Quote :

"I'm guessing your solution is to hand over more power to unaccountable central banks that funnel money to the banking elite, who quite literally control governments the world over."

Nice guess, but completely wrong. The central bank is the guy who is supposed to control the volume of the stereo, and while he is great at turning it back up, it's not very easy for him to turn that stereo down until it is too late and the cops come. What we need to do is get a better stereo, one that goes up and down less. That's what reducing income inequality will help us do. If you ask, "how do we do it?" then I can give you a more interesting answer. I would like to increase progressive taxation, in the form of a simplified income tax, and decrease regressive income taxation. Now this could be at a local or federal level, doesn't really matter to me.

4/17/2011 3:04:09 PM

Quote :

"Because it's really immature to reference data and not post it when I ask"

You have the data Kris, you posted the link. The point I made is, it was raw data for 22 nations from 1900 to 1960 with most of the war years removed (you know how I know this? because I've done the fucking analysis). The only way you could draw any conclusion from that data was to do the very analysis I did. This means you have to have all your own charts to draw a conclusion, so get about posting them.

Quote :

"We can have better knowledge if we have less income inequality. It reduces speculation. "

Nations with the lowest Gini scores took part in casino capitalism with housing just like those with high Ginis. Next argument.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2011 3:22:02 PM

I can see you are trying to revise this somehow, but you specifically mentioned some data you had and refused to post it despite my willingness to post anything I had available to me, it only cemented the level of childishness I felt you displayed in the temper tantrums and name calling you typically throw about. It was the last bit of evidence I needed in order to realize the pointlessness of taking you serious to any level, and I don't plan to continue making that mistake.

4/17/2011 4:24:01 PM

Quote :

"The US Government has made a great number of coins, they considered it confusing to have one similar."

Maybe they do, but there's not a law that says "only the gov't can make coins". Ergo, they convicted him of counterfeiting a non-existent fucking coin.

Quote :

"We had markets that had booms and busts long before we had governments that were organized enough to interfere in markets."

maybe so, but we must certainly admit that the gov't isn't solving or removing said problem. In fact, it is making it worse.

Quote :

"We can have better knowledge if we have less income inequality."

speaking of fantasy land, lol.

^ so, in short, you aren't going to post the data and analysis you had allegedly done before you talked out of your ass in a manner directly contradicting what the data actually said. In typical Kris fashion, it has taken a page and a half of semantic bullshit for you to say "naaaaaaahhhh"

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2011 4:45:35 PM

Quote :

"Maybe they do, but there's not a law that says "only the gov't can make coins". Ergo, they convicted him of counterfeiting a non-existent fucking coin."

Let's say I start making some "Kris Nickels" they have a dead white guy on the front, and a historical place on the back. Can you see how that might be confusing with the legal US coins?

Quote :

"but we must certainly admit that the gov't isn't solving or removing said problem. In fact, it is making it worse."

I don't think you could prove such a thing. I think they do attempt to address it, or at least they have the power through taxes or managing the money supply.

Quote :

"you aren't going to post the data and analysis you had allegedly done before"

I was never asked until now, had anyone asked like I did, I would have gladly posted anything I had. I graciously post any evidence I have when asked, and often without even being asked. In this instance I posted the full set of data so others could analyze it directly.

4/17/2011 5:05:01 PM

Quote :

"temper tantrums and name calling you typically throw about."

Kris, you're the only one throwing a temper tantrum here. And if I've called you names, it's because you've proven to be a first class douche bag unworthy of really anything more than having called names.

Just to show you've I've done the monotonous work where you didn't, here is the charted trade balance data from YOUR LINK up through 1938



The rest of the data (from 1948-1960) invalidates your idea that in the years immediately after the war the rest of the world grew at a similar pace as the US. You don't have analysis because you haven't done it. Feel free to do it and really prove me wrong.

I'm sure you'll quibble that those aren't in percentages but I'll assure you I have that analysis, too.

4/17/2011 6:36:56 PM

You must have misunderstood me, I did not mean to imply that I wanted you to post the data now, several months after the fact. I believe your unwillingness to post the data when I asked displayed a level of childishness that I have no intention of dealing with. I'm not going to continue that argument with you nor will I make the mistake of participating in any other argument with you again. I don't have the data from that previous argument, nor do I remember the context, and while I'm sure you consider yourself right just as I considered my self right at that time, we were not able to continue that argument due to your own immaturity.

4/17/2011 7:18:19 PM

Kris...YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN ANALYSIS THEN JUST LIKE YOU DON'T NOW. Please stab yourself in the neck with a rusty nail but instead of pulling it out, leave it there and die slowly from tetanus or gangrene.

4/17/2011 7:22:55 PM

Quote :

"YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN ANALYSIS THEN JUST LIKE YOU DON'T NOW"

I did, weeks ago, when it was relevant to the discussion. I don't have the interest or patience to deal with you again, especially considering you are beginning to enter the classic "Chance-butthurt-name-calling-tell-them-to-kill-themselves-crybaby-mode", which might be interesting if your insults weren't as weak as your arguments.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 7:43 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2011 7:37:00 PM

Quote :

"when it was relevant to the discussion"

Then why didn't you post the data to back up your claim then?

Quote :

" I don't have the interest or patience to deal with you again"

Hilarious considering you can't resist replying.

Quote :

"which might be interesting if your insults weren't as weak as your arguments"

I support my arguments with proper analysis of data at the links I post. You don't.

4/17/2011 7:53:38 PM

Chance you're really beyond pathetic at this point, give it up

4/17/2011 9:21:12 PM

Give what up? I won the original argument, I won it again. Go run along and play hipster you chode.

4/17/2011 9:23:55 PM

haha more useless chest thumping from the king of clueless

always a hair off eh

4/17/2011 9:27:00 PM

If you think it's chest thumping then I suppose you feel threatened.

4/17/2011 9:48:19 PM

lol if you imagine I'm threatened that's a funny bit of projection. Maybe you should think about what it means to put so much stake in a message board. You must have a very petty ego

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 6:40 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2011 6:40:14 AM

Petty ego? You're the kid who hasn't divorced himself of this canker sore of message board yet supposedly concern yourself with the dignity and importance of research in academia. You're the clown master of ceremonies on a clown float in a clown car parade in Clownsville, USA.

4/18/2011 6:56:42 AM

Quote :

"You're the kid who hasn't divorced himself of this canker sore of message board yet supposedly concern yourself with the dignity and importance of research in academia. You're the clown master of ceremonies on a clown float in a clown car parade in Clownsville, USA."

What does this site (or any other site I browse / read / post on) have to do with my profession? Once I joined academic threads of discussion I was supposed to ditch reddit, tww, SA, etc? Please.

I've been here about as long as anybody and I'll use this site however I damn well please. It's funny how everybody's so damned concerned about figuring it out for me, though

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:44 AM. Reason : Can't wait for your next personal meltdown which results in 6 months of no you]

4/18/2011 7:44:12 AM

Quote :

"I'm guessing your solution is to hand over more power to unaccountable central banks that funnel money to the banking elite, who quite literally control governments the world over."

Why would Kris favor a system that's fundamentally undemocratic?

He may be an authoritarian, I don't know, but if it's just another lazy Socialism/Communism (whatever those things mean) => Anti-Democratic inference then you need to educate yourself about the things you hate.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 8:51 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2011 8:50:50 AM

I think it was a pretty safe assumption, given how often he shills for the Fed on here. In this thread, his basic point seems to be that central banking is fine, we just need better central bankers. That's the core belief of all authoritarians - if only the right dictator were in charge, we'd be prosperous. It's ridiculous, because power seems to corrupt in nearly every circumstance.

Communism and socialism require a central planner, because people on the aggregate won't behave altruistically. To say otherwise is to ignore overwhelming empirical evidence. With that said, neither system is necessarily anti-democratic. Democracy is, after all, mob rule - many atrocities have been committed with the consent and support of the majority. Republicanism is the closest we can get to a government that respects rights, though any state is inherently anti-liberty. A purely voluntaryist society should be the ideal, but that would look much different than anything Marx described. Abolition of private property is great, though, if you want to see tragedy of the commons on a massive scale.

4/18/2011 10:41:31 AM

Quote :

"I think it was a pretty safe assumption, given how often he shills for the Fed on here. In this thread, his basic point seems to be that central banking is fine, we just need better central bankers. That's the core belief of all authoritarians - if only the right dictator were in charge, we'd be prosperous. It's ridiculous, because power seems to corrupt in nearly every circumstance."

You realize that someone can support a more democratic setup than the one we have, right? Nothing about central banking itself demands the system we currently have, run by a private cabal.

Quote :

"Communism and socialism require a central planner, because people on the aggregate won't behave altruistically. To say otherwise is to ignore overwhelming empirical evidence. With that said, neither system is necessarily anti-democratic. Democracy is, after all, mob rule - many atrocities have been committed with the consent and support of the majority. Republicanism is the closest we can get to a government that respects rights, though any state is inherently anti-liberty. A purely voluntaryist society should be the ideal, but that would look much different than anything Marx described. Abolition of private property is great, though, if you want to see tragedy of the commons on a massive scale."

This has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but I guess it's convenient to have you list so many of your misconceptions in one place.

4/18/2011 11:07:52 AM

if every citizen were an expert in everything than im sure you could come up with a great and democratic way to do central planning. But IRL that shit doesnt work because you need experts in each field to make up any centralized system. Experts in the same field tend to group together and the only ones who know what they're doing are those in the group.

The best you can ever hope to do is:
1) limit their overall power and influence
2) ensure only they are liable for their own fuck ups.

The idea that you can some how "democratize" decisions in the banking system or any other centralized system (without it going to shit) is a joke.

4/18/2011 11:22:41 AM

The only way to get people involved is through education. Highly specialized knowledge is worth money and if you dont have it you cant compete. The only way to solve the wealth gap is through education and anything else is a waste of time.

4/18/2011 11:26:33 AM

Shaggy you're a smart guy but you're really limited by your aversion to reading

4/18/2011 11:27:48 AM

i see those words and my eyes just glaze over.

also i cant stop here long, gotta post other forums too

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2011 11:28:09 AM

Quote :

"I think it was a pretty safe assumption"

Perhaps for you as you will assume anything about me that you want without bothering to read anything I say.

Quote :

"In this thread, his basic point seems to be that central banking is fine, we just need better central bankers."

Not at all. Did you read what I posted, I said something significantly different than that. I stated that the task you expect of the central banker is an impossible one, and that the system shouldn't fluxuate to the level that a central banker is required to attempt to stabilize it. A central bank is good at short term monetary policy, not long term, those are best left to more systemic changes.

4/18/2011 1:28:41 PM

Random thing I found:

"it's my understanding that for hedge-fund managers, the entirety of their income is counted as capital gains due to the carried-interest rule"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/inequality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest

I've argued about capital gains tax on TSB before, and although some users still try to contradict me, it seems that the evidence does point to the fact that the richest of the rich are using capital gains to skirt the income tax. Yes, I mean payment from another party for services rendered, not increases in value of personally held capital over time. So what is this is limited to hedge fund managers? I'm still upset if I'm subject to higher taxes than hedge fund managers.

4/18/2011 2:52:50 PM

I find that hard to believe. if it is true then the solution is the change the rules of what counts as capital gains, not raise the capital gains tax.

4/18/2011 3:25:05 PM

Quote :

"the change the rules of what counts as capital gains, not raise the capital gains tax"

I disagree, why should capital gains be subsidized? Why should it be treated any different than any other kind of income?

4/18/2011 3:35:22 PM

Quote :

"Let's say I start making some "Kris Nickels" they have a dead white guy on the front, and a historical place on the back. Can you see how that might be confusing with the legal US coins?"

Nope, not one bit. Did you put "legal tender" or "US gov't" on the coin? No? Then you didn't counterfeit.

Quote :

"I don't think you could prove such a thing."

1) Gov't attempts to prevent booms and busts.
2) Booms and busts still happen.
3) Ergo, the government is not solving the problem of booms and busts.

damn, a three step proof.

Quote :

"I was never asked until now"

Bullshit.

4/18/2011 6:01:26 PM

Quote :

"Did you put "legal tender" or "US gov't" on the coin? No? Then you didn't counterfeit."

Legally, it was counterfeit, a judge has already ruled on the case, perhaps one day it could be overturned, but as of right now, legally, it is counterfeit. I imagine it will remain that way until the US constitution is changed to have all of our laws interpreted by aaronburro, rather than appointed or elected judges.

Quote :

"Gov't attempts to prevent booms and busts."

They do no such thing. They take steps to try clean them up afterwords, and they take small steps to try and reduce the size of them, but no one would claim that they even attempt to completely remove them.

Quote :

"damn, a three step proof."

More of a 2 step backpedal, here I'll show it.
Make this claim:
the gov't isn't solving or removing said problem. In fact, it is making it worse

Then claim that this statement proves it:
the government is not solving the problem of booms and busts

Quote :

"Bullshit."

Go back and reread the thread, you asked me for my analysis on a different set of data, which you could easily generate your own graph, and I instructed you how to do it. In the other set of data I was not asked.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2011 7:05:25 PM

Quote :

"I've argued about capital gains tax on TSB before, and although some users still try to contradict me, it seems that the evidence does point to the fact that the richest of the rich are using capital gains to skirt the income tax. Yes, I mean payment from another party for services rendered, not increases in value of personally held capital over time. So what is this is limited to hedge fund managers? I'm still upset if I'm subject to higher taxes than hedge fund managers."

Quote :

"LoneSnark I find that hard to believe. if it is true then the solution is the change the rules of what counts as capital gains, not raise the capital gains tax."

Wow. I've always considered LoneSnark the resident economist on this board. The fact that he didn't know hedge fund managers get taxed at cap gains on their performance bonus is eye opening to me.

It just goes to show that even people with great minds for economics sometimes will not know current real world situations. Perhaps their focus is so narrow on theory that they don't have time to be concerned with current events.

This could easily explain how liberal economists always speak in broad generalizations with no real world applications or experience to draw from. While conservative economists speak in specifics and cite examples of past flawed economic policies.

It makes total sense to me, because I've always been more concerned with macro trends for market performance with almost no desire to learn the financials of an individual company.


*Please note, I'm not stating that Lonesnark is a liberal, just that it surprised me he was not aware of such a basic fact that demonstrates how egregious the tax code is. I think he has pretty good political& real world knowledge if I recall correctly, I've never seen him post anything left leaning enough that would have made me think less of him.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:49 PM. Reason : a]

4/18/2011 7:48:37 PM

Quote :

"The fact that he didn't know hedge fund managers get taxed at cap gains on their performance bonus is eye opening to me."

In fairness, that is more about tax code than macroeconomics, so you don't have to give up all your swooning just for that.

Quote :

"This could easily explain how liberal economists always speak in broad generalizations with no real world applications or experience to draw from. While conservative economists speak in specifics and cite examples of past flawed economic policies."

Or it could be through the partisan-colored glasses things tend to look like you want them to.

Quote :

"It makes total sense to me, because I've always been more concerned with macro trends for market performance with almost no desire to learn the financials of an individual company."

If it makes you feel any worse, that is my day-to-day work, although it's based on mathematics moreso than how much a company subscribes to certain political beliefs.

Quote :

"if I recall correctly, I've never seen him post anything left leaning enough that would have made me think less of him."

Considering how extreme you are, why don't you ask him about your idea of the coming economic apocalypse? You'll find very few people who share your beliefs who have not yet been committed to mental institutions.

4/18/2011 8:23:40 PM

Quote :

"I find that hard to believe. if it is true then the solution is the change the rules of what counts as capital gains, not raise the capital gains tax."

I agree. Although, the senate has tried to do this, but then the Treasury secretary throws complications at them and halts the process.

Quote :

"disagree, why should capital gains be subsidized? Why should it be treated any different than any other kind of income?"

Because of inflation.

Quote :

"Wow. I've always considered LoneSnark the resident economist on this board. The fact that he didn't know hedge fund managers get taxed at cap gains on their performance bonus is eye opening to me."

I don't think he thought that.

Ok, so the discussion in previous threads is this:
The principle should be taxed at normal income rates. We all agree on that. However, if you are compensated with some principle, then put it in a special account, then you can wait to pay taxes on it later, and depending on the options you select, you may or may not have to pay income tax on the gains - this is stock options, and a small fraction of the middle class has access to these too, although who knows if it's a good deal for them. The claim that I am continuing to make is that some of the super rich have a way to skirt income taxes on the principle. I may still be proven wrong on this. Anyway, if I'm right it's disgusting.

4/18/2011 8:27:10 PM

Quote :

"Because of inflation."

Can you explain this more? I think I understand what you're getting at, but please expand on that if you will.

4/18/2011 8:44:35 PM

Quote :

"Legally, it was counterfeit, a judge has already ruled on the case, perhaps one day it could be overturned, but as of right now, legally, it is counterfeit."

So, OJ simpson didn't actually murder anyone, right? The legal system may say one thing. But then again, it's not anyone has ever been railroaded before by the legal system. What a weak argument, lol.

Quote :

"They do no such thing. They take steps to try clean them up afterwords"

wow, that's pretty worthless. I guess you didn't say before that "they try to attempt to address it." Oh wait, YOU DID!

Quote :

"I think they do attempt to address it"

and then there was this:

Quote :

"There will always be booms and busts if we accept that train of thought, but in theory it is possible to weaken them, and even remove them entirely."

yep, no talk of having the gov't "try to remove booms and busts." Nope, none whatsoever.

Quote :

"Go back and reread the thread, you asked me for my analysis on a different set of data, which you could easily generate your own graph, and I instructed you how to do it. In the other set of data I was not asked."

Yeah, and you were asked several times to produce data. Do I need to do a fucking search for it? or are you gonna say "oh, he produced a DIFFERENT set of data. oh, really he wasn't asking me for the analysis I did... oh, no, he wasn't doing that." jesus christ, dude.

Quote :

"More of a 2 step backpedal, here I'll show it."

OK, how about this? we know, by default, that gov't isn't getting rid of the booms and busts, because they still occur. Now, let's talk about actions that the gov't does to distort the market. Distortions never cause booms or busts, right? Naaaaaaaaaah, they never do that. And, by definition, if something causes a problem, it must have made something worse. Hmmm, game, set, match? I mean, it's not like keeping interests rates so low fed the housing boom. It's not like pushing home ownership via various tax credits re-inflated housing bubble, delaying the inevitable. Nope, no such things occurred. No siree!

4/18/2011 10:39:05 PM

Quote :

"So, OJ simpson didn't actually murder anyone, right?"

Well the two cases don't have too much in common, for example a key part is that while the liberty coin was focused around what constitutes "counterfeiting", the OJ Simpson case had little to do with what constitutes "murder".

Quote :

"I guess you didn't say before that "they try to attempt to address it.""

"Attempt to address" != "attempts to prevent" that is the very reason I picked that term rather than another.

Quote :

"yep, no talk of having the gov't "try to remove booms and busts." Nope, none whatsoever."

There was none. I spoke of the possibility of "weakening and removing them entirely" and I stated that the government takes some small steps (like progressive taxation and wealth transfers) the soften or clean up after them, but nowhere did I ever say the government currently prevents them.

Quote :

"Do I need to do a fucking search for it?"

I wish you would, I did.

here's the thread:
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=610969

here's the data I asked for Chance's analysis:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/imts/Historical%20data%201900-1960.pdf

here's the data that you asked me for anaylsis of, which I provided, and then you claimed I didn't do it well enough or something because you had to click a checkbox and a drop down to get to it:
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx

Quote :

"Distortions never cause booms or busts, right?"

That's far from a proof. In fact, that's what we call an assumption.

Quote :

"if something causes a problem, it must have made something worse"

That is absolutely retarded. In order to prove what you are saying you will need to do two things:
1. Prove there is a relationship between the two
2. Prove that relationship is negative.

You did not attempt to do either of these, you instead posted some of the absolute worst logic I have ever seen in this message board.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 11:17 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2011 11:16:19 PM

Quote :

"There was none. I spoke of the possibility of "weakening and removing them entirely" and I stated that the government takes some small steps (like progressive taxation and wealth transfers) the soften or clean up after them, but nowhere did I ever say the government currently prevents them."

but you most certainly said that it tries to prevent them. Your very words show such a fact.

Quote :

""Attempt to address" != "attempts to prevent" that is the very reason I picked that term rather than another."

So you could imply one thing and then backtrack later. got it.

Quote :

"Well the two cases don't have too much in common, for example a key part is that while the liberty coin was focused around what constitutes "counterfeiting", the OJ Simpson case had little to do with what constitutes "murder"."

Irrelevant. The trial said he didn't murder those people in the eyes of the law. Therefor, he didn't murder them, right?

Quote :

"You did not attempt to do either of these, you instead posted some of the absolute worst logic I have ever seen in this message board. "

so, you admit that I'm right. Otherwise, you are arguing that low interest rates would have no effect on the housing market, nor would gov't inducements to buy housing.

4/18/2011 11:58:44 PM

Quote :

"but you most certainly said that it tries to prevent them. Your very words show such a fact."

Challenge accepted. Where did I say the government tries to prevent them?

Quote :

"So you could imply one thing and then backtrack later."

I never backtracked, you made things up and acted like I said them.

Quote :

"The trial said he didn't murder those people in the eyes of the law."

It's completely relevant. In the OJ trail it was obvious that she was murdered, the debate was not about what murder is, it was about whether or not he was the one who did it. It would be relevant if Liberty claimed that someone else made the coins, not that act of making the coins was or was not counterfeit.

Quote :

"Otherwise, you are arguing that low interest rates would have no effect on the housing market, nor would gov't inducements to buy housing."

Nice strawman, but my argument was exactly what I said it was.

4/19/2011 12:24:53 AM

Quote :

"It's completely relevant. In the OJ trail it was obvious that she was murdered, the debate was not about what murder is, it was about whether or not he was the one who did it. It would be relevant if Liberty claimed that someone else made the coins, not that act of making the coins was or was not counterfeit."

movin the goalposts much? You claimed that he was counterfeiting because the trial said so. YOUR FUCKING WORDS. Ergo, because the trial said that OJ didn't murder those people, then he didn't actually murder them. Look at your words. "a judge has already ruled on the case". As in, "a judge said so, so it is so." Jesus.

Quote :

"Nice strawman, but my argument was exactly what I said it was."

So then, you admit that low interest rates have an effect on the housing market. And what, oh wise one, would you think this effect would be? Up or down? Would it feed a bubble? Hmmm?

4/19/2011 12:32:08 AM

Quote :

"You claimed that he was counterfeiting because the trial said so."

Yes, but your comparison is a false one as the two trails had little to do with each other.

Quote :

"Look at your words. "a judge has already ruled on the case"."

And that still stands even with your bad analogy. Liberty was found guilty of counterfeiting and OJ was found innocent of murder.

Quote :

"So then, you admit that low interest rates have an effect on the housing market."

No, I made the argument that I posted. If you want to pose your own argument then that's fine, but stop attempting to strawman mine.

4/19/2011 12:52:40 AM

Quote :

"Can you explain this more? I think I understand what you're getting at, but please expand on that if you will."

Let's say I invest in a non-perishable commodity. This describes Gold and other expensive metals very well. I now have capital, and I'm storing that capital, this is "money in the bank" so to speak.

Now, if everything in the world were all perfect and equal, then that metal will stay exactly the same value. Forever. After all, the intrinsic physical value of it never changes, it's the same thing now as it was at near the beginning of the Earth.

As a matter of monetary policy, national banks (banks that serve the government and control monetary policy) are incentivized to have a constant (but controlled) rate of inflation. Sure, fine, they issue that money anyway. But for taxes, you have no choice but to denominate everything in dollars. It doesn't matter if you never use the national currency, you must pretend that you do and base your gold in dollars.

That means that gold that remains at the same value will incur capital gains.

One can argue this is taxing the capital that an individual holds. It mostly is. But the issue I have is that THEY CALL IT CAPITAL GAINS, key word, "gains". A capital tax is a different concept, which I'm not even arguing against. The argument I'm making is that we should refer to taxes by what they actually are. And US capital gains is a confusion of several kinds of taxes possible by the denomination of everything in the dollar, which is anything but steady in value. What should you do? You should calculate actual gains based on inflation adjusted numbers and subject that to income tax. It would most likely still be a higher tax than current capital gains, but the rich are also not subject to wealth destruction through hyper inflation. That's fairness, nothing else.

---- Privets to this ----
Obviously the world is not perfect or constant. A reasonable economic argument is that the price of gold goes up over the long term at roughly the rate of population increase. Why? Roughly same amount of gold. More people. So why bother trying to pin anything to an absolute value? Valid point, maybe.

Also, no one agrees on inflation rates. Who would we ask to calculation the numbers for inflation? What I'm saying might be good in theory and suck in reality.

In general though, technically it is not possible to garner indestructible value, and I do find this concerning. Hyperinflation would leach value from all assets, although if you have something like an apartment to rent, for instance, you can continue making money off it although having almost no principle in it, meaning that moving assets at all in a hyperinflation environment will cause them to be taxed, and probably taxed like capital gains. Yes, there are hedges against inflation, but equities, for instance, only take in income following inflation, and they are still subject to the inflation-tax-trap like the apartment is.

I understand that argument that poor people don't have much of anything in the way of savings, so almost all encouraging of capital holdings is a regressive policy. But our society is based on capital. Look around you, and whatever computer you're at probably required 10s of 1000s of capital in order to make this activity possible. As a matter of equity, we need to shift where the capital is held, instead of leaching it all in taxes and spending it right away (and then some) in the maws of the government.

4/19/2011 9:18:23 AM

Quote :

"That means that gold that remains at the same value will incur capital gains."

It did incur capital gains. There is no absolute constant that you can measure it against, as you've pointed out in calculating inflation. Your gold was bought in dollars, is valued in dollars, and those capital gains were realized in dollars, and your taxes will be paid in dollars. It is irrelevant whether those gains came through inflation or through increase demand for that item, they are gains all the same as they are measured relative to dollars in each step they take.

Quote :

"As a matter of equity, we need to shift where the capital is held, instead of leaching it all in taxes and spending it right away (and then some) in the maws of the government."

This isn't really relevant as we've assumed it to be revenue neutral. The question is why should capital gains be subsidized at the expense of other income tax-payers?

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2011 3:25:05 PM

Quote :

"It did incur capital gains. There is no absolute constant that you can measure it against, as you've pointed out in calculating inflation."

I know there is no absolute absolute item to index anything against. But my point is that dollars are something that are knowingly and intentionally depreciating. It's double-talk to propose dollars, of all things, as a baseline for taxes because all value is subjective. All value is subjective, but dollars are declining in value. Absolutely nobody disagrees on that point.

Quote :

"This isn't really relevant as we've assumed it to be revenue neutral. The question is why should capital gains be subsidized at the expense of other income tax-payers?"

I totally agree, let's go ahead and not subsidize capital gains. In fact, let's tax it exactly as regular income. But to be clear...

I propose: tax capital gains as income, indexed to something as objectively constant value as possible
current system: tax capital gains compared to the dollar at 15%

Right now, real gains are taxed at higher than 15%. How much so depends on the fall of the value of the dollar through the duration of the investment, but it is still overwhelmingly lower than income tax would be. So I am agreeing with you that we should tax capital gains higher, but I also stress the arbitrariness of the current system, and if we switched to taxing all capital gains under the current system as income, then real gains would be taxed higher than income, which is paid shortly after the labor is delivered and thus does not have inflation costs associated with it.

More than anything else, I'm concerned about the ability of an individual to hold investments at constant value without bleeding money to the government, which is what you're doing now if you have a low-yield money market or similar investments. Poor people don't get high enough returns (on savings) to offset the inflation tax, direct or indirect. The indirect inflation tax, in fact, strongly favors high yielding investments which are endemic to only the very rich. The more money you have, the better it performs. They are the ones who benefit by this misdirection caused by muddling inflation with taxes on gains.

4/19/2011 3:40:45 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but your comparison is a false one as the two trails had little to do with each other. "

yep. neither one involved a judge or a jury saying something. yep.

Quote :

"No, I made the argument that I posted."

so, your argument is that you have no argument. got it.

4/19/2011 3:41:27 PM

Quote :

"I propose: tax capital gains as income, indexed to something as objectively constant value as possible current system: tax capital gains compared to the dollar at 15%"

I agree with your post, but I suppose my proposal would be to tax them as regular income and allow the ROR's and interest rates to fix themselves around taxes, as the market should be able to handle automatically. This way we wouldn't have to rely on guessing what to index them against. Also I don't know that measuring them with some less nominal index would have much effect on the economies of scale on investing.

4/19/2011 6:15:37 PM

One thing that is ridiculous is that you get subsidized on capital gains tax if you buy paper wealth (stocks, bonds, etc) at a maximum 15% tax rate. If you buy a home you get subsidized with a 0% tax rate on capital gains (up to ~500k anyway).

But if you buy "collectibles" like art, gold, silver, memorabilia.... and use that as your investment? You get taxed at 28%. Be even more careful if its timber, animals, et then you might get busted for income or some kind of crazy k1 filing...

Why the fuck is that you ask? Because the government doesn't like competition. They want you to own paper, not things. Paper they can destroy a lot easier than things.

Thats why I keep all my gold in my roth IRA so i dont eat the 28% when i sell. Paper gold of course, the government is making it harder than fuck these days to invest "things" in your IRA.

Back in the day you could hold almost whatever the hell you wanted in your IRA. Paintings, sculptures, fucking race horses....

Now good luck getting approved and if you do look out for the nutso annual fees and custodian fees you'll pay to maintain the account.


I do think it's hilarious that before they closed a hole in the system you could buy a $100k boat in your IRA. Leave the boat in your IRA until you were done using it. Then sell the boat whenever you are done with it for $20k. Sure your IRA is worth $80k less.... but you saved $30,000 in taxes by not taking a distribution to buy the boat.

Try buying a boat in an IRA next week, see what kind of hoops you have to go through. Again, the government doesn't like competition.

4/19/2011 7:51:45 PM

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

4/19/2011 8:07:51 PM

are arguing that globalism wouldnt have happened even faster if we hadn't adjusted our tax rate lower?

God, who even teaches this shit anymore?

4/19/2011 8:21:22 PM

Don't be a hack martin, no one knows how the global economy would have played out by making 1 variable in the chaos different.

4/19/2011 8:33:43 PM

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-doomsday-trends-america-cant-survive-2011-04-19#

Quote :

"Yale scholar Immanuel Wallerstein warns that capitalism’s at the end of a 500-year cycle: The “political struggle is over what kind of system will replace capitalism, not whether it should survive.” We cannot stop this cycle. Yes, Super-Rich Capitalists will fight to the death. But destiny is trapped in our DNA, historians warn, and will not change. America is run by these short-term thinkers. They never learn the lessons of history. They do not want you to know that their capitalism is self-destructive, that capitalism’s cycle is in a suicidal end game, that their “mutant capitalism,” as Bogle calls it, is destroying the very soul of America’s democracy. "

4/19/2011 11:29:54 PM