Page 1 of 1
U.S. tax code
Posted: Sun 21 Jan 2018, 23:08
by prehistoric
All regular readers here will be familiar with my rants about unnecessary complexity, and the fact that far too many aspects of technology have exceeded human capacities for coping. You need to leave some amount of brain power open to deal with matters of "Life, the Universe and Everything", not just the tools you are using.
This blast is not aimed at anything particularly technological, unless you are thinking about reading, writing and printing as technologies.
In 1998 there was legislation to reduce the complexity of the U.S. tax code, which runs over more than 6,000 pages. You can find the result in:
Section 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(IX), the anti-complexity clause.
I am not making this up, but it is possible there is a typo in that reference.
Posted: Mon 22 Jan 2018, 21:49
by 8Geee
I always kind of giggle at the US Corporate Welfare System of avoiding taxation. It makes the Citizen version look pale. But hey, its the Republican version of DACA and other such 'free to enter and recieve assistance' programs. Both make the Consumer/Taxpayer pay dearly. Just think... two different ways to add voters to their party!, there just aims not to be enough already with a citizen head-count.
Regards
8Geee
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2018, 14:13
by bigpup
The republicans should have never passed the 16th amendment, in the 61st congress they controlled.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration
.
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2018, 23:30
by TyroBGinner
Welfare means getting some money from taxpayers. Welfare does not mean being less of a taxpayer.
If businesses pay less in taxes, then thier products costs less for the end user. If this is "welfare", then I am all for it...we need more welfare, not less. We need it among all businesses and all individuals.
Posted: Thu 01 Feb 2018, 01:15
by technosaurus
I have often thought it would be beneficial to have a "simplification movement" where any bill, law or code longer than 100 pages is rewritten to 10% of its original size in plain language. As for the tax code itself, I'm all for a flat "disposable income tax" where only the income above the poverty line is taxed at a rate determined by the budget (any growth will cause debt to be paid down)
Posted: Thu 03 May 2018, 21:19
by WIckedWitch
At the risk of offending Americans here, I'm slightly inclined to say that American English is itself unnecessarily verbose.
I once watched a US crime documentary in which a cop said, "Ultimately the cadaver was located by a canine unit." (18 syllables)
Roughly translated into The Queen's English, this means, "In the end a dog found the corpse." (8 syllables)
Strunk and White should be required reading in all US schools.
Posted: Sat 05 May 2018, 02:59
by 8Geee
TyroBGinner wrote:Welfare means getting some money from taxpayers. Welfare does not mean being less of a taxpayer.
If businesses pay less in taxes, then thier products costs less for the end user. If this is "welfare", then I am all for it...we need more welfare, not less. We need it among all businesses and all individuals.
Fine... just try to attract a big megabucks Company to your State. If they have to pay 1 penny in property tax, they'll find a lower cost. Yah, that burden is NOT shifted to the tax-payer... perish the thought!
Posted: Sun 06 May 2018, 10:34
by TyroBGinner
It is amazing how easily you dismiss all the jobs the "megabucks" company provides...and the income for the employees....and the taxes those employees pay...and the flow of money into the businesses frequented by the employees...and so on...
And you didn't address the fact that the increased cost of production is transferred to the consumer.
Posted: Sun 06 May 2018, 23:10
by WIckedWitch
TyroBGinner wrote:It is amazing how easily you dismiss all the jobs the "megabucks" company provides...and the income for the employees....and the taxes those employees pay...and the flow of money into the businesses frequented by the employees...and so on...
And you didn't address the fact that the increased cost of production is transferred to the consumer.
I salute you, sir, for this magnificent display of bravura sound-bite economics, and I confirm my support for the view that this is precisely how the world *should* work.
Two-and-a-half cheers for all garrulous lay practitioners of the Dismal Science and remember, folks, to carry your gold in a safe place - especially when buying it in Canada!
Posted: Mon 07 May 2018, 02:36
by technosaurus
WIckedWitch wrote:TyroBGinner wrote:It is amazing how easily you dismiss all the jobs the "megabucks" company provides...and the income for the employees....and the taxes those employees pay...and the flow of money into the businesses frequented by the employees...and so on...
And you didn't address the fact that the increased cost of production is transferred to the consumer.
I salute you, sir, for this magnificent display of bravura sound-bite economics, and I confirm my support for the view that this is precisely how the world *should* work.
Two-and-a-half cheers for all garrulous lay practitioners of the Dismal Science and remember, folks, to carry your gold in a safe place - especially when buying it in Canada!
basic microeconomics 101
Each job can produce 10 more indirectly.
Certain factors can compound this though. The larger portion of their income people spend, the more jobs are created. If people spend 90% of their income, 10 jobs; 99% = 100 jobs. Saving money may be a good for the individual, but bad for the economy. That is why enlightened people know that publicly funded retirement, education and basic healthcare more than offset the cost (the things people save for just in case)
Banks used to offset some of the negative effects of saving by lending most of the money, but lending too much lead to failures from bank runs, so they figured out that insurance was necessary. That works if only 1 or 2 banks fail at a time, but during a crisis, many fail; causing insurance companies to fail, which causes more runs just in case the bank becomes uninsured. This lead to federally backed insurance.
Most developed countries have some type of pyramid scheme retirement plan that works so long as population and/or GDP grows.
Most countries now have unemployment and disability insurance or workmans compensation, so thats one less thing to have to save for.
The US is one of the few developed countries without basic healthcare support, but its more of a buy now pay later system, so people don't really save for it.
That leaves down payments for major purchases like transportation and housing, which got down to 0% from around 10% before the last crisis. Even though that wasn't the direct cause, more banks are requiring 20% down these days. This is only needed once though and the down payment money is typically saved in banks that lend it out, so its effects are small.
Which brings us to the last major item people save for... education.
Few countries, if any, invest much in post secondary education, presumably to dissuade people from getting degrees in underwater basket weaving just for kicks. That doesn't mean tuition waivers or scholarships should not be granted for growth and high demand fields, or at least "gen-eds". Instead students take out loans that could be used for businesses investment or for homes, cars or consumer goods that would create jobs. If they decide its not worth the risk of taking out a loan that not even bankruptcy dissolves, then they make less money, pay less taxes (the difference would more than cover tuition costs) and push those fields toward other economies.
Posted: Mon 07 May 2018, 05:51
by 6502coder
WIckedWitch wrote:At the risk of offending Americans here, I'm slightly inclined to say that American English is itself unnecessarily verbose.
Er.....
UK:
"I refer the right honorable gentleman to the response I gave some moments ago."
US:
"Already answered that."
Posted: Mon 07 May 2018, 06:04
by technosaurus
6502coder wrote:WIckedWitch wrote:At the risk of offending Americans here, I'm slightly inclined to say that American English is itself unnecessarily verbose.
Er.....
UK:
"I refer the right honorable gentleman to the response I gave some moments ago."
US:
"Already answered that."
aluminium
Posted: Mon 07 May 2018, 19:00
by WIckedWitch
technosaurus wrote:6502coder wrote:WIckedWitch wrote:At the risk of offending Americans here, I'm slightly inclined to say that American English is itself unnecessarily verbose.
Er.....
UK:
"I refer the right honorable gentleman to the response I gave some moments ago."
US:
"Already answered that."
aluminium
You're quite right about the pr!cks in our Parliament, but they are verbose simply because they are politicians.
As regards spelling, I actually think that American spelling is often rather more logical than UK spelling. One of the biggest problems for non-native speakers learning English is the phonetic irregularity of the language. (Consider: through, though, rough, cough, ought.)
"Different than" doesn't bother me either, even though in the UK we say, "different from".
It is, however, very noticeable to Brits that Americans on average tend to use more words than Brits would use to express the same things.
Generally, though, I'll be with prehistoric all the way in rants about unnecessary complexity/
Posted: Mon 07 May 2018, 19:15
by WIckedWitch
technosaurus wrote:
basic microeconomics 101
Each job can produce 10 more indirectly.
Basic mathematics: The above *cannot be true* in any finite economy.
...<snip> ...
Most developed countries have some type of pyramid scheme retirement plan that works so long as population and/or GDP grows.
...<snip> ...
You put it so mildly. I'd call them Ponzi schemes that make the young pay disproportionately for the old. If these were commercial schemes, they would be fraudulent. As it is at the moment, they are state-sanctioned rip-offs at the expense of the young. The only sustainable pension schemes are those that are based on compulsory saving.
Posted: Mon 07 May 2018, 21:39
by technosaurus
WIckedWitch wrote:technosaurus wrote:
basic microeconomics 101
Each job can produce 10 more indirectly.
Basic mathematics: The above *cannot be true* in any finite economy.
Its not an infinite economy, but 7 billion people in the global economy is close enough that even long double couldn't differentiate.
If ttuuxxxx earns 100 and spends 90 at BarryK's shop, Barry earns 90.
Then BarryK spends 81 of his 90 for Dima's old laptop
Dima uses 73 to buy parts for his instrument from Musher0
Musher spends 65 of that on ...
...
... to technosaurus
technosaurus spends 2 cents of that to post this response to Ww
Ww takes that 2 cents worth of post and...
If you totaled all that up, you'd get 1000 (10x the initial 100)
... its easier to just show the code (I'd show the math formula, but the summation symbol requires mathml)
For single precision floating point you need less than 200 people.
Code: Select all
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
double sum = 0;
for (int i=0;i<200;++i) sum+=pow(0.9,i);
printf("%f\n",sum);
return 0;
}
Prints 10.000000
Sounds great right? The local economy will grow like gang busters. But then there is taxes. After state and federal taxes and savings, lets say he only spends 50% of that.
Code: Select all
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
double sum = 0;
for (int i=0;i<200;++i) sum+=pow(0.5,i);
printf("%f\n",sum);
return 0;
}
Prints 2.000000
Wow, taxes just stunted local growth by a factor of 5. But in general they spend 100% of that money, so it does go back into the state and federal economies, just not necessarily your local economy... usually to areas that support the current regime.
Posted: Tue 08 May 2018, 16:55
by WIckedWitch
technosaurus wrote:WIckedWitch wrote:technosaurus wrote:
basic microeconomics 101
Each job can produce 10 more indirectly.
Basic mathematics: The above *cannot be true* in any finite economy.
Its not an infinite economy, but 7 billion people in the global economy is close enough that even long double couldn't differentiate.
However large it is,
it is still a closed system (since, AFAI know, the Earth is not yet trading even with it's nearest neighbours in the solar system). Owing to nonlinearity in economic systems, however, local quasi-exponential behaviour can persist for considerable periods, but the study of dynamical systems, especially stochastic ones, shows that such phenomena can rarely be guaranteed to be dynamically stable.
Posted: Wed 09 May 2018, 02:19
by 8Geee
Alas, as wickedwitch points out so aptly "it *should* work" that way, but it does not. Both ends of the financial spectrum are unwilling (top) or unable (bottom) to pay their fair-share. Thus the employees are burdened with their master's taxes. Is it any wonder a family of four can make $200,000 a year and still live paycheck-to-paycheck.
The middle-income family is getting squeezed into bankruptcy (that the central portion of the statistical bell-curve), and thus goes the whole USA.
8Geee
Posted: Wed 09 May 2018, 08:47
by bigpup
Trying to spend money you do not have is the problem.
How many people keep a running total of what they spend when they use a credit card or debit card.
Both of them can easily spend money you do not have!
It cracks me up when people talk about how much money they get back when they file their tax return.
All they did is lock that money from being used for a year, and gave the government a free one year loan.
Posted: Wed 09 May 2018, 16:37
by WIckedWitch
8Geee wrote:Alas, as wickedwitch points out so aptly "it *should* work" that way, --<snip>--
Actually, when I wrote that, I was being (surprise, surprise) rather sarcastic. Economics and economists p!ss me off big time. Economists that use mathematics almost invariably have an inflated idea of their mathematical abilities, not realising how small is the part of mathematics that they are ever taught. Armed with such limited mathematics, they propose theories and models that deal with quantities that are poorly measurable if they are measured at all. The result is over-simplified models that *cannot* plausibly capture reality yet are not falsifiable by controlled, reproducible experiments. It's little wonder that economics is called the "dismal science".
Having feckud up to the n-th degree in their jobs, the alehorses then tell us to make the world to satisfy the assumptions of their models. That's what I was getting at when I mockingly said the world *should* work this way.
Sorry if my British sarcasm is a bit obscure for this forum.