper way of taxation?
submitted by katikit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Need some explanation for the taxation of bitcoin in the UK. P.S need particular details, not the common stuff.

In the United States, bitcoin is treated as an item of property and is subject to property tax. Whereas in the United Kingdom, bitcoin is treated as private money and is subject to value added tax, corporate tax, income tax and capital gains tax. Since bitcoin is property in the US, when lost or stolen, there are deductions available. Does it mean that when taxed under UK laws, bitcoin cannot be subject to any deductions or exemptions because it is not property but money? If loss deduction is possible, what is the limit? What about when bitcoin is given as a gift/donated - what is the proper way of taxation? According to the HMRC, A taxpayer who mines bitcoins and receives income from that activity is: “outside the scope of VAT on the basis that the activity does not constitute an economic activity for VAT purposes because there is an insufficient link between any services provided and any consideration received.” Then how is the income from mining taxed?
Thank you for the replies.
submitted by katikit to BitcoinUK [link] [comments]

Brexit Effect on UK Bitcoin Taxation & Exchanges

Brexit Effect on UK Bitcoin Taxation & Exchanges submitted by fearofhellz to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin taxation in the UK? /r/Bitcoin

Bitcoin taxation in the UK? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

UK Bows To Pressure, Likely To Reverse Course On Taxation Of Bitcoin: Will The US Be Next?

UK Bows To Pressure, Likely To Reverse Course On Taxation Of Bitcoin: Will The US Be Next? submitted by bitbc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Brexit Effect on UK Bitcoin Taxation & Exchanges

Brexit Effect on UK Bitcoin Taxation & Exchanges submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

UK likely to reverse course on taxation of Bitcoin [x-post from /r/bitcoin]

UK likely to reverse course on taxation of Bitcoin [x-post from /bitcoin] submitted by BitcoinConsultant to BitcoinUK [link] [comments]

Why we need to think more carefully about what money is and how it works

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with?It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.

submitted by anthropoz to sustainability [link] [comments]

A realistic way forwards (long, but I believe important)

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”, as well as large numbers of confused and worried "ordinary" people. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with? It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.
submitted by anthropoz to ExtinctionRebellion [link] [comments]

I feel like upwards advancement is impossible in this country compared to the US. Anyone else feel the same?

As the title says, I'm doing well for my age, late twenties, paid off home somewhat due to luck with bitcoin, saving about £20k after tax each year working part time as a GP. Even doing all this I'm only going to be worth about £2-£3 mil (adjusted for inflation) at 65 which while decent is less than I'd like to retire on and much less than I'd like to leave to kids when I eventually have them. If I worked more hours and cut down on my expenses I may be able to hit the £5-10 mil but I would have no life outside of work and would likely have to make lifestyle sacrifices I'm not willing to make. To top it off taxation is so damn high I take less than half of what I earn home after student loan, tax and NI it just isn't fucking worth it.
Obvious answer is to get a better source of income which may be possible but this would be extremely time consuming, a huge gamble and even if I could establish some sort of business gov would want their 50% cut of the profits.
I genuinely feel as if it's impossible to make decent money in the UK without being phenomenally intelligent and working your arse off 24/7. Looking at what Americans make and how bloody easy they have it makes me damn sick, I'm increasingly seeing working here as futile as opposed to going through the stupid long process of immigrating there. You just cannot advance with this shit pay and high taxation. Am I the only one who has come to this conclusion?
submitted by gbhjhbjhbjbhjbhjbh to UKPersonalFinance [link] [comments]

More Governments Will Use Blockchain Technology If It Adapts To Their Needs

Link to original article: https://www.wales247.co.uk/more-governments-will-use-blockchain-technology-if-it-adapts-to-their-needs/
Blockchain technology is one of the greatest innovations of the 21st century, yet so little of the world actually benefits from it right now.
One of the reasons for this is the lack of government adoption, with only a handful of forward thinking nations adopting it in production so far. I believe that, were more governments to adopt this powerful technology, the mass adoption by large swathes of the global population would follow.
However, for this to happen, blockchain technology needs to change. At present, the decentralised networks that are most established simply aren’t designed for governments. They advocate anonymity and a lack of centralised control above all else. The reality of the world we live in though is that people recognise the role of a centralised government as their elected representatives.
For blockchain technology to really benefit the average citizen, it needs to adapt to the societal structures we recognise today. To do this, it needs to understand the needs of the governments we elect to represent us and adapt to the requirements of these increasingly important users.

Existing blockchain isn’t designed for government

The history of blockchain technology is mostly one that focuses on the rejection of control by the state. Bitcoin was developed as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system over a decade ago precisely because the group of cypher punks at the heart of its early development wanted to build a value exchange mechanism outside of government control.
The system they build has grown into one that sections of traditional finance have gradually increased their exposure to but the regulatory status of Bitcoin is still fluid rather than set in stone. Of course, blockchain technology now exists outside Bitcoin in various different guises. Also, there are governments that have chosen to embrace the underlying technology in order to improve their services for citizens.
Estonia, the small Baltic state, is probably the best example of this. The country embarked on its drive to digitise its government at roughly the same time that blockchain emerged, in response to a series of cyber attacks that crippled the state. As part of the 99% of government services that are now available as e-services, Estonia has blockchain-based government registries for courts, property and healthcare.
It is not alone either. Sweden and Georgia are other examples of states that have deployed blockchain in production to power government services. However, for all of these encouraging examples, the reality is that most governments – and the most powerful ones in particular – have not embraced blockchain in the way some early advocates of the technology had predicted.
Furthermore, even where governments have embraced the technology, they have mostly chosen permissioned, private blockchain in favour of the well-established public blockchain that many technology enthusiasts prefer. That’s because public blockchain isn’t designed for governments to use. It usually embraces anonymity and rejects the idea of a controlling authority, even if that is an elected representative government.

Central Bank Digital Currencies are coming

The thing that could totally change this dynamic though is Central Bank Digital Currencies or CBDC. Almost every leading nation is now weighing up the possibility of issuing a CBDC and using blockchain technology to do so.
This trend has come about for a few reasons. Firstly, there is the fact that citizens are gradually but increasingly choosing to make digital payments over cash payments. This is good for governments because digital payments are more efficient and easier to deal with than cash, particularly in terms of taxation and compliance.
Then there is the fact that the move towards CBDCs is undoubtedly a response to the rise of other digital assets. Firstly, there was Bitcoin, which governments generally don’t agree with but can at least see the benefits of, especially as a transparent and auditable record of transactions and quick, efficient value transfers. Then, came ‘private money’ in the form of initiatives like Facebook’s Libra, which could potentially remove a large chunk of the control governments have over the monetary system.
Therefore CBDCs just make sense to governments from both a benefits and a risks perspective. This is why we’re seeing so many nations and central banks getting involved. We know that the People’s Bank of China is well on the way to developing its own blockchain-based CBDC, even though the details are unclear. We also know that major leading central banks such as the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of France and Bank of Japan are weighing up how to issue a CBDC.
Earlier this year, the Bank of England issued a discussion paper called ‘Central Bank Digital Currency: opportunities, challenges and design’, which my company L3COS responded to. We know that existing blockchain technology will not meet the needs of CBDC initiatives. What is needed is a totally different type of regulated, permissioned and decentralised blockchain.

How blockchain must adapt for governments

To fully understand what governments need from blockchain technology, we need to first understand what they want to achieve. CBDCs are very important right now but the reason they are exploring these initiatives is so they can use them to underpin regulated digital economies.
The great benefit of blockchain technology is that it allows individuals to interact in a decentralised and peer-to-peer manner. They can interact in a totally automated way that utilises smart contract technology to exchange value quickly and easily. Governments want to embrace this type of efficient market innovation but they want it to occur in a digital economy where compliant activity is enabled and criminal activity is eliminated.
To do this, they need to regulate blockchain and this is why I have designed L3COS as the world’s first regulated, blockchain-based operating system. It operates a triple layer consensus mechanism that allows governments to regulate digital economies in which businesses and individuals can operate in a totally decentralised way.
Governments sit in the top layer, controlling super nodes that communicate with one another via a unique Proof of Government protocol and managing onboarding of other entities into the system. Businesses operate in the second layer and individuals the third, although all layers can interact with each other via smart contract-based decentralised applications, which power government and commercial services.
Such a system not only reflects the societal structures we all recognise but also enables representative governments to embrace blockchain technology for their needs. As more governments embrace the technology, so will more of their citizens and then we will see the true power of blockchain to transform society for the better.
submitted by BlockDotCo to u/BlockDotCo [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrency Tax in 5 Minutes - What are Taxable Events ? Cryptocurrency and Tax in the UK Bitcoin UK and EU plan crackdown amid crime and tax evasion fears Bitcoin ABC Correction? Institutions Bailing? UK Crypto Tax! Coinbase News! Must Hodl POS Cryptos! NEW Tax Guidance for Cryptocurrency Investors (UK)

Help us improve GOV.UK. To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t ... How is Bitcoin taxed in the UK? 16 Jan 2018 Cryptocurrencies are becoming an increasingly popular way to invest and transact. As a result, the value of some cryptocurrencies have reach levels beyond any predictions, and with that has come an enormous wave of individual and licensed traders who have made a tidy fortune. However, the earnings made by some on cryptocurrencies have created a grey ... It details how Bitcoin is to be handled under existing taxation laws, including Income Tax (IT) and Capital Gains Tax (CGT). How these particular taxes are applied to Bitcoin will be discussed under the “Trading” and “Investment” subheadings under the following “Bitcoin’s Legal Classification in the UK” section. These two sections ... These guidelines clarified some important details about how HMRC views cryptocurrencies, which many see as a prelude to a stricter approach toward crypto taxation. HMRC also sent requests to some major crypto exchanges (including Coinbase) for information about their U.K.-based investors in August of 2019. Calculate Cryptocurrency Taxes Easily File Your Bitcoin and Crypto Taxes. If you own or have traded cryptocurrencies, you may need to include these in your tax forms, even if you didn't make any money. Bitcoin.Tax is the most established crypto tax calculation service that can work out your capital gains and losses and produce the data and forms you need to file your taxes.

[index] [6331] [9593] [22000] [11243] [51539] [19413] [44379] [49708] [28211] [48930]

Cryptocurrency Tax in 5 Minutes - What are Taxable Events ?

In this video I give a general overview of tax rules for cryptocurrency in the UK. I also talk about specific common examples of different types of crypto acquisition and trading. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency anonymity may be coming to an end for many Europeans after actions by EU and UK politicians who want to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges under anti-money laundering and ... How To Buy Bitcoin In UK - Duration: 19:20. Crypto Mobster 5,794 views. 19:20 . 95% Winning Forex Trading Formula - Beat The Market Maker📈 - Duration: 37:53. TRADE ATS 949,436 views. 37:53. Mix ... For more information, Checkout our Complete 2020 Guide To Cryptocurrency Taxes: https://www.cryptotrader.tax/blog/the-traders-guide-to-cryptocurrency-taxes T... Donate With Fiat or Crypto: https://streamlabs.com/wyckoffstockmarketinstitu Bitcoin ABC Correction? Institutions Bailing? UK Crypto Tax! Coinbase News! Must...

#