Slashdot Mirror


Arizona Introduces Bill That Would Allow Residents To Pay Taxes In Bitcoin (investopedia.com)

In a bid to attract businesses involved in blockchain and cryptocurrencies, Arizona lawmakers have proposed a bill that would allow the state's citizens to pay their taxes in bitcoin. "Arizona State Rep. Jeff Weninger, who introduced the bill, said it was a signal to everyone in the United States, and possibly throughout the world, that Arizona was going to be the place to be for blockchain and digital currency technology in the future," reports Investopedia. From the report: Weninger, a Republican, also cited the ease of making online payments through the cryptocurrency "while you're watching television," as another reason. But he did not divulge much detail about the implementation of such a system. That might be the reason why Weninger faces an uphill battle in getting the bill approved by the state legislature. Bitcoin's price volatility is already being cited as a possible roadblock to implementing such a measure by state legislators. Arizona state senator Steve Farley, a Democrat who's running for governor, said the bill puts the "volatility burden" of bitcoin's price on taxpayers who make payments in U.S. dollars. "It would mean that the money goes to the state and then the state has to take responsibility of how to exchange it," Farley said.

109 comments

  1. Good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is a good idea. I have a significant investment in Bitcoin and this would be a good use for it. I expect massive returns this year on it.

    1. Re:Good idea by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute... I want to tack on a rider to that bill -

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKPZDq9IQIU

    2. Re:Good idea by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Suspect once you actually pay your taxes with Bitcoin, the State will want you to do some splainin' about your Bitcoin purchase price.

      Investment income, or some such shite.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Good idea by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're definitely supposed to pay taxes on your bitcoin profits. It's not even close to a question. I'll be amazed if the IRS doesn't start calling on people who cashed in bitcoin and didn't report it. Plus,the fines and interest.

      And, if you timed your sales so that each one is below the 10k reporting level, you might get a fun visit from the FBI for money laundering.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Good idea by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      And just when you thought the Diamondbacks were the worst run organization in Arizona.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    5. Re:Good idea by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well that assumes that you actually made a profit, you could easily have made a loss by trading bitcoin too.
      There is also a threshold for personal sales as far as i understood, if you buy a car and sell it again later you don't have to declare the sale unless you're doing it as a business.

      Besides, it's no different than any other form of trading. You buy an asset, its value goes up or down, you sell that asset.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    6. Re:Good idea by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      There are no money laundering violations for deliberately making each sale under $10k

    7. Re:Good idea by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, but there are laws against arranging transfers into a bank deliberately under $10k. (Or rather, arranging multiple transfers of money into a bank that total $10k for the purpose of hiding the fact that it's a 10k transfer.) It's called structuring. That's cause 10k deposits trigger reporting rules to the IRS that you look like you're trying to avoid.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Good idea by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Of course it's no difference from any other trading. But anarcholibertarians (who believe in bitcoin) think they don't ever owe taxes and other people think they don't need to pay taxes cause it happened on the Internet.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Good idea by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, but you can rest assured that there will be an investigation whether that was the reason for you to do multiple transactions under 10k, making the whole 10k limit a total farce.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so cute how you think you are actually intelligent.

    11. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9999.99 are a no-no, but 9999.98 is fine! Just my two cents.

    12. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to U.S. Congress and the current law, there is no obligation to pay taxes of things that happen over the Internet.

      As for paying taxes, it should never be above 10%. Government has been collecting far above that for decades, and wasted the money or used it to expand control over the people, or give it to other countries and enemies, all at our expense and claim that it's to "maintain" what we have.

    13. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    14. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to U.S. Congress and the current law, there is no obligation to pay taxes of things that happen over the Internet.

      As for paying taxes, it should never be above 10%. Government has been collecting far above that for decades, and wasted the money or used it to expand control over the people, or give it to other countries and enemies, all at our expense and claim that it's to "maintain" what we have.

      Hmm... How about I found this page talking about taxing cryptocurrency? It is not a law yet but you definitely need to educate yourself some more.

    15. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's not b/c it happened on the internet you stupid fuck. it's because only ignorant slaves fund the scum at the IRS. you're complicit in their sedition, you stupid braying jackass.

    16. Re:Good idea by WallyL · · Score: 1

      So, doing legal things, transferring money in small amounts, can get you in trouble? No wonder people hate banks, the financial system, and the government. Maybe it's time to reboot this government... ~300 years is a good historical average lifespan of a democracy (pure, or democratic republic, or otherwise).

    17. Re:Good idea by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      No, it's legal to do legal things. It is illegal to break up a transfer of 10k+ into multiple smaller transfers to avoid scrutiny. If that happens, you'll have to explain why you had a different reason for what you are doing.

      It's perfectly reasonable that different circumstances cause different legality.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  2. Just in time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to get out in front of the curve, Arizona.

    Doesnâ(TM)t Weninger realize you can also pay your taxes with a credit card while you are watching telephone?

  3. A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by perpenso · · Score: 2

    So how does converting a US dollar tax bill amount to bitcoin in real time and providing a payment address, monitoring that payment address for confirmation, and then immediately converting those bitcoins to US dollars make a region a blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub? Especially when much of the preceding will likely be outsourced to an existing bitcoin payment processor.

    1. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      But, but... BLOCKCHAIN!! ...er, or was that AI?

      Democracy is slow...

    2. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Publicity, my friend. It's all about the optics.

    3. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by sheramil · · Score: 3, Funny

      DISTRIBUTED AI quantum nanotech blockchain makerverse!

    4. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The book Debt: The First 5000 Years argues at one point that allowing taxes to be payed with a currency is what legitimizes a currency. For example, with early fiat currencies, requiring that taxes be payed in that currency means that each random member of the population now needs to acquire at least enough of it to pay said taxes.

      For example, a government could pay its soldiers with a currency, and then require taxes to be payed in that currency, thereby causing the general population to accept payment in that currency (initially coming from the soldiers), so they can afford to pay their taxes. Ostensibly, these taxes are used to pay the soliders, but you could just as easily destroy the taxed currency (or at least some of it) and print new currency to keep paying the soldiers.

      So yes, accepting taxes in bitcoins is potentially a big deal, even if the government decides to exchange them for USD afterwards. If you're no longer required by law to convert your BTC to USD, just to pay your taxes, then it removes the main legal barrier to having a bitcoin-only economy. There are still technical problems that prevent that (I'm not confident a blockchain based approach can ever scale to millions or billions of users), but it's a start at least.

    5. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is more a statement that Arizona, as a state, considers bitcoin a currency and will not take excessive steps to regulate it. If you want to create a crypto currency related business in the US, it might make sense to choose the state least likely to impose regulations or otherwise interfere with you.

      And the state need not care about where the jobs actually are if they can Delaware the taxes. But if some jobs also go to Arizona so much the better.

    6. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and if the ``state'' really does accept bitcoins, then how would you deduct those from your federal taxes?

    7. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      So how does converting a US dollar tax bill amount to bitcoin in real time

      The tax department will simply use their own rate which chances are, will be the day rate from their chosen source + x%.

      The infrastructure is already there, banks have been giving people spot rates + x% on their credit cards for overseas purchases for decades now.

      It would likely be cheaper for you to turn your bitcoins into USD via your broker and pay with that, but saying "OMG, you can pay with bitcoin.. much progression, very future" makes for nice headlines.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re: A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creimer affiliate spam mod down.

    9. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That is a big step, but you'll still have to do your accounting in dollars.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:A blockchain and cryptocurrencies tech hub ? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The state is unlikely to come out and say "You owe us 0.3865 bitcoin for your state taxes." They're much more likely to say "You owe us $X in state taxes, and we'll accept cash, check, credit card, bank transfer, or Bitcoin." That $X is what you deduct on your Federal taxes. (If you still do. I understand the last tax cut made a whole lot of changes.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Publicity stunt by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

    Never going to happen.
    I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal.

    1. Re:Publicity stunt by TWX · · Score: 1

      My guess is that this is even less of a starter than the Whiskey Rebellion.

      I did a cursory search on if the Federal Government accepts gold as currency for tax purposes and did not get any hits that said either way, but there were a lot of hits on the debate if the transaction or appreciation of gold is taxable in the same way that things like stocks are. This makes me lean towards thinking they don't accept gold as payment.

      I'm going to further guess that they're not willing to accept non-US-currency or at least non-fiat-currency as payment for taxes.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Publicity stunt by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      While a creditor is _required_ to accept _legal tender_.
      He is free to accept any other payment to settle the bill.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Publicity stunt by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal."
      Person pays in bitcoin. The payment is cleared to US cash by some approved 3rd party payment system.
      The government gets a cash US payment as it would from any other private sector CC, bank account, payment network.
      At no time did the state government see the risk of any cryptocurrency.
      The gov is paid in US cash on time and to the value of that account.
      That approved payment network will then have to show its currency transaction reporting, suspicious activity reporting, monetary instrument logs on that cash and who has all that cryptocurrency.
      It won't be illegal until the person paying in cryptocurrency cant prove the origin and full history of all their fully reported cryptocurrency.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Publicity stunt by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      "Arizona Governor Signs Blockchain Bill Into Law" https://www.coindesk.com/arizo...

      Do some basic research before spewing nonsense.

    5. Re:Publicity stunt by pauljlucas · · Score: 0

      While a creditor is _required_ to accept _legal tender_

      No they're not. Plenty of places no longer accept cash. Well before that, many more places didn't accept bills at or above a certain denomination, $100 bills.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    6. Re:Publicity stunt by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A creditor in the US is required to accept US Dollars only if prior to incurring the debt you have not been informed that US Dollars will not be accepted to settle the debt OR you are dealing with a public (i.e. government) service. It is for example absolutely legal to refuse service to you if you are not willing to pay me in Zimbabwe Dollars, thus no debt is generated and nothing to be settled.

      I may also assume that you're able to read, so putting up a sign in my shop informing you about this is sufficient.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: Publicity stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      Cash HAS to be accepted for repayment of a debt, but you can choose to accept otjer means of payment.

      Most purchases you make are paid in advance so thus there's no debt.

    8. Re:Publicity stunt by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Then you don't buy there and they are not your creditor.
      Or in other words: they have to point out that they don't accept cash before serving you.

      Refusing big bills is in most cases illegal, it is only 'acceptable' at places where there is a good reason, e.g. on flea market or to bus driver etc.

      YMMV, depending on country.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Publicity stunt by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about places where a sale occurs, or where a debt is incurred? If you owe someone $100, a $100 bill is legally payment. If you're making a deal to buy something, then you can do it on any mutually acceptable terms, and includes payment type. If your shoe store doesn't accept cash, that's legal. You're not creating a debt. If you go to a restaurant and order a meal and the bill comes later, that's a debt.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Publicity stunt by pauljlucas · · Score: 1
      Section 31 U.S.C. 5103:

      United States coins and currency ... are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

      This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.

      Further translation: all the statute says is that US currency is one (of possibly many) legal ways in which to pay for something. It does not say that it's required to be accepted. Note that there is no mention of whether payment occurs before or after said good are transferred or services are rendered. Source.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    11. Re: Publicity stunt by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      Cash HAS to be accepted for repayment of a debt...

      See my other reply here.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    12. Re:Publicity stunt by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      ... they have to point out that they don't accept cash before serving you.

      I never wrote anything to the contrary.

      Refusing big bills is in most cases illegal...

      See my other reply here.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    13. Re:Publicity stunt by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That other reply refers to the USA ... most places are outside of the USA ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Publicity stunt by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      This entire story and thread is in the context of the state of Arizona (which is in the USA) accepting Bitcoin for payment.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    15. Re:Publicity stunt by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It doesn't say anything particularly about a debt incurred for a good or service It does say it's legal tender for a debt. It says people don't have to accept cash as payment for goods and services, but they do for payment of a debt. If my local grocery store decides to stop accepting cash, it's their decision (and probably a bad one), since there's never any debt. I get a cart of stuff, pay for it, and then it's mine. I think you're reading more into the text than is actually there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:Publicity stunt by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      Cite a federal law that supports your claim. Unless you can, itâ(TM)s sinply not true.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    17. Re:Publicity stunt by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Considering your .sig, it seems ironic to me that you're reading meanings into a Federal law that I don't see. You seem to assume that the law applies to payments after the good or service, which it doesn't explicitly say.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Jeff Winger by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    I thought it said introduced by "Jeff Winger", so it seemed sort of OK for an episode of "Community". You know how it goes, Greendale starts accepting bitcoin, but it gets bankrupt because bitcoin is worthless 2 weeks after the students make the payments when the transactions (or most of them) actually get through, but then something involving either time travel, or multiverse paradoxes, or claymation happens and the day is saved...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  6. Really? by glitch! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First, the state will probably have to process the payments through an exchange to avoid the Btc / Dollar bounces. That's not a huge problem, but one analogous to accepting payments in gold or silver.

    The second issue I see is that payers will have their payment wallet instantly connected to their real identity. Payers who are careful about security can probably avoid this, but how many will think their previous Btc transactions will be anonymous after they willingly give the state a connection by an accidental security lapse?

    I am no Btc expert, so please flay my point if need be.

    --
    A dingo ate my sig...
    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go through Zcash or Dash first. Or better yet, just accept Zcash or Dash and let Bitcoin die.

  7. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about a bill letting me pay in Euros, Pounds, Yen, Renminbi, or any other real currencies before letting people pay with BubbleBucks? Assuming that paying in anything other than USD is even federally legal, which it shouldn't be.

    1. Re:Stupid by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Assuming that paying in anything other than USD is even federally legal, which it shouldn't be.

      If I can instantly convert whatever you pay with to USD, why should it not be legal? Of course you will also pay for any fees arising from converting whatever rubbish you throw at me to USD.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Arizona Introduces Bill That Would Allow Residents by UnBsd · · Score: 1

    Encouraging blockchain or distributed ledger tech businesses to locate in Arizona probably has something to do with Arizona's interest in making use of it's abundant solar energy resources. For worldwide enterprises, we need to have mining and testbed facilities in the States that can compete with countries with lower or subsidized electricity rates.

  9. Maybe... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    ...they can also make an app that allows you to pay the taxes. Yeah, that's it. An app.

    They could also have the state website pivot to video.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  10. Oh for fucks sake no by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    But $6000 worth of Bitcoin, pay when it's worth $10k and leave the State and the rest of the taxpayers holding the bag when they drop to $3k.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Oh for fucks sake no by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The state gov will accept the payment in US cash. The crypto currency needed to make that payment will have to go to an approved 3rd party to make the conversion.
      That "$10k" will be cash when the state accepts the payment. The user paid in crypto currency that was converted by a approved 3rd party as part of the transaction.
      The state will never be out as they have cash just like from any other payment.
      No risk for the state who is still paid in full with US currency and the state gets the optics of "accepting" crypto currency.
      Think of it as the state accepting a CC payment from a private sector bank, from a building society, using "internet" banking.
      The state gets its payment, the user used a CC. Money moved from an approved account to pay the state.
      If that account is now called "crypto currency" from what was "credit card"? The state still gets its cash as the transfer.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Oh for fucks sake no by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's unlikely to happen. What I'd rather expect is that the government would make you pay as many BTC as the current exchange rate says your debt is in BTC, then immediately turn around and sell those BTCs to someone to get USD.

      It's a publicity stunt, nothing else. I highly doubt that any government entity has interest in holding BTCs.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Oh for fucks sake no by Talderas · · Score: 1

      It screams publicity stunt because the state already has the means to force you to pay in USD for the full amount of your taxes. Anyone who does this is almost certainly going to be paying more because the state is going to force the risk of the volatility on the exchanges and that means increased fees for whoever is paying through them.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:Oh for fucks sake no by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't see any other way Arizona could do it, Constitutionally. No state can make legal tender out of anything except silver or gold.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  11. identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thanks for paying your tax bill using bitcoin, and giving us your bitcoin wallet address which we have now linked to your identity.

    1. Re: identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      âoeOh, that wallet has 500 BTC you bought for $1 each? Guess what, now you get to pay capital gains on your imaginary money.â

    2. Re: identity by circularWaffle · · Score: 1

      ....On that $1 price...Not to mention, (if it's not that large of a number), I believe if it's under like $60k, a long term capital gain (a year or over held) has 0% tax liability. #KnowTheFacts

    3. Re: identity by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Just check with your accountant before relying on that. The IRS is likely to send you a letter saying something like "Did you forget this? Send a check for $X and all is forgiven.:"

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  12. What? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    They out-floridaed Florida!

  13. Why limit it to a single cryptocurrency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government should not be choosing winners and losers.

    1. Re:Why limit it to a single cryptocurrency? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Popularity - it's a pretty massive undertaking to support the thousands of cryptocurrencies out there, the biggest exchanges only support a few hundred and the volume is so low as to be meaningless. Anyone can download the code for litecoin or even fork the chain of bitcoin while paying themselves 50% of the total in the process of forking, resulting in a new cryptocurrency they can then run up the price on. The government needs some form of stability to be able to accept it as a tax, which is provided by a market large enough to at least sell the things reliably at 10% the advertised value, which is a lot more than you get out of 99% of altcoins.

  14. How about something more general w/cap gains? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    How about allowing residents to avoid capital gains on anything they sell to pay their taxes? Of course if the law were worded that way, they'd still have to declare capital gains on their Federal tax return.

    If you're allowed to pay state taxes in something other than USD, and that something has an unrealized capital gain then the state is effectively allowing you to dodge Federal capital gains... or is it?

    I see this being an administrative nightmare and/or going to court, possibly the Supreme Court because it seems like the states might be facilitating some kind of Federal tax dodge. Either that, or there are issues with what is "money" at the Federal level.

    It's kind of moot anyway, because how are they going to handle something as volatile as BTC? You can literally go from overpaying to underpaying by a day's wages in seconds.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:How about something more general w/cap gains? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You realize the capital gains right at the moment of paying tax, and you better have it declared because they have undeniable proof of you realizing your capital gains...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:How about something more general w/cap gains? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Suppose my tax bill arrives, and I'm in a personal liquidity crunch, so I sell some stock to pay it. I owe capital gains on that stock. Similarly, if you bought Bitcoin at $400 each and am paying the state while they're worth $8K each, you will owe capital gains.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Hmmmm by quantaman · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Jeff Weninger happens to own any bitcoins...

    --
    I stole this Sig
  16. Crash management by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    This is government practicing speculation. Why not just buy stocks using taxpayer money?

  17. The cynic in me ... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    says they want to know whom to audit ... assuming crypto still holds any value in the next few years.

    1. Re:The cynic in me ... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      and they want to be able to tie a wallet address to a specific individual. They can then go and look back through the blockchain to map transactions between people.

    2. Re:The cynic in me ... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re 'they want to be able to tie a wallet address to a specific individual."
      A state digital "Crack tax" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Have to prove to the state all the crypto value, history of transactions and then to allow be tracked for all later crypto payments.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. Re: Arizona Introduces Bill That Would Allow Resid by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    Doubt it... This wouldn't necessarily encourage such business to make capital investments in the state - power plant construction contractors don't accept cryptocurrencies, for one, nor do I see them any time soon. And if your claim is that the politician who introduced this legislation has the foresight to realize cryptocurrency mining operations will need to be colocated with solar energy in the future, the burden of proof would be on you to show a quote from him demonstrating such. Then demonstrating how this policy gets to that goal. Because far more likely, "wow cryptocurrency" is a way of looking forward-thinking and business-friendly without using the politically weaponized term "green energy" in a Republican state. Oh, and maybe he's got a few friends who need to offload BTCs that they know will be worthless by the next fiscal year. Money shufflers getting rich off the state (the taxpayers)... Another classic Republican move.

  19. MasterCard. Payment method, not denominated in by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Residents won't get a tax bill for 1.02 BTC.
    They'll get a bill for a thousand DOLLARS, and they can pay that thousand DOLLARS using a check, Visa, MasterCard, But pay, PayPal ...

    1. Re:MasterCard. Payment method, not denominated in by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

      When you pay with Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Paypal, cheque, etc, you pay in real dollars.
      Not sure what But pay is.

      You can't "pay" for something in BTC, it's not a currency it's a commodity. It would be like paying your taxes with gold or corn.

    2. Re:MasterCard. Payment method, not denominated in by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If your government accepts corn, why not pay in corn? It's unwieldy, I grant you that, and transporting it and storing it, along with weighing it so I know whether you pay the right amount and assessing its quality so I can assess its value correctly, that all might be a bit of a hassle, but if I need corn, why shouldn't I allow you to pay in corn?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. They accept dollars, because the bill is in dollar by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Your tax bill is a thousand DOLLARS. Not a thousand MasterCards, a thousand pesos, or a thousand BTC.

    There are many payment processors you can use to pay various taxes. Those payment processors can accept MasterCard as a *means* of transferring dollars, they can accept PayPal, they can accept watermelons if they want to, or gold, gasoline, or BTC. What they deliver to the government is dollars.

    There is such a thing as gold currency, gold dollars, produced 200 years ago, but the gold is made of is worth far more than the dollars, so it would be stupid to use those those dollars to pay taxes.

  21. Not Serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've lived in Arizona for more than thirty years. This has been the home of Evan Mecham, Fife Symington, Joe Arpaio, Frank Antenori, and plenty of other attention seeking idiots who are able to get local or state level office through the votes of the hordes of elderly who've retired here and consider it their duty to show up to off-cycle elections (They do this to keep Mexicans out of office and vote down taxes that would fund education, since they don't believe they should "have to pay for other people's kids"). That one of these clowns, elected by senile ding-a-lings, has heard of Bitcoin and made this proposal means nothing.

    1. Re:Not Serious by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

      You forgot the biggest traitor (to his nation, constituents, party, and all his other countrymen) of them all from AZ: McCain, the man who sold is soul to the devil to make the Vietnamese stop shoving bamboo up his anus.

  22. The state would need to immediately sell it. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    So you then have to pay for two $10 transactions, one to transfer the bitcoin to the state, one for the state to exchange for USD.

    I'm not in USA but I can and do pay my taxes with my phone. I could do it from my couch as I'm watching TV. I simply use my banks mobile app to make a tax payment. No transaction fees, instant payment confirmation, easy to use.

    Paying taxes with bitcoin is as stupid as paying taxes with shares. Even stupider actually. The sharemarket is much less volatile than bitcoin.

    1. Re:The state would need to immediately sell it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless there is a payment processor that gives the government the USD owed by the taxpayer and charges X BTC where X covers the transaction fees and a premium for performing the transaction. I don't see how this couldn't be implemented without changing any laws.

  23. Bitpay. Autocorrect socks by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Darn autocorrect turned Bitpay into "But pay".

    Bitpay is a payment processor, just like any of the thousand payment processors on the web. Their shtick is that they let people use Bitcoin to pay. Web sites say "we accept Bitcoin" and the order form links to Bitpay. Of course, the prices are in dollars, not in BTC. Customers are using BTC as a method of paying the dollar price.

  24. The Fall of the Central Bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Federal Reserve and it's global counterparts like the Bank of England and ECB will continue to lose their grip on the global economy as more and more currencies outside of government control find their way into use. Adios, central bankers!

  25. Missed out shorting BTC? It's not too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a significant investment in Bitcoin and this would be a good use for it. I expect massive returns this year on it.

    On the bright side the price movement in second half of the financial year will probably offset any profits made in the first half effectively cancelling out any bitcoin derived tax liability due. And it's always good not having to pay tax, ain't it?

  26. Not interesting; NH has had such bills before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mostly because of the many Free State Project participants NH is #1 here and there is no disputing it unless your one of those people smoking crack. And unlike Arizona we removed the authority of our banking department to regulate businesses dabbling in crypto currencies. We also don't have a sales tax nor an income tax. Even before we remove the banking authorities power to regulate we had unregulated crypto vending machine businesses operating without any licenses and such. We also had crypto vending machine manufacturing businesses, numerous crypto groups, reps using crypto, a major crypto tool called AnyPay used by merchants to accept crypto started here and is here. Which I might point out is the only genuine competitor to BitPay at retail (maybe others will get there act together and put together a solution, but no real working solutions exist that we've been able to adopt in NH).

    Then we also have the largest number of crypto accessing businesses within a 1 hour radius anywhere in the world. We have a ton of cities and towns from Concord to Manchester to Portsmith to Keene and in-between all accepting crypto currencies. How many retailers in Arizona take cypto? I know that there is no real comparison because NH is #1 in this area. Keene and Portsmith both outnumber on a per captia basis the city that is "#1" in crypto. Neither are ranked due to the cities sizes, but it also means there are actually many businesses you can really buy from who accept crypto without having to drive/walk very far.

  27. Re:Slashdot needs to fix that error by omnichad · · Score: 1

    That's not a big in the mobile site. It's arrogance on Apple's part, combined with a general lack of Unicode support in slashdot.

  28. Re:security lapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arizona's not stupid. This has sting written all over it.

  29. Re:Bitpay. Autocorrect socks by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    You can pay a dollar price with a card denominated in another currency, the card issuer will exchange whatever currency you hold into whatever the recipient wants at the time of processing (while also usually adding a fee for the service)...

    Does that make euros any less of a currency?

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  30. Re:They accept dollars, because the bill is in dol by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

    There are gold dollars made today in the US, no need to go back in time 200 years

  31. So... it's easier because "cryptocurrency" ? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Weninger, a Republican, also cited the ease of making online payments through the cryptocurrency "while you're watching television," ...

    Um... You can pay by more conventional means like online banking via your phone or PC or any other means (electronic or otherwise) your state accepts while watching TV too. You could even write a check during a commercial. Not really sure how Bitcoin is any easier.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  32. I love bitcoin BUT by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    Paying taxes with bitcoin currently is just daft.

    Firstly you are declaring outright that you have traded BTC and will have to pay tax.

    Secondly you will be losing money to convert to BTC then have the state lose more of your tax money by converting back.

    Simply put BTC is currently too slow. If the value changes in transit and appreciates will you be refunded? If it goes down will the state HODL??

    Imagine a scenario in which the state has most of its payments in BTC and it needs to pay employees, contracts etc and BTC just crashes 50% - who's gonna pay for that? The tax payer.

    Once Lightning Network happens then this may seem less half baked because payments can be instantaneous. So value will not change in transit...but until then.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    1. Re:I love bitcoin BUT by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You left out "Thirdly, you are telling the state that you personally control a certain wallet, so they can associate all your transactions with you."

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  33. Oh sorry you underpaid your taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That $2500 tax bill you paid with bitcoin yesterday was only worth $200 at the time of processing please send a check for the difference.

  34. Horrible idea by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    I was all for cryptocurrency, but this shit is getting out of hand. Can we just stop with it already? Now that it's mainstream, it serves no purpose.

  35. NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will not receive ANY taxes if they attempt to mandate it on ANY level for ANY reason. CRYPTO CURRENCY is the stuff of nightmares.

    Currently, the stock market gets manipulated. Every electronic trade and transaction because central banks have computing power to MONITOR EVERY ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION.

    If they somehow implement a crypto currency, they will have that same control over each individual. That will result in the following.

    1. They (those that control the block chain) can change the tax rate to anything they like, even 99.99% and the individual can't do anything about it.

    2. They can make all prices unique to the individual. So if you live in Ohio and you travel to Florida, all items you buy may be twice as much as anybody in Florida would pay. The store wouldn't see any of that money, it would go right to the central bankers.

    3. Businesses will be 100% under the control of those that control the block chain. Any mandate given to the business must be followed regardless of law or rights, because failure could result in them taking your business away by making everything you sell be 10 times as much on any individual that shops there.

    4. If a Pol-pot type person were to come to power and decided you have too many people in your family so two must report for "re-education" (they would be killed), you can either Comply, Run, or Fight.

    if you comply, it means death for some of your family.

    If you run, those that control the block chain will be able to track you (via the ledger). They will know where you are at all times, and their stormtroopers will move in on you. prices for you will also be doubled if you are outside your approved fema zone.

    If you decide to fight, they would know when you are trying to buy a gun, from where and how much ammo. prices will be made high, or your purchase will be prevented completely. They will know where you are at and your rebellion will be over before it even began.

    ALL of your constitutional rights will be completely pointless.

  36. currens, participle of currere, like river current by raymorris · · Score: 1

    "Currency" comes from currens, present participle of currere. It means "what flows". Same as "current", as in "the current of the river". Currency is the thing that flows through the economy, that everybody uses to buy and sell pretty much everything. Euros are the currency of the EU. South is the current of the Mississippi River.

  37. If so-called cryptocurrencies are really currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If so-called cryptocurrencies are really currency, why no company/store can use Bitcoin as currency anymore?
    Because the price of Bitcoin proved to be extremely unstable to use as a currency?
    Would the result be different, if Bitcoin replaced by any other "cryptocurrency"?
    Aren't all work the same way?

    Or, they are not actually virtual currency but virtual investment?
    But, if they are actually investment, why we need/want them?
    What would happen to world economy, if people invested in virtual investments, instead of real investments?

    Or, all so-called cryptocurrencies are actually just a modified (made decentralized and paying variable interest) Ponzi Schemes?
    (Price of cryptocurrencies would keep increasing in the long term (by their design), so it is equivalent of paying variable interest to all long term investors.)

    As more and more people invest in cryptocurrencies, it will become harder and harder to ban their trading everywhere!
    All cryptocurrencies need to be banned globally before it is too late!

  38. Bad idea... by midifarm · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin is NOT legal tender in the USA. While it can be traded, but it's tantamount to paying your taxes in chickens and/ or lawn care. BC is way too volatile and possibly headed to valueless.

  39. Re:They accept dollars, because the bill is in dol by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    There are gold dollars made today in the US, no need to go back in time 200 years

    They're beautiful, but who is going to pay anything with them? This one costs $215 to buy from the mint. Face value: $10.

    If you want to pay me in those coins, I'd love it.

  40. Mine instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure why the US government hasn't gotten into the mining business if it is that lucrative.

    Seems to be an obvious thing to do.