EPTDrowning will kill you.
is a tautology and always true. Thus you can't draw the conclusion that getting killed by drowning is a problem.
Edit: Corrected
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 974
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
is a tautology and always true. Thus you can't draw the conclusion that getting killed by drowning is a problem. Edit: Corrected | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 20 2017 01:30 Big J wrote: Since drowning is defined as "killed by..." is a tautology and always true. Thus you can't draw the conclusion that getting killed by drowning is a problem. Edit: Corrected I should have given that one a second pass. Water filling your lungs due to flooding will kill you. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
@TheDwf: How hard are you regretting not voting for Le Pen right now? :D | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
I guess we can expect that in the years to come some government will say that this tax is horseshit because the effort to collect it is too high given how little it makes. The ones who will have to pay for it instead are going to be middle and lower classes who either get higher taxed or their services cut. And then there will be a vast outcry from the conservatives or liberals how high taxes are "due to socialism" and they are going to reduce taxes for high incomes, "because obviously you can only reduce taxes for those who pay taxes to begin with". It's getting tiresome to see these obvious political schemes where you shift taxes on the working people to then tell them that "this is socialism and we have to get rid of it". But for some reason the self-proclaimed liberals believe that taxing what you do for youself, i.e. work output is justifyable, but taxes on things that actually create costs for society and that include extremely valuable rights like property and wealth is theft. | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 21 2017 12:25 Pr0wler wrote: I agree that Macron is on the wrong here. He should remove the tax instead of just lowering it. Such unfair taxes shouldn't exist... Apparently the progressive income taxing is not enough, lets milk the evil rich people even more. But is that the French way? I thought they were interested in chasing out their Depardieus? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 21 2017 12:25 Pr0wler wrote: I agree that Macron is on the wrong here. He should remove the tax instead of just lowering it. Such unfair taxes shouldn't exist... Apparently the progressive income taxing is not enough, lets milk the evil rich people even more. How come a wealth tax is unfair? I imagine there is a ton of stuff in France that the state finances, organizes or subvenes, the consumption of which is directly connected to wealth. Like security (police and military), street construction and upkeep to /around property, protection against catastrophes and similiar. The very first thing you should be taxing in a liberal society is property/wealth, the very last thing you should be thinking about are things like income and consumption which are free interactions that per se don't cause the rest of society costs. There are technical reasons why an income taxation may be a reasonable substitute in certain circumstances for a wealth taxation though. And at this point we haven't even gone into actual market logic, in which the right to hold property is nothing but the rest of society guaranteeing someone the right to exclusively use a thing, which is something no sane person without property would do for free if the state didn't force them. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 21 2017 02:15 Big J wrote: Just read in an Austrian newspaper that Macron is reducing the French wealth tax by something like 3/4ths. @TheDwf: How hard are you regretting not voting for Le Pen right now? :D I'll never vote for the far-right, so I'm still perfectly satisfied with my abstention. (Also worth nothing that Le Pen had for instance horrible measures for inheritance, allowing the super-rich to dodge taxation even more; being the daughter of a corrupt millionaire, she did not forget her own class...) On October 21 2017 02:27 LegalLord wrote: How high is the tax pre-reduction? The 100 biggest fortunes pay 126 millions of euros according to the minister of Finances. The whole tax yields ~5 billions per year. On October 21 2017 12:25 Pr0wler wrote: I agree that Macron is on the wrong here. He should remove the tax instead of just lowering it. Such unfair taxes shouldn't exist... Apparently the progressive income taxing is not enough, lets milk the evil rich people even more. Yeah, taxation is so unfair that billionaires pay proportionately even less than middle classes. And it was revealed last year by a newspaper that Mrs. Bettencourt, the wealthiest woman in the world before she died (RIP), paid for this wealth tax the extremely high sum of... 0€; because right-wing governments with your mentality generously put a "fiscal ceiling" so that poor billionaires, who are always on the verge of homelessness as everyone knows, would not be persecuted by the Evil State. Look, I remember that a few years ago, Piketty and Co had done some graphs about tax progressiveness in France. ![[image loading]](https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/files/2017/02/pik3.png) Rich people milked much, uh?? The article removing of the wealth tax was voted yesterday. You can give 7 500€ per year to a party, and on average each of the first 100 biggest fortunes will get 126 000€ in return: Macron definitely yields better than Madoff... @Big J: in the Assemblée, Mélenchon denounced ''communism for oligarchs''. Did he steal your formulas?? | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
On October 21 2017 15:32 Big J wrote: How come a wealth tax is unfair? I imagine there is a ton of stuff in France that the state finances, organizes or subvenes, the consumption of which is directly connected to wealth. Like security (police and military), street construction and upkeep to /around property, protection against catastrophes and similiar. The very first thing you should be taxing in a liberal society is property/wealth, the very last thing you should be thinking about are things like income and consumption which are free interactions that per se don't cause the rest of society costs. There are technical reasons why an income taxation may be a reasonable substitute in certain circumstances for a wealth taxation though. And at this point we haven't even gone into actual market logic, in which the right to hold property is nothing but the rest of society guaranteeing someone the right to exclusively use a thing, which is something no sane person without property would do for free if the state didn't force them. Probably, but this specific tax doesn't tax all property/wealth. It targets few people(I read somewhere that the number is 500k) that have property that is worth over 1.3 million euro. The ones that are below that arbitrary number are not paying a dime. It doesn't treat all citizens equally, hence it's unfair. And about the costs of "security (police and military), street construction and upkeep to /around property, protection against catastrophes and similiar". Unless we are talking about some kind of palace that is 100 km away from the city in the middle of nowhere, I can't see how the cost of these things is higher. An apartment in Paris can be worth more than 1.3M. Does that mean that this apartment requires more expences from the state than a cheaper apartment across the street ? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11735 Posts
On October 21 2017 19:53 Pr0wler wrote: Probably, but this specific tax doesn't tax all property/wealth. It targets few people(I read somewhere that the number is 500k) that have property that is worth over 1.3 million euro. The ones that are below that arbitrary number are not paying a dime. It doesn't treat all citizens equally, hence it's unfair. And about the costs of "security (police and military), street construction and upkeep to /around property, protection against catastrophes and similiar". Unless we are talking about some kind of palace that is 100 km away from the city in the middle of nowhere, I can't see how the cost of these things is higher. An apartment in Paris can be worth more than 1.3M. Does that mean that this apartment requires more expences from the state than a cheaper apartment across the street ? You have to have a cutoff somewhere. Of course you can have different percentages for different levels of property, which is also fine, but would lead to people complaining that the tax code is too complicated. And there is always a simple workaround. If you don't want to pay taxes for your 1.3M property, just give some of it away until you have less than 1.3M. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
http://marge.uochb.cas.cz/~marsalek/volby-2017-PS/ - my friends script that will show the time-development of the results, information not available elsewhere, as old data are being overwritten | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 21 2017 19:53 Pr0wler wrote: Probably, but this specific tax doesn't tax all property/wealth. It targets few people(I read somewhere that the number is 500k) that have property that is worth over 1.3 million euro. The ones that are below that arbitrary number are not paying a dime. It doesn't treat all citizens equally, hence it's unfair. And about the costs of "security (police and military), street construction and upkeep to /around property, protection against catastrophes and similiar". Unless we are talking about some kind of palace that is 100 km away from the city in the middle of nowhere, I can't see how the cost of these things is higher. An apartment in Paris can be worth more than 1.3M. Does that mean that this apartment requires more expences from the state than a cheaper apartment across the street ? You are right, but as with all taxes there are technical limits: a) is it worth collecting them from people who will not pay a lot? b) what do you do with people that cannot pay them in monetary form? c) can you put a reasonable price on it? In particular when it comes to wealth/property taxes it is rather hard to put a market price on it. In general, anything that is not being traded "right now" doesn't have a market price, hence its monetary value is guesswork. Which is the reason why our systems are built around transfer taxes to begin with, as with those we don't need an economic planner that assumes prices. It's cheap for the state, easy to understand for the people and avoids b). Which doesn't solve the underlying problem, that property and wealth cause costs consistently, while the taxes they make in transfer are a one off and not covering the costs past a certain point. From then on it's pure socialism, taking money from people that perform free transfer actions to people that the state guarantees property rights to for free. "Coincidentely" the people who are given these extremely valueable rights will be the ones that make the most money (because they can implicetly choose to make the most money, due to their property rights), so a universal, linear or progressive transfer taxation system may even overcome this problem to a certain degree. We are far from that though. And again, none of that deals with the other point I'm making which is that if every piece of land belongs to someone and you ask me to accept it, my reaction would be to ask what I get in return from those who hold the property, which is what we supress completely when we talk about these things. We just fix the price at zero and pretend that we can't put a price on it at all, if you are a conservative you may even justify it with bullshit like property rights are just god-given or something natural (the typical Ayn Rand "objectivism"). And of course the costs of things differ depending on where they are and what they are. That's what a market is usually for, to get an individual price based upon an open price building process. There is no such process for a guaranteed property right that is not up for trade and those in trade are heavily distorted, because they are eternally guaranteed securities and therefore their longrun value is aritificially set to infinite (under the assumption that you can prevent a collapse of society). Unless you put a reasonable, ongoing cost on such a thing, people who can calculate and have the spare money will rally to these securities and prices will rise until the collapse of society will actually happen. @Big J: in the Assemblée, Mélenchon denounced ''communism for oligarchs''. Did he steal your formulas?? I wish it was original. But that's just the logical reaction of a leftist when you brand everything the state does in favor of someone as communism/socialism. Then one obviously has to call our system socialism for the rich. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 21 2017 21:25 opisska wrote: www.volby.cz - real time data from the official counting http://marge.uochb.cas.cz/~marsalek/volby-2017-PS/ - my friends script that will show the time-development of the results, information not available elsewhere, as old data are being overwritten You are closing pretty early! | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Friday 14-22, Saturday 8-14 | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Still barely working is this http://volby.idnes.cz/poslanecka-snemovna-2017.aspx. 11 % counties counted. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9270 Posts
Spain government to impose direct rule over Catalonia Catalan autonomy suspended over ‘systematic rebellion’ as PM Mariano Rajoy seeks Senate approval to remove powers The Spanish government has suspended Catalonia’s autonomy and will introduce direct rule from next Saturday as the country sinks further into its worst constitutional crisis since the restoration of democracy in 1977. After an emergency cabinet meeting, and citing the Catalan government’s “conscious and systematic rebellion and disobedience”, Spain’s prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, said he was invoking article 155 of the constitution to “restore the rule of law, coexistence, the economic recovery and so that elections could be held in normal circumstances”. Pending Senate approval next week, the government of Carles Puigdemont will be stripped of its powers, with its functions assumed by the relevant ministries in Madrid. Elections would then be held in Catalonia within six months, Rajoy said. “We are not ending Catalan autonomy, but we are relieving of their duties those who have acted outside the law,” Rajoy said, without detailing which Catalan institutions would come under direct rule. It is expected that the interior ministry, and therefore the police, would be one. Taxation and spending are also expected to be controlled by Madrid, but it is unclear whether the Spanish government will intervene in Catalan state media, whose outlets are viewed as the mouthpiece of the independence movement. While the government insists that article 155 did not imply ending Catalan autonomy, many in the region are likely to take a different point of view. Thousands of demonstrators are expected to take to the streets later on Saturday to protest against the imposition of direct rule. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/21/spain-prepares-to-seize-powers-from-catalonia | ||
| ||
