The fact that people in places like Germany don't pay for incoming calls doesn't mean those calls are free or half price; it means the caller pays.
First of all, by "Germany", you mean "everywhere outside of the US and Canada", right? Okay.
In places like "Germany", indeed, the calls are paid for by one party, while in the US and Canada, calls are paid for by both parties. Setting aside any difference in calling rates, this results in calls that are quite literally "half price" in "Germany" as compared against calls in the US and Canada. Two people paying $X for something is precisely twice the cost of one person paying $X.
Nevertheless, even within the US market, competition has been driving down prices for cellular service significantly.
Right, which explains why we still have some of the highest costs in the developed world. Competition in the US and Canadian markets is weaker than just about anywhere else.
There are problems with US cell phone service, but they are largely due to government regulations.
Oh, it's always so refreshing to see this viewpoint expressed on slashdot. All problems are largely due to government regulations. We'd have cured cancer, colonized Mars, and cloned Natalie Portman if it wasn't for all those meddling government regulations. If only we could let that free market do its thing... well, except for those inconvenient parts about universal availability of complete information... and the whole issue of monopolies...
I also wonder how many could be beat, even if it was only short term, by parking in underground or lower-level parking ramps where there is no cellular or GPS signal. I'm guessing they may auto-disable if they lose GPS or comms for some period of time.
I have an loan with Honda Financial Services and I have no complaints. My last auto loan was through my credit union, which was great at the time. This time around, I bought a new vehicle (first new car, yay), and Honda Financial Services was able to undercut my credit union by 2 percentage points.
I'm not sure what your beef with them is. Is it that they enable financing of vehicles that individuals would otherwise not have the cash on hand to purchase? If so, wouldn't that role otherwise be filled by banks, credit unions, and other lenders?
So in the case of individuals, we err on the side of "well you'd probably be spending that money whether or not you were working", but in the case of business, we err on the side of "damn near any money spent is inarguably the cost of doing business". Wining and dining clients, sure, that's clearly the cost of doing business. Driving to work? Well, you'd probably be driving that way anyway, so that's just personal consumption. Rent for office space? Clearly office space is the cost of doing business. Rent for an apartment? Clearly nobody would ever forego such consumption regardless of employment status. Maintenance costs for a business (say, state business registration fees)? Write 'em off. Maintenance costs for a person (say, food)? No dice.
I'd rather be thru-hiking the Appalachian trail, but I have a job. Sans job, I'd be on the trail. No apartment, no car. The IRS doesn't see it that way. I understand why, and I'm not complaining. I'm merely pointing out that businesses have considerably more leeway (quite a bit) when it comes to writing off expenses, whereas individuals have considerably less leeway (barely any). That's why I disagree with people who try to spin it as businesses and individuals having the same rights and restrictions when it comes to taxation. I've been (and continue to be) on both sides, and it still seems quite a bit different in terms of what expenses can be written off.
So you're saying that the Laffer curve that you brought up isn't relevant to this conversation? Or are you saying that the 25 Nobel Laureates in Economics that analyzed and audited the data have no rational basis for concluding one number or another? Why is the 70% number that they arrived at inferior to the "in the middle" value you yourself have been promoting?
And when did I say Socialism predated the French Revolution.
You implied as much when you referred to my comment about the French revolution as a "socialist rant". The French revolution predates socialism, so it's not really reasonable to say that it has anything to do with socialism or that discussing the causes of the revolution is inherently socialist.
You certainly debated the fact that serfs had it better. Your quote. ... Another quote
I was saying that a serf in the middle ages had it more or less equally good as modern migrant workers.
Do you see this? Do you see what I'm dealing with here?! You provide counterexamples to your own claims! I will add this technique to my trolling repertoire, as the effect it had on me can only be described as profound bewilderment. It's madness, I tell you. Madness!
Why should the person risking their capital forfeit the benefits?
I thought I had already answered this question in my response to that post. What I said the first time you asked the question:
To avoid death at the hands of an angry mob.
In any case, I don't mind repeating myself. The person risking their capital should forfeit [some of] the benefits in order to preserve social order, to prevent civil unrest, and to avoid the fate that befell the aristocracy of France during the French revolution.
I repeat, once again, this thread got rather long. I don't like that. The last time I participated in a thread this long, it got way too long. The lesson I learned there is that some people have trouble communicating with me, and that it takes a considerable amount of effort to resolve the issue. Since I'm not willing to dedicate sufficient effort to accomplish that in this thread, I think this is as good a time as any to throw in the towel.
I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on about the BIGELOW OH YES BIGELOW mission
Perhaps reading the thread from the start would give you a clue. OP wondered about private space stations. I mentioned Bigelow because they're the only commercial firm operating in this space that I know of. Hopefully that clears things up.
but I never said there wasn't one
No, you didn't. You also never said you had a tuna sandwich for lunch. Not sure how either of these "things you didn't say" are relevant to this discussion. I never claimed that you said there was no Bigelow mission, so your denial seems unprovoked.
It's just that CRS-8 is the first upcoming mission to take up a Bigelow balloon.
I'd like to point out that that's not what you said in your original post (although I'll grant that it's likely what you meant to say).
The next launch of a Bigelow module will be BEAM [wikipedia.org] on CRS-8 in late 2015, but it's only 4 meters across and will mostly be unused with its hatch shut, other than to check every now and then that it's still okay, then eventually jettisoned.
The "real" one doesn't go up until 2016.
That's what you said. The first line is all correct, but it's not really relevant to the OP's post or my reply. BEAM will not be a private space station, it will be a developmental prototype that will be attached to the ISS, which is not a private space station. The second line is false, as the "real" one is scheduled for launch in 2015 according to the SpaceX launch manifest. I pointed out this error in my reply to your post. You refused to acknowledge my correction, instead talking about CRS-8, which again, is not the launch of the "real" one and will not put a private space station in orbit.
Nobody was talking about Bigelow balloons in space. We were talking about the launch of a private space station. CRS-8 will be no more of a private space station than Genesis I and II, which are also Bigelow balloons, and they've been in orbit since 2006 and 2007, respectively. Consequently, your repeated mentions of CRS-8 are offtopic in the context of this thread, which is about an operation private space station.
I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on about 2016 OH YES 2016 and CRS-8 OH YES CRS-8. There's no private space station scheduled for launch in 2016. Not one made by Bigelow, and not one being launched by SpaceX. I appreciate the attempt at fact-checking my post, but I was correct in my assertion that the Bigelow mission scheduled for 2015 (and not the BEAM-carrying CRS-8 mission also scheduled for 2015) is likely to put the first full-size (and operational) private space station in Earth orbit.
the laffer curve does not suggest anything about 70 percent anymore then quantum mechanics is all about giraffes.
In Wikipedia's article on the Laffer curve, there is this statement:
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.
I noted this in an ealier post in this thread. In case you didn't know, the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics "is the product of 1,506 contributors, 25 of them Nobel Laureates in Economics". Nobel Laureate contributors include George Akerlof, Maurice Allais, Kenneth Arrow, Robert Aumann, James Buchanan, Gérard Debreu, Milton Friedman, Clive Granger, John Harsanyi, James Heckman, Leonid Kantorovich, Wassily Leontief, Harry Markowitz, Robert C. Merton, Roger Myerson, Edmund Phelps, Edward Prescott, Paul Samuelson, Amartya Sen, Herbert A. Simon, Vernon L. Smith, George Stigler, Joseph E. Stiglitz, James Tobin, and William Vickrey.
But maybe you're right. Maybe the Laffer curve does not suggest anything about 70 percent. Maybe you're more knowledgeable about economics than 25 Nobel Laureates in Economics. Maybe. But probably not.
Clearly I'm just trying to score socialist points in some kind of game, bending reality to my advantage to support a political agenda.
Note that the entirety of your last post is an ad hominem attack with the exception of your denial that the Laffer curve suggests 70% as an optimal tax rate. Also note that you don't provide any justification for denying that 70% figure whatsoever, even while I myself cite a reputable publication (which you literally ignore).
It must be somewhat embarassing when a socialist libtard understands the Laffer curve better than you. Now would be a good time to turn up the juice on the ad hominem attacks. Also, the Wonka-esque "good day" was a hilarious touch. So very, very butthurt. I love it.
Re:"Multi-touch" tells me all I need to know
on
GNOME 3.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
As an individual, you're taxed on your profits. Profits are revenue minus the cost of getting that revenue.
Ah, yes. Minus the cost of getting that revenue. So I need to get to work; I can write off my car, car insurance, fuel, and toll costs? No, I can't. So I need to be nourished; I can write off my food costs? No, I can't. So what costs of getting that revenue can I write off, specifically?
Most people who are employed by others have very limited costs of doing business, and Federal income tax does take any that exist into account. People who run their own businesses subtract their business expenses from their revenue.
It seems that the definition of what constitutes "costs of doing business" are considerably more liberal for businesses than they are for individuals. People who run their own businesses subtract their businesses expenses from their revenue. People who work for someone else don't get to subtract their employee expenses from their revenue.
Businesses, as a rule, don't spend money except on business expenses, so in principle all their expenses are deductible.
Individuals, as a rule, don't spend money except on individual expenses, so in principle none of their expenses are deductible. That's my point. For a business, taxable income is profit = revenues minus expenses. For an individual, taxable income is profit = revenues minus zero.
n any case this bores me... you think you can sustain 70 percent? That's just so moronic I am left with nothing but contempt for your grasp of the world, business, math, and economics. You're too ignorant or brain washed to have this discussion. And that is fine. You're hardly alone. Whole generations of sad people have been ruined by a systematic campaign of misinformation.
I can't fix you... I wish I could. It is in the hands of providence at this point because none of these fuckwits is clever enough to realize the frog is already boiling.
Man, you're hilarious. You were the one that brought up the Laffer curve. You said that "the laffer curve is completely obvious" and that "anyone that says it doesn't exist is right up there with fucktards that think gravity is a myth or that we didn't land on the moon". I proceeded to explain to you that the Laffer curve, while only a theoretical construct, suggests that tax revenues are maximized near the 70% tax rate. That's not my number; that's the number suggested by your vaunted Laffer curve. That doesn't jive with your "taxes are evil" mentality, so now you dispute the relevance of the Laffer curve. Amazing!
You're cherry-picking facts to support your already-determined agenda. You have no interest in analyzing reality to optimize society. Instead, you prefer to seek out facts that support your established viewpoint and ignore those that don't. Note that you don't attack the Laffer curve for suggesting that tax revenues are maximized with a tax rate of 70%, you attack me for bringing this to your attention. Suddenly I'm moronic, ignorant, and brain washed for citing the same Laffer curve you did.
It's evident to me that you're not interested in having an earnest discussion about tax rates. You're not interested in examining alternative points of view. You're interested primarily in promoting your own belief (one that is overwhelmingly popular on slashdot of late) of "libertarianism". Since you've taken the liberty of promoting your own stance on this issue, allow me to do the same. Let me tell you something about libertarianism. You see, I'm a libertarian as well. However, I support greatly increased progressive tax rates. How can that possibly be consistent with the ideals of libertarianism? Let me explain, in the context of this quote of yours:
Sure, you could argue that the very poor need wealth redistributed to them to raise their standard of living... but that is coming at the expense of the standard of living of other people. The middle class and of course the rich to some extent.
A libertarian seeks to maximize liberties. Individual liberties, specifically. Now, think about your life. Think about the lives of the 300-something million Americans. What constraints do they have on their liberties? Which are the most relevant to the most people? What is it that holds most people back from doing what they want? Money, or more accurately, lack thereof. I'd love to quit my day job and pursue my freelance software development business, but I can't, because I need to pay the rent. I'd love to through-hike the Appalachian trail, but I can't, because I have car loan payments to make. An overwhelming majority of Americans are constrained from doing what they want not by the government or its regulations, but by their lack of wealth.
A mechanism that transfers wealth from the rich to the poor would indeed raise the standard of living of the poor. This would yield a dramatic increase in liberty for this segment of society, a dramatic increase in economic freedom. It would also cause a decrease in liberty for everyone else. Or would it? Are the liberties afforded to, say, Bill Gates, significantly decreased if the government's jackbooted thugs rob him of $30B for the purposes of enriching the poor? What activities that he otherwise would be engaging in would be curtailed? It's unclear that it would
Really, I don't even know what you mean by "contradict the laffer curve". How can a curve be contradicted?
Let's go back to your statement, the one I originally quoted:
If we graph the line from point 1A to point 2A then what you should find is that revenue peaks in the middle and then falls off dramatically.
The only basis you have for stating that "revenue peaks in the middle" is "it's completely obvious". You cite the Laffer curve, which itself is an estimate based on the (valid) assumption that revenue is minimized at 0% and 100%. Indeed, this isn't just circular reasoning, it's flawed circular reasoning. That tax rates of 0% and 100% minimize revenues does not imply that a tax rate "in the middle" maximizes them. If we're basing our argument solely on the Laffer curve, the revenue-maximizing rate could just as well be 1% or 99%, clearly nowhere near the middle.
The Laffer curve is a plot of tax revenue as a function of tax rate. However, the Laffer curve is a theoretical construct, as it is not based on any actual measures.
The Laffer curve does not itself claim that revenues are maximized by a tax "in the middle" of 0% and 100%. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that Laffer curve estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%, which is quite far from the "middle" you claim. However, it's important to note that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates are a) just that, estimates, and b) widely variable.
To further clarify, I was merely taking issue with your unsubstantiated claim that the Laffer curve suggests a revenue-maximizing rate "in the middle" of 0% and 100%. If anything, it suggests the optimal tax rate would be in the ballpark of 70%, which is incidentally quite a bit higher than where we are now.
My objection to your statement can be summed up as: citing a theoretical construct as supporting evidence for an otherwise unsubstantiated claim would be fine if that theoretical construct wasn't based on the same exact assumption as the otherwise unsubstantiated claim (that revenues are maximized "in the middle" of 0% and 100%), in which case it constitutes circular reasoning. Parenthetically, I'm adding that the Laffer curve doesn't even suggest that revenues are maximized "in the middle" of 0% and 100% anyway, so circular-reasoning aside, your statement still seems wrong.
The far more obvious reason why Russia has no interest in invading is the fact that its military resources are limited and it could only make one such invasion happen at best. And it has no interest in tying up its entire military capacity in such an invasion for decades.
Unlike US, it doesn't have the capability to invade and occupy multiple countries at once and still have significant military capability left over for maintaining other operations.
Last I checked, they still have a sizeable stockpile of nuclear arms. They "could" liberally nuke Georgia and Ukraine, thereby eliminating any ground opposition (and human population) in these territories and allowing them to annex them with minimal military commitment. It's not that hard to occupy a country when it's totally devoid of all life (and quite irradiated to match). The Tsar Bomba had a fireball radius of 4km and was capable of producing third degree burns 100km from ground zero, and it was only 50% of the max yield of a bomb of this design.
Of course, conversations like this (about what "could" happen) are ridiculous, as they ignore the reality of political factors being of primary consideration. Putin "could" do a lot of things, but talking about them as though they're remotely plausible isn't likely to yield any valuable insight into anything. That's the only point I was trying to make.
If I want to install a browser, cal, etc.. then I 'd do it after wards
That's a big if! I understood it to mean that he really doesn't want one, hence his objections to one being provided by default.
But really, I was just trying to be an ass and demonstrate that the type of contemporary phones that have nothing more than "telephony" on their feature list are explicitly marketed towards people with one foot in the grave.
Now you can argue WHERE the graph curves. BUT you have ZERO basis to claim that it does not curve at all.
Reading comprehension fail.
You've read quite a bit into my statement. Quite a bit that I didn't actually state. To clarify a few points:
I never "contradict the laffer curve".
I never "claim that it does not curve at all".
The laffer curve's existence has no bearing on whether or not I was wrong to contradict you (though I didn't actually contradict you, I merely pointed out that your logic was flawed).
You could calculate it in precisely the same way that a business does.
And I'd claim it on my taxes the same way that a business does? That's a rhetorical question. No, I wouldn't, since individual taxes don't generally allow for deductions for depreciating assets. Otherwise, TurboTax would be asking people how many Xbox games they bought this year.
that business will probably lease office space from you personally.
My current lease prohibits subletting, so that wouldn't be legal.
You would then deduct the depreciation of that asset (your office) from the rent revenue to figure the income generated your house.
Depreciation of income-generating real estate is in a special category according to the IRS. Note that you can't deduct the depreciation of real estate that you don't rent out or otherwise use for business purposes. As a business, you can write off your office space. As a person, you cannot write off your living space.
A TV in your living room probably does not produce revenue, so you don't calculate the income it generates, meaning there's no need to calculate the depreciation. Depreciation is an element of calculating the _income_ from an activity. Income = revenue - expenses, and deprecation is one of the expenses.
But that's just it, that's my point. A TV in my living room doesn't produce revenue, so there's no "need" to calculate depreciation. A TV that a business buys, even if it gets shoved into a warehouse somewhere, never to see the light of day again, doesn't produce revenue either, but somehow the business can claim deductions from the depreciation for a few years. Depreciation is an element of calculating the _expense_ of capital purchases. Over time, the effect is such that the cost of the TV is subtracted from the business's revenue, and the business only pays taxes on profits, not revenues. This only holds true for businesses, as individuals have no right to claim depreciating assets on their tax forms.
Maybe you don't understand, depreciation is an element of figuring out how much taxes the business has to pay for using that TV. You don't WANT to figure depreciation on the TV in your living room, because that would mean you were paying taxes for watching it. The depreciation would reduce the amount of taxes you pay for watching TV.
My understanding is that depreciation is an element of figuring out how much taxes the business has to pay for the money they made minus the money they spent on the TV (spread over a few years). I do want to figure depreciation on the TV in my living room, since that's money the government taxes me on money I made, and it thinks I made that TV's-worth-of-money even after the TV is in the garbage ten years later. Thus, the $400 I spent on the TV got taxed as though it was income, despite me having spent it (not on the TV when I bought it, but on the TV after it is no longer worth anything, i.e. been fully depreciated). The depreciation would reduce the amount of taxes I pay for earning money that is subsquently spent, which, from a selfish point of view, would be a good thing for me.
Even if you disagree that depreciating assets for the purposes of tax avoidance is a desirable thing (I mean, if it's not desirable, then why does every business in existence seek to claim every expense possible to lower their [taxable] net income?), you at least seem to agree that individuals don't have the same rights as businesses when it comes to tax laws and purchase (and depreciation) of capital assets.
I never cited a reference for that claim because you were the one that made it
False. You were the one that made this post, which is the first instance of a 60-80 hour work week for serfs being brought up in this thread.
you said it's quite possible that some work a few weeks at 80+ hours.
I said that (in this post) about migrant workers, not serfs.
Again you are ignoring the point because of minute details that don't change the facts.
Actually, I've offered plenty of evidence against "the point", in addition to criticizing your posting style in general. It might be easier for you to see that if you'd take a break from your "must be right at all costs" attitude.
The maximum hours a serf or migrant could work is sun up to sun down, from the survey we know that migrants do not work those hours all the time, for every 80 hour week there are 3 30 hour weeks. Serfs worked sun up to sun down except Sundays and religious holidays, half tending "their" land and the other half working the landowners land.
False. Migrant workers (in the modern era) are not restricted to working only during daylight hours due to the advent of electrification. Electrification was not yet available when serfdom was widespread. Your attempt to equate the maximum hours that could be worked by a serf or migrant worker fails. You're getting caught up in the details of which days off serfs had while letting this gross oversight slide.
Please tell me how having fewer producers and a larger population would not indicate an increase in efficiency?
Indeed, I misspoke. If this wasn't evident to you from context, here are somelinks to earlier posts in this thread where I didn't misspeak. The argument that you set forth (that I'm objecting to) is "there are fewer people farming then there was 600 years ago, this means fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population". This argument is invalid (despite both the antecedent and consequent being true), since "fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population" does not logically follow from the fact that "there are fewer people farming then [sic] there was [sic] 600 years ago". For example, the larger population could simply be eating less per person. The larger population could be turning to hunting or gathering. I never argued against the individual statements you made. I merely pointed out that the logic argument you form from them is not sound. Perhaps if you're not in the habit of engaging in formal rational discourse, this distinction may be lost on you. Feel free to write it off as me being pedantic, as you already seem to have done.
I never disputed that workers have not seen the full benefits of technology. I even told you why. The workers don't own the technology so they are not going to see the full benefits of it.
You're responding to the wrong part of the sentence. You leave unaddressed my claim that workers' productive output must have increased for them to have maintained a constant quality of life, which is actually at the crux of the discussion we've been having. If anything, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with me by explaining this as being the result of capitalists' ownership stake in these technological improvements.
Furthermore, you never explained why this fact is relevant in the context of maintaining civil order. Presumably, the workers of France didn't own the technology, and so they did not see the full benefits of it either. However, the French revolution still came to pass. To me, this indicates that "we own it, so fuck you" isn
Russia "could" have done those things in the same sense that the USA "could" nuke Iran. It seems plainly evident that Russian aggression is being stopped not by the military might of Georgia or Ukraine but by the fact that Russia would join the "axis of evil" if they actually followed through with any such plans.
Putin does want to do those things. And he easily can do those things. However, the expected political fallout from doing those things is sufficient to discourage him from actually doing so. Pointing to the fact that he hasn't done those things does not prove in any way that he doesn't want to. The subjugation of Georgia or Ukraine would be a great boon for him in domestic politics if it didn't go hand in hand with ostracization from the rest of the civilized world.
I don't think anyone's saying that Putin is undemocratic because of a lack of domestic support. I think most objections today revolve around his refusal to respect the sovereignty of neighboring states. These are two orthogonal issues.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that people in places like Germany don't pay for incoming calls doesn't mean those calls are free or half price; it means the caller pays.
First of all, by "Germany", you mean "everywhere outside of the US and Canada", right? Okay.
In places like "Germany", indeed, the calls are paid for by one party, while in the US and Canada, calls are paid for by both parties. Setting aside any difference in calling rates, this results in calls that are quite literally "half price" in "Germany" as compared against calls in the US and Canada. Two people paying $X for something is precisely twice the cost of one person paying $X.
Nevertheless, even within the US market, competition has been driving down prices for cellular service significantly.
Right, which explains why we still have some of the highest costs in the developed world. Competition in the US and Canadian markets is weaker than just about anywhere else.
There are problems with US cell phone service, but they are largely due to government regulations.
Oh, it's always so refreshing to see this viewpoint expressed on slashdot. All problems are largely due to government regulations. We'd have cured cancer, colonized Mars, and cloned Natalie Portman if it wasn't for all those meddling government regulations. If only we could let that free market do its thing... well, except for those inconvenient parts about universal availability of complete information... and the whole issue of monopolies...
liberals like Gates
*head asplodes*
I also wonder how many could be beat, even if it was only short term, by parking in underground or lower-level parking ramps where there is no cellular or GPS signal. I'm guessing they may auto-disable if they lose GPS or comms for some period of time.
No.
I have an loan with Honda Financial Services and I have no complaints. My last auto loan was through my credit union, which was great at the time. This time around, I bought a new vehicle (first new car, yay), and Honda Financial Services was able to undercut my credit union by 2 percentage points.
I'm not sure what your beef with them is. Is it that they enable financing of vehicles that individuals would otherwise not have the cash on hand to purchase? If so, wouldn't that role otherwise be filled by banks, credit unions, and other lenders?
if it were you lending the money, you'd be pretty disturbed if someone stiffed you for it and you went hungry as a result.
Okay, let's take a step back here. I hope you're just using colorful language, because in the United States, no lender ever "goes hungry".
Kinda like the Melnorme's MetaChron?
Well, paying before the due date makes you "on time,"
Actually, paying before the due date makes you "early".
The USA has some of the highest cell phone costs in the developed world. You picked a pretty terrible example. Citation provided.
So in the case of individuals, we err on the side of "well you'd probably be spending that money whether or not you were working", but in the case of business, we err on the side of "damn near any money spent is inarguably the cost of doing business". Wining and dining clients, sure, that's clearly the cost of doing business. Driving to work? Well, you'd probably be driving that way anyway, so that's just personal consumption. Rent for office space? Clearly office space is the cost of doing business. Rent for an apartment? Clearly nobody would ever forego such consumption regardless of employment status. Maintenance costs for a business (say, state business registration fees)? Write 'em off. Maintenance costs for a person (say, food)? No dice.
I'd rather be thru-hiking the Appalachian trail, but I have a job. Sans job, I'd be on the trail. No apartment, no car. The IRS doesn't see it that way. I understand why, and I'm not complaining. I'm merely pointing out that businesses have considerably more leeway (quite a bit) when it comes to writing off expenses, whereas individuals have considerably less leeway (barely any). That's why I disagree with people who try to spin it as businesses and individuals having the same rights and restrictions when it comes to taxation. I've been (and continue to be) on both sides, and it still seems quite a bit different in terms of what expenses can be written off.
But sir!
So you're saying that the Laffer curve that you brought up isn't relevant to this conversation? Or are you saying that the 25 Nobel Laureates in Economics that analyzed and audited the data have no rational basis for concluding one number or another? Why is the 70% number that they arrived at inferior to the "in the middle" value you yourself have been promoting?
And a fine day to you as well, sir.
And when did I say Socialism predated the French Revolution.
You implied as much when you referred to my comment about the French revolution as a "socialist rant". The French revolution predates socialism, so it's not really reasonable to say that it has anything to do with socialism or that discussing the causes of the revolution is inherently socialist.
You certainly debated the fact that serfs had it better. Your quote.
...
Another quote
I was saying that a serf in the middle ages had it more or less equally good as modern migrant workers.
Do you see this? Do you see what I'm dealing with here?! You provide counterexamples to your own claims! I will add this technique to my trolling repertoire, as the effect it had on me can only be described as profound bewilderment. It's madness, I tell you. Madness!
Why should the person risking their capital forfeit the benefits?
I thought I had already answered this question in my response to that post. What I said the first time you asked the question:
To avoid death at the hands of an angry mob.
In any case, I don't mind repeating myself. The person risking their capital should forfeit [some of] the benefits in order to preserve social order, to prevent civil unrest, and to avoid the fate that befell the aristocracy of France during the French revolution.
I repeat, once again, this thread got rather long. I don't like that. The last time I participated in a thread this long, it got way too long. The lesson I learned there is that some people have trouble communicating with me, and that it takes a considerable amount of effort to resolve the issue. Since I'm not willing to dedicate sufficient effort to accomplish that in this thread, I think this is as good a time as any to throw in the towel.
I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on about the BIGELOW OH YES BIGELOW mission
Perhaps reading the thread from the start would give you a clue. OP wondered about private space stations. I mentioned Bigelow because they're the only commercial firm operating in this space that I know of. Hopefully that clears things up.
but I never said there wasn't one
No, you didn't. You also never said you had a tuna sandwich for lunch. Not sure how either of these "things you didn't say" are relevant to this discussion. I never claimed that you said there was no Bigelow mission, so your denial seems unprovoked.
It's just that CRS-8 is the first upcoming mission to take up a Bigelow balloon.
I'd like to point out that that's not what you said in your original post (although I'll grant that it's likely what you meant to say).
The next launch of a Bigelow module will be BEAM [wikipedia.org] on CRS-8 in late 2015, but it's only 4 meters across and will mostly be unused with its hatch shut, other than to check every now and then that it's still okay, then eventually jettisoned.
The "real" one doesn't go up until 2016.
That's what you said. The first line is all correct, but it's not really relevant to the OP's post or my reply. BEAM will not be a private space station, it will be a developmental prototype that will be attached to the ISS, which is not a private space station. The second line is false, as the "real" one is scheduled for launch in 2015 according to the SpaceX launch manifest. I pointed out this error in my reply to your post. You refused to acknowledge my correction, instead talking about CRS-8, which again, is not the launch of the "real" one and will not put a private space station in orbit.
Nobody was talking about Bigelow balloons in space. We were talking about the launch of a private space station. CRS-8 will be no more of a private space station than Genesis I and II, which are also Bigelow balloons, and they've been in orbit since 2006 and 2007, respectively. Consequently, your repeated mentions of CRS-8 are offtopic in the context of this thread, which is about an operation private space station.
I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on about 2016 OH YES 2016 and CRS-8 OH YES CRS-8. There's no private space station scheduled for launch in 2016. Not one made by Bigelow, and not one being launched by SpaceX. I appreciate the attempt at fact-checking my post, but I was correct in my assertion that the Bigelow mission scheduled for 2015 (and not the BEAM-carrying CRS-8 mission also scheduled for 2015) is likely to put the first full-size (and operational) private space station in Earth orbit.
the laffer curve does not suggest anything about 70 percent anymore then quantum mechanics is all about giraffes.
In Wikipedia's article on the Laffer curve, there is this statement:
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.
I noted this in an ealier post in this thread. In case you didn't know, the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics "is the product of 1,506 contributors, 25 of them Nobel Laureates in Economics". Nobel Laureate contributors include George Akerlof, Maurice Allais, Kenneth Arrow, Robert Aumann, James Buchanan, Gérard Debreu, Milton Friedman, Clive Granger, John Harsanyi, James Heckman, Leonid Kantorovich, Wassily Leontief, Harry Markowitz, Robert C. Merton, Roger Myerson, Edmund Phelps, Edward Prescott, Paul Samuelson, Amartya Sen, Herbert A. Simon, Vernon L. Smith, George Stigler, Joseph E. Stiglitz, James Tobin, and William Vickrey.
But maybe you're right. Maybe the Laffer curve does not suggest anything about 70 percent. Maybe you're more knowledgeable about economics than 25 Nobel Laureates in Economics. Maybe. But probably not.
Clearly I'm just trying to score socialist points in some kind of game, bending reality to my advantage to support a political agenda.
Note that the entirety of your last post is an ad hominem attack with the exception of your denial that the Laffer curve suggests 70% as an optimal tax rate. Also note that you don't provide any justification for denying that 70% figure whatsoever, even while I myself cite a reputable publication (which you literally ignore).
It must be somewhat embarassing when a socialist libtard understands the Laffer curve better than you. Now would be a good time to turn up the juice on the ad hominem attacks. Also, the Wonka-esque "good day" was a hilarious touch. So very, very butthurt. I love it.
Feel free to install Cinnamon
Mod parent up: informative.
As an individual, you're taxed on your profits. Profits are revenue minus the cost of getting that revenue.
Ah, yes. Minus the cost of getting that revenue. So I need to get to work; I can write off my car, car insurance, fuel, and toll costs? No, I can't. So I need to be nourished; I can write off my food costs? No, I can't. So what costs of getting that revenue can I write off, specifically?
Most people who are employed by others have very limited costs of doing business, and Federal income tax does take any that exist into account. People who run their own businesses subtract their business expenses from their revenue.
It seems that the definition of what constitutes "costs of doing business" are considerably more liberal for businesses than they are for individuals. People who run their own businesses subtract their businesses expenses from their revenue. People who work for someone else don't get to subtract their employee expenses from their revenue.
Businesses, as a rule, don't spend money except on business expenses, so in principle all their expenses are deductible.
Individuals, as a rule, don't spend money except on individual expenses, so in principle none of their expenses are deductible. That's my point. For a business, taxable income is profit = revenues minus expenses. For an individual, taxable income is profit = revenues minus zero.
n any case this bores me... you think you can sustain 70 percent? That's just so moronic I am left with nothing but contempt for your grasp of the world, business, math, and economics. You're too ignorant or brain washed to have this discussion. And that is fine. You're hardly alone. Whole generations of sad people have been ruined by a systematic campaign of misinformation. I can't fix you... I wish I could. It is in the hands of providence at this point because none of these fuckwits is clever enough to realize the frog is already boiling.
Man, you're hilarious. You were the one that brought up the Laffer curve. You said that "the laffer curve is completely obvious" and that "anyone that says it doesn't exist is right up there with fucktards that think gravity is a myth or that we didn't land on the moon". I proceeded to explain to you that the Laffer curve, while only a theoretical construct, suggests that tax revenues are maximized near the 70% tax rate. That's not my number; that's the number suggested by your vaunted Laffer curve. That doesn't jive with your "taxes are evil" mentality, so now you dispute the relevance of the Laffer curve. Amazing!
You're cherry-picking facts to support your already-determined agenda. You have no interest in analyzing reality to optimize society. Instead, you prefer to seek out facts that support your established viewpoint and ignore those that don't. Note that you don't attack the Laffer curve for suggesting that tax revenues are maximized with a tax rate of 70%, you attack me for bringing this to your attention. Suddenly I'm moronic, ignorant, and brain washed for citing the same Laffer curve you did.
It's evident to me that you're not interested in having an earnest discussion about tax rates. You're not interested in examining alternative points of view. You're interested primarily in promoting your own belief (one that is overwhelmingly popular on slashdot of late) of "libertarianism". Since you've taken the liberty of promoting your own stance on this issue, allow me to do the same. Let me tell you something about libertarianism. You see, I'm a libertarian as well. However, I support greatly increased progressive tax rates. How can that possibly be consistent with the ideals of libertarianism? Let me explain, in the context of this quote of yours:
Sure, you could argue that the very poor need wealth redistributed to them to raise their standard of living... but that is coming at the expense of the standard of living of other people. The middle class and of course the rich to some extent.
A libertarian seeks to maximize liberties. Individual liberties, specifically. Now, think about your life. Think about the lives of the 300-something million Americans. What constraints do they have on their liberties? Which are the most relevant to the most people? What is it that holds most people back from doing what they want? Money, or more accurately, lack thereof. I'd love to quit my day job and pursue my freelance software development business, but I can't, because I need to pay the rent. I'd love to through-hike the Appalachian trail, but I can't, because I have car loan payments to make. An overwhelming majority of Americans are constrained from doing what they want not by the government or its regulations, but by their lack of wealth.
A mechanism that transfers wealth from the rich to the poor would indeed raise the standard of living of the poor. This would yield a dramatic increase in liberty for this segment of society, a dramatic increase in economic freedom. It would also cause a decrease in liberty for everyone else. Or would it? Are the liberties afforded to, say, Bill Gates, significantly decreased if the government's jackbooted thugs rob him of $30B for the purposes of enriching the poor? What activities that he otherwise would be engaging in would be curtailed? It's unclear that it would
Let's go back to your statement, the one I originally quoted:
If we graph the line from point 1A to point 2A then what you should find is that revenue peaks in the middle and then falls off dramatically.
The only basis you have for stating that "revenue peaks in the middle" is "it's completely obvious". You cite the Laffer curve, which itself is an estimate based on the (valid) assumption that revenue is minimized at 0% and 100%. Indeed, this isn't just circular reasoning, it's flawed circular reasoning. That tax rates of 0% and 100% minimize revenues does not imply that a tax rate "in the middle" maximizes them. If we're basing our argument solely on the Laffer curve, the revenue-maximizing rate could just as well be 1% or 99%, clearly nowhere near the middle.
The Laffer curve is a plot of tax revenue as a function of tax rate. However, the Laffer curve is a theoretical construct, as it is not based on any actual measures. The Laffer curve does not itself claim that revenues are maximized by a tax "in the middle" of 0% and 100%. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that Laffer curve estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%, which is quite far from the "middle" you claim. However, it's important to note that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates are a) just that, estimates, and b) widely variable.
To further clarify, I was merely taking issue with your unsubstantiated claim that the Laffer curve suggests a revenue-maximizing rate "in the middle" of 0% and 100%. If anything, it suggests the optimal tax rate would be in the ballpark of 70%, which is incidentally quite a bit higher than where we are now.
My objection to your statement can be summed up as: citing a theoretical construct as supporting evidence for an otherwise unsubstantiated claim would be fine if that theoretical construct wasn't based on the same exact assumption as the otherwise unsubstantiated claim (that revenues are maximized "in the middle" of 0% and 100%), in which case it constitutes circular reasoning. Parenthetically, I'm adding that the Laffer curve doesn't even suggest that revenues are maximized "in the middle" of 0% and 100% anyway, so circular-reasoning aside, your statement still seems wrong.
libtard
I see. I thought I was talking to a reasonable person. My mistake.
The far more obvious reason why Russia has no interest in invading is the fact that its military resources are limited and it could only make one such invasion happen at best. And it has no interest in tying up its entire military capacity in such an invasion for decades.
Unlike US, it doesn't have the capability to invade and occupy multiple countries at once and still have significant military capability left over for maintaining other operations.
Last I checked, they still have a sizeable stockpile of nuclear arms. They "could" liberally nuke Georgia and Ukraine, thereby eliminating any ground opposition (and human population) in these territories and allowing them to annex them with minimal military commitment. It's not that hard to occupy a country when it's totally devoid of all life (and quite irradiated to match). The Tsar Bomba had a fireball radius of 4km and was capable of producing third degree burns 100km from ground zero, and it was only 50% of the max yield of a bomb of this design.
Of course, conversations like this (about what "could" happen) are ridiculous, as they ignore the reality of political factors being of primary consideration. Putin "could" do a lot of things, but talking about them as though they're remotely plausible isn't likely to yield any valuable insight into anything. That's the only point I was trying to make.
If I want to install a browser, cal, etc.. then I 'd do it after wards
That's a big if! I understood it to mean that he really doesn't want one, hence his objections to one being provided by default.
But really, I was just trying to be an ass and demonstrate that the type of contemporary phones that have nothing more than "telephony" on their feature list are explicitly marketed towards people with one foot in the grave.
Now you can argue WHERE the graph curves. BUT you have ZERO basis to claim that it does not curve at all.
Reading comprehension fail.
You've read quite a bit into my statement. Quite a bit that I didn't actually state. To clarify a few points:
I never "contradict the laffer curve".
I never "claim that it does not curve at all".
The laffer curve's existence has no bearing on whether or not I was wrong to contradict you (though I didn't actually contradict you, I merely pointed out that your logic was flawed).
Your ball.
You could calculate it in precisely the same way that a business does.
And I'd claim it on my taxes the same way that a business does? That's a rhetorical question. No, I wouldn't, since individual taxes don't generally allow for deductions for depreciating assets. Otherwise, TurboTax would be asking people how many Xbox games they bought this year.
that business will probably lease office space from you personally.
My current lease prohibits subletting, so that wouldn't be legal.
You would then deduct the depreciation of that asset (your office) from the rent revenue to figure the income generated your house.
Depreciation of income-generating real estate is in a special category according to the IRS. Note that you can't deduct the depreciation of real estate that you don't rent out or otherwise use for business purposes. As a business, you can write off your office space. As a person, you cannot write off your living space.
A TV in your living room probably does not produce revenue, so you don't calculate the income it generates, meaning there's no need to calculate the depreciation. Depreciation is an element of calculating the _income_ from an activity. Income = revenue - expenses, and deprecation is one of the expenses.
But that's just it, that's my point. A TV in my living room doesn't produce revenue, so there's no "need" to calculate depreciation. A TV that a business buys, even if it gets shoved into a warehouse somewhere, never to see the light of day again, doesn't produce revenue either, but somehow the business can claim deductions from the depreciation for a few years. Depreciation is an element of calculating the _expense_ of capital purchases. Over time, the effect is such that the cost of the TV is subtracted from the business's revenue, and the business only pays taxes on profits, not revenues. This only holds true for businesses, as individuals have no right to claim depreciating assets on their tax forms.
Maybe you don't understand, depreciation is an element of figuring out how much taxes the business has to pay for using that TV. You don't WANT to figure depreciation on the TV in your living room, because that would mean you were paying taxes for watching it. The depreciation would reduce the amount of taxes you pay for watching TV.
My understanding is that depreciation is an element of figuring out how much taxes the business has to pay for the money they made minus the money they spent on the TV (spread over a few years). I do want to figure depreciation on the TV in my living room, since that's money the government taxes me on money I made, and it thinks I made that TV's-worth-of-money even after the TV is in the garbage ten years later. Thus, the $400 I spent on the TV got taxed as though it was income, despite me having spent it (not on the TV when I bought it, but on the TV after it is no longer worth anything, i.e. been fully depreciated). The depreciation would reduce the amount of taxes I pay for earning money that is subsquently spent, which, from a selfish point of view, would be a good thing for me.
Even if you disagree that depreciating assets for the purposes of tax avoidance is a desirable thing (I mean, if it's not desirable, then why does every business in existence seek to claim every expense possible to lower their [taxable] net income?), you at least seem to agree that individuals don't have the same rights as businesses when it comes to tax laws and purchase (and depreciation) of capital assets.
I never cited a reference for that claim because you were the one that made it
False. You were the one that made this post, which is the first instance of a 60-80 hour work week for serfs being brought up in this thread.
you said it's quite possible that some work a few weeks at 80+ hours.
I said that (in this post) about migrant workers, not serfs.
Again you are ignoring the point because of minute details that don't change the facts.
Actually, I've offered plenty of evidence against "the point", in addition to criticizing your posting style in general. It might be easier for you to see that if you'd take a break from your "must be right at all costs" attitude.
The maximum hours a serf or migrant could work is sun up to sun down, from the survey we know that migrants do not work those hours all the time, for every 80 hour week there are 3 30 hour weeks. Serfs worked sun up to sun down except Sundays and religious holidays, half tending "their" land and the other half working the landowners land.
False. Migrant workers (in the modern era) are not restricted to working only during daylight hours due to the advent of electrification. Electrification was not yet available when serfdom was widespread. Your attempt to equate the maximum hours that could be worked by a serf or migrant worker fails. You're getting caught up in the details of which days off serfs had while letting this gross oversight slide.
Please tell me how having fewer producers and a larger population would not indicate an increase in efficiency?
Indeed, I misspoke. If this wasn't evident to you from context, here are some links to earlier posts in this thread where I didn't misspeak. The argument that you set forth (that I'm objecting to) is "there are fewer people farming then there was 600 years ago, this means fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population". This argument is invalid (despite both the antecedent and consequent being true), since "fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population" does not logically follow from the fact that "there are fewer people farming then [sic] there was [sic] 600 years ago". For example, the larger population could simply be eating less per person. The larger population could be turning to hunting or gathering. I never argued against the individual statements you made. I merely pointed out that the logic argument you form from them is not sound. Perhaps if you're not in the habit of engaging in formal rational discourse, this distinction may be lost on you. Feel free to write it off as me being pedantic, as you already seem to have done.
I never disputed that workers have not seen the full benefits of technology. I even told you why. The workers don't own the technology so they are not going to see the full benefits of it.
You're responding to the wrong part of the sentence. You leave unaddressed my claim that workers' productive output must have increased for them to have maintained a constant quality of life, which is actually at the crux of the discussion we've been having. If anything, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with me by explaining this as being the result of capitalists' ownership stake in these technological improvements.
Furthermore, you never explained why this fact is relevant in the context of maintaining civil order. Presumably, the workers of France didn't own the technology, and so they did not see the full benefits of it either. However, the French revolution still came to pass. To me, this indicates that "we own it, so fuck you" isn
Vista
My 2 kopeks:
Russia "could" have done those things in the same sense that the USA "could" nuke Iran. It seems plainly evident that Russian aggression is being stopped not by the military might of Georgia or Ukraine but by the fact that Russia would join the "axis of evil" if they actually followed through with any such plans.
Putin does want to do those things. And he easily can do those things. However, the expected political fallout from doing those things is sufficient to discourage him from actually doing so. Pointing to the fact that he hasn't done those things does not prove in any way that he doesn't want to. The subjugation of Georgia or Ukraine would be a great boon for him in domestic politics if it didn't go hand in hand with ostracization from the rest of the civilized world.
I don't think anyone's saying that Putin is undemocratic because of a lack of domestic support. I think most objections today revolve around his refusal to respect the sovereignty of neighboring states. These are two orthogonal issues.