Blockchain development. The abolition of the tax system in the state in favor of the issuing monetary system

[A.A.Artemov]

Problem
The state has a need for regular replenishment of its own budget.
And this is the only reason why there is a tax system.
Only the maintenance of which costs the state huge sums, despite the fact that it does not fulfill its function even by half.
And with the arrival of digital anonymous currencies, the collapse of the tax system is inevitable.
No one will pay taxes voluntarily.
(Already today, tax control does not occur through income as it was mortgaged, but through expenses. And what will happen next?)
The outdated tax system has many problems that cannot be solved even theoretically.

Decision
Today, when the process of issuing money can be made not only free, but also transparent, the need for taxation has disappeared.
In fact, there is no need to withdraw part of the income from citizens, because there is a much simpler, reliable way to replenish the budget by issuing additional money.
And the cost of this method is zero, in contrast to the traditional method of budget replenishment.
The new method of replenishing the budget will completely abandon the already irrelevant tax system.
Of course, it requires technical refinement,
But its essence is as follows.
A fixed issue size is emission moneys'  into the blockchain.
Presumably it is 0.1% per day.
That is, every day the blockchain creates and issues for the state, for example, 0.1% of all the money existing in the system.
Storage and maintenance of the blockchain falls on the shoulders of citizens, and only the state has access to the issue.
The system is completely transparent.

Bottom line
All citizens will become equal in their rights and opportunities,
and everyone can earn and spend according to their abilities.
There will be an interest in work and business,
as restrictions on income will be removed, which will lead to economic growth in the state.
The transparency of the system will also have a positive effect on trust in the state and currency.
And the new problems created by the emission system
(like wage indexation, printing new price tags for goods and similar problems),
in the modern world are solved automatically.

Edited December 10, 2018 by A.A.Artemov

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, A.A.Artemov said:

because there is a much simpler, reliable way to replenish the budget by issuing additional money.

Maybe you need to study the basics of economics, then you would know that the fatal flaw in this argument is.

[A.A.Artemov]

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe you need to study the basics of economics, then you would know that the fatal flaw in this argument is.

This is the first discussion.
Previously, no one put forward such an idea.
Maybe she can't work.
But before that, no one even discussed it.
Maybe before you put a cross on it
still worth discussing it?
- inflation is bad when you do not expect it and are not ready for it, or if it concerns the world currency,
(means of settlement between states will disappear)
And if inflation is planned to be laid in the algorithm, and it will become expected and predictable,
This process is very easy to manage.
(children from school will know that a lot of money is bad, and as soon as they have money, they have to spend it or invest it)
 

What is money?
1. means of payment.
2. value of the preservation.
I live in a country where money has not fulfilled 2 item for many years.
But they are very good at 1 item.
The method proposed by me cannot be used for 2 item.
But it is theoretically possible that he will earn 1 item.

Edited December 10, 2018 by A.A.Artemov

[studiot]

How is this Computer Science?

[A.A.Artemov]

I am not a developer.
But I want to make the world a better place.
Therefore, I help with what I can.

In this draft, the question of adoption sticks most heavily against the government and economists.
In its raw form as it is with me, no one will accept it.
But the idea is theoretically realizable.
I think that if the developers support it,
then the second step will be the economists
and then the government

[Strange]

44 minutes ago, A.A.Artemov said:

inflation is bad when you do not expect it and are not ready for it, or if it concerns the world currency,
(means of settlement between states will disappear)
And if inflation is planned to be laid in the algorithm, and it will become expected and predictable,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

”Those who cannot learn the lessons of history...”

[A.A.Artemov]

Give thanks.

I will definitely learn.
and also think about it.

Once again I want to point out an important point:
It is not the government that makes money, but the program, the government cannot influence the work of the program.
% does not change for hundreds of years.

[A.A.Artemov]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

"Те, кто не может усвоить уроки истории...”

In truth, I did not finish reading the article.
Much of what is written there is already outdated.
Let's start with the simple thing:
Today it is not the state that creates money, but commercial banks.
And the creation of money by commercial banks is not regulated at all.
(Actually regulated of course, but so weakly
that a medium-sized commercial bank can arrange hyperinflation in one person)
Therefore, it goes without saying that the emission system proposed by me will not work,
First, banks need to ban the production of new money.
If we are done with this, let's move on.

"The velocity of money" has little effect on inflation.
And let's not carry this nonsense about the gold equivalent.
(And in Wikipedia it is still written, although it was outdated many years ago)
This is complete nonsense, it's time to forget about it.
It has long been refuted.
The main causes of hyperinflation are
1. panic,
2. uncontrolled release of money by the state.

1. In my model, there is no reason to panic.
2. The state does not have access to making money.
A "velocity of money" - amenable to calculation and control.

The following.
No need to consider the national currency as a means of saving value.
There are other things for this:
Deposit bank deposits
Bitcoin
Gold,
and so on...
I propose to consider the national currency only as a means of exchange and no more.
Let's go back to the essence of money.
Money is a medium of exchange.
The model I proposed does a good job.
Do not cling to the needs of your fathers and grandfathers.
They will soon die, and we live on.
By the time this is implemented, we ourselves will be grandfathers.
In my old age I see 3 currencies in my wallet:
1 - exchange medium - 1 month reserve (national inflation currency)
2 - currency standard - stock for 1 year (stable world currency)
3 - reserve stock (gold, real estate, Bitcoin)
I can’t imagine a person in 10 years with 1 currency in a wallet.

And about the size of the issue in the first message, I gave the wrong example.
Now I have made an approximate calculation. Clarified.
For the functioning and even development of the state, it is sufficient to daily produce 0.03-0.05% of new money.
(12-15% per annum)
Such a number even with a great desire can not lead to hyperinflation.
I apologize for the English translation.
Perhaps the meaning of the text is distorted.

Edited December 10, 2018 by A.A.Artemov

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Maybe you need to study the basics of economics, then you would know that the fatal flaw in this argument is.

value.

 

31 minutes ago, A.A.Artemov said:

In truth, I did not finish reading the article.
Much of what is written there is already outdated.
Let's start with the simple thing:
Today it is not the state that creates money, but commercial banks.
And the creation of money by commercial banks is not regulated at all.
(Actually regulated of course, but so weakly
that a medium-sized commercial bank can arrange hyperinflation in one person)
Therefore, it goes without saying that the emission system proposed by me will not work,
First, banks need to ban the production of new money.
If we are done with this, let's move on.

"The velocity of money" has little effect on inflation.
And let's not carry this nonsense about the gold equivalent.
(And in Wikipedia it is still written, although it was outdated many years ago)
This is complete nonsense, it's time to forget about it.
It has long been refuted.
The main causes of hyperinflation are
1. panic,
2. uncontrolled release of money by the state.

1. In my model, there is no reason to panic.
2. The state does not have access to making money.
A "velocity of money" - amenable to calculation and control.

The following.
No need to consider the national currency as a means of saving value.
There are other things for this:
Deposit bank deposits
Bitcoin
Gold,
and so on...
I propose to consider the national currency only as a means of exchange and no more.
Let's go back to the essence of money.
Money is a medium of exchange.
The model I proposed does a good job.
Do not cling to the needs of your fathers and grandfathers.
They will soon die, and we live on.
By the time this is implemented, we ourselves will be grandfathers.
In my old age I see 3 currencies in my wallet:
1 - exchange medium - 1 month reserve (national inflation currency)
2 - currency standard - stock for 1 year (stable world currency)
3 - reserve stock (gold, real estate, Bitcoin)
I can’t imagine a person in 10 years with 1 currency in a wallet.

And about the size of the issue in the first message, I gave the wrong example.
Now I have made an approximate calculation. Clarified.
For the functioning and even development of the state, it is sufficient to daily produce 0.03-0.05% of new money.
(12-15% per annum)
Such a number even with a great desire can not lead to hyperinflation.
I apologize for the English translation.
Perhaps the meaning of the text is distorted.

3

A promise has no value until its, potential, redemtion. 

[Carrock]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A promise has no value until its, potential, redemtion. 

I'm not sure of the relevance, but I just looked at a £10 note which states

"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds."

 

If I redeem the promise at a bank I'll be given a note with

"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds."

 

Money, to governments, is basically an I.O.U. note which will never be redeemed.

 

I don't think the idea of taking the same percentage of everyone's cash income is better than the current bad system. It would be even easier for rich people to (in effect) avoid paying tax through legal but dodgy companies or investments.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Carrock said:

I'm not sure of the relevance, but I just looked at a £10 note which states

"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds."

 

If I redeem the promise at a bankonly I'll be given a note with

"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds."

 

Money, to governments, is basically an I.O.U. note which will never be redeemed.

 

I don't think the idea of taking the same percentage of everyone's cash income is better than the current bad system. It would be even easier for rich people to (in effect) avoid paying tax through legal but dodgy companies or investments.

1

the value is only realised if the promiser remains.

[Endy0816]

Countries already do this effectively. If you increase the total money supply you make your debt easier to pay.

They used to just decrease how much gold the currency was worth. Was really kind of pointless though as it was ultimately still based on trust.

It does tax everyone holding the currency in the process as their buying power decreases. Unfortunately is a regressive tax falling more on the less wealthy.

If it becomes too much people will stop holding and buying that currency and that is what can cause the problems we see in hyperinflation. Situation ends up outside of Government control.

[A.A.Artemov]

36 minutes ago, Carrock said:

 

 

I don't think the idea of taking the same percentage of everyone's cash income is better than the current bad system. It would be even easier for rich people to (in effect) avoid paying tax through legal but dodgy companies or investments.

 

25 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

 

It does tax everyone holding the currency in the process as their buying power decreases. Unfortunately is a regressive tax falling more on the less wealthy.

If it becomes too much people will stop holding and buying that currency and that is what can cause the problems we see in hyperinflation. Situation ends up outside of Government control.

I had to admit my mistake.
Most likely, rich people will refuse to use the national currency,
and the entire tax burden will fall on poor and illiterate people.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, A.A.Artemov said:

I had to admit my mistake.
Most likely, rich people will refuse to use the national currency,
and the entire tax burden will fall on poor and illiterate people.

 

A tithe is a type of tax...

[Endy0816]

11 hours ago, A.A.Artemov said:

I had to admit my mistake.
Most likely, rich people will refuse to use the national currency,
and the entire tax burden will fall on poor and illiterate people.

No worries. Always good to debate the probable effects beforehand.

I do think forms of Government backed virtual currency will come about at some point. Lot of potential benefits going truly cashless as a society.

[dimreepr]

On 12/11/2018 at 3:44 AM, Endy0816 said:

I do think forms of Government backed virtual currency will come about at some point. Lot of potential benefits going truly cashless as a society.

2

1

virtually no difference for the rich and the poor don't matter.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by dimreepr

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

virtually no difference for the rich and the poor don't matter.  

We could improve tracking and pricing, while eliminating the cost of storage/transport/protection for physical currency.

Most everyone would bennefit in some fashion.

Less waste = More pie to go around.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Endy0816

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

We could improve tracking and pricing, while eliminating the cost of storage/transport/protection for physical currency.

Most everyone would bennefit in some fashion.

Less waste = More pie to go around.

2

the poor don't eat the pie,  they fill the pie.

[Raider5678]

On 12/10/2018 at 10:44 PM, Endy0816 said:

Lot of potential benefits going truly cashless as a society.

Like? I mean, I see people lose their life savings every day because their stuff gets hacked. Not sure if I trust the level of security we have so far with literally all the money I have.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Like? I mean, I see people lose their life savings every day because their stuff gets hacked. Not sure if I trust the level of security we have so far with literally all the money I have.

 

and we're back to the value.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I see people lose their life savings every day because their stuff gets hacked.

I see a quip along the lines of

One man is knocked down on our roads every 35 seconds. He is getting mighty fed up with it.

Edited December 12, 2018 by studiot

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Like? I mean, I see people lose their life savings every day because their stuff gets hacked. Not sure if I trust the level of security we have so far with literally all the money I have.

You can undo a theft and much of the damage of that theft with the right design.

Restore the missing amount. Reverse transactions. Keep the criminal from spending the stolen money.

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the poor don't eat the pie,  they fill the pie

You can save/make them money. They might still be poor but have more at the end of the day.

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I see a quip along the lines of

One man is knocked down on our roads every 35 seconds. He is getting mighty fed up with it.

You'd think they could do the same with social security.......

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You'd think they could do the same with social security.......

Do tell ?

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Do tell ?

Bank Accounts, not social security. Slip up of words.