The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Most taxes are in conflict with linearity, or double-dip. My parents paid tax on their income, and with what remained raised and educated me, among other things. Why therefore should I be subject to income tax? The input capital into me, as a resource, has already been taxed?
There's a reasonable argument that education should be treated as savings and be tax-exempt.
Kuciwalker also pointed out that VAT is about taxing the increased value along each step of the chain. If capital gains isn't that, then what is and how is it different?
Remember that a VAT is equivalent to a national sales tax. You can tax the marginal value added at each chain, or you can tax the total value at one spot, and it's the same.
There's a reasonable argument that education should be treated as savings and be tax-exempt.
Kuciwalker also pointed out that VAT is about taxing the increased value along each step of the chain. If capital gains isn't that, then what is and how is it different?
Remember that a VAT is equivalent to a national sales tax. You can tax the marginal value added at each chain, or you can tax the total value at one spot, and it's the same.
So why shouldn't capital gains be taxed? They're a value add.
Not if the income is from capital gain, by your dogma against capital gains tax.
Oh, you're talking about a case where you invest purely on the margin? My understanding is that* that's generally illegal, and some amount of collateral is required. In which case you still get the linearity - the amount you can invest on margin is linear in money which is linear in income which is linear in the tax rate.
*i.e. I could be completely wrong and wouldn't be surprised
So why shouldn't capital gains be taxed? They're a value add.
Because the "value add" from your capital gains have already been taxed, because the amount you can invest was limited by your post-tax income. In the case of a 20% earned income tax, your capital gains are 80% of what they would have been without the tax.
Because the "value add" from your capital gains have already been taxed, because the amount you can invest was limited by your post-tax income. In the case of a 20% earned income tax, your capital gains are 80% of what they would have been without the tax.
I'm inclined to ask, so what?
Suppose Bob does not work and derives an income of $100K from returns on investment.
Sally works for a living and has a salary of $100K.
They both pay 20% tax, leaving each with 80%. Sally's future earnings from her labour will only be worth 80% to her, just as Bob's returns from investment will be.
Furthermore, the scheme you propose would see Bob not taxed on his income at all. There is a certain gilded quality to that proposal, and I am not sure public policy should ignore it.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
What the **** are you on about? Bob derives an income from money which has been earned and saved at some point in the past (and has thus already been taxed).
And as already stated, a consumption tax would effectively expropriate Bob for 20% of his current net worth.
I'm not worried about Bob, or about the "fairness" of double taxation. what I am worried about is the extraordinary disincentive to savings that unearned income taxation presents.
I also think it's pretty funny that you appear to be more concerned with using the tax system to punish the wealthy than you are with finding efficient means for the government to fund itself (in, say, giving money to poor people).
Currently, the tax system takes less (as NPV) from somebody who chooses to spend his whole income than from somebody who chooses to save part of his income. This is fantastically distortionary, and if you're so primitive as to believe in fairness, could also be viewed as inequitable.
So why shouldn't capital gains be taxed? They're a value add.
Are you retarded? The capital pays the tax when it is redeemed for consumption. Current capital gains tax laws cause capital to pay tax:
a) when it is accumulated
and
b) when it earns returns (realized)
(outside of capital accumulated under programs like IRAs/401Ks/RRSPs etc)
Production used to finance deferred consumption is therefore taxed at much higher rates than production used to finance immediate consumption (which is taxed only upon accumulation).
This is the relevant margin. Unless taxpayers at a given income are heterogenous enough that savers display far less sensitivity to tax rates than spenders do, this is an idiotic means to collect taxes.
What the **** are you on about? Bob derives an income from money which has been earned and saved at some point in the past (and has thus already been taxed).
The income he earns today has not been taxed already.
What I am on about is that your (Kuci's?) scheme for the wealthy to pay no tax on return from investments (assuming the prols still pay income tax) will not fly politically. I am not sure it should.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
The income he earns today has not been taxed already.
Yes, it has. If Bob earned 1 million dollars he wanted to invest 10 years ago, and the government took 20% of it, then ALL OF HIS RETURNS IN THE FUTURE are 20% lower than would otherwise be the case.
The income he earns today has not been taxed already.
Yes, it has. If Bob earned 1 million dollars he wanted to invest 10 years ago, and the government took 20% of it, then ALL OF HIS RETURNS IN THE FUTURE are 20% lower than would otherwise be the case.
And if John, Bob's father, paid Bob $1.2 million to collect butterflies so that Bob could 'earn' a living for the rest of his life on investments without working and without paying a dime in taxes, how would that be?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Yes, it has. The 20% earned income tax carries through, forever reducing Bob's investment income by 20% of what it would have been but for the earned income tax. In your example, Bob's untaxed investment income would be $125,000. $100,000 is 80% of that. If he triples his money next year, the $200,000 he earned will be 80% of the $250,000 he'd have earned but for the original tax on his (or somebody's) earned income.
If, on the other hand, Bob has to pay both when he earns the income as well as on his gains, then he pays a much higher rate of tax on his earnings than somebody else who earned the same million dollars 10 years ago and spent in on moonbeams and hookers.
The spender paid 20% up front and that's it. Bob paid 20% up front, and was returned 20% less thereafter due to the original taxation. IN ADDITION he pays some rate of tax on the returns themselves, meaning that the effect on him is equivalent to paying a higher percentage of his earned income to start. The effective rate of taxation is determined by the nature of the investment, its amortization schedule, the number of times returns are realized (all of these providing further distortions!).
This is equivalent to the government telling people: "here is the rate of taxation if you want to spend your money. Here is a higher rate of taxation if you want to save it"
And your scheme for no income taxes at all, and all consumption tax is retarded, even if it all works well in a spreadsheet.
In other words, once more you have no arguments.
Europe funds itself largely with consumption taxes, and maintains a level of government spending which would break the US under its current system of taxation.
The US manages only because it collects taxes at a fairly low overall rate, and can thus afford luxuries like ridiculously high capital gains taxes which distort greatly without yielding much money (~5% of personal income taxes).
Tweet
Comment