| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99547 is a reply to message #96482] |
Thu, 25 July 2013 21:40   |
mrs
Messages: 42
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <b4k1g4Ftls1U1@mid.individual.net>, jklam <jkl@nlgrf.com> wrote:
>> See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>
> That does not happen in any well run economy.
So, is the US's economy well run? Anyway that's beside the point, as I neither said it was, or was not.
So, the type of thing I was thinking of is represented by:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SSUbVSG_KVY/TVJ6uF3cA7I/AAAAAAAAAq o/7SUCcBbqrTE/s1600/PurchasingPower-1950-2006.jpg
and
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
but, I don't know that's the best stat to view. Certaily, you're free
to pick a stat that represents the value of money to you, and plot
that over time, say, 200 years. Let me know what you think best
represents the valuation of money. Feel free to quote a chat of that
valuation over time for a fixed value.
By quoting CPI or wholesale price index, I don't really advocate
either, don't dwell of those two. I think any valuation of money
would tend to show essentially the same thing, I'm happy to be
corrected if wrong.
>> and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in valuation caused by the
>> loss in value of that money,
>
> That does not happen in any modern first or second world tax system
> either, because most of the capital gain on the principle residence is
> not taxed in any of those.
Residence? I wasn't talking about residences. And residences have a
cap, so, what you say isn't true of some transactions. Odd, why does
my tax person say that I have to pay taxes on them, I don't get it.
Could you explain by quoting the IRS rules that my tax person is
merely ignorant of that allows me to deect from my basis that portion
that is caused by a devaluved currency? I am ignorant.
>> The interesting question is, should we create a system where the CEO
>> has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock?
>
> Obviously not.
Oh, that was a metaphoric question, the real question was, should we
create a system where the president, the congress and the senate
are incentivized to so devalue a currency?
>> The government is rewarded when they destroy the value of money.
>
> Not really, because capital gains is a small part of total income tax
> revenue.
So, it then is an accident and not likely to repeat? How do you know
it won't repeat? Certainly history doesn't teach us that. Are you
saying that the last 70 years of trending is a fluke? Or, that, you
think that the government only planned to destroy 90%, but no more. I
missed that memo, could you quote it for me, I am ignorant.
>> Ever ask yourself why the value of money always goes down?
>
> I know why it does, we call that inflation which is inevitable for various
> reasons.
Oh, so, then you argree with me then? I don't get it.
> That is not what happens if you retain the gold, because there
> is no realisation of the capital gain and so no payment of part
> of that gold to the government.
Unless you die, or, unless you sell or trade it.
>> This is 100% certain,
>
> No it is not for the reason I listed.
Do you sell insurance against this? I'd like to buy some.
> but not enough to protect it from the
>> people that take the money. The people that benefit the most, are the
>> 1% that don't participate in the scheme.
>
> The 1% who pay no tax at all do not in fact get much in the way
> of government services at all.
>
> In fact in the US the bottom HALF pay no net federal income tax at all.
Ah, I wasn't thinking about the bottom. I was thinking about the top
that are smart enough to find ways to not particate in the system, as
I said originally, but for which you missed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99551 is a reply to message #96529] |
Thu, 25 July 2013 22:04 |
mrs
Messages: 42
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <51E52C1B.AE6D0C18@bytecraft.com>,
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>> See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>> and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in valuation caused by the
>> loss in value of that money, then, the tax rate isn't the 15% of the
>> gain, but rather 15% of the 90% of the wealth over that time frame.
>>
>> The interesting question is, should we create a system where the CEO
>> has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock? In the private
>> markets, the CEO's goal is actually to cause the share price to go up,
>> and he is rewarded if that happens. If it goes down, likely he will
>> find himself out of a job. The government is rewarded when they
>> destroy the value of money. Ever ask yourself why the value of money
>> always goes down? Probably not. Think about it.
>
> Currency value actually moves around like the stock market.
I didn't know that the stock market was engineered to provide negative results:
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
learn something new everyday, thanks. Rome engineered negative
results. The Weimar republic engineered negative results. We
engineer negative results.
> at the same time the US currency has devalued.
Hum, ever wonder why the system is engineered to do that? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99552 is a reply to message #97163] |
Thu, 25 July 2013 22:06 |
mrs
Messages: 42
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <51e540b4$11$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> In <Mq0G09.9sr@kithrup.com>, on 07/16/2013
> at 03:50 AM, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) said:
>
>> Instead, consider this, what is the gain, if you have 1 kilogram
>> of gold, and next year, you have 1 kilogram of gold. Ask a
>> physicist. The will invariably say 0. Now, if you ask your tax
>> accountant, they will explain to you, that you have to cut off a
>> portion of the gold and give it to the government.
>
> ITYM ask *your* tax accountant. Ask mine and he'll explain that the
> gain or loss has no tax ramifications unless and untill I sell or take
> a writeoff.
Ah, good, you agree with me than.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99553 is a reply to message #99545] |
Thu, 25 July 2013 22:28 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:
> In some jurisdictions now, if the mother doesn't cooperate in identifying
> the father she can be denied welfare benefits. If she thinks it might
> be any of a dozen different males, haul them all in and let DNA testing
> sort 'em out. There will still be a few in which the mother can't even
> identify them that well, but those are fairly rare cases.
>
Twenty years ago this was true in California. My boyfriend and I were
both hauled in to give blood samples because a lady friend of ours had
to give up several "likely candidates" for biological fatherhood and
just picked a handful of friends she knew could not possibly be the
father.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #99555 is a reply to message #97522] |
Thu, 25 July 2013 22:37 |
mrs
Messages: 42
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <ks9c7b$6ld$1@dont-email.me>,
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 7/18/2013 9:30 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>> At one point in the conversation with the plant manager I
>> asked how much warehousing the plant had. His answer
>> was my ahh-ha moment. His answer was 43 to 45 minutes.
>> Well organized *Just in time* solved many problems.
>
> It's wonderful until high oil prices or some international event causes
> disruptions.
No for oil prices. High oil prices just mean that you can up your
prices on the cars you're selling (or will sell) to accurately reflect
the cost of oil, I mean, it isn't like a ton of industries don't
already have 8 years of proven experienced handling this issue. As
for `events', a ship sinking, a fire that destroys one little
factory... yes, then general premise is true. The airline industry
plays this game well.
> Then everything will just have to shut down. A warehouse provides a
> bit of a buffer for both piece parts and finished product.
The problem is it represents a cost as well. When your competitor
doesn't have this cost, and you do, it can put you at a disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #99558 is a reply to message #97098] |
Thu, 25 July 2013 22:55 |
mrs
Messages: 42
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <b4o98jFrlp8U1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It gets completely forgotten when this ridiculous class warfare rhetoric
>> starts.
>
> There is no class warfare rhetoric and hasn’t been for decades now.
That's the best class warfare rhetoric I've seen all week. Reminds me
of the line, "We've always been at war with Eastasia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four.
Or, maybe you don't live in the US?
>> Maybe that's the goal of Congress....keep up the class warfare
>> rhetoric so they can get access to all of that lovely cash.
>
> That silly claim can't fly either when the bottom HALF
> pays no net federal income tax.
Hum, that's not how the game is played. The people with no money are
called pawns. The people that play the game, move them around the
board; they do serve a purpose in the game. Can you think of any
utility for the pawns? I can help out, if you just can't see any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99562 is a reply to message #99547] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 00:57 |
jklam
Messages: 43
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:MqIsnE.1rut@kithrup.com...
> In article <b4k1g4Ftls1U1@mid.individual.net>, jklam <jkl@nlgrf.com>
> wrote:
>>> See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>
>> That does not happen in any well run economy.
>
> So, is the US's economy well run?
That hasn’t happened with the US economy in the time scale being discussed.
> Anyway that's beside the point, as I neither said it was, or was not.
You were talking about that scenario, which doesn’t
happen in the economies being discussed in the time
scales being discussed.
> So, the type of thing I was thinking of is represented by:
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SSUbVSG_KVY/TVJ6uF3cA7I/AAAAAAAAAq o/7SUCcBbqrTE/s1600/PurchasingPower-1950-2006.jpg
That isn't your scenario and the value of the USD is not determined by the
CPI.
> and
>
> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
That gives a completely different result over the timescale we are
discussing.
> but, I don't know that's the best stat to view.
Neither are.
> Certaily, you're free to pick a stat that represents the value
> of money to you, and plot that over time, say, 200 years.
200 years is not the timescale being discussed.
> Let me know what you think best represents the valuation of money.
> Feel free to quote a chat of that valuation over time for a fixed value.
I just pointed out that your scenario does not happen in the
economies being discussed over the time scale being discussed.
> By quoting CPI or wholesale price index, I don't really advocate
> either, don't dwell of those two. I think any valuation of money
> would tend to show essentially the same thing,
They don't with your scenario in the economies
being discussed over the timescale being discussed.
> I'm happy to be corrected if wrong.
We'll see...
>>> and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in
>>> valuation caused by the loss in value of that money,
>> That does not happen in any modern first or second world tax system
>> either, because most of the capital gain on the principle residence is
>> not taxed in any of those.
> Residence? I wasn't talking about residences.
That is where most normal taxpayers see the bulk of their capital gain.
> And residences have a cap, so, what you say isn't true of some
> transactions.
Yes, but those were not the ones we were discussing.
> Odd, why does my tax person say that I have to pay taxes on them,
> I don't get it. Could you explain by quoting the IRS rules that my tax
> person is merely ignorant of that allows me to deect from my basis
> that portion that is caused by a devaluved currency? I am ignorant.
Yes you are. Capital gain is only taxed when it is realised,
not every year while ever you continue to hold that asset.
>>> The interesting question is, should we create a system where
>>> the CEO has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock?
>> Obviously not.
> Oh, that was a metaphoric question,
No such animal.
It was actually a rhetorical question.
> the real question was, should we create a system
> where the president, the congress and the senate
> are incentivized to so devalue a currency?
Obviously not.
>>> The government is rewarded when they destroy the value of money.
>> Not really, because capital gains is a small part of total income tax
>> revenue.
> So, it then is an accident and not likely to repeat?
No. I said that that is a small part of total income tax revenue.
> How do you know it won't repeat? Certainly history doesn't teach us that.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Are you saying that the last 70 years of trending is a fluke?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Or, that, you think that the government
> only planned to destroy 90%, but no more.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> I missed that memo, could you quote it for me, I am ignorant.
You are indeed.
>>> Ever ask yourself why the value of money always goes down?
>>
>> I know why it does, we call that inflation which is inevitable for various
>> reasons.
> Oh, so, then you argree with me then?
No.
> I don't get it.
No surprises there.
>> That is not what happens if you retain the gold, because there
>> is no realisation of the capital gain and so no payment of part
>> of that gold to the government.
> Unless you die, or, unless you sell or trade it.
That’s what realisation means.
>>> This is 100% certain,
>>
>> No it is not for the reason I listed.
> Do you sell insurance against this?
No.
> I'd like to buy some.
You can any time by investing in what increases
in value over time independently of inflation.
>> but not enough to protect it from the
>>> people that take the money. The people that benefit the most, are the
>>> 1% that don't participate in the scheme.
>>
>> The 1% who pay no tax at all do not in fact get much in the way
>> of government services at all.
>>
>> In fact in the US the bottom HALF pay no net federal income tax at all.
> Ah, I wasn't thinking about the bottom.
But they clearly do benefit even more than your 1% because
not only do they get quite a bit from the government in
services and even cash with quite a few of them, they
don’t pay any net federal income tax for that either.
> I was thinking about the top that are smart enough
> to find ways to not particate in the system,
The bottom half are even smarter. Not only don’t they pay
any net federal income tax, they get the federal government
services and often federal government money too.
> as I said originally,
Nothing like what you said originally in fact.
> but for which you missed.
No I did not.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99563 is a reply to message #99551] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 01:00 |
jklam
Messages: 43
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:MqItrC.1tJM@kithrup.com...
> In article <51E52C1B.AE6D0C18@bytecraft.com>,
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>> See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>> and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in valuation caused by the
>>> loss in value of that money, then, the tax rate isn't the 15% of the
>>> gain, but rather 15% of the 90% of the wealth over that time frame.
>>>
>>> The interesting question is, should we create a system where the CEO
>>> has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock? In the private
>>> markets, the CEO's goal is actually to cause the share price to go up,
>>> and he is rewarded if that happens. If it goes down, likely he will
>>> find himself out of a job. The government is rewarded when they
>>> destroy the value of money. Ever ask yourself why the value of money
>>> always goes down? Probably not. Think about it.
>>
>> Currency value actually moves around like the stock market.
>
> I didn't know that the stock market was engineered to provide negative
> results:
>
> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
>
> learn something new everyday, thanks. Rome engineered negative
> results. The Weimar republic engineered negative results. We
> engineer negative results.
>
>> at the same time the US currency has devalued.
>
> Hum, ever wonder why the system is engineered to do that?
It isn't. It’s the inevitable result of inflation and the system
isn't engineered to do that, its inevitable for various reasons.
> If so, why?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99573 is a reply to message #99562] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 02:32 |
mrs
Messages: 42
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <b5edvlFiulcU1@mid.individual.net>, jklam <jkl@nlgrf.com> wrote:
> "Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
> news:MqIsnE.1rut@kithrup.com...
>> In article <b4k1g4Ftls1U1@mid.individual.net>, jklam <jkl@nlgrf.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>>
>>> That does not happen in any well run economy.
>>
>> So, is the US's economy well run?
>
> That hasn’t happened with the US economy in the time scale being discussed.
You see above, where I pick the X years. Let me make is absolutely
concrete for you, I pick 70 years. I get to do that, since the X I
said, was mine. I'm sorry if you think I was talking about a time
span other than the time span I picked.
> That isn't your scenario
Uhm, yes, it is. I was commenting on the government devaluing its
currency by 90% over X years. To clarify, I said that is seem to be
around 70. It was my statement, my scenario.
> and the value of the USD is not determined by the CPI.
So, I've invited you to share your valuation for the US dollar. What is it?
Now, I will note that authors of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation like purchasing power metrics
and CPI for at least part of the answer. I'm curious which valuation you
like. PCEPI? GDP deflator? PPI? CCI? ECI?
>> and
>>
>> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
>
> That gives a completely different result over the timescale we are
> discussing.
I was discussing X years, which, I've now clarified seems to be around
70 years. You can point out the metric you like, and we can see how
many years ago the value of money was 10x the current value. I'm
happy to hear how you value money. Please, share.
>> but, I don't know that's the best stat to view.
>
> Neither are.
Excellent, that means that you have an opinion. Help me change mine,
surely it is wrong. What metric should I use instead?
> 200 years is not the timescale being discussed.
I think you think I was stating something I was not. Let's move past
that. Instead, let me ask how many years it would require using the
metric _you_ like for the valuation of money for it to be reduced by
90%, if we are to assume that we can predict the future trend of that
metric by performance over the last 70 years.
>> Let me know what you think best represents the valuation of money.
>> Feel free to quote a chat of that valuation over time for a fixed value.
>
> I just pointed out that your scenario does not happen in the
> economies being discussed over the time scale being discussed.
I'm looking for information content from you, like, for example, how
you value money. The above isn't responsive to my request for
information.
>> By quoting CPI or wholesale price index, I don't really advocate
>> either, don't dwell of those two. I think any valuation of money
>> would tend to show essentially the same thing,
>
> They don't with your scenario in the economies
> being discussed over the timescale being discussed.
Again, you can stop mindlessly repeating that. Instead, is there any
reason why you cannot answer the question, how do you value money?
I'm fine if you don't want to answer that, but please, could you
explain why you don't want to answer it. My fingers hurt, I've not
formalized it, I read it in a book, but can't recall what it's called.
>>>> and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in
>>>> valuation caused by the loss in value of that money,
>
>>> That does not happen in any modern first or second world tax system
>>> either, because most of the capital gain on the principle residence is
>>> not taxed in any of those.
>
>> Residence? I wasn't talking about residences.
>
> That is where most normal taxpayers see the bulk of their capital gain.
No where in my post, did I comment about normal tax payers. Indeed,
the only people I mentioned where the people that are the 1% that
don't participate in paying taxes and the people that might be able to
get into that bracket, if the game weren't rigged to prevent it. I
don't think either group are normal tax payers.
>> And residences have a cap, so, what you say isn't true of some
>> transactions.
>
> Yes, but those were not the ones we were discussing.
I think you think I'm trying to say something, I'm not. Instead of
dwelling on what you think I was trying to say, dwell on the questions
I pose.
> Yes you are. Capital gain is only taxed when it is realized,
> not every year while ever you continue to hold that asset.
Yeah, everyone knows that. And yet, my point remains. When the gold
is sold (or any asset) or traded, that, until then, tax liability, is
_then_ realized. Try speaking to this.
>>>> The interesting question is, should we create a system where
>>>> the CEO has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock?
>
>>> Obviously not.
>
>> Oh, that was a metaphoric question,
>
> No such animal.
>
> It was actually a rhetorical question.
No, I did want an answer for the question, but the answer I wanted you
to answer was for president. I'm sorry you didn't understand that.
Since you provide an answer below for that, we can move past this,
thank you for answering.
>> the real question was, should we create a system
>> where the president, the congress and the senate
>> are incentivized to so devalue a currency?
>
> Obviously not.
Ok, thanks for the answer. Then, would you prefer changes to the
system to not so incentivized them or is devaluation not a problem
worth the cost of trying to fix it? If worth trying to solve, what
would those changes look like?
>>> I know why it does, we call that inflation which is inevitable for various
>>> reasons.
>
>> Oh, so, then you agree with me then?
>
> No.
I said that inflation was inevitable, you said it was inevitable. On
this we seem to agree.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99574 is a reply to message #99563] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 03:13 |
mrs
Messages: 42
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <b5ee5hFivp4U1@mid.individual.net>, jklam <jkl@nlgrf.com> wrote:
> "Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
> news:MqItrC.1tJM@kithrup.com...
>> In article <51E52C1B.AE6D0C18@bytecraft.com>,
>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>>> See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>>> and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in valuation caused by the
>>>> loss in value of that money, then, the tax rate isn't the 15% of the
>>>> gain, but rather 15% of the 90% of the wealth over that time frame.
>>>>
>>>> The interesting question is, should we create a system where the CEO
>>>> has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock? In the private
>>>> markets, the CEO's goal is actually to cause the share price to go up,
>>>> and he is rewarded if that happens. If it goes down, likely he will
>>>> find himself out of a job. The government is rewarded when they
>>>> destroy the value of money. Ever ask yourself why the value of money
>>>> always goes down? Probably not. Think about it.
>>>
>>> Currency value actually moves around like the stock market.
>>
>> I didn't know that the stock market was engineered to provide negative
>> results:
>>
>> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
>>
>> learn something new everyday, thanks. Rome engineered negative
>> results. The Weimar republic engineered negative results. We
>> engineer negative results.
>>
>>> at the same time the US currency has devalued.
>>
>> Hum, ever wonder why the system is engineered to do that?
>
> It isn't. It’s the inevitable result of inflation and the system
> isn't engineered to do that, its inevitable for various reasons.
I've a engineer a throttle to put gas into an engine, would you say
that the resulting increase in RPM was inevitable (assuming an normal
car in park for a second)? Would you not also say that it was
engineered? I ask this to help understand your point, as I'm not
getting it. See, I see the increase as both inevitable and
engineered.
Or, maybe you don't understand the linkage of valuation and inflation?
Do you see devaluation as the result of inflation?
Ah, I know, maybe you don't realize that the money system is
engineered by men making choices that do affect it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy seems to have a
reasonable description of the basics, if they are unfamiliar to you.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99576 is a reply to message #99573] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 03:51 |
jklam
Messages: 43
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:MqJ667.AMw@kithrup.com...
> In article <b5edvlFiulcU1@mid.individual.net>, jklam <jkl@nlgrf.com>
> wrote:
>> "Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>> news:MqIsnE.1rut@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <b4k1g4Ftls1U1@mid.individual.net>, jklam <jkl@nlgrf.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> > See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>>>
>>>> That does not happen in any well run economy.
>>>
>>> So, is the US's economy well run?
>>
>> That hasn’t happened with the US economy in the time scale being
>> discussed.
> You see above, where I pick the X years.
That isnt what was being discussed when you jumped into the thread.
> Let me make is absolutely concrete for you, I pick 70 years.
That isnt what was being discussed when you jumped into the thread.
> I get to do that, since the X I said, was mine.
It isnt what was being discussed when you jumped into the thread.
> I'm sorry if you think I was talking about a
> time span other than the time span I picked.
It isnt what was being discussed when you jumped into the thread.
>> That isn't your scenario
> Uhm, yes, it is. I was commenting on the government
> devaluing its currency by 90% over X years.
It isnt what was being discussed when you jumped into the thread.
> To clarify, I said that is seem to be around 70.
> It was my statement, my scenario.
It isnt what was being discussed when you jumped into the thread.
>> and the value of the USD is not determined by the CPI.
> So, I've invited you to share your valuation for the US dollar. What is
> it?
There isnt any nice tidy simple valuation.
> Now, I will note that authors of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation like purchasing power metrics
> and CPI for at least part of the answer. I'm curious which valuation you
> like. PCEPI? GDP deflator? PPI? CCI? ECI?
There isnt any nice tidy simple valuation.
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
>>
>> That gives a completely different result over the timescale we are
>> discussing.
> I was discussing X years,
It isnt what was being discussed when you jumped into the thread.
> which, I've now clarified seems to be around 70 years.
> You can point out the metric you like,
There isnt any nice tidy simple metric.
> and we can see how many years ago the
> value of money was 10x the current value.
Irrelevant to what was being discussed
when you jumped into the thread.
> I'm happy to hear how you value money.
There is no nice tidy simple valuation.
> Please, share.
Not possible.
>>> but, I don't know that's the best stat to view.
>>
>> Neither are.
> Excellent, that means that you have an opinion. Help me change
> mine, surely it is wrong. What metric should I use instead?
There isnt any nice tidy simple metric.
>> 200 years is not the timescale being discussed.
> I think you think I was stating something I was not.
No, I was pointing out what was being
discussed when you jumped into this thread.
> Let's move past that. Instead, let me ask how many years it would
> require using the metric _you_ like for the valuation of money for it
> to be reduced by 90%, if we are to assume that we can predict the
> future trend of that metric by performance over the last 70 years.
There isnt any nice tidy simple metric.
>>> Let me know what you think best represents the valuation of money.
>>> Feel free to quote a chat of that valuation over time for a fixed value.
>>
>> I just pointed out that your scenario does not happen in the
>> economies being discussed over the time scale being discussed.
> I'm looking for information content from you,
> like, for example, how you value money.
There isnt any nice tidy simple metric.
> The above isn't responsive to my request for information.
Your request has no answer.
>>> By quoting CPI or wholesale price index, I don't really advocate
>>> either, don't dwell of those two. I think any valuation of money
>>> would tend to show essentially the same thing,
>>
>> They don't with your scenario in the economies
>> being discussed over the timescale being discussed.
> Again, you can stop mindlessly repeating that.
No thanks, and it isnt mindlessly either.
> Instead, is there any reason why you cannot
> answer the question, how do you value money?
Yes, there is no answer for your mindlessly simplistic question.
> I'm fine if you don't want to answer that, but please,
> could you explain why you don't want to answer it.
I did answer that, and have now told you
why what you want isn't even possible.
> My fingers hurt, I've not formalized it, I read
> it in a book, but can't recall what it's called.
>>>> > and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in
>>>> > valuation caused by the loss in value of that money,
>>
>>>> That does not happen in any modern first or second world tax system
>>>> either, because most of the capital gain on the principle residence is
>>>> not taxed in any of those.
>>
>>> Residence? I wasn't talking about residences.
>>
>> That is where most normal taxpayers see the bulk of their capital gain.
> No where in my post, did I comment about normal tax payers.
It is however what was being discussed when you jumped into this thread.
> Indeed, the only people I mentioned where the people that are the 1%
> that don't participate in paying taxes and the people that might be able
> to get into that bracket, if the game weren't rigged to prevent it. I
> don't think either group are normal tax payers.
It is however what was being discussed when you jumped into this thread.
>>> And residences have a cap, so, what you say isn't true of some
>>> transactions.
>>
>> Yes, but those were not the ones we were discussing.
> I think you think I'm trying to say something, I'm not.
No, I know what was being discussed when you jumped into this thread.
> Instead of dwelling on what you think I was trying to say,
I did nothing of the sort.
> dwell on the questions I pose.
No thanks, they are mindlessly simplistic.
>> Yes you are. Capital gain is only taxed when it is realized,
>> not every year while ever you continue to hold that asset.
> Yeah, everyone knows that. And yet, my point remains.
No it does not. Your original ignored that
fundamental of how capital gains are taxed.
> When the gold is sold (or any asset) or traded,
> that, until then, tax liability, is _then_ realized.
But your mindlessly simplistic statement about
the result you would get does not apply because
you did not allow for the way capital gains are taxed.
> Try speaking to this.
Already did when I rubbed your nose in the fact that
your original ignored the way capital gains are taxed.
>>>> > The interesting question is, should we create a system where
>>>> > the CEO has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock?
>>
>>>> Obviously not.
>>
>>> Oh, that was a metaphoric question,
>>
>> No such animal.
>>
>> It was actually a rhetorical question.
> No,
Yep.
> I did want an answer for the question, but the
> answer I wanted you to answer was for president.
Try that again in english when not completely blotto.
> I'm sorry you didn't understand that. Since
> you provide an answer below for that, we
> can move past this, thank you for answering.
>>> the real question was, should we create a system
>>> where the president, the congress and the senate
>>> are incentivized to so devalue a currency?
>>
>> Obviously not.
>
> Ok, thanks for the answer. Then, would you prefer
> changes to the system to not so incentivized them
I don’t want any changes to the system.
> or is devaluation not a problem worth the cost of trying to fix it?
Its not even possible to avoid that.
> If worth trying to solve,
It isn't, because its not possible.
> what would those changes look like?
There aren't any that would avoid that.
>>>> I know why it does, we call that inflation which is inevitable for
>>>> various
>>>> reasons.
>>
>>> Oh, so, then you agree with me then?
>>
>> No.
> I said that inflation was inevitable, you said
> it was inevitable. On this we seem to agree.
Yes, but not on anything else.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99577 is a reply to message #99574] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 03:55 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:MqJ82n.E0t@kithrup.com...
> In article <b5ee5hFivp4U1@mid.individual.net>, jklam <jkl@nlgrf.com>
> wrote:
>> "Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>> news:MqItrC.1tJM@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <51E52C1B.AE6D0C18@bytecraft.com>,
>>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>>> > See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>>> > and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in valuation caused by the
>>>> > loss in value of that money, then, the tax rate isn't the 15% of the
>>>> > gain, but rather 15% of the 90% of the wealth over that time frame.
>>>> >
>>>> > The interesting question is, should we create a system where the CEO
>>>> > has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock? In the private
>>>> > markets, the CEO's goal is actually to cause the share price to go up,
>>>> > and he is rewarded if that happens. If it goes down, likely he will
>>>> > find himself out of a job. The government is rewarded when they
>>>> > destroy the value of money. Ever ask yourself why the value of money
>>>> > always goes down? Probably not. Think about it.
>>>>
>>>> Currency value actually moves around like the stock market.
>>>
>>> I didn't know that the stock market was engineered to provide negative
>>> results:
>>>
>>> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
>>>
>>> learn something new everyday, thanks. Rome engineered negative
>>> results. The Weimar republic engineered negative results. We
>>> engineer negative results.
>>>
>>>> at the same time the US currency has devalued.
>>>
>>> Hum, ever wonder why the system is engineered to do that?
>>
>> It isn't. It’s the inevitable result of inflation and the system
>> isn't engineered to do that, its inevitable for various reasons.
> I've a engineer a throttle to put gas into an engine, would you say
> that the resulting increase in RPM was inevitable (assuming an normal
> car in park for a second)?
Irrelevant to how modern first world economies work.
> Would you not also say that it was engineered?
> I ask this to help understand your point, as I'm not
> getting it. See, I see the increase as both inevitable and
> engineered.
It isnt engineered with modern first world economies.
> Or, maybe you don't understand the linkage of valuation and inflation?
Corse I do. But that isn't engineered either.
> Do you see devaluation as the result of inflation?
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt.
> Ah, I know, maybe you don't realize that the money system
> is engineered by men making choices that do affect it?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy seems to have a
> reasonable description of the basics, if they are unfamiliar to you.
They aren't. And that doesn’t explain why the money printing we have
seen lately has not produced any significant increase in inflation.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99584 is a reply to message #99563] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 08:02 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/26/2013 1:00 AM, jklam wrote:
>
>
> "Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
> news:MqItrC.1tJM@kithrup.com...
>> In article <51E52C1B.AE6D0C18@bytecraft.com>,
>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>>> See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>>> and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in valuation caused by the
>>>> loss in value of that money, then, the tax rate isn't the 15% of the
>>>> gain, but rather 15% of the 90% of the wealth over that time frame.
>>>>
>>>> The interesting question is, should we create a system where the CEO
>>>> has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock? In the private
>>>> markets, the CEO's goal is actually to cause the share price to go up,
>>>> and he is rewarded if that happens. If it goes down, likely he will
>>>> find himself out of a job. The government is rewarded when they
>>>> destroy the value of money. Ever ask yourself why the value of money
>>>> always goes down? Probably not. Think about it.
>>>
>>> Currency value actually moves around like the stock market.
>>
>> I didn't know that the stock market was engineered to provide negative
>> results:
>>
>> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
>>
>> learn something new everyday, thanks. Rome engineered negative
>> results. The Weimar republic engineered negative results. We
>> engineer negative results.
>>
>>> at the same time the US currency has devalued.
>>
>> Hum, ever wonder why the system is engineered to do that?
>
> It isn't. It’s the inevitable result of inflation and the system
> isn't engineered to do that, its inevitable for various reasons.
That's what inflation *is*, gradual unannounced devaluation of the
currency. It's just two ways of looking at the same thing. It wouldn't
be /quite/ so bad if they weren't gaming the statistics at the same
time. They're claiming no inflation, so therefore no social security
cost-of-living raises, etc. when it's obvious to anyone that this just
isn't so.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99585 is a reply to message #99573] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 08:06 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/26/2013 2:32 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>
> I'm looking for information content from you, like, for example, how
> you value money. The above isn't responsive to my request for
> information.
I think you're talking to another of Rod's sock puppets. Information is
the last thing you're going to get.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99586 is a reply to message #99551] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 08:09 |
Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <51E52C1B.AE6D0C18@bytecraft.com>,
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>> See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>> and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in valuation caused by the
>>> loss in value of that money, then, the tax rate isn't the 15% of the
>>> gain, but rather 15% of the 90% of the wealth over that time frame.
>>>
>>> The interesting question is, should we create a system where the CEO
>>> has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock? In the private
>>> markets, the CEO's goal is actually to cause the share price to go up,
>>> and he is rewarded if that happens. If it goes down, likely he will
>>> find himself out of a job. The government is rewarded when they
>>> destroy the value of money. Ever ask yourself why the value of money
>>> always goes down? Probably not. Think about it.
>>
>> Currency value actually moves around like the stock market.
>
> I didn't know that the stock market was engineered to provide negative results:
>
> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
>
> learn something new everyday, thanks. Rome engineered negative
> results. The Weimar republic engineered negative results. We
> engineer negative results.
>
>> at the same time the US currency has devalued.
>
> Hum, ever wonder why the system is engineered to do that? If so, why?
Go back and re-read my comments on currency, my examples are
on countries where currency is free to move in or out and be traded
and those currencies find relative values in a way similar to the stock
market. Short term currencies can be manipulated by countries, the
us fed can control the rate of new currency being added to the supply
and that will have an effect on its trading value.
Other countries, Japan and China for example have currency controls
that has a significant effect on trading values. In China's case they want
to take advantage of the balance of payments cash flow, Japan to
create an artificially high Yen to protect home industries from imports.
w..
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99590 is a reply to message #99468] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 09:00 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> So, I still don't understand how you think your tax rate "doubled".
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Because the tax I pay doubled. Since it's the same income from last
>>>> >>year, the rate had to have doubled.
>>>> >
>>>> > Or you no longer qualified for one or more exemptions,
>>>>
>>>> SAme exemptions.
>>>
>>> The personal exemption changes from year to year.
>>
>> Yes, I know. It went up.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > or you had
>>>> > fewer deductions,
>>>>
>>>> I don't do Schedule A.
>>>
>>> There is still the standard deduction, of course, which changes from
year
>> to year.
>>
>> I know. Why do you keep tryig to "prove" that everything I write is wrong?
>
> The point is we know that there is essentially no change in dividend tax
> this year. So, we all know you are wrong. Believe it or not, we don't
> take any extra enjoyment from that (except for Speedo). In this case
> you should take this as us being helpful.
>
> I just checked publication 505 and worksheet 2-7 and it left me
> scratching my head. They do mention 15% but maybe someone more patient
> can figure out the whole deal.
>
> Still, you file 1040ES because you want to avoid penalties on under
> withholding. It's very clear that your tax rate is 15% or less.
> I wouldn't send in any more than 15%.
>
> If you over withhold you'll get it back at the end of the year
> but they won't pay interest for your generosity.
>
> So, in conclusion:
>
> 1. We're just trying to help.
I understand that. But all you're doing is looking and comparing two
tables. You're not calculating the part of the AGI those tables apply to.
> 2. Your taxes have not doubled.
That's not what my bottom line shows.
> 3. You can thank Obama now, or later.
Not a chance.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99593 is a reply to message #99466] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 09:00 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>> You may wish to enlighten us as to your working definition of
>>> "tax rate", then, since nobody else can match your calculations.
>>> (for the purposes of this discussion, I suggest you compute your overall
>>> tax rate, as "gross tax" / "gross income"). You should have no problem
>>> showing where the "doubling" occurs.
>>
>> I sugggest you figure out the difference between 2112 tax rules and 2013
>> tax rules. On April 14th, the only way to get them is to obey the 1040-ES
>> instructions.
>>
>
> I will leave you with this: The 1040ES rules are simple approximations.
Yes, I know and they are usually really wrong in both too much or too little.
So I use the changes documented in the ES instructions and do a full-blown
tax return using the previous year's forms. I've always done it this way.
> The
> 2013 tax forms haven't been published yet, so you cannot make any valid
comparison
> between 2012 and 2013.
I can make a valid comparison w.r.t. the Dec. 31,2012 tax law. I'm very
aware that more llaws can be passed during the year and it is my
responsibility to keep up with those changes just in case they increase
the amount of tax I'll owe on Apr 15th, 2014.
> FWIW, I paid 20.19% effective tax rate (total tax / agi * 100)
> in 2011 and 20.86% in 2012. I expect that to be about 23% in 2013 due to
various
> factors, including the ACA medicare tax. Not doubled by any metric. The
1040ES
> intentionally overestimates the required taxes to avoid underpayment
penalties.
But it sounds like the majority of your AGI is salaried; that's earned
income. I'm talking about unearned income.
>
> I'll also note that the AMT was patched in the fiscal-cliff deal by indexing
it to
> inflation. It is no longer necessary for congress to patch the AMT each
year.
>
> "Far from perfect, this legislation does include a permanent fix to the
> ever-growing AMT, giving millions of hard-working, middle-class families
> certainty that the nightmare of this tax has finally come to an end"
> - Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah told ABC News.
>
> 2012 (single rate)
>
> 10% on $0 to $8700
> 15% on 8700 to 35350
> 25% on 35350 to 85650
> 28% on 85650 to 178650
> 33% on 178,650 to 388,350
> 35% on amount over 388350.
>
> 2013 (single rate, proposed, not final)
>
> 10% on $0 to $8925
> 15% on 8925 to 36250
> 25% on 36250 to 87850
> 28% on 87850 to 183250
> 33% on 183250 to 398350
> 35% on 398360 to 400000
> 39.6% on amount over 400000.
>
> Someone on a fixed income will likely pay _less taxes_ in 2013 than in
2012 (assuming the
> fixed income is less than 400000).
>
> You claimed that your tax rate doubled. You still need to "show your
work".
I'm not about to publish figures. I told you to fill out the forms which
you didn't do. You keep pointing at a table which is used _after_ althernate
AGI compartments are calculated. To calculate tax owed, you don't take Form
1040, line 43's amount and mullitply the above percentages. YOu have to use
the worksheets which give a very differnt number. If I owe twice the amount
this year, my taxes doubled. Why can't you understand that?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99597 is a reply to message #99527] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 09:00 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rich Alderson wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:
>
>>> <-Snrk!->
>
>>> His project was connected to the AI Lab, so by definition he couldn't have
>>> stolen time on that computer, since computers want to be freely available!
;->
>
>> Yes, and I was just making a joke based on the recent posts about Bill
>> Gates using the computer at Harvard.
>
> Yes, I know. That's why I decorated my response with smirks and related
noises.
>
If we ever meet, I'm going to ask you to say <-Snrk!->
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99598 is a reply to message #99495] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 09:00 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stan Barr wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:01:00 -0400, Charlton Wilbur
> <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>
>> In case you're not: Rod is failing to distinguish between Unix and
>> Linux, and doesn't seem to realize that 4.3BSD-Tahoe was free software
>> released under the BSD license in June 1988, approximately three years
>> before Linus started work on Linux and over three years before the
>> famous post in comp.os.minix. In 1991, you could run 4.3BSD-Reno with
>> Net/2 (released June 1991); in 1992 you could run 386BSD.
>>
>> So when Rod says
>>
>>>> the linux stream ended so useful that even Apple chose to use it
>>>> for their mainstream OS with their own user interface added.
>>
>> what he *means* is "Unix makes a solid underpinning for an OS, and the
>> fact that the BSD license isn't viral makes it an attractive decision
>> for a proprietary software company to use the well-tested and publicly
>> available BSD source code as a basis for a proprietary operating
>> system."
>>
>> This has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux.
>
> Quite!
> I'm using FreeBSD these days (been using on other machines for over a
> decade) and every visitor just assumes it's some species of Linux.
> I've put a unix family tree on the wall that starts with Unix 1st
> Edition (1972) and ends with FreeBSD with no mention of Linux just to
> prove the point.
>
<grin> And I can remember posts and topics which were discussing
the little impact Linux might have. Providing sources without
_any_ strings attached made it become what it is today.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99599 is a reply to message #99439] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 09:00 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <Y%RHt.144721$ny.83768@fx14.iad>,
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 23-Jul-13 08:57, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> > Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> >> On 22-Jul-13 07:45, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>> No. I'm against increases taxes now becuase it's the spending
>>>> >>> which is ouot of control. Increaseing taxes will only cause
>>>> >>> Congress to increase spending, not decrease it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In the 1990s, Clinton increased taxes on the rich
>>>> >
>>>> > That was the first time Congress passed a tax increase which was
>>>> > retroactive. Nobody objected.
>>>>
>>>> The rich objected; so did their puppets in Congress and talk radio.
>>>
>>> They objected to the incrase. Nobody mentioned the retroactive
>>> piece of it. Another odd thing was the people who owed the higher
>>> taxes were given 3 years to pay them.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> and for the first time in decades, we had a balanced budget (as
>>>> >> long as you ignore interested on past debt).
>>>> >
>>>> > And social security.
>>>>
>>>> That includes Social Security, which was running a surplus back then.
>>>
>>> You can't count that as balanced if part of the balancing relied on
>>> borrowing from that section of the budget.
>>
>> It was a surplus, not just balanced. And it wasn't an accounting trick,
>> the collected FICA taxes exceeded the social security payouts until
>> very recently. The excess was known as the Social Security Trust Fund
>> and was intended to be invested and used whenever the collected taxes
>> were less than the amount paid out. Unfortunately, Congress in their
>> very finite wisdom, spent the excess (or more correctly included it in
>> the general budget to offset deficit spending) so here we are.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Military spending decreased sequentially every year from 1984 to 1997,
>>>> i.e. including under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Clinton is actually the
>>>> one who reversed that trend, in 1998.
>>>
>>>
>>> Clinton reorg'ed the military with the assummption that would be only
>>> one theatre of war at a time. then he boasted about all the "savings"
>>> in leiu of national security.
>>
>> No, he didn't. The military had an explicit "two-front" posture
>> during the entire Clinton years.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clinton was, however, responsible for "gutting" the CIA's human
>>>> intelligence resources. Even Dubya didn't repeal the Executive Order
>>>> that caused all the problems, though, nor did Congress override it.
>>>
>>> National security was a non-goal in the Democrat leadership. It
>>> still seems to be that way.
>>
>> Your statement bears little relationship to reality.
>>
>>
>>>> We had to do something, sure. For instance, assassinating Bin Laden
>>>> would have been a good move. For that matter, so would taking out the
>>>> Saudi royal family, who provide most of the funding for Islamic
>>>> terrorism--including both WTC attacks.
>>>>
>>>> There was reasonable justification for invading Afghanistan, so I won't
>>>> bother arguing against it; at minimum, it was necessary to appease an
>>>> outraged American populace.
>>>
>>> I thought you had written that both wars were useless.
>>
>> "Appeasing outraged americans" as a justification means that
>> it was useless. Neither war has accomplished anything other than
>> increase the violence and decrease the stability of the middle east,
>> tthat certainly makes them useless to any objective observer.
>
> Worse than useless, actually.
Oh? Before those wars no Islamic moderates spoke publicly. Now
I hear lots of opinions which don't parrot their imams. The extremists
no longer have control over their indoctrination effects becuase
of twitters and text messaging and other wireless comm devices.
Someboyd objected to the extremists and the moderates watched.
now they're beginning to say no to murder and suicide. The
anti-Assasin movement is just beginning. it can stop overnight if
Western Civilization decides to put its collective head in the sand.
I don't remember how long it took for the Assassins to be elminated;
the current task is more difficult becuase there are more unrelated
groups playing Assasin. The Taliban are biting every hand that feeds
them. I really don't understand their thinking...unless they aren't
as organized as perceived and are just a couople hundred roving bands
of bandits. But this one doesn't make any sense either.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99606 is a reply to message #99599] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 11:00 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> Worse than useless, actually.
>
> Oh? Before those wars no Islamic moderates spoke publicly.
That you remember. Trust me, they were always there, and always
speaking. It wasn't interesting to the press, so they didn't
bother reporting on it.
scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99615 is a reply to message #99593] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 13:13 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 26-Jul-13 08:00, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Someone on a fixed income will likely pay _less taxes_ in 2013
>> than in 2012 (assuming the fixed income is less than 400000).
>>
>> You claimed that your tax rate doubled. You still need to "show
>> your work".
>
> I'm not about to publish figures.
You're the one making outlandish claims, so the burden is on you to
substantiate them. If you don't want to give us your real income, which
is understandable, then you must provide a realistic example that
demonstrates the problem you're complaining about.
Of course, since it's mathematically impossible, I don't expect you to
do that any time soon. Instead, you'll continue to lie about how the
evil black man "doubled" your taxes.
> I told you to fill out the forms which you didn't do. You keep
> pointing at a table which is used _after_ althernate AGI compartments
> are calculated. To calculate tax owed, you don't take Form 1040,
> line 43's amount and mullitply the above percentages.
> YOu have to use the worksheets which give a very differnt number.
Well, the brackets are marginal rates, so you must account for the
portions of your income that fall into each bracket. The worksheets
accomplish that by multiplying your income by the marginal rate and then
subtracting a pre-calculated amount (which varies by bracket) to account
for the portion of your income in the lower brackets.
For instance, if your taxable income in 2013 was $50,000, you would owe
10% from $0 to $8,925, 15% from $8,925 to $36,250, 25% from $36,250 to
$50,000. You could calculate that this way:
8,925*0.10 + (36,250-8,925)*0.15 + (50,000-36,250)*0.25 = 8,428.75
but you can get the same result with less math:
50,000*0.25 - 4,071.25 = 8,428.75
Note that, since _every_ bracket shifted upward from 2012 to 2013,
someone with a fixed income would owe _less_ tax in 2013, except for
those who fall into the reinstated 39.6% bracket, which you already
admitted does not apply to you.
> If I owe twice the amount this year, my taxes doubled. Why can't
> you understand that?
We're not arguing the definition of "doubled"; we are arguing that,
according to the very forms you are pointing to and your claim that your
income was "the same" from one year to the next, there exists no input
for which the outputs could have doubled.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99621 is a reply to message #99598] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 14:55 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <PM0004E2697CE330D2@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> <grin> And I can remember posts and topics which were discussing
> the little impact Linux might have. Providing sources without
> _any_ strings attached made it become what it is today.
>
> /BAH
Actually there are more strings to linux than *BSD...
It all depends what you want to do. If you want to be forced to open up
sources for your commercial product to the world including competitors -- GPL.
If not -- the BSD license works for most of us.
Nothing stops BSD licensed code from being given freely to all
purchasers of your product. No gpl needed... you can use for any uses
you'd like that doesn't violate the license.
Hell... I released some of my stuff as Public Domain. Have fun. Just
don't call me for support without paying me for it.
Bill
--
--
Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-pechter.dyndns.org http://xkcd.com/705/
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99623 is a reply to message #99621] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 15:26 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
pechter@tucker.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes:
> In article <PM0004E2697CE330D2@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> <grin> And I can remember posts and topics which were discussing
>> the little impact Linux might have. Providing sources without
>> _any_ strings attached made it become what it is today.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Actually there are more strings to linux than *BSD...
>
> It all depends what you want to do. If you want to be forced to open up
> sources for your commercial product to the world including competitors -- GPL.
>
> If not -- the BSD license works for most of us.
In fact, one could argue (successfully), that the BSD license is "more free"
than the GPL, since it applies no restrictions to the receiver of the
source code (other than continuation of the copyright notice), unlike the GPL
which limits the freedom of the person using the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99625 is a reply to message #99584] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 16:06 |
jklam
Messages: 43
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ksto2s$d8p$1@dont-email.me...
> On 7/26/2013 1:00 AM, jklam wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>> news:MqItrC.1tJM@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <51E52C1B.AE6D0C18@bytecraft.com>,
>>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>>> > See, if they devalue money to just 10% of what it was over X years,
>>>> > and everybody pays income on the 90% gain in valuation caused by the
>>>> > loss in value of that money, then, the tax rate isn't the 15% of the
>>>> > gain, but rather 15% of the 90% of the wealth over that time frame.
>>>> >
>>>> > The interesting question is, should we create a system where the CEO
>>>> > has an incentive to destroy the value of the stock? In the private
>>>> > markets, the CEO's goal is actually to cause the share price to go up,
>>>> > and he is rewarded if that happens. If it goes down, likely he will
>>>> > find himself out of a job. The government is rewarded when they
>>>> > destroy the value of money. Ever ask yourself why the value of money
>>>> > always goes down? Probably not. Think about it.
>>>>
>>>> Currency value actually moves around like the stock market.
>>>
>>> I didn't know that the stock market was engineered to provide negative
>>> results:
>>>
>>> http://www.wealthwire.com/news/inflation/1134
>>>
>>> learn something new everyday, thanks. Rome engineered negative
>>> results. The Weimar republic engineered negative results. We
>>> engineer negative results.
>>>
>>>> at the same time the US currency has devalued.
>>>
>>> Hum, ever wonder why the system is engineered to do that?
>>
>> It isn't. It’s the inevitable result of inflation and the system
>> isn't engineered to do that, its inevitable for various reasons.
>
> That's what inflation *is*, gradual unannounced devaluation of the
> currency. It's just two ways of looking at the same thing.
Yes, I was commenting on whether its deliberately ENGINEERED there.
It wouldn't
> be /quite/ so bad if they weren't gaming the statistics at the same time.
> They're claiming no inflation, so therefore no social security
> cost-of-living raises, etc. when it's obvious to anyone that this just
> isn't so.
Its more that measuring inflation is complicated. There is significant
deflation in the real estate market, and it's very arguable what the
SS cost of living raises should be linked to. To some extent they
should certainly be linked to inflation in the price of food and other
essential things that those on SS spend on, but they all are affected
by real estate prices too, if only in the rent they have to pay.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99642 is a reply to message #99599] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 16:22 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E2699E0A4914@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com...
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <Y%RHt.144721$ny.83768@fx14.iad>,
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> > On 23-Jul-13 08:57, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> >>> On 22-Jul-13 07:45, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >>>> No. I'm against increases taxes now becuase it's the spending
>>>> >>>> which is ouot of control. Increaseing taxes will only cause
>>>> >>>> Congress to increase spending, not decrease it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> In the 1990s, Clinton increased taxes on the rich
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That was the first time Congress passed a tax increase which was
>>>> >> retroactive. Nobody objected.
>>>> >
>>>> > The rich objected; so did their puppets in Congress and talk radio.
>>>>
>>>> They objected to the incrase. Nobody mentioned the retroactive
>>>> piece of it. Another odd thing was the people who owed the higher
>>>> taxes were given 3 years to pay them.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>> and for the first time in decades, we had a balanced budget (as
>>>> >>> long as you ignore interested on past debt).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And social security.
>>>> >
>>>> > That includes Social Security, which was running a surplus back then.
>>>>
>>>> You can't count that as balanced if part of the balancing relied on
>>>> borrowing from that section of the budget.
>>>
>>> It was a surplus, not just balanced. And it wasn't an accounting
>>> trick,
>>> the collected FICA taxes exceeded the social security payouts until
>>> very recently. The excess was known as the Social Security Trust Fund
>>> and was intended to be invested and used whenever the collected taxes
>>> were less than the amount paid out. Unfortunately, Congress in their
>>> very finite wisdom, spent the excess (or more correctly included it in
>>> the general budget to offset deficit spending) so here we are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > Military spending decreased sequentially every year from 1984 to
>>>> > 1997,
>>>> > i.e. including under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Clinton is actually the
>>>> > one who reversed that trend, in 1998.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clinton reorg'ed the military with the assummption that would be only
>>>> one theatre of war at a time. then he boasted about all the "savings"
>>>> in leiu of national security.
>>>
>>> No, he didn't. The military had an explicit "two-front" posture
>>> during the entire Clinton years.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Clinton was, however, responsible for "gutting" the CIA's human
>>>> > intelligence resources. Even Dubya didn't repeal the Executive Order
>>>> > that caused all the problems, though, nor did Congress override it.
>>>>
>>>> National security was a non-goal in the Democrat leadership. It
>>>> still seems to be that way.
>>>
>>> Your statement bears little relationship to reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>> > We had to do something, sure. For instance, assassinating Bin Laden
>>>> > would have been a good move. For that matter, so would taking out
>>>> > the
>>>> > Saudi royal family, who provide most of the funding for Islamic
>>>> > terrorism--including both WTC attacks.
>>>> >
>>>> > There was reasonable justification for invading Afghanistan, so I
>>>> > won't
>>>> > bother arguing against it; at minimum, it was necessary to appease an
>>>> > outraged American populace.
>>>>
>>>> I thought you had written that both wars were useless.
>>>
>>> "Appeasing outraged americans" as a justification means that
>>> it was useless. Neither war has accomplished anything other than
>>> increase the violence and decrease the stability of the middle east,
>>> tthat certainly makes them useless to any objective observer.
>>
>> Worse than useless, actually.
> Oh?
Yep.
> Before those wars no Islamic moderates spoke publicly.
Bullshit. Plenty did. You may not have noticed that, but it happened anyway.
> Now I hear lots of opinions which don't parrot their imams.
There always were plenty of those.
> The extremists no longer have control over their indoctrination effects
> becuase of twitters and text messaging and other wireless comm devices.
They never did, even before those.
> Someboyd objected to the extremists and the moderates watched.
> now they're beginning to say no to murder and suicide.
They always did, long before the US was actually
stupid enough to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan.
That even happened during the partition
of India, even if you never noticed that.
And in Indonesia in spades. Which just happens to be BY
FAR the biggest islamic country in the entire fucking world.
> The anti-Assasin movement is just beginning.
There have been plenty of other examples of that sort of thing.
> it can stop overnight if Western Civilization
> decides to put its collective head in the sand.
Bullshit.
> I don't remember how long it took for the Assassins to be
> elminated; the current task is more difficult becuase there
> are more unrelated groups playing Assasin. The Taliban
> are biting every hand that feeds them.
No hand feeds them.
> I really don't understand their thinking...
Or anyone else's either.
> unless they aren't as organized as perceived
By pig ignorant americans.
> and are just a couople hundred roving bands of bandits.
They have always been much more than bandits.
> But this one doesn't make any sense either.
And is nothing even remotely resembling
anything like what they actually are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #99656 is a reply to message #99613] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 16:49 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ksu8p8$93j$2@dont-email.me...
> On 7/26/2013 12:55 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> In article <MqIw3s.1xtr@kithrup.com>, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump)
>> writes:
>>
>>> In article <b4o98jFrlp8U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > It gets completely forgotten when this ridiculous class warfare
>>>> > rhetoric starts.
>>>>
>>>> There is no class warfare rhetoric and hasn’t been for decades no
>>>
>>> That's the best class warfare rhetoric I've seen all week.
>>> Reminds me of the line, "We've always been at war with Eastasia"
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four.
>>>
>>> Or, maybe you don't live in the US?
>>
>> He doesn't; he lives in Australia.
> Like there's no class warfare in Oz?
There always has been, particularly with the irish immigrants.
Just like that has always been the case in the US too.
> How about the plan to send immigrants to New Guinea?
That is only the ILLEGALS, not all immigrants.
> That would be worse than us sending them to Oklahoma.
Yep, much worse. But the intention isnt to send very many
of them there, the intention is to tell them that if they try
to come here in boats illegally, they will be sent there,
and that is intended to stop them showing up in boats.
We have seen 18 THOUSAND of them show up that
way in just the last 6 months. They are almost entirely
from Iran, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan etc, fly into
Indonesia using normal airlines and then pay people
smugglers to move them in very small fishing vessels
to Christmas Island etc just off Indonesia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99666 is a reply to message #99552] |
Fri, 26 July 2013 20:34 |
Shmuel (Seymour J.) M
Messages: 3286
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In <MqItvA.1tu2@kithrup.com>, on 07/26/2013
at 02:06 AM, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) said:
> In article <51e540b4$11$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>, Shmuel
> (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: >In
> <Mq0G09.9sr@kithrup.com>, on 07/16/2013
>> at 03:50 AM, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) said:
>>
>>> Instead, consider this, what is the gain, if you have 1 kilogram
>>> of gold, and next year, you have 1 kilogram of gold. Ask a
>>> physicist. The will invariably say 0. Now, if you ask your tax
>>> accountant, they will explain to you, that you have to cut off a
>>> portion of the gold and give it to the government.
>>
>> ITYM ask *your* tax accountant. Ask mine and he'll explain that the
>> gain or loss has no tax ramifications unless and untill I sell or take
>> a writeoff.
> Ah, good, you agree with me than.
No, I do not agree with "Now, if you ask your tax accountant, they
will explain to you, that you have to cut off a portion of the gold
and give it to the government."
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
