for nye

[notyoueither]

No! That has nothing to do with it! Did you even read what I was talking about?

The only way to calculate the total tax rate is figure out how much money Alice and Bob would have if there were no taxes, and then compare that to how much money they have after taxes. In my example, Alice has 80% of the money she would have had, and Bob has 79%.

Alice earned $1000, paid $200 tax and stuck $800 in a matress. The next year she did the same. She now has $1600.

Bob earned $1000, paid $200 tax and stuck $800 in a bank. The next year he did the same, but received $40 in interest and paid $8 in tax on that. Bob now has $1632 dollars.

Bob is not hard done by.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why are you people still bothering with this ignoramus?

[Solomwi]

Is "refuge in de minimis" a recognized fallacy? If not, it should be.

[Kuciwalker]

Alice earned $1000, paid $200 tax and stuck $800 in a matress. The next year she did the same. She now has $1600.

Bob earned $1000, paid $200 tax and stuck $800 in a bank. The next year he did the same, but received $40 in interest and paid $8 in tax on that. Bob now has $1632 dollars.

Bob is not hard done by.

So? I don't believe I've ever cast the capital gains tax as unfair - my only claim is that the tax is distortionary (in the sense that it taxes deferred consumption at a higher rate than immediate consumption). A tax that is distortionary is less efficient than a nondistortionary tax that raises an equal amount of revenue, in the sense that it depresses economic activity more (what's known as deadweight loss). Moreover, the CG tax is in fact strongly distortionary against savings, which has all kinds of other negative effects besides a higher deadweight loss.

Using your own example - are you saying that you really think Alice ought to be taxed at a lower rate than Bob? That is, the tax system should favor people who stuff money under their mattresses over those who invest that money? Why? Don't we prefer the latter behavior?

[notyoueither]

They are being taxed at the same rate. The difference is treating capital gains as income. I have pointed out some reasons why this might be a good idea. You disagree.

If the US needs to encourage savings, there are ways to do it without sacking a century of public policy.

[KrazyHorse]

They are being taxed at the same rate. The difference is treating capital gains as income. I have pointed out some reasons why this might be a good idea. You disagree.

If the US needs to encourage savings, there are ways to do it without sacking a century of public policy.

You're a ****ing idiot.

[notyoueither]

And you're some kind of proto-fascist.

I'll live with your disapproval, gladly. Your opinion counts to me about as much as that of the bug I scrape off the windshield.

[Berzerker]

hey chief, I still gotta question you didn't answer to my satisfaction: if the big bang was preceded by a big crunch (and by implication, one bang/crunch after the next), why is a full crunch required by the theory of relativity? This regards that background radiation, you could come up with a competing theory to slight "impurities" in that pre-big bang singularity. C'mon, think outside the box you damn bureaucrat

btw, the Oort Cloud is nonsense

[KrazyHorse]

And you're some kind of proto-fascist.

I'll live with your disapproval, gladly. Your opinion counts to me about as much as that of the bug I scrape off the windshield.

at somebody being labeled a "fascist" because they want to change the way the government collects ~5% of income taxes.



This is one for the ages, folks.

[KrazyHorse]

hey chief, I still gotta question you didn't answer to my satisfaction: if the big bang was preceded by a big crunch (and by implication, one bang/crunch after the next), why is a full crunch required by the theory of relativity? This regards that background radiation, you could come up with a competing theory to slight "impurities" in that pre-big bang singularity. C'mon, think outside the box you damn bureaucrat

I have no idea what this question is even supposed to mean.

[notyoueither]

You want to eliminate all income taxes and shift the burden of government entirely to consumption taxes.

It is obvious what master you serve.

[Berzerker]

I have no idea what this question is even supposed to mean.

when I asked it a while back you said the theory of relativity precluded a less than complete "crunch" - my explanation for variations in the background radiation. This aint no BS, I wanna know and I bow to your expertize if thats what it'll take to get your perspective.

[Berzerker]

You want to eliminate all income taxes and shift the burden of government entirely to consumption taxes.

It is obvious what master you serve.

that aint bad, its really what an economy comes down to...as it should. If I'm off in the hills as a "survivalist" why should I be paying taxes to support the infrastructure of cities I never see? Where there is more commerce, there should be more taxes to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

[KrazyHorse]

when I asked it a while back you said the theory of relativity precluded a less than complete "crunch" - my explanation for variations in the background radiation. This aint no BS, I wanna know and I bow to your expertize if thats what it'll take to get your perspective.

I still have no idea what you're referring to. In all likelihood, you misunderstood my objection to what you were saying. All I remember is that you displayed a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental concepts underpinning cosmology, and thus could not have a meaningful discussion on it.

And again, I have no idea what your question above is asking.

[KrazyHorse]

You want to eliminate all income taxes and shift the burden of government entirely to consumption taxes.

It is obvious what master you serve.

I want to eliminate the distinction between immediate and deferred consumption, whether that's executed by shifting to consumption taxes or to an earned-only income tax (or some combination of the two).

Once more, you are a ****ing moron.