The Instigator
ChosenWolff
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
SGM_iz_SekC
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Bitcoin mining should be considered earned income by the IRS

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
ChosenWolff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 56714
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

ChosenWolff

Pro

First round is acceptance. I don't think anyone will accept this, but we'll see.
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

I accept and am very interested to see my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
ChosenWolff

Pro

I. You earn income by bit coin mining

Simple, you earn $ by mining bit coins, therefore, there is no reason people who engage in this practice shouldn't be classified under the same guidelines as regular americans. This is essential for demographical and tax purposes. There is absolutely no contention that can defeat this.

II. People will stop getting UI benefits for mining

A lot of people have this great idea, where they think they can do X, because Y isn't classified, and recieve Z. Classifying ming as earned income stops people from recieving UI benefits, who are making money.

The resolution is so simply stated, that it amazes me this is even still a debate.
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

c-1. IRS Virtual Currency Guidance : Virtual Currency Is Treated as Property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes; General Rules for Property Transactions Apply.[1]

c-2. Bitcoin is not in any affiliation with the US government or the IRS, so it should not be considered income to mine it.

c-3. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Taxing bitcoin would be near impossible. It would also apply only to the US in this debate, so someone could take a vacation to Japan and mine bitcoin without taxation. If you mean only considered s income and not taxing bitcoin mining, then other countries do not have to consider bitcoin mining as income, because the IRS only affects the US.

a-II. As I have said, if someone mines the bitcoin outside of the country, then this does not apply to them, the other countr(y/ies)'(s) income decision applies. This doesn't mean that the person has to leave the country, it just means the device used to mine the bitcoin does.

a-II. Bitcoin mining/transactions are untraceable and would cause more trouble than not to try to trace someone's mining to find their identity.

[1]http://www.irs.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
ChosenWolff

Pro

I. IRS treats bitcoins as property

I think my opponent misunderstood his own contention. All this is saying is that bitcoins are a recognized currency and will be liable for tax purposes. The opposition should read his own sources.

II/III. Bitcoin affiliation

As I said, this argument relies on C1, which is outrageously misunderstood by the opposition. Bitcoins can be exchanged on the currency markets, and can be traded for the USD. Taxation can carry over to other money forms. If you have Pesos,you are required to go to the banks and get that exchanged for the USD.

My opponent is attempting to make an argument that since the bitcoin is a virtual currency, people should not be required to pay taxes and continue to recieve benefits from the government. This is silly, and bitcoins can be made into paper money. There is no reason people shouldn't be liable as having no earned income.

IV. Tax Evasion

My opponent has to stay on topic. This is about labelling mining groups as having earned income. Whether that person is making money in Japan or the US, they are earning income, and should be labelled as such. End of story.

V. Tracing Bit Coins

Completely false. Bit coin miners organize into mining groups, and share revenue as they split bitcoin blocks for money. The bitcoin formula was designed so each miner could hold a share, like a corporation. The more shares you have in bit coin mining, the more power you have in votes for how the mining formula should be changed.

Bit coin mining is perfectly traceable on a micro and macro scale. There are dozens of mining offices in the US, and these people weren't paying anything to the governnment, although they were making profit.They should be liable for the same taxes any other company pays. They should be required to have a business certificate. And most of all, they should be required to live up to federal regulations.

Vote Pro

http://www.investopedia.com...

http://www.investopedia.com...

http://www.investopedia.com...
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

Pro is missing the point. If it is considered income in the US, that doesn't make it considered as income in other countries. Therefor taxes can be evaded easily. PROPERTY IS NOT CONSIDERED CURRENCY BY THE IRS. Pro misunderstands my statements. Bitcoin is not affiliated with the United States or the IRS, so it should not be taxed as income. IRS does not tax any other currency than USD. Bitcoin is decentralized and therefor, should not be considered income. They are still unemployed even if they do mine bitcoin. Bitcoin mining is not considered a job/profession.

c-1. IRS Virtual Currency Guidance : Virtual Currency Is Treated as Property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes; General Rules for Property Transactions Apply.[1]

READ THE ONE BELOW
c-2. Bitcoin is not in any affiliation with the US government or the IRS, so it should not be considered income to mine it. READ THIS ONE OMG

READ THE NEXT ONE TOO
c-3. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Taxing bitcoin would be near impossible. It would also apply only to the US in this debate, so someone could take a vacation to Japan and mine bitcoin without taxation. If you mean only considered s income and not taxing bitcoin mining, then other countries do not have to consider bitcoin mining as income, because the IRS only affects the US. READ THIS ONE OMG

a-II. As I have said, if someone mines the bitcoin outside of the country, then this does not apply to them, the other countr(y/ies)'(s) income decision applies. This doesn't mean that the person has to leave the country, it just means the device used to mine the bitcoin does.

a-II. Bitcoin mining/transactions are untraceable and would cause more trouble than not to try to trace someone's mining to find their identity.

[1]http://www.irs.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Have people even read the debate? It's not about taxation. It's about marking people who make money on mining as earning income. The opposition has not proven you don't earn income. This contention was completely dropped.
Posted by CloudApex 2 years ago
CloudApex
How do you place text in bold or italics in a debate round. Thanks.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I will get cold minds vote removed. Its a obvious vote bomb. Con did not make that argument, and taxing currency exchanges is not the resolution. Plus, that's a terrible point (You can't tax businesses because than they can't afford stuff? Lol, WTF)
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
This has nothing to do with taxing currency. Its about considering it earned income, so people don't receive benefits from the government.
Posted by Crescendo 2 years ago
Crescendo
Bitcoin is a currency on the internet, which stands for International Network, I think. Can a lone Government tax an international currency?
Also, bitcoins are not a plentiful currency. Less than 50 million bitcoins are in circulation right now, and the U.S. is not the only nation which uses them. The IRS would have to further complicate its already complicated system. Perhaps, if in the near future bitcoins become more popular, this might be a worthwhile idea.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
ChosenWolffSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's points are all mitigation, stating the difficulties involved without establishing actual harms to implementation. Con needed to establish that there's some large costs associated with implementing such a system, but all I see are assertions that it's going to be difficult. Even if I buy that, I don't find that sufficient reason to negate. Pro has established some benefit, albeit a minimal one, for supporting such an application of taxation. I'm given no reason not to buy a small advantage as the threshold for implementation, so I vote Pro. Also, I'm affording conduct to Pro. Those all caps "OMG"s and the repetition of your entire case just came off as incredibly rude.
Vote Placed by Khaos_Mage 2 years ago
Khaos_Mage
ChosenWolffSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not ever argue that the income is earned, merely that it should be taxed. This is counter to the resolution. Con conceded this by stating explicitly that bitcoins are property, and subject to property taxation.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
ChosenWolffSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not refute Pro's arguments but merely restated his. S&G- Con used slang (e.g. "OMG") and caps, which were unnecessary in the debate.
Vote Placed by medv4380 2 years ago
medv4380
ChosenWolffSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for Con's use of caps, and slang (OMG) in the final argument. Sources goes to Con for citing, and properly defining the status quo. Spelling goes to Con for Pro spelling money with a dollar sign. The argument is tied. Both failed to define what Income is clearly. An example of how both sides fall apart is if I receive a house as payment for work instead of cash the house is indeed property, but the value of the house is also taxed as income if it is received as payment. However, we are dealing with mining and per the IRS that Con cited bitcoin is taxed as property similar to if you mined real gold which explicitly states that it is not taxed as income, and Pro's attempt at contradicting the IRS that Con didn't understand only show's how important defining what income is at it's most technical level.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
ChosenWolffSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to rebut Pro's final round arguments. Restating your own arguments is insufficient to defend them from legitimate attack. Ultimately, this debate asks a "should" question. So, even if the IRS believes Bitcoins are property in the status quo, that does not mean that the IRS should continue to treat Bitcoins in this fashion. So, one of Con's arguments is largely irrelevant. That leaves me deciding between the difficulty of taxation vice the simple fact that you do, indeed, earn real money via Bitcoin mining. I would've liked some concrete, empiric examples of how Bitcoins could be effectively taxed by Pro. He dropped the ball here. On the other hand, Pro's argument that Bitcoins "should" conform to federal income regulations (because they're income) is also persuasive. Really, this ties the arguments. As for conduct, Con's last round was extremely rude (e.g. READ THIS ONE OMG). Pro also had a clearer format, w/ fewer S/G errors, citing more, and reliable sources. Points to Pro.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
ChosenWolffSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's resolution was not that money earned from selling bitcoin should be taxed (Con's source showed that it already is in some cases), but that mined bitcoins themselves should be taxed. Con effectively negated that resolution by demonstrating that bitcoin are considered a form of property. Therefore, if bitcoin should be taxed simply because it is possible to trade it for money, all property should be taxed simply because all property can be sold. Pro did not provide sufficient reason for the IRS to change its current stance.
Vote Placed by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
ChosenWolffSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was interesting. Arguments go like this; pro presented good arguments and refutations, while con also did so, but in his last round, he simply restated his arguments without refuting pro's. His statements, "READ OMG" can be seen as ad hominem, the worst logical fallacy you can get.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
ChosenWolffSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was correct in saying that bitcoin is decentralised and not affiliated with the U.S, and should therefore not be classified as income. Furthermore, the actual logistics, as Con argued, would make it nigh impossible to tax the currency. Hence, arguments to Con. Sources tied as both only used essentially one source.