Slashdot Mirror


IRS Eyeballing Virtual World Tax Policies

Kotaku points out a Washington Post report about this year's recommendations from the national taxpayer advocate (an official who suggests improvements and updates to the tax code) which include developing clearer protocols for reporting taxable income from virtual worlds. We've previously discussed the implementation of such policies in China. Quoting the report summary (PDF): "By one estimate, about $1 billion in real dollars changed hands in computer-based environments called 'virtual worlds' in 2005. ... IRS employees have been unable to respond to taxpayer inquiries about how to report transactions associated with them. Economic activities in virtual worlds may present an emerging area of tax noncompliance, in part because the IRS has not provided guidance about whether and how taxpayers should report such activities. To improve voluntary tax compliance, the National Taxpayer Advocate recommends that the IRS issue guidance addressing how taxpayers should report economic activities in virtual worlds."

226 comments

  1. I guess it's true... by zwekiel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You truly can never escape the two inevitabilities of life: death, and taxes.

    1. Re:I guess it's true... by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You truly can never escape the two inevitabilities of life: death, and taxes.

      I didn't expect the Berlin Wall to come down in my lifetime. It's a long shot, but it's possible that this depression will result in the end of the Federal Reserve and the IRS, both.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:I guess it's true... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I bet given enough time, we'll come up with a technical solution to this "death" problem.

    3. Re:I guess it's true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both statements do not apply to the virtual world.

      1.It is possible to live forever in the virtual world.

      2. You can hide your taxable income in the offshore accounts.... offshore accounts in the virtual world!!!!!!

    4. Re:I guess it's true... by dwye · · Score: 1

      > but it's possible that this depression will result in the end of the Federal Reserve and the IRS, both.

      Because the last one worked so well at that?

    5. Re:I guess it's true... by jcr · · Score: 1

      The key difference between this time and the last time, is that mass communication isn't a monopoly anymore. These aren't the days of radio.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. I guess it's true...The night income died. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    Course you can escape the second. Simply have no income.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:I guess it's true...The night income died. by zwekiel · · Score: 1

      Have no income and never buy anything, ever. Seems like a hard way to live. Remember taxes aren't just confined to income. Most places have a sales tax, property tax, etc.

    2. Re:I guess it's true...The night income died. by darinfp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In australia 40% of people effectively pay no tax i.e they recieve more than they pay in govt allowances. I can't see that being sustainable.

    3. Re:I guess it's true...The night income died. by mr_mischief · · Score: 1
  3. No taxation without representation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    No taxation without representation. Please vote Spongebob.

    1. Re:No taxation without representation by step_right_up · · Score: 1

      Im sure the world's tax men can pull tax code law out of their ass showing "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US"--including any fur balls your avatar may be wearing--lusting for Revenue more than in-world Banks, Casinos, Land Rentals, micro-payments, & possibly even game-in-game gold and acres of Tiny Empires. 1040-EZ Form & "Pay Now" rezzed on a cube.

  4. Bigger Problems Then Taxes by KronosReaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your generating enough income from "virtual worlds" that it needs to be taxed...

    Well, taxes are probably the LEAST of your problems.

    1. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by philspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the economy has just gotten THAT bad.

    2. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by drik00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even that. The average tax-payer in the US is hit for 35-40% of earned income. How much more do they need before they realize that they're wasting money. Most of the US tax dollar is already going to non-military spending. We're a federalist republic, the federal government SHOULDN'T be paying for every program, it should be up the states on anything other than a certain couple of programs.

      J

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    3. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0, Troll

      wrong! The reason I can't sell my in game currency on ebay is because it's just data on the server and the game company still owns it. That's the legal reason why they can and did pull my auctions from ebay! So if I don't own the money, none of my "income" is MY income. They should make up their damn minds I think. You can't say you don't own it to sell it but you do own it to tax it. I don't care either way because if I can start selling gold again then hurray and who cares if they tax it cuz I'll still turn a profit and if they decide the other way, I can't sell my gold but they also can't tax it so I win that way too.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    4. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by philspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're a federalist republic, the federal government SHOULDN'T be paying for every program, it should be up the states on anything other than a certain couple of programs.

      I might be more convinced by that argument, except California is currently doing its best to prove to the world that state legislatures are even more incompetent at coming up with a rational budget than the federal government. The lesson I'm getting here is that the same types of people get elected to the state and federal levels of government, but at the federal level there's some scrutiny and accountability as opposed to the state level.

      I'm not making any statement as to what SHOULD be the case, and I too am guilty of not paying attention to local politics.

    5. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      California is currently doing its best to prove to the world that state legislatures are even more incompetent at coming up with a rational budget than the federal government.

      Not even close. The federal deficit is far larger percentagewise than the California budget hole. California is forbidden to have deficit budgets, unlike the feds; the feds have been running deficits for so long that people are used to them -- thank you, GWB!

    6. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by wisty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So can I deduct my new gaming rig as a business expense?

      If they tax gold farming as income, gamers should have the right to deduct their account costs, computer, and internet use as legitimate business expenses (provided they make some money from their endeavors).

      When I say should, that is my moral judgment, and it doesn't mean the IRS won't try to screw people.

    7. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by wisty · · Score: 1

      I thought that 40% of tax payers in the US didn't pay any net tax (from Wikipedia's Income_tax_in_the_United_States). I guess that the median tax payer pays about 10%, and the top tax payers pay a fortune. That's pretty common pattern in democracies - a small minority gets gerrymandered into taking it in the rear, for the benefit of the majority. In Australia it's worse - the rich don't pay tax, and the poor don't pay tax, but well off wage earners pay a fortune.

    8. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What that proves is that the people of California (and just about every state) are proving to be incompetent at selecting who represents them.

      "You'll do what for me? Oooohh.... I'm voting for you!"

    9. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by KIFulgore · · Score: 1

      Good insight -- I certainly would. You can deduct just about anything you can reasonably justify as a business expense. I deduct my cable bill and computer equipment as business expenses for my home office.

      --
      - For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
    10. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by LordKazan · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your mouth is talking, and inaccurate numbers are spewing out of it

      --
      If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    11. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Actually he's posting on slashdot. No mouth movement is being done.

    12. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Retric · · Score: 1

      No, the median tax payer pays ~50%. The major taxes in the US are Medicare, SS, Income tax, Sales tax, and Property taxes. Out of these Medicare and Income tax scale with income but as a percentage SS, sales, and property taxes tend to drop as peoples income increases.

    13. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Hatta · · Score: 1

      And suppose you're not farming, and just playing. Is all that gold still considered income because you *could* have sold it?

      If you play any sort of game IRL, and win something that has value IRL, you're stuck with the taxes whether you sell it or whatever. So there's a good argument that you'd be stuck with the taxes on the virtual gold you get. It has value whether you plan on selling it or not.

      But that could turn a whole lot of causal players off of the game. Why play an MMORPG and get taxed when you can play something else freely?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by PegLegPete · · Score: 1

      Yea, people do this kind of thing all the time with ordinary businesses. Anything that can be traced back to income generation can more or less be claimed as a business expense to be written off, as long as you are also claiming that income. But the point someone made above still stands... if you are making enough to claim it on your taxes, then that's likely the least of your problems.

      --
      "Arrr, I curse the shark that stole me leg." -PegLegPete
    15. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the US tax dollar is already going to non-military spending.

      Isn't that how it's supposed to be? You seem to imply that the vast majority of government spending should be on military.

    16. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Lulfas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      California could return immediatly to surpluses if it stopped paying for poor states. For every dollar a Californian pays in taxes (to the federal government), they get 80 cents back. Random states like Alaska (2.40 back per dollar), Mississippi (1.45 per dollar) and such get to be welfare.

    17. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by philspear · · Score: 1

      You're sure that's enough to fix it? I suspect the real problem and the only solution has to do with spending on law enforcement. No one ever got voted out of state office for beefing up law enforcement. I have not looked at the budget, so don't use that prediction for anything, but I'd be suprised if cutting back on federal funding would solve the problem even if that was an option.

    18. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Sancho · · Score: 2, Informative

      And suppose you're not farming, and just playing. Is all that gold still considered income because you *could* have sold it?

      Well, you're not really selling it. See, it's all owned by the MMO owner. There's even something in the EULA about that. So if the IRS comes knocking on my door, I'll just pull out the EULA and explain that they should go talk to Blizzard.

      (Not that I play WoW anymore, but you get the idea.)

    19. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Lulfas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, newest chart I could find is http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html It shows that California (in 2005) paid $289b and received back $242b. $40billion clears up the deficit by more than double, I believe.

    20. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Golddess · · Score: 1

      If you play any sort of game IRL, and win something that has value IRL, you're stuck with the taxes whether you sell it or whatever.

      That's a good point. I think it's stupid that you have to pay taxes on it even if you aren't selling it, but that doesn't change the fact that you are right about that.

      On the other side of the fence though, stock. If you own stock, at the end of the year you're not taxed on the current market value of all the stock that you own, you're taxed on the dividends that the stock paid out throughout the year, and (I would imagine) on the profits you earned if you sold any of that stock.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    21. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by philspear · · Score: 1

      Well, I was indeed way off!

      Of course, there's still the issue of if we all stopped paying federal income tax and started giving it all to the state, we'd get indicted for tax evasion. Or maybe that would just be seen as secession and we'd get invaded. And I think a lot of other states (coincidentally the red states that take out more than they put in) already want to invade us sometimes.

    22. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Lulfas · · Score: 1

      I don't think we need to stop paying the taxes, just limit it until all states pay their fair share. It's actually a fairly conservative stance that I'm sure those Red States will be very glad to join in and start paying their fair share of the tax load.

    23. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't mean the IRS won't try to screw people.

      Well, duh.

    24. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by jcr · · Score: 1

      the feds have been running deficits for so long that people are used to them -- thank you, GWB!

      ??

      GWB didn't start the federal deficit habit, and in any case the spending power is in the congress, not the president.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    25. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by jcr · · Score: 1

      California could return immediatly to surpluses if it stopped paying for poor states

      If we seceded, we'd also get rid of the DEA thugs harassing cancer patients.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    26. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, most people doing the medical marijuana are just stoners anyways. Frankly, this "half-way" pretend legalization is just a silly thing. Either ban it or set it up like cigarettes. Besides, I wish INS would come harass people half as much as the DEA would. I'd love another Day Without Traffic (or, as they defined it, day without a mexican)

    27. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1
      Bo-ho. Come back when you pay 60-70% in taxes (unless you're rich, of course), and rising.

      /European

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    28. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      If your generating enough income from "virtual worlds" that it needs to be taxed...

      If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.-- Reagon

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  5. feh by moniker127 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    flat income tax. only way to go. anyone have a clue about how much freaking money is wasted on calculating this crap? its in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

    1. Re:feh by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Flat sales tax eliminates even more of the bureaucracy.

    2. Re:feh by cgenman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why do tax stories always bring out the extremists?

      Not everybody draws a clean salary. What is your income rate if you are buying and selling virtual goods? Heck, what is your income rate if you're buying and selling real goods? Or if you buy a good and the value goes up, but you haven't sold it yet? What if you're trading goods with value for other goods with value, and it never passes through a cash phase? What if a portion of your salary is drawn against goods that you have on loan to others?

      A flat income tax isn't the answer. Forgetting about how it would shift the tax burden to those least able to pay, it would still be a nightmare of bureaucracy anyway. It would just be a different bureaucracy.

      Considering the 2008 US federal recipts was in the range of 2.5 Trillion dollars, a cost of 500 million spent dealing with th emoney would be actually only .00002 of the total. That's less than one fiftieth of one percent. That's a monetary transaction cost that any business would love to have, and is a hundred times better than the 2% or so of every transaction that Visa skims off the top.

    3. Re:feh by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It will never happen. What it comes down to is a choice:

      1) Use a passive system that does not have to rely on the gathering and verification of data from individual citizens. No paperwork. No money spent on preparing taxes.

      2) Use an active system that allows control over information, excuses to invade privacy, reasons to seize property and bank accounts.

      Which one do you think the US government prefers? Which one favors their "war on Terrah"? Taxes are just as much about how to control people and information as they are about collecting income for the state.

    4. Re:feh by number11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Feh indeed. Both "flat" sales and income taxes are scams.

      Come back and let's talk when:

      your "flat" income tax covers all the money a person has coming in, whether it's wages, tips, dividends, interest, capital gains, inheritances, rents, gifts of more than nominal value, bonuses, options, frequent flyer miles, use of company vehicles; or

      your "flat" sales tax covers everything of value that is sold, whether goods, services (including those of advertising agencies, lawyers, architects, accountants, and hookers), real estate, stocks, automobiles, gasoline, puppies.

      (Granted, getting the hookers to keep proper tax records will be a challenge.)

      So far, every proposal I've seen had loopholes for high-income people and/or for business that you could drive a limousine through. Yeah, I know those people cheat already, but why make it legal.

    5. Re:feh by philspear · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Which one do you think the US government prefers?

      The one that works.

      We're already in a spending deficit and people think that taxes are too high. If it were all voluntary, we aren't talking about the military having to cut back, we're talking about the military being unable to muster enough strength to defend ourselves against CUBA. And then suddenly taxes are once again not voluntary.

      Control people? That's a ridiculous way of putting it. Oops, sorry, didn't see your tinfoil hat.

    6. Re:feh by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I know those people cheat already, but why make it legal.

      So, you're advocating continuing to screw the general public on taxes because you like having a legal basis to punish the wealthy for being wealthy?

    7. Re:feh by pfarber · · Score: 0

      The Government uses taxes for behavior modification as much as for revenue. Unless you can clearly realize the taxes are nothing more than legalized extortion (give us your money or we'll take your house) for dubious public good. Where does the Constitution of any State guarantee the RIGHT to low cost public transportation, health care or schools?

    8. Re:feh by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where does the Constitution of any State guarantee the RIGHT to low cost public transportation, health care or schools?

      The US constitution doesn't guarantee any of these things. It does, however, create a legislature empowered to raise funds and spend them for the general welfare. And as we live in a democracy, and the vast majority of us support the programs you mention, you're going to just have to suck it up. Or convince us to change our minds: good luck with that.

    9. Re:feh by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      What's wrong with you? You're not part of the trust fund crowd. Why are you continuing to argue against your own interests?

      Leave morally-loaded words like "punish" out of this. The question is whether a given policy creates a desired result. Progressive taxation has historically produced societies that are happier and more productive in general. Is the abstract idea of a billionare keeping all his unfathomable wealth more important to you than the health, happiness, and dreams of millions?

    10. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with you? You're not part of the trust fund crowd. Why are you continuing to argue against your own interests?

      That's the same line of bullshit that was used to sell us the income tax in the first place. The American people were promised that the federal income tax would only affect the top 1% of earners. Didn't work out that way, did it?

      Every "soak the rich" scheme turns into a "soak everybody" scheme in a few years, because of the effects of the even more insidious mode of taxation, which is inflating the currency.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And as we live in a democracy,

      First of all, this isn't supposed to be a democracy, it's supposed to be a republic, and secondly, if you imagine that our government obeys the will of the people, you are sadly deluded.

      the vast majority of us support the programs you mention

      You're funny.

      There was this little incident last year, in which our bought-and-paid-for legislators decided to hand some seven hundred billion dollars over to a bunch of incompetent speculators. This was done despite overwhelming disapproval by the public. In fact, that bitch who purports to represent me in the senate admitted that she had gotten a total of 91,000 calls on the matter, of which 85,000 were against, and she gave a snotty little lecture on the senate floor where she lied through her teeth and claimed that we didn't understand what they were doing.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      flat income tax. only way to go.

      Limit the activities of the federal government to its constitutional powers, and there would be no need for an income tax at all.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appeals to emotion are no substitute for compelling, rational arguments.

    14. Re:feh by Wildclaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is only one "fair" flat tax and that is a flat wealth tax. Of course, you will never hear that coming out of the mouth of any of the flat taxers who only are interested in a tax system that benefits the upper and upper middle class.

      Rich people are already benefitting from the current "so called progressive" tax system as evidenced by the growing gap between rich and poor. And everyone with a tiny bit of economic understanding knows why. The current tax system is highly in favor of those who own capital.

    15. Re:feh by number11 · · Score: 1

      So, you're advocating continuing to screw the general public on taxes because you like having a legal basis to punish the wealthy for being wealthy?

      So, you're advocating screwing the general public on taxes because you don't want to close the loopholes the rich (individuals and corporations) use?

    16. Re:feh by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I knew I could find a supporter around here.

    17. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The current tax system is highly in favor of those who own capital.

      Duh!

      The current tax system is exactly what Hamilton dreamed of. The richer someone is, they more reason they have to support expansion of the federal government. One of the major driving forces behind consolidation of businesses into larger and larger corporations is the death tax, which forces the heirs of family businesses to sell out to pay the tax. Warren Buffet's done very well indeed from that.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    18. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Government uses taxes for behavior modification as much as for revenue.

      That's what makes it so insidious. We are not property for the government to command.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:feh by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      A passive system requires "no paperwork" but it requires a far greater invasion of privacy. I agree it would be far easier for the citizien to simply let the Government automatically determine what your tax burden is without filling out forms and paperworks but that requires the government to intimately track how many children you have, what your income was for the year, how much money you spent on medical expenses, what the value of your home is, how much you payed in interest for student loans... etc etc.

      So really your options are these

      1) A passive system where the government knows everything about you and automatically deducts how much you owe.
      *Risk being that they mistake you for someone else or have out of date information in which you pay too much.
      2) An active system where you control all of the details about your life and only release the relevant details about your life that you think are worth a rebate.
      *Risk being that you lie and they get suspicious requiring you to prove your claims.

      The Passive system is far far far more invasive than the Active system. The Active system allows you to not even report you have a child to the IRS if you care more about your privacy than your discount.

      This is the problem with the "Flat Tax" system. Everybody wants their own little rebates. "I have 2 children. I need to keep them fed and educated!" "I am in college, I shouldn't pay taxes on any student loan interest!" "I own a small business and employ 3 people in the community!".

      Everybody from every walk of life has something they don't feel is taxable-- or should get rewarded for doing. "I gave $10,000 to charity!" And I agree most deductions are things that deserve to be deducted.

      But... the "Flat Tax" policy still offers these deductions. They just offer them in the form of a Rebate Check. So by the time you've *given back* all the money that the poor, blind, impregnated, educated and housed individuals want in rebates our tax policy is equally unflat... equally complicated and equally difficult to maintain.

      If people want a simple tax code it's really really easy. Stop taking DEDUCTIONS! I filled out my taxes in under 15 minutes this year. I looked at my W2 typed in 15 boxes. Did a 5 second estimate in my head that I wouldn't break the $10k automatic deductions and hit send.

      It's the people with 5 kids a mortage, a mentally hadicapped step daughter, 3 student loans, a small business under their name and 3 vacation properties on top of a pension fund that have trouble doing their taxes. And the ONLY reason they have trouble doing their taxes is because they want to pay the absolute bare minimum possible taking advantage of every tax break possibly afforded to them. These people would have an equally difficult time squeezing their "refund" out of a flat tax system as they do squeezing their "deductions" out of the progressive tax system.

      Let's just face it. Unless we want to unfairly tax people without consideration to special circumstances tax codes are going to be complicated. You can't be both easy and detailed. They're mutually exclusive. The more detailed you want your deductions and more things you want excluded from taxation the more difficult your taxes will become. Get over it. Pay H&R Block $30 or whatever it is they're asking now adays. Or pay $50 for TurboTax.

      The only alternative is to open your books completely to the government and let them automatically calculate it. *Cue privacy advocates descending from hell to sing their chorus.

    20. Re:feh by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is she elected? If she is and is reelected in the next election, then the voters really don't know what they are doing ;).

      --
    21. Re:feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxation is extortion.

    22. Re:feh by EdIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well all of your considerable comment aside, MY passive system requires no math and has ZERO invasion of privacy.

      I was not thinking of a flat tax rate on an existing system involving the IRS. I was thinking getting rid of the IRS entirely. I was actually thinking something along the lines of a consumption tax. I admit that I misread the comment of the poster I was replying too. I should have not implied that a flat tax has no paperwork, associated control over citizens and their information.

      I don't want a flat tax. I don't want the federal government to have the right to tax citizens period. My idea is a little bit more "grand" and ambitious than that.

      Through constitutional amendments I want to have the federal government draft a bill that gets sent to all the states *each* year. The states are then responsible for paying their portion of the bill, based on how many representatives they have in the House.

      I see it as a problem of competition. The IRS has no competition. If California and Texas were both deciding on how to collect the money in the future, and both Californians and Texans could pick their asses up and leave, I think we would start to see some interesting ways get created to collect taxes. States that decide to use draconian systems based on complicated math, obscure paperwork, and government peering into citizens lives will more likely *have less citizens*. Taxes was one of the reasons my family moved away from California.

      A consumption tax based state is one based on a passive system. The taxpayer never needs to calculate *anything*. They just pay for their consumption. No paperwork, no accountants, nothing. A taxpayer can't ever be wrong either or liable to the state. So no reason to seize property, put people in prison, or destroy lives. The entire transaction contains everything that needs to be paid to the state.

      Of course this pushes all the responsibility onto business. They already collect taxes for the state so it is not like the infrastructure to do this in most states does not exist already.

      What about deductions? I think the whole point of deductions is to give tax breaks to people that have lobbied their positions well. Well if we want to make it easier on the families that have kids, the poor, and the middle class in general how about most states deciding that food and other basic necessities don't have to be taxed? Kind of handles that right at the source real nice and easy doesn't it?

      That's the problem with tax breaks. They most often involve the rebates that you mention. That is inefficient. If each state sets its tax rate appropriately, than rebates should not even be necessary. As for other tax breaks and incentives I think states and local cities can come up with their own tax breaks to businesses to improve their own local economies.

      This seems to be a pretty fair way to do it. The rich complain endlessly that they earned their money and have the rights to keep it. I totally agree. I think they should be able to pull a Scrooge McDuck and build huge moneybins(tm) to hold all their gold and cash. They can sit in their golden mountains for as long as they want. Till they get hungry. That's when they pay taxes on the hamburger they consume. Till they get bored. That's when they pay taxes for their entertainment. When they want to buy a 10,000,000 USD yacht, they pay taxes there as well.

      What could be more fair than that? Most of the arguments I get into over this are about how a working class guy will end up paying a higher percentage of his income to taxes than a rich guy. My answer to that is quite simple. Who gives a shit? The rich guy cannot take it with him when he dies and he deserves it for whatever he is doing that is making him rich. It is not the fault of the rich guy that the working class guy does not make more money. In any case, if the rich guy really wants to live like a rich guy his taxes, although being a less overall percentage, will be many many times that of the wor

    23. Re:feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :sigh:

      Why do people insist on saying "the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic" the two are in no way opposed to each other.

      You can claim that's why you are a representative democracy rather then a direct democracy, but whether you are a republic or not has nothing to do with it.

      Republic - Monarchy
      Democracy - Dictatorship
      Smart - Stupid

    24. Re:feh by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "So far, every proposal I've seen had loopholes for high-income people and/or for business that you could drive a limousine through. Yeah, I know those people cheat already, but why make it legal."

      I don't get it. A 'loophole', is a LEGAL method, working within a law to do something legal...in this case, keeping as much of your tax dollar as possible. It is not cheating if it is not illegal.

      Are you against people keeping as much of their hard earned tax dollars, legally within the system as possible? What is wrong with that? You think we should give it all to the govt.? No one should take the housing and other deductions they say we can do to lower our tax liability?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    25. Re:feh by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      A loophole is when there is an error in the law that permits actions that were not intended to be possible. Are you against patching bugs too?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    26. Re:feh by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think he's just arguing that these so-called flat taxes aren't really that flat, when you look at them closely.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:feh by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who is running against her? Does her opponent agree with her? If not, is he worse than her in other important ways? It's quite possible that the voters do know what they are doing; they just don't have anyone better to vote for.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    28. Re:feh by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do know that every member of the "trust fund" crowd I have ever heard speak on the subject has been in favor of increasing the tax rate on the highest income bracket. Do you know why that is? People who are members of the "trust fund" crowd don't have any "income": none of their money is taxed under income tax.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    29. Re:feh by LordKazan · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading at "consumption tax" - all sales taxes are inherently regressive (that meaning the poorer someone is the higher percent of their total income goes to tax)

      --
      If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    30. Re:feh by anomaly · · Score: 1

      I don't know if we share the same legislators, but I have had the same experience over and over and over again. Each time I contact my representatives, I am sent a FORM LETTER telling me that they are going to do whatever they darn well please and I can stuff my opinion, but hearing from their constituents is *very* important to them and thanking me *so* much for sharing my views.

      Representatives, indeed.

      --
      But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    31. Re:feh by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      The constitution of Missouri guarantees the right to a "free" public education. Whether the taxes being paid and mismanaged is better than an unfunded mandate to send your kids to school and lower taxes remains to be seen.

    32. Re:feh by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      It's likely that since we as a country continue allowing public funds and the "independent" media to reinforce the two-party oligarchic system, the two parties will keep electing themselves to power.

      So long as that is the case, not very many many quality candidates with differing viewpoints will run. Of those who run, only those who manage to be backed by the two main parties in spite of their differences from the party line will get any airtime. Ross Perot opened a major window of opportunity in this country, but his campaign wasn't as slick and polished as the people are used to seeing. Still, there are strong pockets of his party and a few other parties in state races in some states. We can always hope someone will catch the national media's attention as more than a bumbling curiosity outside the Democrat/Republican dynasty.

    33. Re:feh by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      You need to actually get out and campaign for someone you can trust. Everyone wants change, but it doesn't just happen. I used to, before moving, have a US House member who responded with very specific wording to the issues I brought up. Well, it was likely a staff member of his, but the wording was still very specific to what I wrote about. I can be confident it wasn't a form letter. Unfortunately, he and I still differed on what the policy of Congress should be on some things I wrote to him about.

      The biggest difference was that the US Postal Service can make marketing agreements with companies like AOL to put their marketing materials in local post offices nationwide at the detriment to smaller, more local ISP businesses. The advertising was exclusive among ISPs, so the competition couldn't even breach those walls. Yes, this was some time ago. I was against this as an abusive monopoly in advertising space within federally funded and owned facilities. Representative Shimkus saw no problem with it, despite having several independent local and regional ISPs in his district at the time.

    34. Re:feh by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You need to actually get out and campaign for someone you can trust.

      There is no such person. They're all finks.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    35. Re:feh by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      If they are so full of loopholes then by definition they ARENT very flat are they?

      Seems to me that you are taking my point, assuming that I mean something else, arguing against it, and then agreeing with my original point. I support a flat tax that covers everything of value that is sold, whether goods, services (including those of advertising agencies, lawyers, architects, accountants, and hookers), real estate, stocks, automobiles, gasoline, puppies. However, unlike you I summarized it with the single word "flat".

    36. Re:feh by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      The rich are hardly the only ones benefiting at the moment. The lowest percentages income-wise receive the most benefits from the government. Where would the money to pay for them come from if someone else didn't fork it out? The reason for the growing gap is because currant socialized welfare encourages people to stay lazy bums and doesn't give them a reason to help themselves. Its the whole give a man to fish vs teach a man to fish story.

    37. Re:feh by number11 · · Score: 1

      Are you against people keeping as much of their hard earned tax dollars, legally within the system as possible?

      Nope. I'm for fixing the laws that permit (primarily) upper-income people and corporations to escape paying their fair share. Then everybody's rates can be lower.

      The usual suspects who advocate "flat tax" for income want to tax wages, but give a free ride for those whose income is from other sources like rents, dividends, interest, capital gains, inheritances. I can see how this would be attractive to somebody (like, for example, Mr. Forbes) whose income is mostly from those other sources, since it means he rides free while others pay taxes).

    38. Re:feh by harl · · Score: 1

      Why do tax stories always bring out the extremists?

      Because taxes have never been fair and never will be. Thus there are always people to complain about it.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    39. Re:feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely put, but I have a different take on this.

      Your downs is getting in the way of higher logic so let's sing the downs song!!

      i'm down syndrome

      son of a bitch smart people

      smart people is pig

      do you want a high iq?

      do you want a social skills?

      smart people is pig disgusting

      einstein is a murderer

      fucking mensa

    40. Re:feh by number11 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that you are taking my point, assuming that I mean something else,

      My mistake. In my defense, you are the first person I have ever heard suggest a flat tax who actually meant "flat". All the others I have heard had a long list of loopholes that should be maintained, so I assumed you did too. It was an erroneous assumption.

      I'm not sure if I support a true flat tax (on either income or sales) or not, but it's an idea well worth consideration. If it could be enacted before packs of weasels descended upon it and gnawed it full of loopholes.

    41. Re:feh by harl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a republic of representative democracies. Which is functionally different than either a direct democracy or a representative democracy. Each state is fairly autonomous. Things that are legal in one state are illegal in another. The other states and the fed can't stop each other from doing this.

      Also it used to be one of the core differences in the major political parties. Dems want to take away state right and Rep want to strengthen state rights. Well it used to be that way. Now the only difference is the color of their tie and whether or not they hate people who are a different color or religion than them.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    42. Re:feh by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible that the voters do know what they are doing; they just don't have anyone better to vote for.

      One thing that a lot of people forget -- you can vote for anyone you want as long as they satisfy the legal requirements, even if their name is NOT on the ballot.
      Now the standard response to this is "But I don't want to throw my vote away." Fine, then don't. If the person elected to the post finds that they won with a whopping 21% of the votes cast instead of the 52% they received the previous election, don't you think that sends a message that they're on thin ice and that if they don't change what they're doing, they may lose the next election with an even smaller portion of the overall vote?
      If you don't like the position the two major party candidates have on taxes, fine. Find someone else whose position you do like (your friend, your neighbor, your accountant, your attorney, etc.), make sure they don't have a position on another issue that you can't agree with, and vote for them.

    43. Re:feh by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If none of the other voters want to run and/or the voters prefer either Twiddledee or Twiddledum, then I say things are working as well as they can be.

      If nobody better wants to do the job, then you've got the best.

      If the "best" is crap, well that's the People's fault isn't it?

      That's what you get when you have a "Government by the People".

      --
    44. Re:feh by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "The usual suspects who advocate "flat tax" for income want to tax wages, but give a free ride for those whose income is from other sources like rents, dividends, interest, capital gains, inheritances. I can see how this would be attractive to somebody (like, for example, Mr. Forbes) whose income is mostly from those other sources, since it means he rides free while others pay taxes)."

      That's why I'm more for a flat tax...on the consumption side.

      Everyone spends money...the rich spend a LOT of money....so, that way you catch everyone...and also you catch dollars from illegal businesses too....hookers and drug dealers (however you feel about said activities) often have cash transactions that go under the table. But, those people do have to buy and use goods....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    45. Re:feh by Creepy · · Score: 1

      True - most flat tax systems are based on having subsidies for the lower class, which means the middle class take on the majority of the tax burden (flat taxes actually reduce the tax load on the rich and move it to the middle class).

      OTOH, the rich always give themselves huge tax breaks or loopholes in a regular tax system and the middle class always seems to get screwed. I'd also think the savings from a much smaller IRS could benefit the consumer.

    46. Re:feh by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see you teach a single mother of three how to manage an international corporation so she too can score $12M after driving it into bankruptcy and help you keep some of your taxes.

      What the "no-welfare!" sheep don't understand is that most of the people getting assistance from the government the are the hardworking industrious Americans that our many dishonest politicians appeal to in campaigns. It's just a little hard to get a decent education when you're already 30 with kids, never completed high-school and in debt.

      What really kills me is how such heartless Republicans can advocate bootstrapology and at the same time label an inheritance tax a "Death Tax" to make it sound terrible for the government to take back part of what it provided to the few who were exceptionally successful when they no longer need it. Inheritance is not a natural right, nor protected by the constitution- it's a relic from aristocracy which encourages laziness and dependence which we both abhor. A perfect example is our outgoing president: lousy student (unless one counts drinking and partying), terrible businessman, yet so far from destitute.

      The teach a man to fish story is more related to affirmative action, but you're probably firmly against that too without having even thought about it.

    47. Re:feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "war on Terrah"

      i cant wait for obama to take office so we can spell that properly, cause it aint going away.

    48. Re:feh by number11 · · Score: 1

      Everyone spends money...the rich spend a LOT of money....so, that way you catch everyone...and also you catch dollars from illegal businesses too....hookers and drug dealers (however you feel about said activities) often have cash transactions that go under the table. But, those people do have to buy and use goods....
       
      ...and services. They tell me we're in a "service economy" now. So long as your definition of "goods" includes everything that is sold, I'm interested. But if I have to charge tax when I sell a widget, why shouldn't a (independent) lawyer (or hooker) have to charge tax when he sells services? Why should land, or a portion of a company (stock) be exempt? Of course it would make certain things more expensive, but (assuming you set the rate appropriately) it would make other things less expensive. But as soon as you allow loopholes, it all goes to hell.

      I fully expect that the same pack of weasels would be gnawing loopholes in a flat sales tax, too.

    49. Re:feh by zxnos · · Score: 1

      what is so hard about a line that says: "enter income here (all sources)_________ * x% = income tax paid." then the government can define income as: wages, tips, dividends, etc. see your first point.

      taxes on goods would work the similar to how it does now. new goods are taxed, used goods are not. it discourages waste. necessities are not taxed (food).

      last i checked, services weren't taxed. the services provider pays taxes on what they are paid to provide a service. i don't charge clients taxes for my professional services. though, what i have to pay in taxes are calculated into what i charge.

      better, i think, if you only charge a sale tax then you get taxes from hookers, drug dealers, "rich" people buying caviar etc.

      morally, i think, taxes, as a percentage, should be equal. i shouldnt pay a higher (or lower) percentage of my income because of some magic number the government pulls out of its cornhole.

      however, i should be able to give the government more money if i want to. do high tax advocates do that? i havent met any that do.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    50. Re:feh by number11 · · Score: 1

      last i checked, services weren't taxed. the services provider pays taxes on what they are paid to provide a service. i don't charge clients taxes for my professional services. though, what i have to pay in taxes are calculated into what i charge.

      TWIAVBP. A lot of places, including where I live, do charge sales tax (including in my case, a "regional transit tax", a "rich guy who owns the sports team wants a stadium" tax, and several others) on a hodgepodge of services (security services, if not done by a moonlighting cop; haircuts and dog grooming; hotel rooms; telephone and cable TV; parking; auto leases; health club charges; shipping; etc.). If you have a sales tax where you are, I'd bet that it applies to some of those services too, though I could easily be wrong.

    51. Re:feh by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Don't campaign for someone the parties let you choose. Convince someone you already trust to run, then campaign for them. If you can only trust yourself, then run yourself or find some way to limit your contact with what the politicians can control. Just be careful who comes knocking at your compound's door. ;-)

    52. Re:feh by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Have you looked into the APT tax? It was designed to tax transactions such as those you describe. In fact, that's ALL it taxes - transactions. Just a theory at the moment, but I can see where it's becoming very implementable.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    53. Re:feh by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Anyone with the ambition to seek power is too ambitious to be trusted with it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    54. Re:feh by Zilvreen · · Score: 1

      I think he said 'State' constitution, not the US Constitution. The US Constitution is a fairly short document comparatively, and describes mainly the limits of federal government. A state's constitution can have to do with anything and everything not federal and is generally a bit more wordy. They tend to outline policies and processes, the structure of the state government and its duties, and often specific issues deemed important enough to add to the state's constitution.

    55. Re:feh by dlaudel · · Score: 1

      I like this idea. Can't get a tax much flatter than 0%!

    56. Re:feh by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      You could always seek to nominate someone who wouldn't run on their own. You could even campaign for individual pieces of legislation you like rather than people. Legislation that reforms how politicians are elected or how they serve comes along every so often, for example.

    57. Re:feh by QuoteMstr · · Score: 0

      Inflating the currency is good for common people. It acts like a tax on savings, which encourages spending and investment in real goods. The reason deflation is so terrible is that it encourages savings, so money doesn't circulate and the economy does not grow.

      Second, why should income tax only affect the top 1%? Income tax (if you include capital gains as income) is the fairest way to tax the population. What's wrong with extending it to everyone?

      And again, stop using emotionally-charged words like "soak". Our government doesn't rob people and build palaces. It puts that money back into circulation, and in doing so, creates public goods. It's a good thing! This whole "big government is bad" meme is crap.

    58. Re:feh by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading at "consumption tax" - all sales taxes are inherently regressive (that meaning the poorer someone is the higher percent of their total income goes to tax)

      Which is such bullshit, pardon my French. People (who make statements like you) won't listen to any tax solution in which the overall percentage of income going to taxes is not equal.

      It's simplistic, short sighted, stubborn, and arrogant.

      A hamburger costs the same to a poor person as it does a rich person. So does a roll of toilet paper and a gallon of gas. All commodities cost the same since we don't live in a country in which the cost of a product varies with eye color. I bring that up since in places like Peru a really white person with blue eyes gets charged differently than a dark brown native indian with brown eyes. That's a fact and does not represent how business is done in more developed countries like the US, Canada, EU, Australia, etc. The exceptions stand out like sore thumbs.

      So why the hell is it a problem that somebody that makes 35,000 USD a year has to spend just as much as a person that makes 100,000 USD a year on commodities and services? Where is your justification that the rich person should pay more?

      It's a quite reasonable fact of life that the poor person is going to spend a MUCH higher percentage of their income ON JUST FUCKING SURVIVING . In fact, the poorer you are the more likely you are to be spending close to 100% (or over that with credit cards for a short time).

      So why should the rich be punished with higher taxes (raising their basic costs of the same standard of living) simply because they make more? There is ZERO logic behind your position. It's just a sense of disproportion that is brought on by the feeling deep down that the rich are getting away with something and you need to stop it. Using a big word like regressive does not make it a reasonable position.

      You would need to convince me why the rich should be punished for having more income than their poorer brothers and sisters. Since that is what you are directly doing.

      Well I got some interesting NEWS FOR YOU!

      The RICH GET AWAY WITH PAYING LESS TAXES THAN POOR PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE GAME IS SETUP RIGHT NOW . You act like a consumption tax is intrinsically unfair towards the poor when the opposite is true. It brings fairness where there has never been in any in the first place.

      A consumption tax allows everybody to contribute the same amount to our country. The poor person will spend all his income on just surviving and pay the same amount of taxes. It will be a higher overall percentage of his income. The rich person will spend only some of his income on the same necessities as the poor person and his amount of taxes will be the same while the overall percentage of his income being paid to taxes will be less.

      That is morally and ethically correct. There are quite a number of people that could have made more money if only they had studied harder, fucked off less, etc. The world does not owe them a living.

      Oh, and by the way. When a rich person wants to have a much higher standard of living than people around him he will start to pay a lot more taxes. He will consume more, therefore pay more. What a concept huh?

      So a consumption tax based society will also raise more money in taxes and be more fair in how it collects it.

      But... You don't need to read my post. You can make arrogant little statements about "regressive bullshit" and continue to let rich people get away with murder. You don't think that they were going to sit there in an unfair system and pay more for the same shit do you? Of course not. Don't be silly. They went to the golf courses and the pubs and the smoke filled backrooms and created a huge unwieldy complex system that allows their friends in government to control and terrorize people while also allowing the rich people to end up paying "no positi

    59. Re:feh by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Do you actually know anybody who lives on welfare? I happen to know quite a few, and they are not the hardworking industrious Americans you claim. They are lazy bums gladly taking the dole that you are giving them.
      Id also be interested in how the fish story relates to affirmative action. Its about teaching people to help themselves. Nothing to do with giving preference to someone because of an unimportant genetic marker making their skin a little darker.

    60. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 1

      Inflating the currency is good for common people

      That was bullshit when Roosevelt tried to claim it, and it's bullshit today. Inflation is robbery of everyone who's holding the currency, and that's a burden that poor people are less able to stand.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    61. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 1

      They're also aware that the death tax tends to drive consolidation of companies into larger companies. The heirs of many family businesses have had to sell to pay the tax.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    62. Re:feh by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Your statement is simply not true. The poor live paycheck-to-paycheck. Inflation increases the value of wages relative to savings. The poor have no savings, almost by definition.

      Really, FDR was wrong? His plan was a complete disaster? Get real. If you think that, you would have been opposed to fire and the wheel too.

    63. Re:feh by PapagenoX · · Score: 1

      Good luck tilting at those windmills, Chief.

    64. Re:feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmm. anecdotes. So very convincing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and submit to you that you don't have any clue whatsoever as to what the rules and guidelines behind welfare even ARE. The image of the welfare queen thunking out children so she can rake in more cash the government thugs heartlessly rip from the hands of god-lovin blue collar Joe Sixpacks is a carefully crafted bit of fiction designed to maintain and strengthen the burgeoning caste system in America.

      here's the basic facts:

      the median wage has fallen 12% in 30 years, adjusted for inflation. Median, not mean, aka "the statistic that matters to people." Meanwhile, the economy itself has grown exponentially. That means the divide between rich and poor has grown obscenely in that time. Coincidentally, worker protections, *and* welfare, have been picked apart. There IS NO lifetime welfare benefit teet to suckle from. Maybe there was, once, but there sure as hell hasn't been in decades. These days, welfare for the able-bodied has a maximum lifetime span of a handful of years, maybe.

      I can't be arsed to explain why affirmative action makes sense to those that think and understand how history, privilege and compound interest works, let alone someone who's made it clear they most certainly *don't*.

      but hey, it's cool - keep on thinking your rapidly devalued labor and ability to provide for your family, and subsequent wholesale plundering of your taxes to transfer whatever chunk of the pittance you make they blatantly hand over to the ruling class somehow makes you better and more noble than those that had a slightly smaller pittance to begin with and receive a pathetic handout so as to keep them from dying in the fricken street...it's exactly what those poor, sad little picked-on plutocrats designed your entire struggling life to make you believe.

    65. Re:feh by Kugala · · Score: 1

      Inflation decreases the value of savings more than it decreases the value of income. But if you're living from paycheck to paycheck, any decrease is difficult to handle, regardless if that other guy is getting it worse.

    66. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 1

      Sorry to break it to you, but yes. FDR was wrong, and the New Deal is why the depression persisted throughout his presidency.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    67. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel. If the Russians could abolish their empire, so can we.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    68. Re:feh by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Why do people tack stupid stuff onto my posts?

      Government assistance is hardly limited to welfare. I'm still repaying the federally subsidized low-interest loans I got for college. Don't use extremes to counter a reasonable argument.

      As for fish- affirmative action was designed to help lift people out of poverty which was caused by racism. Pigment wouldn't be relevant were it not for that causal relationship. Need me to connect the dots?

  6. We've had this discussion before by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think we concluded that if we can write off losses in the virtual world, and pay our real tax in WOW dollars that it would be welcomed by all gamers.

    1. Re:We've had this discussion before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it beats Stones of Jordan.

      [/Diablo 2]

    2. Re:We've had this discussion before by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, I want to write off the depreciation of my leet T6 sets that are now worthless after another expansion.

      I invested a lot of time (therefore money) to get those things, now they aren't worth diddly.

      In a way, I don't mind being taxed, but it works both ways.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:We've had this discussion before by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      wow gold has a higher us dollar exchange rate than the japanese yen.

      I would find it funny after all the wacky predictions of D&D and usenet becoming the new system of power for the world if businesses actually started accepting wow gold for food and blizzard's patches came under the scrutiny of the fed.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:We've had this discussion before by Catiline · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall from previous discussions that WOW players would be OK with this if they could PvP attack the taxman....

    5. Re:We've had this discussion before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself. I've never found one, though I did manage to bag an Oculus once. /way off topic

  7. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful? You've got to be fucking kidding me

    1. Re:What? by philspear · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, that offers some insight into troll psychology. Or someone accidentally hit insightful when they meant to pick troll. Alt accounts are also a possibility.

    2. Re:What? by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      I like this new trend in troll stories; the suprise ending makes them worth reading.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  8. Excuse me by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    I meant WOW gold.

    1. Re:Excuse me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I meant WOW gold.

      Gold hell, do they take wolf pelts?

    2. Re:Excuse me by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      When even the World of Warcraft virtual world is using gold and silver as coin while the US is still on fiat-money-central-banking-fractional-reserve-pyramid-scheme, we need help. Seriously.

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
  9. Always looking for a pocket to pick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If they want to tax real money gained for selling virtual items/services, that's fine. Technically it's already taxed under the 'Other Income' category.

    On the other hand, if they want to take my Everquest Gold, or my World Of Warcraft Epic Mount, they can byte my virtual posterior. It doesn't exist, it can't be taxed.

    Even if you took the route of "if you sold it for real money..." you still can't tax it. If you did, then you could be taxed for your car (you could sell it), your blood (you can sell it several times a month), your grandmothers old knicknacks (you might inherit them, then sell them), etc. All in all, a stupid idea.

    1. Re:Always looking for a pocket to pick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pay taxes on your car if you realize gains from its sale (e.g., you sell it for more than you paid for it).

      You pay taxes when you sell your blood. (What, you thought you didn't?)

      You pay taxes on your grandmother's old knickknacks when you inherit them.

    2. Re:Always looking for a pocket to pick... by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      I think they're more interested in collecting federal income tax from people who farm e-currency for a living and sell it online.

      Luckily the majority of people who do this professionally are not US citizens.

      I don't think even the IRS could get laws passed that would tax virtual assets since the consumer never owns them according to the game publishers Terms of Service.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    3. Re:Always looking for a pocket to pick... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Even if you took the route of "if you sold it for real money..." you still can't tax it.

      is wrong - when I previewed, next poster responded, so I removed my comment on it.

      The problem isnt' that we need new taxes for this, it is because people aren't paying Use Tax or income tax for online purchases or sales. Every Ebay transaction is taxable - it is income for the seller and Use Tax (generally a form of sales tax for out of state purchases) for the buyer.

      Since purchases like this are taxable already (both with sales and income tax), a new law is redundant and would need to supersede current Use Tax laws in most states. Use Tax laws are already some of the most broken tax laws in existence (both in people not paying them and complexity), so all this will do is complicate matters further (would you get double taxed for selling, once for income tax and once for internet gold tax?)

    4. Re:Always looking for a pocket to pick... by zxnos · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if they want to take my Everquest Gold, or my World Of Warcraft Epic Mount, they can byte my virtual posterior. It doesn't exist, it can't be taxed.

      does that mean that the music on my digital music play doesnt exist? or the words i see on the screen in front of me don't exist?

      dood! have you ever looked at your HANDS?

      --
      always mosh clockwise
  10. Auction house sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they're going to be taxing my sales at the auction house?

    That sounds like a pain, but I guess I can always go out and grind for more.

  11. The solution is... by jonwil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To apply tax to things when they earn real income. For example, if you sell 3000 in WOW gold on ebay for US$500 (to make up an example since I don't know real values), you have to pay tax on the US$500 just like any other income. In that case you would not pay any tax at all on the ingame stuff.

    The only issue comes up with currencies like the Linden Dollar that can be converted back and forth with US$ and other currencies, for those you could treat it like any other currency (presumably if I give you 500 euros as payment for something, thats still income and has to be reported as such, the same could apply to L$)

    1. Re:The solution is... by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's actually closer to 30,000 gold for 500 dollars.

      However, what if you bought bits of that gold for 200 dollars? Can you write that off as a business expense? Can you write off your salaried time? If you bought Epic Armor to sell, but an expansion suddenly made it less valuable, can you write it off as capital depreciation? What if you spent salaried time to get Epic Armor, only to have to write down that value on a re-balance?

      It gets messy. IRS issuing guidelines could clear up a lot of the messy details.

    2. Re:The solution is... by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

      It gets messy. IRS issuing guidelines could clear up a lot of the messy details.

      It's a freaking game!!! The guideline should be simple: There are no business expenses you can write off because it's a game, and if you do sell game stuff for real dollars we'll tax your non-virtual ass for it.

      Seems pretty simple to me.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    3. Re:The solution is... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Baseball is a game too, but some of those people are making several million dollars a year. Frankly, I don't understand why current IRS rules don't apply. If you're making real money income from an online game, then it can be treated either as a hobby or as a job. There are tax laws already in place for both scenarios. Hmmm, maybe it's because they're worried about what happens when your income and assets in games are large enough that they could affect how you are taxed. For example, the Alternate Minimum Tax is based more or less on the size of increase of your net assets each year. In theory, you could hide assets in a game and in that way avoid triggering the AMT.

    4. Re:The solution is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So maybe I'm not understanding tax law, but if I sell my car to someone, I have to pay federal taxes on the money they pay me? If I sell my old computer on e-bay I have to pay taxes on that too? I hope I'm not breaking the law, but I've sold lots of cars and old computers and I've never paid any tax on those. I don't see where or why virtual property is different than that sort of physical property.

      This is akin to those states trying to claim "use" taxes. Besides being impractical to enforce, how many more ridiculous types of taxation do they have to come up with before people start resisting? Any talk of new or increasing taxes during this time of economic depression seems to be shooting oneself in the foot, imho, especially when they are giving those tax dollars to car companies and banks! I mean seriously, wtf?

      And then the article states people are volunteering that they made income from virtual property sales. Again I say wtf?!

    5. Re:The solution is... by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      This taxpayer advocate in the link sounds like anything but. I agree with you, in that the current laws are sufficient. You sell "Virtual Item" on ebay for $500, you pay taxes on those $500 (minus expenses such as game purchase, subscription, etc). It's really not that confusing. They also want enhanced implementation techniques (monitoring) so that happens.

      On top of that, it also sounds like they want to figure out a way to tax virtual-only transactions, which is about as inane as finding a way to tax small-time bartering in real life. Well, if the IRS wants to accept virtual currency, let them. Perhaps the US Military wants to upgrade their swords of summoning or whatever.

      Everytime I hear of this bloated, useless bureacratic nonsense, I feel obligated to mention the APT-Tax.
      http://www.apttax.com/

    6. Re:The solution is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want to tax gains but not account for losses?

      If I make $20,000 selling virtual gold, but I spend $30,000 doing it I've realized a $10,000 loss.

      Your "simple" solution requires me to pay taxes on gains I haven't realized. Aside from the obvious ethical problem, there is the practical problem: Where do I come up with 15% of $20,000 when I've already realized a $10,000 loss? Throw me in jail if you must, but I won't be able to pay you money I never had in the first place.

    7. Re:The solution is... by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      'In theory, you could hide assets in a game and in that way avoid triggering the AMT.'
      Fucking ingenious... though i'm sure there are easier ways than that.

    8. Re:The solution is... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      It most likely has something to do with this "business" providing no value to society as a whole.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    9. Re:The solution is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you bought gold for 200 dollars, and later sold gold for 500 dollars, that's a profit of 300 dollars. That should be what you report to the IRS.

    10. Re:The solution is... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I know someone whose entire income is from virtual sales. He makes a good living at it. He creates virtual objects in a virtual world and sells them. He, also, reports his income. I'm not sure about what he does about business expenses.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:The solution is... by Lulfas · · Score: 1

      Bigger problem is that the people making real money are Chinese, so this won't affect regular people unless they set it up and screw everyone who plays MMOs

    12. Re:The solution is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only issue comes up with currencies like the Linden Dollar that can be converted back and forth with US$ and other currencies, for those you could treat it like any other currency (presumably if I give you 500 euros as payment for something, thats still income and has to be reported as such, the same could apply to L$)

      If they don't trade on a standard currency exchange, then it's not real money until it gets converted.
      So no, you don't get to claim how much in Linden dollars you paid for property as a business expense, you would have to convert it to real cash and then back to Linden dollars in order to do that.

      Basically, if you take money out of the game, you pay income tax on it. If you put it back, then you might be able to write part of it off as a business expense, just like you might be able to write off your internet bill.

      It's not that tough of a concept, the only people having trouble are just trying to apply real-world tax laws to a virtual economy. So I'll say it really nice so as not to piss anyone off:
      It's a fucking virtual world, you morons, so quite trying to apply real-world laws to it. IT'S NOT REAL. You're playing a game & that's all you are doing, period.

    13. Re:The solution is... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The same can be said about many others. That should not be a reason to ignore the regular business tax rules.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:The solution is... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Advanced monitoring seems pointless, if there was an efficient way to track gold traders the game operators would use it to kick them off the server.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:The solution is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I make $20,000 selling virtual gold, but I spend $30,000 doing it I'm an idiot

      Fixed that for you.

    16. Re:The solution is... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Like what, tax credit for gambling losses?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    17. Re:The solution is... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Technically, you get taxed on your profit, not on your revenue. If you buy a car and sell it for more than you paid, they could charge you for a cut of the difference.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    18. Re:The solution is... by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we apply that logic to online games?

      Someone is paying $15/month to play an online game.
      Let's say after 12 months, they get a billion in virtual gold.
      They sell this virtual gold for 100 USD.
      $15/month times 12 months is $180.
      So, that's a net loss of $80, right?

  12. IRS can't withstand virtual reality by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The IRS only exists in the real world. It should stay there. Otherwise, it could cause a reality breach, and soon find itself the target of thousands of nuclear warheads, tens of thousands of orcs, millions of heavily armed commandos, and a giant green pulsating penis.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re:IRS can't withstand virtual reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      and a giant green pulsating penis

      More and more I regret posting that home video on YouTube.

    2. Re:IRS can't withstand virtual reality by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      and a giant green pulsating penis.

      You had me until there,.. Picollo's penis doesn't pulsate, it stretches smoothly.

    3. Re:IRS can't withstand virtual reality by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I disagree, they live in their own world, and should be abolished..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:IRS can't withstand virtual reality by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, the IRS should be abolished, but for roll-back, you need containment.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    5. Re:IRS can't withstand virtual reality by harl · · Score: 1

      Even though your post is humor your first sentence is dead on.

      Read the EULA for MMPOGs. They quite clearly state that you the user own none of the characters, items, nor currency in the game. You are simply paying for access to it.

      If you don't own it they can't tax you.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
  13. God damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading the site linked to in your sig, I could feel my IQ drop.

    1. Re:God damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They NEED your IQ to drop so they can fill your head with their bible-thumping ideas. No intelligent person could fall for that load of fiction.

  14. Ignore my last post by philspear · · Score: 1

    Er... sorry, little bit of misreading there. On second look, you weren't talking about voluntary taxes, you were talking about flat tax. Well I'll just go cry in a corner now...

  15. I can't wait for taxation by the_raptor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taxation of virtual worlds will mean players will have ownership over their accounts (currently trying to monetize your WoW assets is a bannable offence), and fraud and theft in virtual worlds will fall under standard criminal statutes.

    Trying to enforce that mess will drain resources from trying to create copyright cops or other nonsense.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    1. Re:I can't wait for taxation by Bieeanda · · Score: 1
      The only thing it'll do for WoW is make Blizzard even quicker to ban farmers, and possibly get your example eBay seller up on fraud charges. The gold isn't yours, any more than any other aspect of the account is, so there's no legal way to exchange it outside of the context of the game itself.

      The big thing here isn't going to be traditional MMOs, but the 'item shop' games like Fly For Fun, where there is a direct legal conversion between real money and rewards in game. Second Life is definitely going to be affected by this if it goes through, and I imagine that related blogs are going bonkers already.

    2. Re:I can't wait for taxation by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or an even better solution.

      The IRS can charge me taxes in WOW items. But I can defend it using WOW laws.

      So the IRS agent must catch me in a raid and take my items by force. Because if I'm in a WOW world I'm going to fight by WOW rules and kick his sorry tax collecting ass.

      Just think how much more interesting collecting a 400 gold piece tax will become when you can draw a sword and protect your property. Of course the IRS raiding parties will be top level well orchestrated teams working in concert across Azeroth it will add a whole new level of excitement every february for most players. The IRS would also probably add bounties for top
      level characters leading to an interesting new dynamic of payed free agents for whom money is on the line.

      Orrrr... if you sell your gold you report your "Other Income" like you're legally obligated right now. But that would be far less exciting.

      *thatoneguy does not play WOW nor has ever played WOW. However adding IRS agents as a force might... just might convince him to open an account.

    3. Re:I can't wait for taxation by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Second Life makes this very clear. You own your account. You own your own stuff. You can monetize it. You can even take your intellectual property outside of Second Life and put it on your own server (not that you'd want to, since you'd be alone on your own server). But this is a growing trend for virtual worlds that want to attract and keep content creators.

      WoW I suppose is a different kind of virtual world, where it's not so much dependent on user-generated content or user-generated scripts?

    4. Re:I can't wait for taxation by chonglibloodsport · · Score: 1

      The IRS doesn't have the power to declare that players own virtual assets when the players already agreed that the publisher owns them by accepting the license agreement.

    5. Re:I can't wait for taxation by UID30 · · Score: 1

      We should request that all tax collectors be a faction unto themselves, lvl 5, and permanently flagged PVP ... and that they have to carry all the gold they collect, so if they happen to ... ummm ... have an accident, the wealth can be re-distributed.

      --
      "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
    6. Re:I can't wait for taxation by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      ""WoW I suppose is a different kind of virtual world, where it's not so much dependent on user-generated content or user-generated scripts?""

      There's a pretty vibrant addon-developer community for WoW, but partially due to the way that Addons are implemented, it's all pretty much FOSS.

      The only real-money, direct transaction is paying your game subscription. There are quite a few other things like guild web hosting, voice chat hosting for things like Ventrillo, some paid game guides (both books published through publishers as well as some paid-member-access-only guides, but they're really things done outside of the game world.

      Wow does not really have any user-generated content (unless you count addons and macros), and that is as I mentioned, all Free, open Source stuff (though some authors take donations)

      Blizzard is very serious about disallowing RMT (real Money Transactions) like gold selling and powerleveling and character selling. Partly because it devalues the game experience for others, but also so that they can stay clearly on the side of the law that means that the IRS can't attach some made up tax value to the made-up virtual assetts in the game.

      Also, I bet they want to keep a clear line about virtual assetts so that nobody can try to sue them for losses should their account get hacked or whatever.

      If Blizzard allowed RMT, then a well-geared, high-level toon could be considered to have a high monetary value and open up all sorts of un-fun legal-fee-producing uglyness.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    7. Re:I can't wait for taxation by Reziac · · Score: 1

      How is the online game's economy fundamentally different from playing Monopoly? It also uses virtual money, and you can buy and sell stuff which then you use to make a profit within the game.

      IMO the only difference is that the IRS sees that its possible to enforce tracking of virtual income in online games, whereas it'd be tough to do with tabletop games (unless they started coming with a built-in Big Brother).

      Well, no problem.. just have the IRS set up a virtual tax office within the online game, and they can get paid in virtual money.

      Tho I do kinda like your point about draining resources from the copyright cops. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:I can't wait for taxation by HardCase · · Score: 1

      I don't think that World of Warcraft is the target here. Think Second Life. Its currency is convertible into "real money".

    9. Re:I can't wait for taxation by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I am interested in receiving your newsletter.

    10. Re:I can't wait for taxation by harl · · Score: 1

      But the EULA contract already states that you don't own these things.

      So the IRS comes knocking. You say What gold? Blizzard/Sony/EA/Turbine/'s gold? I don't own that and show them the contract.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    11. Re:I can't wait for taxation by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I think most of the item shop games only have a one-way system where you buy special items with your money that would be comparable to downloadable extra content for other games. Cashing out is usually not possible so the items shouldn't be taxed beyond the sales tax. Of course Second Life is different.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    12. Re:I can't wait for taxation by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      From what I understand you're obligated to pay taxes in US dollars no matter what currency or property caused them so all talk about paying in virtual money is pointless (yes I know you're joking but it tends to be a standard response).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:I can't wait for taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware the government did much about fraud or theft in the physical world. I know a number of victims (mostly theft) and no one has ever seen much in the way of justice. No one at all got any compensation from the criminals. Currently the police don't spend much effort on petty crimes. I don't see why that would change.

  16. Fake money by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    Fake money has no real value until converted to real currency. And this article, this topic, is a bit tricky.

    Person A pays Person B to do a task in a virtual world, and gets paid virtual money. If the virtual money is converted to real currency, sure, why shouldn't it be taxed?

    Person A pays Person B to do a task in real life, and pays that person in virtual money. If the virtual money is converted to reall currency, sure, why shouldn't it be taxed? But, would it be legal to pay someone virtual money for a task done in real life? There's minimum wage laws and whatnot.

    We're in a grey area here. But, common sense dictates, if something is converted to real money, it should be taxed, right? If I somehow get a billion dollars in virtual world money, then sell it to someone on eBay or whatnot, hypothetically, why shouldn't I be taxed on that?

    1. Re:Fake money by mdenham · · Score: 1

      Person A pays Person B to do a task in real life, and pays that person in virtual money. If the virtual money is converted to reall currency, sure, why shouldn't it be taxed? But, would it be legal to pay someone virtual money for a task done in real life? There's minimum wage laws and whatnot.

      Minimum wage only applies to, in general, doing work for a company. (See all the 13-year-old babysitters getting paid $20 for 5-6 hours of babysitting for a fine example of this.) So: yes, it's legal, or as close to legal as you can get (as very few government agencies are going to crack down on someone paying their babysitter $3.50-$4/hr, for example).

      Alternatively, you can look at it as payment "in kind" (see here, though admittedly it's very short) rather than in cash, which (if memory serves) isn't considered taxable because there's no exchange of money (either real stuff, or bits over a wire as in electronic funds transfers).

      Keep in mind with that last that I am not a tax professional, nor do I even work at H&R Blockhead.

    2. Re:Fake money by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      But what happens when you take that "in kind" and convert it to real money? It's a form of income. However, I don't think the government should tax something "in kind" if it is never converted.

    3. Re:Fake money by mdenham · · Score: 1

      But what happens when you take that "in kind" and convert it to real money? It's a form of income. However, I don't think the government should tax something "in kind" if it is never converted.

      Which is exactly what happens. It's similar to the laws on capital gains - you don't get taxed for those until you actually receive them. (If you got taxed for them when they happened, you'd have thousands or millions of micro-transactions to the IRS just for owning stock.)

    4. Re:Fake money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Person A pays Person B to do a task in real life, and pays that person in virtual money. If the virtual money is converted to real currency, sure, why shouldn't it be taxed? But, would it be legal to pay someone virtual money for a task done in real life? There's minimum wage laws and whatnot.

      If you do a "chore" for your wife/husband/significant-other, should your time be taxed as if you were getting paid? That is the question here.
      If I decide to do something in a virtual world, and receive virtual money for it, then I am, effectively, volunteering my time.
      If the government ever decides that it is equal to receiving ERAL money, then they will find I'm donating a LOT of my time, receiving NO virtual money, and I will start deducting that volunteer work from my taxes.
      What happens when the IRS starts owing ME thousands of dollars?

    5. Re:Fake money by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, the IRS has rules about the tax on "in kind" payments, and they are taxable. You are required to pay tax on the "fair market" value of the goods or service received.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Fake money by dwye · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, you can look at it as payment "in kind" (see here, though admittedly it's very short) rather than in cash, which (if memory serves) isn't considered taxable because there's no exchange of money (either real stuff, or bits over a wire as in electronic funds transfers).

      Keep in mind with that last that I am not a tax professional, nor do I even work at H&R Blockhead.

      It shows. Barter is in-kind payment, and it is quite taxable, in standard currency, based on the monetary value of what the taxpayer receives. Otherwise, you could be paid in gold bullion, barrels of oil, or fine art without owing any taxes. Barterers tend to keep lousy records, though, so it is difficult to go after small amounts, just like with unreported tips, proceeds from illegal business transactions (not reporting his bootlegging profits is how they sent Al Capone to jail, after all), etc. And *I* an not a tax professional, either.

    7. Re:Fake money by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Well, okay. But, for this virtual currency, is there even a fair market value for it? Hmmm. Just thought of coupons which tend to say, value like 1/10th of a cent or something. Maybe the game creators can arbitrarily assign a value. Maybe say, "Virtual currency has no real value, or if it must be assigned a value, every billion dollars is worth 1/10th of a cent."

  17. If this happens ... by Aiml · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can I write my WoW characters off as dependencies?

  18. Taxing Monopoly money next? by laron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gaming companies by and large insist that they own everything within the game. Basically a player "owns" stuff the same way a monopoly player "owns" his cards, houses and money, i. e. only in the context of the game. If there is a transition to real world money (gold on ebay), that is already taxable.

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    1. Re:Taxing Monopoly money next? by trolltalk.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Gaming companies by and large insist that they own everything within the game. Basically a player "owns" stuff the same way a monopoly player "owns" his cards, houses and money, i. e. only in the context of the game. If there is a transition to real world money (gold on ebay), that is already taxable."

      Why are you giving them even more stupid ideas? This is Washington we're talking about. Politicians who've never met a stupid idea they didn't like ... like the bailouts.

      Mind you, if they're going to start treating all game transactions as real-life, I'm going to play Risk, conquer the world, and tell the IRS their new job is to collect tribute for me.

  19. bullshit doublespeak: voluntary tax compliance ?? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    Is it voluntary or compliant?

    Funny how there was no income tax until 1913, and now they want to tax some "Imaginary Property" ??

    How 'bout we focus on the real problems such as Social Insecurity being broke (I.O.U.S.A.), becoming poor in order to receive benefits, or the outright theft by Haliburton, instead of worrying about virtual ones.

    End the bullshit - one simple tax law: 10% of any income. No fucking loopholes. Plain and simple that doesn't requires thousands of wasted pages.

    I can't wait when money disappears in the 25th century and people learn to put TRUE stock in something that only increases in value -- themselves -- instead of artificial things.

    --
    "The more corrupt a republic, the more numerous its laws." -- 56 - 117 AD

  20. Re:bullshit doublespeak: voluntary tax compliance by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    End the bullshit - one simple tax law: 10% of any income. No fucking loopholes.

    The vast majority of the complexity in the tax code comes from figuring out what exactly qualifies as income. Flat tax proposals like yours address none of the complexity issues.

    I can't wait when money disappears...and people learn to put TRUE stock in something that only increases in value -- themselves

    I think prostitution ought to be legal, but it'd be foolhardy to base all exchange on sexual favors. Actually, on the second thought...

  21. the real question is: by jameszhou2000 · · Score: 1

    is there an IRS in the virtual world?

  22. Taxman mob by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will we get a Taxman mob?

    Large boss, slightly human looking but with fiery red eyes and decaying flesh. Fights with a magical Tax Form and spawns an army of goblin-lawyers as adds.

    Players will only have time to go OMGWTFBBQPWNED before they die.

    1. Re:Taxman mob by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even Scarier: It's nigh invulnerable, and does damage to Gold instead of Hit Points. Maybe it could be paired with Death.

  23. with other things you have to pay upon acquisition by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    I think the sticking point is over whether the virtual money should be assigned a value before you cash it out too. With other goods, even sometimes hard-to-value ones, it is: if someone pays your consulting bill with a rare baseball card, you have to value the baseball card and consider it income when you receive it, not just when you sell it.

    If virtual money isn't taxed when it changes hands, then it can be used as a tax dodge. since a bunch of economic activity can go on using virtual money as a tax-free medium of exchange, with taxes only paid on the net that gets cashed out sometime later.

  24. that's a bit different by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    If you already own stock and it goes up in value, then yes, you don't pay taxes on those capital gains until you sell the stock and the gains are realized.

    However, if you receive stock, e.g. as in-kind payment for services, you have to value the stock and pay taxes on it as income when you receive it, not when you sell it.

    1. Re:that's a bit different by mdenham · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. Virtual currency, though, is more like a stock option - while yes, you can buy/sell those, do they actually have a taxable value until the option is exercised?

  25. Re:bullshit doublespeak: voluntary tax compliance by TheLink · · Score: 1

    "people learn to put TRUE stock in something that only increases in value -- themselves "

    Some people decrease in value after a certain age.

    And some people have negative value.

    --
  26. How "virtual" do the worlds need to be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it applies to online games, then it also applies to offline games too surely?
    So lets take for example the game Monopoly:

    The classic version of the game officially comes with $20580, and $5890 worth of assets, it costs $13.99 for a box.
    So that gives approximately $1892.07 Monopoly dollars to the US dollar.

    Every time you pass go, you incurr therefore just under 11 cents of real world taxable income.
    Every time someone lands on Boardwalk with a hotel you will need to add $1.05 to your tax forms.

    Also remember that you should be able to offset any losses too.

    I am unsure as to how the IRS will reconcile the fact that at the end of the game you give it all away (put it back in the box) - does this count as a charitable donation? Will we need to obtain charitable organisation status for our games cupboards?

  27. (Virtual) reality check by itsdapead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody would argue that income suddenly became immune from income tax simply because it was earned using a computer and the internet. OK, which have convoluted rules about cross-border transactions, but not income tax. I think you'll also find that the taxmen also have existing arrangements (took 30 seconds on Google to find that) to deal with any attempt to use alternative currencies or barter exchanges as an end-run around tax.

    The only difference between income from selling software or art on your dollar-priced internet shop and income from running a virtual hat shop in Second Life is a sprinkling of fairy dust. If second-lifers try too hard to make it sound like something new, different and scary, the danger is that the tax authorities will be only too keen to invent new, different and scary rules...

    What I find depressing is that these "virtual worlds" are all taking the form of capitalist economies. Communism/Socialism may or may not work in the real world, but if I'm going to move to a virtual world which is supposedly limited only by the imagination of its inhabitants, I'm holding out for a post-scarcity utopia like The Culture or even the freakin' United Federation of Planets! If you don't have property then its much harder to have tax...

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    1. Re:(Virtual) reality check by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      OK, _____ which have convoluted rules about cross-border transactions

      Missing text: "...there have been issues about sales tax and VAT which which have convoluted rules about cross-border transactions but not income tax"

      We apologise for the inconvenience.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    2. Re:(Virtual) reality check by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      What I find depressing is that these "virtual worlds" are all taking the form of capitalist economies. Communism/Socialism may or may not work in the real world, but if I'm going to move to a virtual world which is supposedly limited only by the imagination of its inhabitants, I'm holding out for a post-scarcity utopia like The Culture or even the freakin' United Federation of Planets!

      Even in a virtual world there is always at least one scarce commodity: labor. Users tend to prefer worlds where the (virtual) product of their labor is protected from destruction by some anonymous "troll", which amounts to a form of private property rights. Also, virtual "building blocks" may be superabundant in the abstract, but they all require a measure of storage/bandwidth/CPU time/etc., which means they, too, are subject to the constraints of scarcity.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    3. Re:(Virtual) reality check by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      You point out the reason why idealistic socialism/communism goes titsup in the real world, but you are missing the point of a virtual world:

      Even in a virtual world there is always at least one scarce commodity: labor.

      No: because the only labour necessary in a virtual world takes place for the direct benefit of the labourer and is usually of a creative/intellectual nature. Nobody has to be coerced into digging coal or grow food in order to support the lifestyle of the slighty-more-equal comrades at the top of the heap.

      Users tend to prefer worlds where the (virtual) product of their labor is protected from destruction by some anonymous "troll", which amounts to a form of private property rights.

      But anything destroyed in a virtual world can be re-created by fiat. If someone steals your virtual plasma screen then it will grow back, the thief can keep what he stole and everybody is happy.

      Also, virtual "building blocks" may be superabundant in the abstract, but they all require a measure of storage/bandwidth/CPU time/etc., which means they, too, are subject to the constraints of scarcity.

      Firstly, those costs are negligible compared to the real world cost of manufacturing goods. Secondly, those resources are used in the real world there is no reason why every citizen can't pay a fixed monthly subscription or make donations to cover that - as long as those do not translate into personal property or status within the virtual world.

      The two flies in the ointment are (a) it could be deathly boring (they'd have to invent the equivalent of the Culture's "Special Circumstances" and (b) ingenious people would find some way of monetizing their activities (which would be an interesting result, rather depressing for any wannabe post-human...)

      In SF stories, such post-scarcity communities usually assume nanotechnology, vast resources from expansion into space and effectively free robotic labour.

      However, back in the real world, we do have one example: the Free (as in GPL) Software movement. This only works because the only unavoidable cost of software development is the labour of "design" - and people have proven amenable to donating that (either for indirect advantage or because they enjoy it). The cost of distribution and "manufacture" is neglibible and even if people "steal" your product (in a FOSS sense that could mean using it without contributing time back to the community) you still have it. Yes, industry has found ways making money off the back of OS software, but the licensing scheme ensures that that can't translate into "exclusive ownership" of the software.

      However, until someone invents the Star Trek replicator - and although you have to start somewhere, I don't mean something that can produce a doornob apparently made of snot - I doubt that the Open Source Hardware movement will have the same impact. So don't expect Richard Stallman to be the first "we don't have a president but if we did he would be it" president of The Culture.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    4. Re:(Virtual) reality check by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Even in a virtual world there is always at least one scarce commodity: labor.

      No: because the only labour necessary in a virtual world takes place for the direct benefit of the labourer and is usually of a creative/intellectual nature. Nobody has to be coerced into digging coal or grow food in order to support the lifestyle of the slighty-more-equal comrades at the top of the heap.

      First, that latter statement isn't even true in the real world. Second, labor is scarce even when you only consider the individual. There's only so much time in a day, and the person acting in the virtual world (as opposed to their avatar) has other things to be doing with that time, many of which may be easier or more rewarding than spending additional time in the virtual world.

      But anything destroyed in a virtual world can be re-created by fiat.

      If the world has a fine-grained "undo" capability, sure, that would generally work -- unless the thief was unusually persistent. The full history of the world would have to be kept on file, however, which isn't usually done for reasons of storage space. Things still tend to run more smoothly if players can rely on certain elements (like their avatar) remaining protected from unwanted modification by other players, rather than constantly being forced to restore them to an earlier state. Such protection is trivial to implement, so it's not surprising that most virtual worlds include such rules.

      Secondly, those resources are used in the real world there is no reason why every citizen can't pay a fixed monthly subscription or make donations to cover that - as long as those do not translate into personal property or status within the virtual world.

      The monthly subscriptions would only serve to determine just how *much* capacity you have to share amongst all the players. At that point you have to decide whether any given player will be permitted to use up all the resources, or whether each player will be allocated a specific amount, or some other arrangement. If you divide all resources equally you force yourself to turn away both those who would use less (but only at a lower rate) and those who would use more, and pay their own way. Real-world scarcity thus intrudes upon the virtual world.

      Even making the choice at all presumes that access to the virtual world is a commodity (simultaneously real and virtual) that can be treated as private property.

      However, back in the real world, we do have one example: the Free (as in GPL) Software movement.

      The software itself isn't property -- and I would argue that treating it as such isn't logically consistent with the purpose or nature of property -- but the development of free software depends very much on the existence of private property. To begin with, each developer is choosing whether or not to contribute, exercising their rights in their own body and mind, not to mention their food, shelter, computer, etc. To work as a group, someone has to apply their own property to the purpose of hosting the shared aspects of the project. Generally there is a limited group with write access to the repository, whose members can be said to "own" the code in the limited fashion I've been using above with regard to modifications, etc., etc. The effort is cooperative, yes, but everything for which the concept of property applies is privately owned by one or more individuals, not collectively by everyone.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    5. Re:(Virtual) reality check by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      First, that latter statement isn't even true in the real world.

      Sorry, but who do you think grew/processed/delivered the food you just ate, and do you think, given the choice, they wouldn't rather be doing a nice creative/management job than sorting potatoes?

      As for the rest of your comments: you are missing the point of a virtual world: all such worlds rely on a certain suspension of disbelief by the participants. In this case, yes, money and property is changing hands behind the scenes, but the virtual world itself could be kept internally consistent by not allowing internal property or currency to develop. For example, you could ration "online" time from the real-world end if there was a capacity problem - as long as this was done "fairly" so externally-rich users couldn't trade real world currency for more time. The problem is with Second Life seems to have artificial scarcity and American Capitalism built in at a fundamental level.

      I'm not even saying it wouldn't fail: but it would be interesting to see how and why!

      The software itself isn't property -- and I would argue that treating it as such isn't logically consistent with the purpose or nature of property

      Well, yes - that's kinda the point of the Free Software movement. The less enlightened parts of the commercial software industry very much think that software is property.

      Generally there is a limited group with write access to the repository, whose members can be said to "own" the code in the limited fashion I've been using above

      ...but any other person or group can take a copy of the code and start their own version of the project.

      Why this works is that (a) even though it is not zero, the marginal costs of distributing software are microscopic compared to any other sort of manufacture or service industry and (b) there exists a pool of programmers and employers willing to contribute time and use of equipment without recouping the cost from the free software community. Given those conditions, a "property/currency free" microcosm has thrived.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    6. Re:(Virtual) reality check by clara777 · · Score: 1

      What I find depressing is that these "virtual worlds" are all taking the form of capitalist economies.

      Amen to that. But if all of the virtual worlds are ultimately run by private or public companies, the motives would be (presumably) analogous to what you'd get if the same corporations were directing real-world policy. Oh, wait...

    7. Re:(Virtual) reality check by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but who do you think grew/processed/delivered the food you just ate, and do you think, given the choice, they wouldn't rather be doing a nice creative/management job than sorting potatoes?

      All true, but they weren't coerced into doing it, which is what made your original statement false.

      As for the rest of your comments: you are missing the point of a virtual world: all such worlds rely on a certain suspension of disbelief by the participants.

      In that case it would probably work just as well as any small community gifted with local superabundance, right up until the resulting growth forces the actual limitations of the virtual environment to the foreground.

      To me, it seems as though a shared environment with no limitations or consequences, as you describe, would essentially be the 3D equivalent of Wikipedia, except without the admins, page locks, IP bans, etc. which punish disruptive behavior and make Wikipedia usable. It would be interesting to see the results of such an experiment, though.

      ...but any other person or group can take a copy of the code and start their own version of the project.

      Which is exactly why I said that software itself isn't property, but also that private property rights govern things like access to the repository. The repository is the result of applying specific private property to a task (hosting). Anyone can set up their own copy of the repository, using their own property, but rights are still respected where they make sense -- where something can't simultaneously be put to multiple arbitrary uses. Effective collaboration depends on this; repositories can only be in one state at a time, and thus very few projects accept arbitrary contributions from outsiders directly into the official repository. The consequence of doing so would be an immediate "tragedy of the commons" and non-working code.

      Many people argue against capitalism when what they really object to is an irrational refusal to work together for mutual benefit. However, when put to the test, such choices often turn out not to be quite so irrational as originally thought. To assume that unrestricted collaboration is always better than private competition goes against human nature in any world.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re:(Virtual) reality check by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      All true, but they weren't coerced into doing it,

      True - they were completely free to be unemployed instead. If you live in a country where life is pleasant for unemployed citizens I'll bet you'll find a lot of food that is either imported from, or picked by migrant workers from, countries where unemployment is a pretty grim prospect. I think you have a rather narrow understanding of "coercion".

      In that case it would probably work just as well as any small community gifted with local superabundance, right up until the resulting growth forces the actual limitations of the virtual environment to the foreground.

      That's a laugh, considering that the whole credit crunch mess sprung from the same delusion: that continual, accelerating growth could be sustained without some corresponding massive increase in real, tangible resources. All I'm proposing is a simulation of a world in which such an increase has happened.

      Many people argue against capitalism when what they really object to is an irrational refusal to work together for mutual benefit.

      I'm not sure I'm even arguing against capitalism as the least-worst solution in the real world - although we've just seen pretty clear proof that unrestrained "capitalism" can go spectacularly wrong, too. I'm talking about speculative forms of society that might become possible in a future "post-scarcity" world.

      The question is, would such a society automatically "go exponential" and rapidly exhaust any conceivable finite resources, however large, (which is what capitalism just tried to do), or would it stabilise (or at least, only grow linearly) with the sort of resource increase that could feasibly come from (e.g.) nanotech, fusion power, exploiting the solar system?

      The free software example is interesting because - as you point out - the costs aren't zero and the resources aren't infinite, but it seems to be working. So perhaps "scarcity" simply has to be reduced to the point where "human nature" doesn't actually sink the ship (in the case of free software - all the millions of people using the software without giving anything back, plus a smaller number breaching the GPL, don't drain the system enough to destroy it).

      The alternative is that, as new technologies with the potential to disrupt capitalist models appear, someone will have to impose artificial scarcity. If someone invents the household nanotech replicator which is capable of manufacturing a bicycle (or worse, another replicator) from the contents of your trash can, how much should you pay, and to who, for the right to do that?

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  28. was brought up about SL... by Hellershanks · · Score: 1

    It was brought up about the income from second life, and the irs has ruled in the past ti counts as income once it's converted to real world dollars based on the fact there is a variable rate (similar to how you stocks are not taxable till cashed out, but dividends you receive are taxed as income) It gets even simpler in most of the games out there. Since it's all owned by the game company and real world selling is against the rules. But it still falls under the other income field on your tax form if you violate the TOS or use say SOE's marketplace to sell in game items for real world money. Remember they busted Al Capone not for any of his other crimes, just tax evasion because he didn't pay the taxes on his income from his illegal operations. When you convert it in any way to real world money, it is now income and taxable.

  29. Re:with other things you have to pay upon acquisit by chonglibloodsport · · Score: 1

    The solution to all this, as advanced by the publishers of MMO games (such as Blizzard) is that all virtual assets are the property of the publisher. Therefore, players have no right to buy or sell any virtual assets and cannot be taxed for them.

  30. Sauce For The Goose by FireIron · · Score: 1

    They could give the big banks their bailout money in the form of City of Heroes influence.

  31. It's the CowboyNeil option by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

    Don't tell me you didn't notice the quick switch at the end and "He was wearing a cowboy hat". CowboyNeal (Or in this case, Cowboy-Kneal :-)

  32. Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, you can deduct business expenses.

    This is exactly the reason why taxation isn't anything to get hysterical about. If you make so much money from selling stuff that you actually have to pay taxes then you should be taxed -- just like all the other businesses selling stuff.

    Now if only peddlers of religion were held to the same standard.

  33. Unite WOW! by UID30 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Isn't this how the Boston Tea Party started? How can they possibly think to tax online gamers hard earned gold without some form of representation? This is blatantly taxation without representation.

    I, for one, think that this opens up a need for seats in congress for Night Elves, Gnomes, Orcs, and even Tauren (as long as they promise to first take a bath). Sorry Humans, you've already got enough reps on the hill. We'll need HUGE multi-panel monitors setup all around the House chambers ... at least ... 130" tall so that each representative can be rendered at his/her real size ... and full sound systems for each so that their voice can be HEARD!

    And why stop there? We need seats on appropriations committees, too! Lets put those tax dollars ...err ... tax golds to work! How about a fast train system linking Ironforge to Undercity? Faster gryphon rides? or better yet ... FASTER LOGIN QUEUES for overloaded servers??

    Until we get all of this, I say we should each buy Tea from a local vendor and then drop it while standing at the harbor in Booty Bay. Below is a helpful list of some of the teas which might be appropriate:

    Honeymint Tea, Green Garden Tea, Thistle Tea, Goldthorn Tea, or even Green Tea Leaf

    --
    "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
  34. It's a game by likes2comment · · Score: 1

    How do you tax a game? What about losses?

  35. No brainer by unity100 · · Score: 1

    if income is made, it is taxable. if a service is given, it is a service. if a trade has been made (even if items are virtual), it is trade.

    same laws and rules applicable with twists.

  36. Offshore by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

    I'll just move my assets to Northrend as an offshore tax haven.

  37. No ownership no tax - Read the EULA by harl · · Score: 1

    If you read the EULA it states that you don't own these things.

    Unless you're using the MMPOG to generate real world cash the only tax liability I see is on the part of the people running the games. If you're using the game to generate cash then you already fall under the current tax law.

    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
  38. Re:I can't wait for taxation - SL Taxes? by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

    So, this is what I am wondering. I created some virtual items in SL and sold them for a couple of years and made a decent Linden profit with 0 investment. Then, last fall I cashed out around $500 worth of my Lindens to apply to a new computer. I am sure I need to pay taxes on this, but they don't send out W2's or anything and I have no idea what to report it as. I have always done my taxes online with TurboTax and now, ironically, because of profit earned in a virtual world, I might have to go see a real tax man.

    --
    Nevermore.
  39. The problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the problem could be if people start to use virtual currency as real money. For example, if I bought something non-virtual from someone using WoW gold. Then someone buys my services for gold. After a while, this virtual money begins to serve the same purpose as real-world money, without ever leaving the game, and the IRS probably wants a share of that.

    Or have I misunderstood this?

  40. Virtual Taxes? by Daswolfen · · Score: 1

    Ok sure, just a couple of quick questions... ... one, are my raiding supplies and repairs deductible?

    two, since this a tax on virtual goods, mind if I pay in virtual currency?

    --
    Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
  41. Income Tax is Illegal by flyneye · · Score: 1

    This is just another moneygrab.
    Everyone knows the Government is supposed to support itself through tariffs on imports.
    Paying income tax only encourages them to keep it up.Not teaching where the government chose illegal activity in public school has led to a several generations of conned people who know no better(even worse,9 out of 10 lawyers are morons on the subject too.)
            As I look at my watch I see it's time for a bloody revolution. I suggest killing any IRS agents that appear in your game.Get a screenshot of you dancing around their remains,teabagging and post it.

     

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  42. Virtual Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just e-mail them some virtual money. No. Wait. Better not. The government has been creating virtual money for decades, and the government doesn't like competition. You know what it does with criminals.

  43. Re:bullshit doublespeak: voluntary tax compliance by zxnos · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of the complexity in the tax code comes from figuring out what exactly qualifies as income. Flat tax proposals like yours address none of the complexity issues.

    hate to use this phrase but: paradigm, please get out of the box and leave.

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  44. So? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

    Will gold farmers be taxed by the bushel, pixel or click?

  45. taxing on illegal transactions? by cadasaurus · · Score: 1

    I'm a little confused about how this tax would pan out. What exactly would they be taxing? Lets use the example of World of Warcraft. Are they saying that they would be taxing the selling of the ingame currency and/or the selling of accounts? The last time i checked, both of this are against the terms of use that blizzard had set up for the game...

  46. Re:I can't wait for taxation - SL Taxes? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    I created some virtual items in SL and sold them for a couple of years and made a decent Linden profit with 0 investment. Then, last fall I cashed out around $500 worth of my Lindens to apply to a new computer.

    0 investment? You mean you had a free subscription to SL all those years?

    I am sure I need to pay taxes on this, but they don't send out W2's or anything and I have no idea what to report it as.

    Even in the real World, they usually send out W2s only if the amount was more than $500 for that one year, not $500 over the course of multiple years.

    In any case, I assume you're salaried, so you could have added that amount ($200 a year or whatever) to your 'other income' column. With the IRS, even non-monetized barter is taxable as income, you just have to estimate/guess how much that amount is for that year and declare it as income (not that many people even know about this).

  47. Re:bullshit doublespeak: voluntary tax compliance by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

    What the fuck was that?

  48. Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though it is possible to make it work if the government give out a tax refund appropriate to the level of tax recieved from an average american purchasing.

    Still hugely unfair because the rich get more benefit from the police, fire services and armed forces (because they have more to lose if they don't exist and because they get more attention when they need it).

    Heck, they get more from education: and educated workforce is more efficient. However, the individual worker just gets the benefit of one person's efficiency gain, whereas the shareholder taking a cut of the profit is gaining the benefit of EACH WORKER'S education-fuelled efficiency.

  49. THERE IS NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch the video of Aaron Russo - http://www.care2.com/news/member/686815120/912349

  50. How about first. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The IRS produces the law that shows anybody *has* to pay any tax to them.

    They try to get the 16th amendment actually ratified by the required 2/3 of the STATES

    They create a tax that is not violate the Constitution:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers . . .
    - United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

    No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
    - United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

    But most importantly every piece of garbage working for the IRS commit sepuku for their voluntary and dishonorable betrayal of their fellow American. If the IRS wants to collect something from me, I should be ready to give them a nice fresh log of shit in a couple hours. I always got a virtual log of shit ready for them.