The problem with consumption taxes is that if they are broad they tax the poor more (relatively speaking, not in dollar amounts obviously) than the rich. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it's there. If a consumption tax isn't broad then it becomes a political tool to encourage and discourage certain forms of consumption - and we are back to does the government or the market know best how to allocate resources.
Property taxes have their own problems, with property not usually being liquid but taxes needing to be paid now.
Income taxes are simple and reasonably efficient (until you add in deductions and rebates, which of course they always do). I agree that consumption taxes are much simpler and much more efficient, but introducing one spikes inflation which can be seriously bad for some people.
But yes, you can guarantee the cutoff will be lowered - if only automatically by inflation.
Take an amazingly well paid software engineer somehow earning $700,000/year and married with a non-working spouse who looks after the one kid. And ignoring deductions (which I'll naively assume are similar under both schemes).
In CA they would pay $66,700 in state income taxes. Under this proposal in WA they would pay $10,000 in state income taxes.
I really doubt that that CA weather wasn't worth paying an extra $66,700 in taxes but is worth paying an extra $55,700.
What exactly do you think an investment portfolio is?
Do you think it might have some component that isn't just gold sitting in a vault, but is say:
* investments in those corporations that use that investment to hire more people. * bonds from those corporations that use the borrowed money to hire more people. * term deposits in banks, who loan the money back out to those corporations to hire more people. * government treasuries, that the government that you think can do so much better uses to do that so much better with.
And yes some of it will be in foreign corporations (if Ballmer and Bezos have any smarts then a lot of it) - that's a reflection of other countries providing better investment environments.
Now this is a state tax so I'm actually on the side of the government here - states should be taxing and spending in order to provide education and so on to their people. If a state goes overboard it isn't very hard to move to another state. States are also small enough and close enough to "the action" to make more useful investments than the larger and more distant federal government.
WA has the lowest possible income tax at the moment, raising it to be still lower than almost every other state and definitily at least as low as every other state for most of the people doesn't seem like such a big deal.
Then an income of $200,000 makes you rich by any reasonble definition, not just on a "good salary".
All those people who earn $750,000 as an individual can just move states anyway.
After all they'd pay $40/year less in AL. $4,500/year less in AZ. $200/year less in CT. $150/year less in MS. $1030/year less in NM. $13,975/year less in PA. And of course the full $37,500/year less in AK, FL, NV, SD, TX, and WY. And the states which use a percentage of feederal income tax for which I have no idea: CO, IL, IN, MI.
The reason you "slap down the responsible class" is because you can raise larger amounts of revenue with a small tax on them then you can with a large tax on the poorer people.
Remember this is a state tax, not a federal tax. You have to really stretch things to try and argue that state governments don't have the responsibility/right to run things like schools and hospitals (for the feds there's a (good in my opinion) case that they have no right to be invovled in such things).
And while it's true that business people have shown (by being successful business people) that they can probably invest money in more productive endevours that the government can, at the state level it's hard to beat the economic multiplier of educating the poor which allows the entrepreuners in that group that would never get a start otherwise to benefit the economy.
States like NY and NJ have state taxes that make those proposed levels look like nothing at all - yet business has managed just fine.
Yes, it would be much better for the review to be about the first 10 minutes of using the device, that anyone could just try for themselves in the store anyway.
Rather than about the impressions after a weekend of using it, something that most people can't do without putting down the cash.
I receive 12 a year, and that's only because I can't work out how to turn off the "reminder" text that appears each month reminding me to pay for the next month (I use a prepay "plan") - which is really silly since they automatically charge my credit card anyway...
I just hope everyone who has an order with them they haven't downloaded yet files a charge back on their credit card.
If it's a stunt anyway.
I know I'd be pissed if I wanted to do some playing of the damn game. Steam annoyed me when they wouldn't let me buy a game because I happened to be overseas at the time (and wanted something to play on the laptop while delayed).
That depends on what you mean by "taking over". If someone falls asleep or has a heart attack while driving, "taking over" can just mean bringing the vehicle to a controlled stop in a safe location and turning on the hazards. In that particular situation, there also won't be much room for suing anyone if something goes wrong -- because had the vehicle not done anything, the situation would've ended gravely anyway.
I don't think you have a very good grasp on the workings of the "sue them all" legal system.
It's the "ultimate game" which is a well defined term in economics and is a one shot affair, so there is no reciprocation involved.
The other $60,000,000,000,000 are in the hands of the rest of world (including the players and game runner) - that's the latest world money figures I'd seen anyway.
I know the game rules, it's not my fault you are too lazy to look up the definition of what is being discussed.
Or people who wanted to be lawyers, but were too dumb to get into law school?
Seriously, you'd have to be really stupid to be able to write such a report and not have heard of opportunity cost. Yes if $X worth of software was bought instead of pirated the software makers would have an extra $X, but someone else (the now not pirating company, or more likely their workers or suppliers) would have $X less.
So any economic benefit depends on the relative multipliers of the software companies and those sombody elses. I put my money on the sofware makers having a much lower multiplier for the local economy.
Or of course they aren't stupid, but are intentionally lying.
And that's ignoring any issue with the whole "people who pirate would buy it rather than not having it at all if we reduced piracy" assumption.
It's a specific example, not "in principle" and the "game rules" are fixed.
You can have $0.00.
or you can have $0.01.
In which case are you better off?
In fact the argument whole argument is ridiculous because there's a third person involved, so the two options are:
1. You get $0.01, other guy gets $99.99, game runner gets $0.00.
2. You get $0.00, other guy gets $0.00, game runner gets $100.00.
So, in fact, not taking the $0.01 puts you in even more danger of being "outbid" and that snowballing into you having nothing for no apparent reason.
And yes if I was playing said game I'd reject the $0.01 since $0.01 is essentially worthless to me. That doesn't make is rational in the sense of maximizing of better-off-ness. And certainly has no effect on me outbid when I go to buy the groceries tomorrow.
It's a simple filter. If someone has a degree then you know at least that they can turn up on time at least a couple of times a year. And probably can read and count to 100.
Yes lots of people without degrees would be better at the job then them. But more of the other people without degrees would be worse. And for a job that really doesn't require a degree you likely don't really care that much if you miss the "best" person because they get caught in the filter, if said filter also removes a large number of idiots you would otherwise waste resources on.
Now in the US, this is a very bad situation because University education is so expensive. In most of the world it's not an issue at all, since University education is cheap (to the student). Guess what I paid for my final year of University: $47.
Except that that isn't what is being argued in the post I replied to.
So make the numbers larger until the amount of money you are receiving makes punishing the other person not worth the cost to you (which is the real reason for rejecting the offer) - in terms of it leading to "inequality" which is all the post I was replying to was about the situation is still the same.
Note, that in a single round game, such punishment isn't rational since it's unlikely the situation will ever arise again for the person being punished so there's no use in deterring that behavior. It's irrational to apply our normally rational behavior (punishing the person being unfair so that hopefully they will start being fair in the future) to wildly different circumstances.
But all that is irrelevant to the point that just because some distribution isn't equal does not make the person receiving the shorter end of the stick worse off than with no distribution at all.
What my name is has no bearing on what people think I look like given they don't know my name at the time.
My first name is a standard English fist name, well actually it's Hebrew I guess - in the set of names like Daniel, Jacob, and Samuel; which don't really have a middle eastern connotation in English currently.
And my last name is English, and was an English name from before the Norman Conquest.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with consumption taxes is that if they are broad they tax the poor more (relatively speaking, not in dollar amounts obviously) than the rich. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it's there. If a consumption tax isn't broad then it becomes a political tool to encourage and discourage certain forms of consumption - and we are back to does the government or the market know best how to allocate resources.
Property taxes have their own problems, with property not usually being liquid but taxes needing to be paid now.
Income taxes are simple and reasonably efficient (until you add in deductions and rebates, which of course they always do). I agree that consumption taxes are much simpler and much more efficient, but introducing one spikes inflation which can be seriously bad for some people.
But yes, you can guarantee the cutoff will be lowered - if only automatically by inflation.
Sorry $15,000/year...
Take an amazingly well paid software engineer somehow earning $700,000/year and married with a non-working spouse who looks after the one kid. And ignoring deductions (which I'll naively assume are similar under both schemes).
In CA they would pay $66,700 in state income taxes.
Under this proposal in WA they would pay $10,000 in state income taxes.
I really doubt that that CA weather wasn't worth paying an extra $66,700 in taxes but is worth paying an extra $55,700.
What has Obama done that Bush didn't do?
They all seem equally bad to me, and I don't vote so I'm true to that claim.
What exactly do you think an investment portfolio is?
Do you think it might have some component that isn't just gold sitting in a vault, but is say:
* investments in those corporations that use that investment to hire more people.
* bonds from those corporations that use the borrowed money to hire more people.
* term deposits in banks, who loan the money back out to those corporations to hire more people.
* government treasuries, that the government that you think can do so much better uses to do that so much better with.
And yes some of it will be in foreign corporations (if Ballmer and Bezos have any smarts then a lot of it) - that's a reflection of other countries providing better investment environments.
Now this is a state tax so I'm actually on the side of the government here - states should be taxing and spending in order to provide education and so on to their people. If a state goes overboard it isn't very hard to move to another state. States are also small enough and close enough to "the action" to make more useful investments than the larger and more distant federal government.
WA has the lowest possible income tax at the moment, raising it to be still lower than almost every other state and definitily at least as low as every other state for most of the people doesn't seem like such a big deal.
Then an income of $200,000 makes you rich by any reasonble definition, not just on a "good salary".
All those people who earn $750,000 as an individual can just move states anyway.
After all they'd pay $40/year less in AL.
$4,500/year less in AZ.
$200/year less in CT.
$150/year less in MS.
$1030/year less in NM.
$13,975/year less in PA.
And of course the full $37,500/year less in AK, FL, NV, SD, TX, and WY.
And the states which use a percentage of feederal income tax for which I have no idea: CO, IL, IN, MI.
The reason you "slap down the responsible class" is because you can raise larger amounts of revenue with a small tax on them then you can with a large tax on the poorer people.
Remember this is a state tax, not a federal tax. You have to really stretch things to try and argue that state governments don't have the responsibility/right to run things like schools and hospitals (for the feds there's a (good in my opinion) case that they have no right to be invovled in such things).
And while it's true that business people have shown (by being successful business people) that they can probably invest money in more productive endevours that the government can, at the state level it's hard to beat the economic multiplier of educating the poor which allows the entrepreuners in that group that would never get a start otherwise to benefit the economy.
States like NY and NJ have state taxes that make those proposed levels look like nothing at all - yet business has managed just fine.
The vomit colored and sticky floor soon after take off is going to be a bit of a problem too.
if this becomes common.
Oh look 30,000 feet of nothingness below me under this transparent floor.
Or is in huge underwater clouds of atomized droplets and hence out of sight and mind.
Thank you captain repeat what the post stated in an obvious manner.
Yes, it would be much better for the review to be about the first 10 minutes of using the device, that anyone could just try for themselves in the store anyway.
Rather than about the impressions after a weekend of using it, something that most people can't do without putting down the cash.
Which was exactly what he said, so what's the issue with it?
More common searches cost more to put ads on, so increasing the common searches is better for google, ad revenue wise.
I receive 12 a year, and that's only because I can't work out how to turn off the "reminder" text that appears each month reminding me to pay for the next month (I use a prepay "plan") - which is really silly since they automatically charge my credit card anyway...
I just hope everyone who has an order with them they haven't downloaded yet files a charge back on their credit card.
If it's a stunt anyway.
I know I'd be pissed if I wanted to do some playing of the damn game. Steam annoyed me when they wouldn't let me buy a game because I happened to be overseas at the time (and wanted something to play on the laptop while delayed).
I don't think you have a very good grasp on the workings of the "sue them all" legal system.
Because he provided citation links. You can of course not believe them...
It's the "ultimate game" which is a well defined term in economics and is a one shot affair, so there is no reciprocation involved.
The other $60,000,000,000,000 are in the hands of the rest of world (including the players and game runner) - that's the latest world money figures I'd seen anyway.
I know the game rules, it's not my fault you are too lazy to look up the definition of what is being discussed.
Or people who wanted to be lawyers, but were too dumb to get into law school?
Seriously, you'd have to be really stupid to be able to write such a report and not have heard of opportunity cost. Yes if $X worth of software was bought instead of pirated the software makers would have an extra $X, but someone else (the now not pirating company, or more likely their workers or suppliers) would have $X less.
So any economic benefit depends on the relative multipliers of the software companies and those sombody elses. I put my money on the sofware makers having a much lower multiplier for the local economy.
Or of course they aren't stupid, but are intentionally lying.
And that's ignoring any issue with the whole "people who pirate would buy it rather than not having it at all if we reduced piracy" assumption.
It's a specific example, not "in principle" and the "game rules" are fixed.
You can have $0.00.
or you can have $0.01.
In which case are you better off?
In fact the argument whole argument is ridiculous because there's a third person involved, so the two options are:
1. You get $0.01, other guy gets $99.99, game runner gets $0.00.
2. You get $0.00, other guy gets $0.00, game runner gets $100.00.
So, in fact, not taking the $0.01 puts you in even more danger of being "outbid" and that snowballing into you having nothing for no apparent reason.
And yes if I was playing said game I'd reject the $0.01 since $0.01 is essentially worthless to me. That doesn't make is rational in the sense of maximizing of better-off-ness. And certainly has no effect on me outbid when I go to buy the groceries tomorrow.
But does netflix let you rate individual TV show? Or just the DVD that includes 4 of them at once? Or just the DVD set for the season?
The only option see on my netflix page is that last one.
It's a simple filter. If someone has a degree then you know at least that they can turn up on time at least a couple of times a year. And probably can read and count to 100.
Yes lots of people without degrees would be better at the job then them. But more of the other people without degrees would be worse. And for a job that really doesn't require a degree you likely don't really care that much if you miss the "best" person because they get caught in the filter, if said filter also removes a large number of idiots you would otherwise waste resources on.
Now in the US, this is a very bad situation because University education is so expensive. In most of the world it's not an issue at all, since University education is cheap (to the student). Guess what I paid for my final year of University: $47.
But if you turned it off part way through, then you still "Hated it".
Except that that isn't what is being argued in the post I replied to.
So make the numbers larger until the amount of money you are receiving makes punishing the other person not worth the cost to you (which is the real reason for rejecting the offer) - in terms of it leading to "inequality" which is all the post I was replying to was about the situation is still the same.
Note, that in a single round game, such punishment isn't rational since it's unlikely the situation will ever arise again for the person being punished so there's no use in deterring that behavior. It's irrational to apply our normally rational behavior (punishing the person being unfair so that hopefully they will start being fair in the future) to wildly different circumstances.
But all that is irrelevant to the point that just because some distribution isn't equal does not make the person receiving the shorter end of the stick worse off than with no distribution at all.
What my name is has no bearing on what people think I look like given they don't know my name at the time.
My first name is a standard English fist name, well actually it's Hebrew I guess - in the set of names like Daniel, Jacob, and Samuel; which don't really have a middle eastern connotation in English currently.
And my last name is English, and was an English name from before the Norman Conquest.