> Because unless the government can track citizen's income it cannot tax it.

That's simply not true. When I do my taxes I have to report my yearly income. The kind of system where a government can monitor all of my transactions in real time is without any court involvement is insane.

You might as well use your bank card as at least those require a warrant or subpoena to acquire.

The text of the announcement seems to imply that individual transactions are not identifiable. The tax is taken per-transaction by the bank on behalf of the government or regulating entity without knowledge of the participants.

> When you pay with Taler, your identity does not have to be revealed to the merchant. The bank, government and mint will also never learn how you spent your electronic money.

Or something. The details aren't there yet.

> The tax is taken per-transaction by the bank on behalf of the government or regulating entity without knowledge of the participants.

Sounds like a strictly proportional system only, then?

Most taxes that merchants and consumers need to worry about at the time of transaction, such as sales taxes in the US and VAT in the EU, are strictly proportional to the value of each purchase.

I don't think Taler is meant to help you do your taxes at the end of the year.

> That's simply not true. When I do my taxes I have to report my yearly income.

And the reason you report your income correctly, and trust that your neighbors do too is...

A presumption of guilt? Better DRM their currency.

The question remains, why would anyone choose to use a system like this? Wealthy individuals and companies (aka those with most of the money) have a vested interest in having their transactions not easily tracked by the government.

Simple: this aims for regulatory support. If Taler (or a system like Taler) is embraced by governments, and is therefore given the full support of the financial system, Bitcoin could be permanently relegated to black-market-only use.

Why would we want bitcoin to be relegated to a black market only use?

Bitcoin is more valid money then paper currency. we can directly verify the creation of the transaction.

> Wealthy individuals and companies (aka those with most of the money) have a vested interest in having their transactions not easily tracked by the government.

Many may think or assert that, especially based on the trendy anti-government dogma, but I disagree. They have a vested interest in a fair and enforced taxation system. Otherwise they lose effective government and its services, both of which are absolutely essential to their safety and prosperity.

I don't see why is "fair" required; tax money works just as well if the system is unfair.

Probably the goal is that you're coerced to use it, as with every other government service.

You're not coerced into using many government services.

You may be taxed to pay for them, but you don't have to use them all.

Great. Where do I click to opt out of the IRS personal data storage system?

A more authortarian gov as a solution to non-optional 'services'?

No, I was suggesting that if you don;t like the country you're in right now you can choose another.

The IRS, or their equivalent, are the price of entry into whatever society you wish to be part of (or whichever will take you.

It's like a social club, if you don't want to pay your dues you don't get to use the facilities.

It's a standard cop-out. "'Merica; leave if you don't like it". Imagine if activists in the 60's had taken that advice.

You realize the IRS != US? We got along financially just fine (some would say better) before it.

I guess I'm trying to make a broader point than the IRS here - argue against the IRS and whatever other parts of government you like on a pragmatic basis, that's great.

I just get riled up by the "It's wrong! They have no right to tax me! I have property rights!" stance, because it's inconsistent.

Is it possible for a people to decide to make taxation voluntary? If for example country Q's owners (it's people) voted to not enforce taxation with force of any kind?

I don't see why that should be impossible. I have a funny feeling it wouldn't be very practical though!

I'm not American, thanks, so no its not a standard opt-out.

You have a choice of many countries in the world, with all sorts of different rules decided on by the people there.

That is already true, and with the means of transfers available (cash, gold, banking system, etc...) public institutions still give the public some confidence in that they manage to tax everyone, and pursue those who evade.

If a currency system was available that made taxation appear entirely optional to the public the trust in the tax system would erode in a hurry (Why should I pay when my neighbor or Acme inc. isn't paying?). Tax morale is alreay too low in many countries. Making more loopholes available would just not be good.

Because systems that do not provide such transparency will eventually be made illegal?

If a government is already having trouble collecting funds it is owed, this currency will not help it. The government would just be faced with two problems instead of one.

> without taxes modern society cannot function at all

This is a great example of an argument from ignorance. We can't conceive of a high-functioning society without taxes, therefore, let it be known that one cannot exist.

Sounds to me like you're talking about some kind of post-modern society.