[Outcast_Searcher]

Maybe if the Biden administration sends me another stimulus check of $1200 to $2400 I will throw that "not my money" into a Tesla or some other high risk growth stock?
Better chances then blowing it on lottery tickets.

Oh HELL yes. The lottery is statistically about the worst (honest) gamble one can take, since the government take is so high. You'd be MUCH better off, re chances of winning something playing roulette at any honest casino, for example.

I suspect re all the commentary that there is (places like Seeking Alpha Tesla articles) a LONG line of folks wanting to buy Tesla at a half or a quarter, etc. of its current price. Maybe if the virus and then the market gets REALLY ugly this winter, it will drag Tesla and tech. enthusiasm down with it and you MIGHT get your chance to by TSLA much cheaper.

If the competition continues not to produce, generally, in large numbers (which I hope changes over the next few years) and Tesla gets 5X or 10X cheaper, I might well want to take a patient flyer myself. Supposedly VW, Ford, and others are going to produce BEV's in some serious volumes starting in 2021/2022 -- we'll see.

[vtsnowedin]

I am an advocate of user taxes. As in road construction gets paid for by fuel taxes paid by the users of the road. And education should be paid for by income tax as that is what you use your education for.
I consider lotteries as the stupidity tax as the more stupid you are the more you get to pay. It is a very progressive tax.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I am an advocate of user taxes. As in road construction gets paid for by fuel taxes paid by the users of the road. And education should be paid for by income tax as that is what you use your education for.
I consider lotteries as the stupidity tax as the more stupid you are the more you get to pay. It is a very progressive tax.

Agreed. I remember my father mentioning shortly after the lottery became popular in many states remarking, "If they tried to raise income taxes enough to tax folks as much as they are lining up to eagerly pay for lottery tickets, there would be a revolution."

Aside from when my work team grouped together and bought a pool of lottery tickets a good 20+ years ago (and I didn't want to be the only unlucky person left behind trying to do a dozen peoples' work), I've NEVER bought a lottery ticket. WAY too little expected payout for the price of a ticket.

[Ibon]

I am an advocate of user taxes. o

VAT. Most countries do it. In light of attempting to curb consumption both from avoiding debt and avoiding environmental costs not to mention a source of revenue to address social inequities why is the US not advocating this?

[Outcast_Searcher]

I am an advocate of user taxes.

VAT. Most countries do it. In light of attempting to curb consumption both from avoiding debt and avoiding environmental costs not to mention a source of revenue to address social inequities why is the US not advocating this?

Agreed. And not only is the US not doing this, there isn't really much debate or intelligent discussion about this in government at the federal level -- at least from what I notice, and I tend to follow financial news a moderate amount.

As time goes on, consumption taxes become more and more obvious, re a good way to change behavior. I've long thought they should be tuned to be higher (to much higher) for things that do much more environmental damage. So, for example, the gas guzzler tax would be huge. We already have some negative taxes (credits) for buying BEV's and PHEV's to prevent all or most burning of gasoline. So I'd call this a "smart VAT" or a "climate aware VAT".

(I think the main problem with a VAT as commonly implemented is that they just pile it on top of already high income taxes, and it is HIGHLY regressive. And then they tend to grow a lot, making them MORE regressive as a proportion of the overall tax system. So done my way, that eliminates the VAT plus income taxes issues for all but the well off.)

I'd actually like to eliminate income taxes period for all but the upper middle class and the wealthy. We could have the VAT tuned to AGW and pollution and resource scarcity and habitat damage, etc. as the primary tax base for consumers. And the wealthier could also pay some income taxes in the name of a progressive tax base, but perhaps we could have it something more like a FAIR tax and avoid punative rates -- but ALSO avoid all sorts of tax and accounting games, so if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, etc. make, say, $100 million in a year, they pay the income tax on ALL of that (less some standard deduction like perhaps $100,000 everyone would get).

The tax code becomes FAR simpler, FAR more effective, FAR more fair, and something everyone of average intelligence can understand. (And there could still be the death tax. I don't like it on top of a lifetime paying income taxes, but I know the left disagrees with that, so that could be another progressive tax policy knob. I think if rich people paid tax on essentially EVERY dollar earned EVERY year, the need for a death tax would vanish if the income tax rate were appropriate.)

But I know, we can never do that because of special interests and the notion that the government must have ENDLESS power to tweak all things economic, whether that actually works out as intended over time, or not.

In reality, at the end of the day, no matter how much screeching from the likes of Sanders and Warren -- I don't think the rich will EVER pay taxes on essentially all their earnings, because TPTB won't eliminate their many legal breaks, regardless of their vote buying rhetoric.

[evilgenius]

In the UK there isn't any additional regional, equivalent to state, tax. VAT is a centralized tax, in that way. A uniform tax, also, encourages the practice they have of including the tax in the price. When you see a price in the aisle, it is the price you pay at the register. There isn't any extra tax to contend with. You don't have to do the extra math when you only have so much in your pocket.

You could argue against this type of tax in the US because it exacerbates not only a state level, but regional and municipal level, reliance upon the Federal Government. Since the Federal Government is not supposed to have any of the powers not expressly delegated to it by the Constitution, it might provide for some loopholes which trucks could be driven through.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You could argue against this type of tax in the US because it exacerbates not only a state level, but regional and municipal level, reliance upon the Federal Government. Since the Federal Government is not supposed to have any of the powers not expressly delegated to it by the Constitution, it might provide for some loopholes which trucks could be driven through.

That's a good point, re limiting US federal powers. Not being a lawyer, tax expert, or even fan of social studies, I don't tend to think like that, instead, thinking about math, efficiency, etc.

So good catch on a huge blind spot on my part re that issue -- my bad.

Though liberals hate to admit it, state powers in the US have BROAD implications. Like the liberal dreams of magically eliminating the electoral college, since it would help them, as though the constitution and the process for constitutional amendments doesn't exist.

[yellowcanoe]

Though liberals hate to admit it, state powers in the US have BROAD implications. Like the liberal dreams of magically eliminating the electoral college, since it would help them, as though the constitution and the process for constitutional amendments doesn't exist.

Wish I had kept the link, but my understanding is that many attempts have been made to eliminate the electoral college. It isn't just liberals that want to do that -- there have been periods in the past when it was the Republicans who were leading the "eliminate the electoral college" bandwagon. Both parties have experienced the situation where their candidate won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Though liberals hate to admit it, state powers in the US have BROAD implications. Like the liberal dreams of magically eliminating the electoral college, since it would help them, as though the constitution and the process for constitutional amendments doesn't exist.

Wish I had kept the link, but my understanding is that many attempts have been made to eliminate the electoral college. It isn't just liberals that want to do that -- there have been periods in the past when it was the Republicans who were leading the "eliminate the electoral college" bandwagon. Both parties have experienced the situation where their candidate won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college.

As I recall, that's true. It's politics as usual with both sides talking out of both sides of their mouths re wanting to gain advantage at the time. (Anyone in doubt re that just needs to look at the games played in the last decade re the SCOTUS).

In recent decades, it's been the liberals, and it's tended to be liberals in the decades I've paid attention to politics, so that's what I was referring to.

[evilgenius]

I do, however, think there should be a one percent federal sales tax. It shouldn't ever be higher than that. It has to fit inside of local tax structures. It can't be this onerous amount that shipwrecks the pace of business. Most local schemes hover right around ten percent. Another point does exacerbate that, but not so much as to doom commerce.

The reason is simple. Rich people can only buy so many big screen TV's. Soaking the rich isn't the only solution to fixing the tax structure. You can still do that, if you have to.

[careinke]

Here is an old question of mine.

Lets say you have a spare $100,000 laying around. You do not want to keep it in cash, you want it to be useful in a collapse situation. So it needs to be portable and of sufficient intrinsic worth that it will not loose value AND it needs to be divisible into small units, so that you can buy a loaf if bread with it.

Real estate is a great investment, not portable or divisible. Gold is portable but hard to wack off $5 worth. I have no clue about bitcoin divisibility, I suspect you sell it, convert it to cash.

I find this a difficult question. The only thing I can think of that works would be either junk silver or ammo. 22LR would work reasonably well but is heavy. And for me traveling internationally it is often illegal.

Other thoughts appreciated.

Guys I haven't forgot about your questions, but I was trying to figure out a way to simplify it, yet give a holistic type of answer. I was also pretty busy in the garden and watching the political clown show going on. Sorry.

My Bitcoin is taking off like a rocket along with the crypto market cap.
https://coinmarketcap.com/

Today, I am listening to a podcast about a privacy coin called Pirate Chain. So I did a little Pre-search on the coin symbol ARRR (clever huh)?
On their website, there is a beginners guide which is well written and well organized to answer most of your questions.
https://pirate.black/beginners-guide
In order to understand how bitcoin works, you need to first understand how blockchain works, then you need to understand how bitcoin uses blockchain. The link above gives you the basics in a 15 minute read. Then goes on to explain their privacy coin and how it fits in. Believe me, it's a much better explanation than I could give.

Here are some excerpts:

What is Blockchain?

Blockchain is literally just a chain of blocks, but not in the traditional sense of those words. When we say the words “block” and “chain” in this context, we are actually talking about digital information (the “block”) stored in a public database (the “chain”).

“Blocks” on the blockchain are made up of digital pieces of information. Specifically, they have three parts:

1. Blocks store information about transactions like the date, time, and dollar amount of your most recent purchases, transfer of funds to another person, etc.
2. Blocks store information about who is participating in transactions. A block for a purchase would record your name along with who you sent it to. Instead of using your actual name, your purchase is recorded without any identifying information using a unique “digital signature,” sort of like a username.
3. Blocks store information that distinguishes them from other blocks. Much like you and I have names to distinguish us from one another, each block stores a unique code called a “hash” that allows us to tell it apart from every other block. Let’s say you send a friend $100, and an hour later, you send them another $100. Even though the details of your new transaction would look nearly identical to your earlier purchase, we can still tell the blocks apart because of their unique codes.

Blockchain vs. Bitcoin
The goal of blockchain is to allow digital information to be recorded and distributed, but not edited. That concept can be difficult to wrap our heads around without seeing the technology in action, so let’s take a look at how the earliest application of blockchain technology actually works.

Blockchain technology was first outlined in 1991 by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta, two researchers who wanted to implement a system where document timestamps could not be tampered with. But it wasn’t until almost two decades later, with the launch of Bitcoin in January 2009, that blockchain had its first real-world application.

The Bitcoin protocol is built on the blockchain. In a research paper introducing the digital currency, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto referred to it as “a new electronic cash system that’s fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.”

Here’s how it works:

You have all these people, all over the world, who have Bitcoin. According to a 2017 study by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, the number may be as many as 5.9 million. Let’s say one of those 5.9 million people wants to spend their Bitcoin on groceries. This is where the blockchain comes in.

When it comes to printed money, the use of printed currency is regulated and verified by a central authority, usually a bank or government — but Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone. Instead, transactions made in Bitcoin are verified by a network of computers.

When one person pays another for goods using Bitcoin, computers on the Bitcoin network race to verify the transaction. In order to do so, users run a program on their computers and try to solve a complex mathematical problem, called a “hash.” When a computer solves the problem by “hashing” a block, its algorithmic work will have also verified the block’s transactions. The completed transaction is publicly recorded and stored as a block on the blockchain, at which point it becomes unalterable. In the case of Bitcoin, and most other blockchains, computers that successfully verify blocks are rewarded for their labor with cryptocurrency. (For a more detailed explanation of verification, see: What is Bitcoin Mining?)

Although transactions are publicly recorded on the blockchain, user data is not — or, at least not in full. In order to conduct transactions on the Bitcoin network, participants must run a program called a “wallet.” Each wallet consists of two unique and distinct cryptographic keys: a public key and a private key. The public key is the location where transactions are deposited to and withdrawn from. This is also the key that appears on the blockchain ledger as the user’s digital signature.

Even if a user receives a payment in Bitcoins to their public key, they will not be able to withdraw them with the private counterpart. A user’s public key is a shortened version of their private key, created through a complicated mathematical algorithm. However, due to the complexity of this equation, it is almost impossible to reverse the process and generate a private key from a public key. For this reason, blockchain technology is considered confidential.

How Bitcoin Works
Bitcoin is the first successful digital currencies to use peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments by using a blockchain. The independent individuals and companies who own the governing computing power and participate in the Bitcoin network, also known as “miners,” are motivated by rewards (the release of new bitcoin) and transaction fees paid in bitcoin. These miners can be thought of as the decentralized authority enforcing the credibility of the Bitcoin network. New bitcoin is being released to the miners at a fixed, but periodically declining rate, such that the total supply of bitcoins approaches 21 million. One bitcoin is divisible to eight decimal places (100 millionths of one bitcoin), and this smallest unit is referred to as a Satoshi. If necessary, and if the participating miners accept the change, Bitcoin could eventually be made divisible to even more decimal places.

Bitcoin mining is the process through which bitcoins are released to come into circulation. Basically, it involves solving a computationally difficult puzzle to discover a new block, which is added to the blockchain and receiving a reward in the form of a few bitcoins. The block reward was 50 new bitcoins in 2009; it decreases every four years. As more and more bitcoins are created, the difficulty of the mining process – that is, the amount of computing power involved – increases. The mining difficulty began at 1.0 with Bitcoin’s debut back in 2009; at the end of the year, it was only 1.18. As of February 2019, the mining difficulty is over 6.06 billion. Once, an ordinary desktop computer sufficed for the mining process; now, to combat the difficulty level, miners must use faster hardware like Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC).

Receiving Bitcoins As a Form of Payment
Bitcoins can be accepted as a means of payment for products sold or services provided. If you have a brick and mortar store, just display a sign saying “Bitcoin Accepted Here” and many of your customers may well take you up on it; the transactions can be handled with the requisite hardware terminal or wallet address through QR codes and touch screen apps. An online business can easily accept bitcoins by just adding this payment option to the others it offers, like credit cards, PayPal, etc. Online payments will require a Bitcoin merchant tool (an external processor like Coinbase, CryptoCurrencyCheckout or a variety of website plugins).

Privacy and Bitcoin
Bitcoin is a great store of value, but it’s privacy features leaves a lot to be desired. Although your public address for your Bitcoin wallet may seem like random numbers and letters in a list of millions of other Bitcoin wallets, it is far from anonymous and private. Think of it like a bank account without a name attached. All of your transactions are recorded; amounts, dates, times, etc. Thus, your entire history is easily shown for the world to see. It has been proven that in most cases, government agencies can easily find out what wallet belongs to which person by a variety of methods they use. Bitcoin is no longer like dealing in cash, which is untraceable when given from person to person in a private setting. This is where anonymous currencies like Pirate Chain come in.

There is more in the link and well worth the read. My initial take on Pirate Chain is it seems VERY PROMISING, and at $0.10 a coin you could play around with it at very little cost.

Newf, to answer your questions. If you and the seller/store keeper have wallets, you can make transactions as small as .00000001 Bitcoin which is about twelve cents today.

I may open a thread on Pirate chain if it pans out.

[Newfie]

How To Buy Pirate Chain.

https://www.cryptotoolset.com/how-to-bu ... in-online/



T cant possibly be this complicated can it?????

[Outcast_Searcher]

I do, however, think there should be a one percent federal sales tax. It shouldn't ever be higher than that. It has to fit inside of local tax structures. It can't be this onerous amount that shipwrecks the pace of business. Most local schemes hover right around ten percent. Another point does exacerbate that, but not so much as to doom commerce.

The reason is simple. Rich people can only buy so many big screen TV's. Soaking the rich isn't the only solution to fixing the tax structure. You can still do that, if you have to.

That is why I stated that the VAT is highly regressive, re the rich only making a relatively small amount of VAT taxable purchases compared to their income.

Also, that's why I brought up the FAIR tax -- it doesn't soak the rich re unreasonable high rates AT ALL -- it just eliminates all the fancy loopholes that only the rich have access to via highly paid accountants and lawyers to invent fancy legal structures, to legally but sometimes unethically, avoid income taxes, by playing fancy games to convert income into "something else".

The rich have so much unreported income that it isn't necessary to soak them with huge rates or penalty rates or "fairness" bumps in the Sanders or Warren style -- just get them to pay a moderate rate on what they ACTUALLY EARN.

Looking at the 2021 tax tables, I would expect my top tax rate to be 24%. Something along that line would be dandy, I think, as the top federal income tax rate for anyone, if wealthy people couldn't avoid a HUGE proportion of taxing with tax structures. Oh, and then if they could use their income and wealth PRODUCTIVELY vs. following some arcane rules to avoid massive marginal tax rates -- it might well spur economic growth and thus induce more total federal tax revenue.

I also think if that was set up, there's no longer a need for the death tax, but I'm certain that the "tax every dime you possibly can (whether reasonable, fair, or not) far left liberals would object strongly to that "in principle". We also wouldn't need the regressive small VAT, IMO, but at 1% that's kind of a rounding error for taxes for the rich. For the taxpayer below the median income who only pays something like 2% of the federal income taxes, it's a significant hit to their proportional federal tax load, on average.

[Outcast_Searcher]

How To Buy Pirate Chain.

https://www.cryptotoolset.com/how-to-bu ... in-online/



T cant possibly be this complicated can it?????

And for all that complexity, as a "bonus" one has to worry about:

1). The coinbase account being hacked, and your coins stolen, with NO RECOURSE, unlike with the FDIC, a brokerage account, a mutual fund, etc. (And yes, this happens repeatedly, due to a variety of potential security issues that hackers exploit, re simple google searching).

2). Whether buried in the math / arcana of the crypto implementation, there's a backdoor, so your coins could be stolen that way, at some point.

3). That the feds decide to go in and seize your coins because of too much illegal activity. (As they just did for over $1 billion in Bitcoin on the "Silk Road" exchange. (Just a reminder for those thinking they can evade income taxes using cryptocurrency -- that sort of game is not without risk, as the IRS has a long arm with money stored electronically).

https://www.wired.com/story/feds-seize- ... d-bitcoin/

...

For me, I'll just PASS on all that. I'd far rather brave the risks of such speculative holdings with physical gold and silver bullion legally stored in safety deposit boxes. And if the economy blows up, to hedge the seizure of physical gold, I can do things like:

a). Keep some of that in Numismatic (rare) gold coins, MANY having a small premium to the underlying value of the gold bullion in them at today's gold prices, and are liquid and well recognized and slabbed by well known and trusted entities, etc. (I already do that).

b). Bury some of it in caches under my house or in the back yard or keep it in a fireproof safe built into the house and hidden, or all of the above.

...

There is, of course, no risk free investment, but I don't like the many KINDS of risks associated with crypto, especially re what happens to the value if the government decides to go full on crypto with their approved version which is tracked and backed by something like FDIC insurance, and you're holding something like Bitcoin or any other "wild west" cryptocurrency.

[Plantagenet]

Crypto currency investing seems to me to be a lot like investing in gold, only without the gold.

Both gold and crypto currency investors are betting that demand for bitcoin or gold will go up, and hence the price will go up. Bitcoin is much, more volatile then gold, so if you are looking to make a quick buck you might get lucky with bitcoin if the price spikes to some extremely high level.

The problem with bitcoin, IMHO, is the demand could drop to zero if we get a really serious economic depression. Who in the heck is going to want some bitcoin if they don't have a job and don't have enough to eat? In contrast, gold has proven to be valuable under all circumstances....war, depression, plagues.....even during the very worst of human disasters gold still has value.

Thats why, personally, I prefer to own some gold. Its a much simpler investment, and tracking your investment is very very easy and safe and you can have some confidence it will still have value even if Joe Biden and the Ds run the economy into the ground and absolutely everything else goes to heck.



Cheers!

[mmasters]

Crypto currency investing seems to me to be a lot like investing in gold, only without the gold.

Both gold and crypto currency investors are betting that demand for bitcoin or gold will go up, and hence the price will go up. Bitcoin is much, more volatile then gold, so if you are looking to make a quick buck you might get lucky with bitcoin if the price spikes to some extremely high level.

The problem with bitcoin, IMHO, is the demand could drop to zero if we get a really serious economic depression. Who in the heck is going to want some bitcoin if they don't have a job and don't have enough to eat? In contrast, gold has proven to be valuable under all circumstances....war, depression, plagues.....even during the very worst of human disasters gold still has value.

Thats why, personally, I prefer to own some gold. Its a much simpler investment, and tracking your investment is very very easy and safe and you can have some confidence it will still have value even if Joe Biden and the Ds run the economy into the ground and absolutely everything else goes to heck.



Cheers!

With Biden being the chosen one I'm all in silver now. When you get down to everyday transactions that would come with some kind of disaster or collapse silver makes the most sense. Plus, being attainable to the masses gives it a lot of upside potential. To add to that it is way undervalued compared to where it was historically. The longtime historical ratio of gold to silver was 1:15, right now it's 1:80. Also, there isn't a precedent for silver confiscation (as with gold). Additionally, the market is larger than gold which makes it harder to corner the market (as with gold and central banks). With the upcoming debt crisis I predict the general public will fall in love with silver and the upside (and practicality) will be much greater than with gold.

[Armageddon]

Crypto currency investing seems to me to be a lot like investing in gold, only without the gold.

Both gold and crypto currency investors are betting that demand for bitcoin or gold will go up, and hence the price will go up. Bitcoin is much, more volatile then gold, so if you are looking to make a quick buck you might get lucky with bitcoin if the price spikes to some extremely high level.

The problem with bitcoin, IMHO, is the demand could drop to zero if we get a really serious economic depression. Who in the heck is going to want some bitcoin if they don't have a job and don't have enough to eat? In contrast, gold has proven to be valuable under all circumstances....war, depression, plagues.....even during the very worst of human disasters gold still has value.

Thats why, personally, I prefer to own some gold. Its a much simpler investment, and tracking your investment is very very easy and safe and you can have some confidence it will still have value even if Joe Biden and the Ds run the economy into the ground and absolutely everything else goes to heck.



Cheers!

With Biden being the chosen one I'm all in silver now. When you get down to everyday transactions that would come with some kind of disaster or collapse silver makes the most sense. Plus, being attainable to the masses gives it a lot of upside potential. To add to that it is way undervalued compared to where it was historically. The longtime historical ratio of gold to silver was 1:15, right now it's 1:80. Also, there isn't a precedent for silver confiscation (as with gold). Additionally, the market is larger than gold which makes it harder to corner the market (as with gold and central banks). With the upcoming debt crisis I predict the general public will fall in love with silver and the upside (and practicality) will be much greater than with gold.

Welcome aboard the silver train. Silver is the second most important commodity in the world behind oil. It has a two-fold importance.... industrial and monetary. It’s industrial usages are vital in this technological world. Supplies are becoming more and more scarce too. It’s been running a supply/demand deficit the past several years and predicted to get worse. I saw this coming late in 2018 when i went all in on physical silver at $14 spot. No regrets. The current price of $25 will seem like a bargain in the coming months / years.

[evilgenius]

I do, however, think there should be a one percent federal sales tax. It shouldn't ever be higher than that. It has to fit inside of local tax structures. It can't be this onerous amount that shipwrecks the pace of business. Most local schemes hover right around ten percent. Another point does exacerbate that, but not so much as to doom commerce.

The reason is simple. Rich people can only buy so many big screen TV's. Soaking the rich isn't the only solution to fixing the tax structure. You can still do that, if you have to.

That is why I stated that the VAT is highly regressive, re the rich only making a relatively small amount of VAT taxable purchases compared to their income.

Also, that's why I brought up the FAIR tax -- it doesn't soak the rich re unreasonable high rates AT ALL -- it just eliminates all the fancy loopholes that only the rich have access to via highly paid accountants and lawyers to invent fancy legal structures, to legally but sometimes unethically, avoid income taxes, by playing fancy games to convert income into "something else".

The rich have so much unreported income that it isn't necessary to soak them with huge rates or penalty rates or "fairness" bumps in the Sanders or Warren style -- just get them to pay a moderate rate on what they ACTUALLY EARN.

Looking at the 2021 tax tables, I would expect my top tax rate to be 24%. Something along that line would be dandy, I think, as the top federal income tax rate for anyone, if wealthy people couldn't avoid a HUGE proportion of taxing with tax structures. Oh, and then if they could use their income and wealth PRODUCTIVELY vs. following some arcane rules to avoid massive marginal tax rates -- it might well spur economic growth and thus induce more total federal tax revenue.

I also think if that was set up, there's no longer a need for the death tax, but I'm certain that the "tax every dime you possibly can (whether reasonable, fair, or not) far left liberals would object strongly to that "in principle". We also wouldn't need the regressive small VAT, IMO, but at 1% that's kind of a rounding error for taxes for the rich. For the taxpayer below the median income who only pays something like 2% of the federal income taxes, it's a significant hit to their proportional federal tax load, on average.

I agree about the best thing being to simply collect. The loopholes can be excessive. Society determines some loopholes which it assumes most people will take advantage of, therefore addressing something about what everybody has to go through, but the rich are probably not using those loopholes in order to dodge paying so much tax. Eliminating the loopholes, though, should come with an initiative designed to cut down on the demand for them.

All the government needs to do, in order to put in place higher tax structures, is to make it a popularity contest. It could be a thing of great pride to pay, say, 32% instead of the basic 24%. I don't think, here again, that it would work if the rate structure was too high. Just make it a few points above 24% for the next interval, like if people make between $120,000 and $250,000 they pay 27%. They only pay 32% if they make more than $250,000. Allow people's natural seeking of prestige to take over, and you might find enough people paying. But make the rate too high and they would all cheat.

I consider it unethical to introduce law that assumes a certain amount of cheating in both its level of enforcement and/or punishment. It severely penalizes those who don't actually cheat, but find themselves in poor circumstances. It, also, rigs the marketplace of human activity, the social one, toward corruption and a general expected level of cheating within all aspects. A person has to also cheat, or they can't keep up.

[vtsnowedin]

My keyboard has died so this will be short. Trump out with GOP still in control of senate looks likely and best possible result. George runoffs worries me.

[evilgenius]

Right now, with unemployment so high and so many small businesses barely getting by, there has to be cheating. Was the stimulus that recent, in economic terms? People must be running out of money. I mean, they must be cheating and working in some way, or so it would seem, or there would be Hoovervilles. Do today's people simply reconfigure from looser boundaries and move in with each other? Has societal wealth dealt them that advantage? Is that where the numbers are getting sucked up? Maybe we are about to get hit with bad numbers economically right when the virus is also at its worst? I hope these days between the election and the inauguration will see some stimulus. I think people must be on the edge. And probably cheating.