[hgomersall]

I'm not aware you've made an argument and I'm not demanding anything of you (beyond an implicit request to discuss in good faith). I'm not sure what I'm not being consistent about. I suspect you're assuming quite a bit about what my views are.

I addressed the specific point you made in your first sentence already in the thread. It having value is irrelevant to whether or not it can or should be taxed, but it being taxed is sufficient to give it value.

[alphanullmeric]

I already told you. Either it has value or it does not. “Depends on when” is not addressing it. If you don’t want me to assume your views, the state them directly, it takes a single word.

It’s relevant unless you plan on taxing things with no value.

[hgomersall]

My views are irrelevant to the discussion.

Context is everything: Does a bar of gold have value? What about if you're alone on a desert island and dying of thirst? What's the value of a glass of water?

How about a £10 note? Does that have value? Does it depend on whether you're in the UK? Does it's value change depending on the availability of a money changer?

You absolutely can tax things with no value and poof, they suddenly have value. Everyone can now attach a real value to that thing dependent on how it will allow them to satisfy their tax obligations. Indeed, fiat currency has value precisely because of the tax obligations it can be used to satisfy.

[alphanullmeric]

No, your views on tax obligations are irrelevant to the discussion. If I have no tax obligations and I hold cryptocurrency, would you force me to pay taxes? If you plan to tax me on the value of the cryptocurrency itself, then you’re back to being forced to admit it had value in the first place. Tax obligations are an irrelevant facade you’re hiding the same circular argument behind.

You say context is everything and yet refuse to share the contexts you believe cryptocurrency has value. You lack confidence in your own consistency.

[hgomersall]

I have no interest in whether crypto should be taxed based on value or the colour of the sky or anything.

I think I do now understand the point you're trying to make, which is that should you be taxed on your holdings of a commodity for simply holding them? Let's talk about something different - pebbles say, since crypto is so loaded. Do you think that changes the discussion?

That's a question I have no opinion on. It's just political. That said, tax has always been about taxing something that is valued by the tax payer not the tax recipient, so I see no inconsistency with a state saying they don't value pebbles but still taxing people based on their holdings of it.

[alphanullmeric]

That’s not any better, you’re just changing how you’re being inconsistent. You want to regulate crypto on your perception of its value while taxing it on my perception of its value.

As for whether I think pebbles should be taxed, no. I don’t think you should be taxed for holding anything, regardless of anyone’s perception of its value. Taxes are to pay for state services you use and should be directly proportional to your use of them and nothing else. Paying your fair share is not the job of my cryptocurrency.

[hgomersall]

Why do you assume I want to regulate crypto?

Your problem is you completely misunderstand what tax is for in a sovereign state. Of course you then fail to understand why states might wish to tax things you think are irrelevant to them in terms of holdings. You can rant at your living in within the confines of a state, but you're deluded if you think crypto has anything to offer the situation.

I suggest you understand how a little more about how currencies actually function (hint, you won't find it in a mainstream economics textbook, but the mechanisms are well understood). Alternatively you can get angry in your ignorance. I'm relaxed either way. In any case, I'm done here. Take care.