Slashdot Mirror
South Korea Now Officially Taxing Virtual Worlds
Next Generation is reporting that the South Korean government's goal to get their cut of the real money transfer industry is now in the works. Folks who sell over $6,500 worth of virtual goods or currency in a given year will have an automatic Value Added Tax (VAT) withdrawn by the service they contract through. That is, the middleman service will remove taxes automatically for these repeat customers. If a South Korean sells over $13,000 worth of goods or currency in a given year, the government considers them a small business. As such, individuals in that position are required to obtain a business license and take care of taxes themselves. "An NTS official claims the organization will be able to monitor all transactions as RTM mediators have agreed to share clients' transaction details with the authorities. 'NTS would be able to track all transactions for taxation of virtual items,' Mr. Choi said. 'This is not about defining RMT legal/illegal; we don't see any contradictory facts to Amendment for Game Industry Promoting Law - we are not about to judge if RMT is legal or not,' he added."
They're taxing real money that people make for selling virtual goods.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Okay, people keep saying this ... but when I report my "drug sales" net income (after amortizing my .45 and deducting bribes), won't they just turn that right around and charge you with a crime, implicitly requiring you to waive the fifth?
No, I'm not asking for personal legal advice, all you lawyers out there. I'm just asking if information disclosed this way has some special legal protection. It won't apply to me, since I don't sell drugs, so don't fret.
I might as well mention what the real problem is here, since people keep saying, "if you make a profit in terms of real dollars, that should be taxed, case closed". But if virtual money becomes liquid and convertible enough, government will *have to* tax it directly, even in-game. Why? Imagine this:
I want to defer taxes on dividends, like, you know, every investor with a taxable account wants to do. So let's say the stock exchange sets up "exchange dollars" (EDs), a special currency created and destroyed at will, simply by depositing a dollar or withdrawing it. The EDs are functionally identical to normal dollars, it's just that they only trade on the exchange. Whenever a corporation pays a dividend, it takes its normal dollars, buys EDs, and distributes the dividends. Whenever a corporation raises funds in an IPO, it takes the EDs and converts them to normal dollars. Now, should the investors still pay taxes on the ED dividends they got?
If you say no, then you don't think dividends should be taxed, because this scheme could be implemented today on the stock market -- but obviously, the government wouldn't fall for it.
If you say yes, then you agree that sufficiently-convertible virtual dollars should be taxed even if the profit exists only in-game. At some point, the virtual dollars become like the EDs or a foreign currency.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Actually the exact opposite is probably true. Most newspapers, at least in the western world, discovered around the start of the 20'th century that it pays to at least pretend to be impartial. Yes, they still aren't really impartial, and they still kept their opinion columns (although at least now they're more or less marked as such, and not as hard news) but they're a lot more subtle in their manipulation than that.
It's not even as much doing the morally right thing, it's just business. At some point the public as a whole was largely fed up with the hyperbole- and libel-ladden pieces of journalism and pamphlets of the 19'th century. So someone discovered, much to their surprise, that they actually have more readers if they just report the news, instead of fabricating it or outright telling people what to think about it.
Again, I'm aware it's still nowhere near perfect, and even "impartiality" means something slightly different to the media than to the rest of us. I'm not entirely naive, trust me. I'm just saying it used to be a lot worse. "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion" kinda bad, or claiming that Lincoln was at the head of some subversive African conspiracy. Inventing ridiculous super-villain-type plans of your opponents (e.g., that they're actually proposing building sewers or a subway so they can blow their own capital up from below, when their Illuminati masters order it) used to be just business as usual.
At any rate, nowadays an actual printed newspaper would be a lot less blatantly inflammatory there. Even if they wanted to manipulate you into being for or against it (which actually newspapers themselves don't often do, but is often is the case with PR pieces submitted as news), they'd work hard into making it look like they just gave you the data and you reached the "whoa, it's evil" conclusion yourself. Especially in PR there are people damn skilled at _not_ looking blatantly partisan. It would involve some interviews, some impartial study maybe, and in "journalistic impartiality" tradition it would involve two conflicting points of view, and they're not telling you which of the two to believe. (Just incidentally the one pro-taxing ends up saying the wrong things, and causing a "well, I'm not siding with _this_ guy" reaction.)
Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately, you can choose) Slashdot stories are rarely submitted by real journalists. They're _usually_ submitted by nerds who never figured the "pretend to not tell people what to think" part, so they outright go ahead and do that. Some (though not all) even have an axe to grind, an ideological crusade to fight, and a messiah complex to save you all from the evil corporations/government/current-economic-model/wh
It's not like it's the first time anything like this happened, anyway.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.