reSee.it - Related Video Feed

One of the reasons I really don't like Bitcoin is because Bitcoin has become the currency of choice for espionage around the world. If you're a North Korean trying to recruit an American scientist, you're you're gonna pay them in Bitcoin. Well, if you're a Chinese person trying to report to American intelligence, you're probably also getting paid in Bitcoin.

Voting for a ban on Congress members trading stocks? It's low on my priority list. I've faced accusations of insider trading despite having only about $20,000 in the market. I even had to threaten Fox News with defamation over false claims. While some support a ban, it doesn't affect me much since I have little invested. Sure, there are questionable trades by some, like Nancy Pelosi, but those examples are rare. If we ban stock trading, it might make Congress a place only for the wealthy, as we haven't had a pay raise since 2008. People think banning stock trading or imposing term limits will solve their problems, but those ideas need more thought. Would I vote for a ban? Sure, it doesn’t matter to me since I have no significant investments.

People are not willing to study information, so they assume Trump’s executive order banning CBDCs means there’s nothing to worry about. The concern is that a “backdoor CBDC” could be implemented under a different name, such as the “genius act,” and people may not question it because it is framed as part of the U.S. leading in cryptocurrency. The biggest warning raised is DOGE. While people thought DOGE would cut costs by reducing 2,000,000,000,000 from the budget, the described goal was replacing parts of government with AI. The speaker points to the complexity of the tax code—16,000,000 words across about 75,000 pages—and asks whether AI should administer it. The concern includes Musk plugging Palantir into the IRS, making Palantir the vendor of choice for audit selections. This is described as a “Trojan horse” that consolidates power in the executive branch by reducing bureaucracies, ultimately functioning as a “Trojan horse for technocracy,” replacing bureaucracy with technocracy. The speaker says this results in a “three year acceleration.” A bill named the “Clarity Act” is presented as a major next step. The claim is that it will make everything people own “programmable,” “trackable,” and “sensible,” and that people think it is only a crypto bill when it will tokenize assets such as stocks, bonds, and a house while enabling centralized control. The speaker frames this as the most devastating spike needed for technocracy and asserts it supports the idea that people “own nothing” through digital tokenization and government tracking and control. Speaker 1 agrees that if tokenization is run by a centralized authority, centralized control over assets results, ending the premise of self-custody. They say centralized control would enable audits, automatic withdrawals from bank accounts for fines, and direct seizure of funds based on notices to banks. Speaker 1 cites a case where tens of thousands of dollars were taken from a woman’s bank account by the state of Oregon’s tax authorities even though she had never lived or worked in Oregon, arguing that such a system could scale with AI “with hallucinations and everything else on top.” In response, Speaker 0 says the solution is exiting the system quickly and that most people think of only one type of crypto. They compare this to AI: open-source AI versus “Open AI” or big tech AI as part of a control system. They state there is an inflection point and that voting will not fix Washington, emphasizing instead reallocating attention, energy, and money to exit. They also claim the Trump family and administration members like Howard Ludnick personally profit from these developments, describing it as a “creature from Epstein’s Island” scenario and saying it is happening openly.

America is trying to change the rules in the gold and cryptocurrency markets. They note a 35 trillion dollar debt and describe it as part of the world’s two alternative currency market segments. Washington’s actions in this direction clearly demonstrate one of the main American objectives: they want to solve the problem of declining trust in the U.S. dollar, as it was in the 1930s and the 1970s, by solving their financial problems at the expense of the world and driving everyone into the crypto cloud. Over time, when part of the U.S. national debt is placed in stablecoins, the United States will devalue that debt. In simple terms: they have a 35-trillion-dollar debt, they are pushing it into crypto, into the cloud, they are devaluing it, and they are starting from scratch. This is for those who are enthusiastic about crypto.

This transcript argues that new tax policies across the EU, beginning with The Netherlands, signal a shift toward taxing wealth and unrealized gains, with broader implications for the entire Union. It presents a chain of facts and projections about fiscal policy, population aging, debt, and revenue pressures that purportedly push Europe toward coordinated wealth extraction. Key points: - The Netherlands will start taxing unrealized capital gains at 36% beginning January 2028 under the actual return in box three act. Box three funds savings and investments, where previously a fictional return was taxed; the law now taxes actual returns including unrealized gains. If a portfolio rises by €10,000 in a year, the tax authority treats that paper gain as taxable income, and you owe €3,600, regardless of whether you sold assets. Real estate and startup shares are exempt; other assets use this capital gains approach. The bill includes a €1,800 tax-free annual return; losses above €500 can be carried forward indefinitely. Losses can drive liquidity problems, as taxes are due in cash even if assets aren’t sold. - The law is described as a response to the Dutch Supreme Court ruling in 2021 that taxing income that doesn’t exist violated property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. After attempts to fix the system failed and treasury losses persisted (€2.3 billion annually by 2024), the government moved to tax actual returns, including unrealized gains, as a revenue measure. The Netherlands’ mechanism is presented as a test case for other EU nations. Context and comparisons: - The transcript situates this as part of a broader EU trend: Spain’s 2022 temporary solidarity wealth tax on net worth above €3,000,000 became permanent by 2024, with thresholds lowered in some regions; high earners moved to Andorra, Dubai, and Portugal to mitigate taxes. - France is described as using a 30% capital gains tax, with social charges pushing the effective rate to 47.2% for high earners; real estate above €1,300,000 faces a 0.5% annual wealth tax. Germany tightened inheritance tax enforcement and heightened scrutiny of cross-border asset transfers. - The narrative asserts that when one state successfully reorganizes revenue without triggering capital flight, others follow, and that Brussels, Paris, and Berlin are watching The Netherlands’ model. The EU is portrayed as expanding revenue extraction beyond national borders. Structural pressures: - The EU’s revenue strategy is framed as a response to demographic shifts: working-age Europeans will fall 35,000,000 from 2020 to 2050 while those 65+ rise by 21,000,000, lowering the tax base. The debt burden is immense (collectively over €12 trillion). Inflation and the euro’s loss of purchasing power reduce real incomes while nominal tax brackets rise, creating a “silent tax.” - With limited options to cut spending, print money, or raise traditional income taxes without economic pain, the transcript argues that governments will increasingly tax accumulated wealth, creating a cycle of rising taxes, slower growth, and capital flight. - It also points to energy and transport taxes as major revenue sources, now comprising the majority of environmental tax revenue, and argues that household burdens are high even as the wealthy optimize around these levies. Policy directions include moving toward EU-level taxation via proposed own resources, including emissions trading revenue, carbon border adjustments, and levies on corporate profits, digital services, and financial transactions. Conclusion: - The endgame is described as transnational wealth extraction, with taxation coordinated at the EU level rather than limited to national governments. The Dutch unrealized gains tax is framed as a stepping stone toward a broader, continental model where people are taxed on assets they still hold, not just on income. The central warning is that the tax you can’t escape is on assets you’re waiting to sell, not on your paycheck.

I've always been against crypto, especially Bitcoin, because it is mainly used by criminals for activities like drug trafficking, money laundering, and tax evasion. Its anonymity and instant money transfers allow it to bypass systems like know your customers, sanctions, and OFAC. If I were in power, I would shut it down. On September 12th, Jamie Dimon called Bitcoin a fraud and threatened to fire any trader buying it. This caused a 24% drop in Bitcoin's value. Interestingly, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan, companies led by Dimon, were the largest buyers of a Bitcoin fund in Europe. It's unethical for Dimon to criticize Bitcoin while his own company is investing in it.

One of the reasons I really don't like Bitcoin is because Bitcoin has become the currency of choice for espionage around the world. If you're a North Korean trying to recruit an American scientist, you're gonna pay them in Bitcoin. Well, if you're a Chinese person trying to report to American intelligence, you're probably also getting paid in Bitcoin.

Today, nearly half of every dollar earned in the U.S. goes to taxes, often unnoticed because they are embedded in business costs. Politicians advocate for taxing businesses to help the average person, but these taxes ultimately increase product prices, acting as a hidden sales tax. There are numerous such taxes affecting consumers. Additionally, there is a call to raise corporate taxes to ensure that large corporations and billionaires contribute their fair share. While success is not criticized, the emphasis is on the importance of equitable tax contributions from those who can afford it.

I am against the U.S. Government issuing a digital currency directly to citizens. It would give the government too much power and control, potentially leading to the elimination of cash and complete control over our lives. I warned the people of Italy about this when they were considering vaccine passports and central bank digital currencies. In China, if you don't meet a certain social credit score, the government can restrict your spending abilities. They can limit your credit cards to only work at nearby grocery stores, preventing you from buying gasoline, traveling, or purchasing items and food from other parts of the country or abroad. This kind of government control is concerning and could lead to serious consequences for all of us.

We went from a small tax on tea to being heavily taxed on everything - from earning money to spending it, commuting, owning a home, and even dying. The complexity of our tax system is overwhelming, with over 26,100 pages in the federal tax code alone, not to mention thousands more IRS regulations written by bureaucrats. It's a never-ending cycle of taxation on every aspect of our lives.

We started with a small tax revolt, but now we're taxed on everything - earning, spending, saving, investing, and even dying. We pay taxes on our commute, work, and home, which we already bought with taxed money. The more we earn, the more the government takes. Taxes are everywhere, from our morning coffee to our paycheck.

Someone questions why money is taxed multiple times. They describe a scenario where someone gives them $500 that has already been taxed. They then have to pay taxes on that $500. When they spend any of that money, they pay taxes on the item they purchase. The person they bought the item from also has to pay taxes on the money received. They suggest that every dollar is taxed repeatedly.

I strongly oppose crypto like Bitcoin because its main use case is for criminals, drug traffickers, and tax avoidance. It offers some anonymity and instant money transfers, bypassing established systems like know your customers, sanctions, and OFAC. If I were the government, I would shut it down.

If crypto is to shape the future, it should be mined, minted, and made in the USA. I believe that as Bitcoin rises, America will lead the way in this revolution.

Speaker 0 notes that Council has discussed crypto regulations and legislations at length. They conclude that instead of regulating, we are going to ape a fat bag each into laptop and pump it to over a billion 300,000,000 trillion market cap. "Let's fucking go crackheads." The statement conveys a dramatic pivot from regulatory deliberation to an aggressive investment stance in cryptocurrency, delivered in a bold, confrontational tone. It frames the approach as not merely legislative but an active orchestration of capital into digital assets, with the aim of creating an enormous market valuation. The excerpt preserves the exact quoted claim and highlights the proclaimed shift in policy posture from regulation to rapid asset deployment.

The speaker expresses frustration over the lack of an ETF for Bitcoin in the past, believing it could have created significant wealth for Americans. They argue that regulators prevented the American people from benefiting, as the wealth ended up in the hands of international entities. While supporting sensible regulation, the speaker believes that the current situation is not in America's best interest. They highlight America's history of innovation and entrepreneurialism and express concern that regulators are stifling innovation by enforcing regulations instead of creating them. The speaker hopes that regulators will focus on enforcing existing laws rather than creating new ones.

Joe Biden and another speaker plan to get rid of a tax bill/cut. Proposals include raising the corporate tax rate, increasing estate taxes, and taxing capital gains. One speaker believes unrealized gains should be taxed, while another finds taxing what you don't have unfair. It is argued that property tax is already a tax on unrealized gains, as homeowners pay higher taxes when their home value increases, even without selling. A carbon fee is also proposed, with the caveat that there should be a connection between the fee and bad behaviors. It must be monitored whether the fee will be passed on to consumers, but this should not be a reason to avoid implementing a carbon fee.

There is a lot of optimism and political naivete surrounding Bitcoin, but it's important to understand the challenges it faces. The financial government complex will try to keep the technology at bay, but they won't completely kill it. They want people to see what they've done without causing too much disturbance. Their strategy is to throw little bits of sand in the engine of Bitcoin until it becomes too difficult and cumbersome for most people to use. Then they can dismiss it as an interesting idea that didn't work out as people wanted.

We went from fighting a 2% tax on tea during the revolution to being taxed on money in various ways today. Taxes are imposed on income, spending, saving, investing, and even driving. The government takes more as you earn more. The federal tax code is 26,100 pages, with over 9,000 additional IRS regulations. Despite this, infrastructure funded by taxpayers is deteriorating. Our founding fathers would be displeased with the current tax system.

Today, nearly half of every dollar earned in the U.S. goes to taxes, often unnoticed because they are embedded in business costs. Politicians advocate for taxing businesses to help the average person, but these taxes ultimately increase product prices, acting as a hidden sales tax. There are numerous such taxes affecting consumers. Additionally, there is a call to raise corporate taxes to ensure that large corporations and billionaires contribute their fair share. While success is commendable, it is crucial that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.

The discussion contrasts taxing centralized AI services with the difficulty of taxing local AI. The claim is that per-token or per-million-token taxes are easy to implement for hosting/API providers, because the hosting company can be charged. But when individuals download capable Chinese open-source models (including models from Alibaba and DeepSeek) and run them on local hardware, “nobody can” tax it because no one knows how many tokens are being generated, as long as people buy the hardware. The speaker argues that authorities would likely start with easier, centralized targets such as AI inference/distribution services like Anthropic and OpenRouter. The discussion then suggests a progression: after centralized providers, “second tier” taxation targets could include systems like Mistral that allow users to generate their own AI inference. Eventually, the speaker describes an escalation toward treating “running your own server” or “AI inference at your farm” as a regulated activity, potentially involving agencies associated with controlled activities, and requiring licensing for “unlicensed artificial intelligence” being run on local infrastructure, framed as legal penalties such as jail time, bond, and court appearances. A related exchange references “unlicensed artificial intelligence technology” as a dystopian concept. Todd responds by reflecting that one takeaway is the need to learn Chinese, and another that Mike will help with bail, while noting the reality of running open-source models locally. Another portion shifts to the idea of moving from information control to cognitive control. The question is whether AI systems increasingly serve as the interface people use to understand reality, moving beyond search ranking and platform moderation toward shaping what individuals think. Zach describes himself as an “AI whistleblower,” claiming the whistleblowing was directed at Google’s use of AI and “machine learning fairness.” Zach states that internal AI ethicist planning laid out a four-step process—data is collected, aggregated, filtered, ranked—followed by the claim that “people like us are programmed,” and that the objective is to control individuals by controlling what they are able to see and therefore what they are able to think. The speaker adds that controlling upstream information flow enables cognitive control, and that the ultimate goal is described as detecting “wrong thoughts at the wet layer, the brain, the neurons.” The transcript includes the example of “Georgia Guidestones” as background information that allegedly clarifies the broader intent.

Thank you. It’s good to be here. We've been discussing how to pay for my plans. They're logical, but Washington isn't. How will I convince a divided Congress to support them, given their past behavior? It will involve taxes. Economists across the spectrum agree, although Congress isn't made up of economists. I understand the concern, but that's the reality.

Looking back at the previous administration, there were many positive statements made that differed from the current stance of regulators. Now, the key is to see what actually happens. Understandably, changes take time. Financial regulators are large government entities, and they have been hindering crypto for years. The US accounts for a significant portion of global finance, yet only a small percentage of global crypto. This disparity is primarily due to regulatory challenges. The US has been uniquely difficult to work with. The critical question is whether the administration will take the necessary actions and find effective solutions.