prev <-> next
[2022-03-09 16:08:07] - a: Maybe? I assumed it was "enforce" like we enforce laws against murder. It's not about having cops next to you all the time to prevent you from murdering somebody, it's about punishing people after the fact for murdering somebody. -Paul
[2022-03-09 16:05:07] - paul: no, no precedent at all, completely different? taxing someone generally means that the government sends them a letter, or calls them on the phone, and the government gets a letter back. this *def* won't be a letter in the mail. right? you agree they won't be mailing out a letter saying, please don't get an abortion. they'll be stopping people at the border in their car. seeing they're pregnant/trans, and taking decisive action. ~a
[2022-03-09 16:02:05] - a: No idea how it would be enforced, but there is somewhat similar precedent with taxing people who leave the US (and even renounce their citizenship). -Paul
[2022-03-09 15:54:30] - a: Poker could be fun, and we haven't had people over for poker in awhile either. Would also be a little easier to do that with a baby since you can always sit hands out. I could talk to Gurkie about it. -Paul
[2022-03-09 15:40:00] - twitter image capture. i haven't read either of these laws, these are just articles, but i wonder how this could possibly be enforced. articles about first law and second law. ~a
[2022-03-09 15:29:36] - i could also plan a poker night or something. it's been a long time since i had people over. ~a
[2022-03-09 15:29:07] - "I just thought I would move it to help keep things organized for myself" yes. you should do this. leaving it where it was will probably mean you'll either forget about it or lose track of it. ~a
[2022-03-09 15:29:05] - a: As for IRL... I imagine sometime in the next year we might consider doing our second go at Charterstone.
-Paul[2022-03-09 15:28:27] - a: Oh, wow, okay. I can just leave it there. I figured what I was trying to do wasn't a big deal and I was just being an idiot. I'm perfectly happy leaving it in my cold wallet for now. I just thought I would move it to help keep things organized for myself (majority of bitcoin in cold wallet, everything else crypto in coinbase). -Paul
[2022-03-09 15:17:06] - there are pitfalls. there are many situations where you could lose that money forever. ~a
[2022-03-09 15:15:50] - again, what you're doing is advanced, so if you wanted to do it with my supervision . . . that might make sense. when do you think is the next time we'll hang out irl?
~a[2022-03-09 15:15:04] - "how am i being stupid here?" i think what you're doing is pretty advanced, honestly. if mycelium won't let you get your bitcoin cash off of your cold wallet, that's probably just an issue with mycelium. in the not-to-distant past, mycelium strictly only handled bitcoin. luckily, your cold wallet is wallet independent. you can *MAYBE* use coinbase wallet to do what you want to do, or *MAYBE* another wallet? ~a
[2022-03-09 15:12:26] - "does bitcoin cash count as an altcoin?" probably depends on who you ask. as an example, i think even big ether users probably don't use the term altcoin themselves to describe ether. but they'll know what you mean. ~a
[2022-03-09 15:12:10] - a: I can't figure out how to do that though since when I click on "receive" in coinbase I get a QR code. When I try to access cold storage in myCelium, it only seems to be looking at regular bitcoin. How am I being stupid here? -paul
[2022-03-09 15:10:49] - a: So, I think I have my bitcoin cash in my cold wallet, and I want to move it to my coinbase wallet since it's a fairly inconsequential amount (unfortunately) and I just want to have it with my inconsequential amount of other altcoins (does bitcoin cash count as an altcoin?). -Paul
[2022-03-08 21:22:46] - Whoops: ".eth things" -Paul
[2022-03-08 21:22:35] - a: Ooohhhh. Domain squatting. Maybe I should snag some of those fancy .th things. -Paul
[2022-03-08 20:46:46] - paul: human trafficking, sell your blood, sell your organs, drug running, gift card scams, pyramid scheme, multilevel marketing (mlm), prepaid legal / legalshield, put fake logos on products and sell them, sell fake concert tickets, domain squatting. ~a
[2022-03-08 20:42:41] - a: Cash out refinance! Credit card cash advance. Enter a SC2 tournament... -Paul
[2022-03-08 20:07:27] - ah yeah. (you also have other less-than-awesome options. please these are potentially terrible options, don't take them maybe. pay your taxes late: there will be interest; many brokers will let you get loans on your equities; sell your bonds; 401k lets you loan yourself money) ~a
[2022-03-08 20:05:47] - a: All good ideas. Unfortunately we didn't realize the underpayment until 2022, and I panicked and changed it without thinking about how that might be premature. Honestly, I could also dial back my 401(k) contribution, but I think I'm just going to have to produce some nice hefty capital losses.
-Paul[2022-03-08 20:02:48] - (also probably a bit late now, but estimated tax payments are super easy, and can help you avoid some fees for underpayment.) ~a
[2022-03-08 20:01:47] - paul: probably but a bit late now, but you could change your w4/va4 back. ~a
[2022-03-08 20:01:16] - a: I have been getting less from my job because they are withholding more, making building up a cash position to pay those taxes difficult. Fine, I guess I can sell some of my other assets like stocks (ouch) or crypto (also ouch). Bad outcomes all around. -Paul
[2022-03-08 20:00:03] - a: Additionally, I had a good investing year! So I had a fair amount of capital gains taxes. We started taxes early in 2022, recognized my withholding mistake, and I fixed it (meaning something like 15-20% less in my paycheck every month. So in addition to a much larger tax bill than the already expected to be big one... -Paul
[2022-03-08 19:57:34] - a: Yeah, please allow me to have a "first world problem" vent for a few posts that everybody else can be free to ignore: I started a new job last September and, because for whatever reason when I start a new job and answer the W4 questions truthfully I woefully under-withhold... I didn't withhold nearly enough for my salary last year. -Paul
[2022-03-08 19:53:49] - paul: if the market decided to crash after january 1st, the government will still be like "fuck you, pay me". they were like: that's the quickest way to turn 2 million dollars into 1 million dollars. or whatever. ~a
[2022-03-08 19:53:48] - paul: "pretty hefty tax bill". yeah, this is a nightmare some people online proposed in 2017. when i started reading more r/financialindependence and less r/bitcoin: so, imagine making a bunch of money holding bitcoin, diversifying it into vti (or vtsax or whatever). they were like, make sure you hold at least the amount you owe the government in *cash*. ~a
[2022-03-08 19:49:26] - a: And of course, a lot of stuff was changing at the same time in terms of the omicron surge subsiding, which is why I think it's at least partially (maybe even mostly) unfair, but we didn't really have those rollbacks when previous variants were subsiding either. -Paul
[2022-03-08 19:48:14] - a: I mean, FCPS went from suing the governor of VA to prevent his "parents should be able to choose whether their kids wear masks at school" to "we're making masks voluntary" in like... a month? Virtually no democratically governed cities were rolling anything back until the NJ and VA elections where Republicans did surprisingly well. -Paul
[2022-03-08 19:45:14] - a: I have a big backyard. Also, it was mostly a joke. I'm just trying to find out the best way to raise cash to pay what is looking to be a pretty hefty tax bill and unfortunately everything I own (except my house and maybe my car) is down huge in value right now.
-Paul[2022-03-08 19:43:42] - paul: i know you prefaced that you weren't talking about me, but i didn't see any polling data, and i didn't know that the "science" or politicians had changed its mind on anything. i do read washingtonpost and cnn on occasion, (and reddit daily) and i haven't caught wind of any of the things you're discussing (regarding: "changed so dramatically..."). ~a
[2022-03-08 19:43:04] - paul: ??? where would you have stored it? you were required to have a truck and a physical hook-up that can accept thousands of barrels of oil. all of the storage locations were full-up, that's why the prices were negative. ~a
[2022-03-08 19:41:41] - Really wishing I had stocked up on petroleum back in.... March of 2020? When it was at negative dollars per barrel of crude or whatever it was. -Paul
[2022-03-08 19:39:45] - I think that's both unfair, but I also think there's some truth to that and (as I mentioned before) have some whiplash by how quickly some people have changed gears (not anybody here). And I'll admit part of me really wants to re-initiate some Facebook discussions. -paul
[2022-03-08 19:38:35] - a: I'm fine leaving it at that agreement. I'm just happy to have this "victory" and step towards moving back towards normal behavior. I've seen a lot of attempts online to "spike the football" if you will by snarkily commenting on how coincidental it is that the "science" changed so dramatically at the same time Democrats caught wind of polling showing how unpopular a lot of these measure are. -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:52:07] - masks prevent new infection. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:48:44] - i'm not arguing that the rise and fall of omicron far (or at all) outpaces the effect of masks. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:47:33] - i mean, sorry, we agree on that last part. but, not the first part. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:46:47] - paul: yes, we're in agreement today. it's time to end the mandates. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:46:12] - a: So you are arguing that the rise and fall of Omicron far outpaces the effect of masks? Great! That jives with the argument I was making before about how cases seemed to have peaked and were collapsing so it's time to end the mandates. -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:41:56] - it's crazy how fast things changed. i agree with this statement wholeheartedly, but not in the same way you do. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:40:42] - paul: "It's crazy how fast things changed" lol, do you have any idea how serious 1/20 is? even 1/2 change in case-counts would be a very big deal. but no, we're talking about fucking 1/20. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:39:55] - paul: "the idea that ending mask mandates in school now will likely have no discernable impact" just because you and i can discern the impact doesn't mean the impact doesn't exist or that the impact can't be studied. you just have to run some experiments. easy-peasy. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:38:51] - It's crazy how fast things changed. -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:38:18] - a: I mean, I guess I can't square the idea that mask mandates are essential for preventing spread in schools and the very idea of allowing some kids to NOT wear a mask is a far-right position that needs to be fought strenuously in court (not attributing these positions to you, but many arguments I heard) with the idea that ending mask mandates in school now will likely have no discernable impact. -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:37:02] - ironically i might start ONLY wear masks outside, to keep pollen out of my mouth and nose. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:36:40] - a: "you know i never said they don't make any difference" Oh, absolutely. That was intended as a good natured poke of putting words in your mouth.
-Paul[2022-03-08 15:34:56] - paul: "slowdown of decrease" this also cannot be attributable to a single cause. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:34:00] - paul: also for what it's worth, i'm for ending mask mandates today. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:33:40] - paul: you know i never said they don't make any difference. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:33:18] - a: Or maybe not even uptick, but... slowdown of decrease? I mean, I guess I'm glad you came around to my thinking now that it's time to end mask mandates since they don't make any difference? -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:33:05] - paul: maaaybe if case-counts were stable? and replace "fcps mandates" with mask-mandates in all schools and all workplaces and all businesses. but then only maybe. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:32:16] - paul: "you don't think it would be indicative at all if mask mandates ended and we didn't see any uptick at all?" yes that is correct. i will learn literally nothing from all four quadrants of do/don't "end fpcs mandates today" and do/don't "see uptick in case-counts in fairfax county". ~a
[2022-03-08 15:29:49] - a: Ha! My statement was so ridiculous I could only be saying it to be argumentative?
I understand that there is no "control" and the whole correlation vs causation thing and cases are already on a downswing and all of that. But considering the very weak evidence that masking helped before, you don't think it would be indicative at all if mask mandates ended and we didn't see any uptick at all? -Paul[2022-03-08 15:27:41] - paul: fairfax county's borders are porous and changes to neighboring counties and states matter just as much as what's happening in fairfax county. what's more, case counts are dropping very very fast. counts in the united states are 1/20th(!) of what they were 2 months ago. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:25:14] - paul: what's more, kids tend to not show symptoms. like, are you literally saying we'll find out soon? or were you being argumentative or facetious or something? ~a
[2022-03-08 15:24:59] - a: What other mandates in Fairfax are ending? -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:24:38] - a: Sure, it won't be proof of causation, but we're likely never to get that here, right? And if we see a spike in new cases without anything else meaningfully changing (new variants, etc).... isn't that telling? -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:23:50] - paul: cases are dropping like a lead something. i'm not sure we'll learn anything from changes to mandates at this point: *all* mandates are ending literally right now, and fcps's change will be lost in the noise. ~a
[2022-03-08 15:21:31] - paul: you're asking how permanent is brain damage?
i mean, yes the brain can literally heal from damage, but i'd be willing to bet that a vast majority of brain damages are long-lasting at best. ~a[2022-03-08 15:21:22] - paul: that's maybe the most "correlation without causation" statement i've ever seen. (also with a bit of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" sprinkled in) ~a
[2022-03-08 15:19:43] - a: If there are spikes in new cases? -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:18:39] - paul: "I guess we'll find out soon" how will we do that? ~a
[2022-03-08 15:17:14] - a: It's still very unclear to me that masking has prevented COVID spread in any significant way in schools. I guess we'll find out soon since kids have been allowed to not wear masks in FCPS for a week now. -Paul
[2022-03-08 15:16:08] - a: It'll be interesting when we learn more about long COVID. How permanent is it? How serious is it? What percentage of people suffer from it? Does vaccination help? I'm not sure it significantly changes the calculus in my mind right now since the "COVID isn't super deadly for kids" argument was only part of it. -Paul
[2022-03-07 20:03:30] - (also this data might just be academic: until the next surge we're basically done with mask and vaccines mandates, right?) ~a
[2022-03-07 20:02:27] - paul: article: this does seem to go against your narrative that kids have nothing to worry, because their cases are usually mild (or asymptomatic). *** NOTE they only studied old people (ages 51 to 81). i don't know that the brains of mild-case kids would be the same or different. ~a
[2022-03-06 21:21:04] - a: Got it. Thanks. I was thinking it might make sense to consolidate all of my non-bitcoin crypto onto my coinbase wallet (mainly bitcoin cash at this point), but I'm a little unclear how best to do that. I don't even remember if it's on my cold wallet or hot wallet.
-Paul[2022-03-06 04:29:04] - i've used coinbase before, but it was 8 years ago. ~a
[2022-03-06 04:27:49] - a: No problem at all. Do you have any familiarity with how coinbase works? -Paul
[2022-03-05 03:01:38] - paul: i don't know much about it, sorry. i've been aware of proof of stake for a long time. peercoin was using staking back in 2012, but i don't know if it really took off. ~a
[2022-03-05 02:58:45] - a: Do you have any opinions on Eth 2.0 and staking? I got bored one night and played around with Coinbase some and.... I honestly am not sure what I did but I might have some eth wallet or something and staked some of my position. -Paul
[2022-03-05 02:57:57] - a: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-pipeline/trump-lashes-germany-over-gas-pipeline-deal-calls-it-russias-captive-idUSKBN1K10VI Agreed that it's bonkers considering how much Trump seemed to admire Putin. -Paul
[2022-03-04 22:01:28] - mmm, fun fact that i learned today, Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (6GW), the one that was bombed yesterday. well, apparently it's bigger than chornobyl. and also, much much bigger than chornobyl reactor number 4 (1GW). ~a
[2022-03-04 21:06:52] - i don't remember that, but it seems like a weird thing for trump to say considering how he usually refers to russia. the only thing that would make this world crazier is if trump wins "re"-election in 2024. ~a
[2022-03-04 21:06:03] - lol wow. ~a
[2022-03-04 21:04:27] - a: Oh, and in a "stopped clock" kind of way, there was also that video of Trump telling some German politicians that they needed to be more energy independent and not rely on Russian oil because it weakens their security (except he said it a lot less eloquently) and.... look what happened! -Paul
[2022-03-04 20:55:44] - a: And yeah, I kind of meant a legacy thing, but also with a tinge of fearing death. Sure, 69 isn't overly old, but it's getting up there. -Paul
[2022-03-04 20:52:27] - I don't even intend this as some kind of finger pointing at either side, just a comment on how the timing seems so weird. It's part of why I wonder if he's losing it or feeling some urgency because of a sense of mortality or something. -Paul
[2022-03-04 20:49:22] - a: And for whatever reason, NOW is the time Putin decides to invade Ukraine? What the hell? -Paul
[2022-03-04 20:48:53] - a: And there was the whole investigation into whether he was a Russian plant and Putin puppet and Trump kept bizarrely praising Putin... -Paul
[2022-03-04 20:48:18] - a: It's so weird (I thought we had discussed this before but I couldn't find it). Around 10 years ago Romney name-checked Russia as America's top geo-political enemy and everybody made fun of him for it. Obama had his weird Russian concession hot mic moment. Then, as you said, Trump was impeached for trying to withhold aid from Ukraine unless they found dirt on Biden. -Paul
[2022-03-04 19:53:16] - jfc. i knew i was feeling some strong deja vu. whoops, i have really bad medium-term memory ~a
[2022-03-04 16:03:44] - a: It's totally not a scientific poll anyway. I mean, hard to find a more self-selective group that my twitter followers.
-Paul[2022-03-04 15:59:55] - understood. yeah, maybe just having "beats market" or "loses to market" would handle all scenarios? underperforms relative to sp500 / overperforms relative to sp500? ~a
[2022-03-04 15:45:53] - a: Oh, wait, I might have mis-labeled it. Darn. I guess I wanted to say market was positive and Snowflake was beating it. -Paul
[2022-03-04 15:45:12] - a: Ah, yes, I get your point about bias and agree. The reason I did it is because I typically don't care about "positive vs negative" as much as I care about market beating. But I also was keenly aware the market could be negative over the next 12 months, so "market beating" wouldn't be distinct in that case. -Paul
[2022-03-04 15:29:23] - . . . now i wish i had put this on twitter
~a[2022-03-04 15:28:20] - paul: aaaah, i knew you would say that! paul, "Positive + Market down" that should be covered by positive, though, right? you had a call-out for a specific scenario. in a way that seemed biased. to make it less biased, you should have called out both, right? why specifically have a choice for Negative + Market beating, when "Negative" already existed, but then don't do the symmetrical scenario??? ~a
[2022-03-04 15:26:51] - a: "Negative + Market up" that should be covered by negative, though, right? -Paul
[2022-03-04 15:19:03] - sorry, old america and new america are the only two countries i know about. ~a
[2022-03-04 15:18:21] - 69 is the new 59. i agree he's old, and he'll die at some point. but 69 is pretty young as modern world leaders go. biden is 79 (and slightly losing it) and elizabeth ii is 95. ~a
[2022-03-04 15:14:43] - paul: "fearing a bit for his mortality" if you're talking about legacy building, i follow you. if you're referring to something else, i do not. ~a
[2022-03-04 15:13:37] - a: Here's something I discussed a bit with Dave last night: We all assume Putin is some super calculating and clever metaphorical chess master who is planning all this out. But he's 69 years old (and apparently terrified of COVID). Isn't it possible he's just slightly losing it AND fearing a bit for his mortality? -Paul
[2022-03-04 15:09:23] - Some sort of weird side effect of COVID? Lockdowns and tough job market for some leading to depressed adult kids living at home with affluent parents? Agreed on the small sample size, but it's big enough to seem almost meaningful. Wonder if other areas are seeing similar things. -Paul
[2022-03-04 15:06:27] - paul: i decided not to put this on your twitter feed, but you left out a fourth possibility: "Negative + Market up"
~a[2022-03-04 14:45:12] - "all our actions, if they arise, always arise exclusively in response to unfriendly actions against russia... we do not see any need here to escalate the situation or worsen our relations." i feel kinda bad for the people who see this and aren't able to learn what is actually happening. ~a
[2022-03-04 14:43:07] - "vladimir putin says russia has 'no ill intentions,' pleads for no more sanctions". link. at first i figured he was being sarcastic or trolling, but then i saw this: "putin made the comment on the state-controlled rossiya 24 news channel". that makes much more sense: he's saying this to (some) people who don't know what's actually happening. ~a
[2022-03-04 13:18:48] - i bike over there on occasion, that is a well-off neighborhood. ~a
[2022-03-04 13:15:49] - paul: sounds too crazy to be true, but it could be right? there's probably a specific term for this in statistics (wrong sample size bias?), but you're talking about ~6 (specific murders) out of 21 (murders). you're going to see a lot of noise in situations like this. . . . i assume some/many of these adult sons still live at home, right? so weird. ~a
[2022-03-04 04:28:34] - https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2022/03/george-mason-professor-fatally-stabbed-in-fairfax-county-son-charged/ Wow, right near where we used to play Ultimate. Also: "stabbings carried out by adult sons comprised nearly one-third of Fairfax County’s 21 killings last year" What!? -Paul
[2022-03-03 21:32:10] - Daniel: Yeah, I agree that they might have sneakily been in a worse position than it seemed (ie, the one base and all), but it felt like they quit while the climatic battle was still going on. Don't know if they had reinforcements, but I felt like they were making headway pushing into our naturals and thought my expansion was going to go down. -Paul
[2022-03-03 21:25:11] - Yeah I went back and watched the replay. I'm still not sure why they quit. I don't feel like they had it won or that we did. Two of their players were still only on one base though when they quit. So maybe they just gave up once the proxy didn't just win right away? Unsure. -Daniel
[2022-03-03 21:20:29] - Daniel: Hells yeah. And I think we earned it too, even if I still suspect that one group was smurfs. Next up, masters? -Paul
[2022-03-03 20:49:11] - our 3v3. -Daniel
[2022-03-03 20:38:42] - Daniel: You in Diamond 1v1? Or just referencing our 3v3 accomplishment? -Paul
[2022-03-03 20:38:21] - It's just striking to me the difference the gender of the subject makes. -Paul
[2022-03-03 20:36:31] - Daniel: Yeah, sorry, I almost prefaced that all with saying: "Not necessarily asking for pity for him but..." -Paul
[2022-03-03 19:35:57] - Also diamond league! Still happy about that. -Daniel
[2022-03-03 19:35:40] - Also Ukraine sucks up a lot of attention currently so might just be bad timing for hoping for outrage for other things. -Daniel
[2022-03-03 19:35:01] - Probably though I imagine somewhere there is a recent story of something happening to an actress that we aren't currently outraged over so probably but maybe not? Doesn't seem like a good way to treat him. -Daniel
[2022-03-03 19:13:49] - https://www.insider.com/robert-pattinson-water-the-batman-shirtless-scenes-2022-3 How different would this read if Robert Pattinson's gender was changed? "Haunted". Motivated by shame. Counting sips of water. Feeling really really really dead. Wouldn't there be a lot of outrage over demands placed on actresses and encouraging eating disorders? -Paul
[2022-03-02 00:31:05] - paul: buy annuities at market price, sell bonds at market price, profit. ~a
[2022-02-28 20:42:07] - Daniel: "I think you are describing life insurance / annuity companies" Very possible. I'm not entirely sure how the annuity companies basically invest behind the scenes (if they do at all?) -Paul
[2022-02-28 20:41:32] - a: I know this sounds like a Ponzi scheme, but I don't think it is because I think there is legit money making going on behind the scenes.
-Paul[2022-02-28 20:40:42] - a: The tricky thing is the first... 5-10 years or so, especially if there is an immediate downturn. But if this hypothetical new company can survive that, then you start having the overages from those years to buffer things, right? Like, if person A retired 40 years ago and died now you have the extra $5 million or so from his account to pay out in case of downturns for person B who retired last year. -Paul
[2022-02-28 20:14:08] - Just less good rates than you probably want. -Daniel
[2022-02-28 20:14:00] - paul: I think you are describing life insurance / annuity companies. I think that is more or less exactly what they do. -Daniel
[2022-02-28 20:07:26] - paul: worded/expalined differently, if you wanted to CREATE an annuity (i.e. if you wanted to provide an annuity service), and you want'd to provide a guaranteed return. how the fuck would you even create such a service? how would you pay out when the markets are down? AAAAND if you could do this . . . why wouldn't you just start competing with cds and bonds? the only difference, i think, is what happens on death. ~a
[2022-02-28 20:05:10] - paul: "keep the transferred retirement funds in equities to harness the superior returns there so they could offer a better return on the guaranteed rate". yes, but you want them to provide guaranteed returns 100% of the time? *** even/especially when stock market returns are really bad? i'd expect then the rates would only be slightly higher than cds or bonds. wouldn't/shouldn't we? ~a
[2022-02-28 19:34:12] - a: And as long as you had a diverse enough mix of ages of clients (and didn't go 100% equities and had a mix of assets to soften the blow of market downturns), you should be able to ride out bad years with those returns over what you are paying out. -Paul
[2022-02-28 19:32:45] - a: Yeah, I guess when I was envisioning things, I was imagining the hypothetical company would keep the transferred retirement funds in equities to harness the superior returns there so they could offer a better return on the guaranteed rate. Think the 5% (or whatever) average return that is assumed for those projections of end of plan amounts. -Paul
[2022-02-28 19:21:40] - paul/daniel: the thing we probably won't like about an annuity (or pension) is that if the returns are guaranteed, then the rates are mega-low. (only slightly higher than a CD or a bond rate). they'll come up when interest rates increase, but with a zero-percent interest-rate, annuities and pensions are basically going to pay out jack-shit. ~a
[2022-02-28 19:13:58] - paul/daniel: i think there's no really good reason to not get a TINY annuity. like 1/100th of your portfolio. or something like that. (if the rate is "good enough"). then you get the best of both worlds. some super small guaranteed output, and you still get all the upsides of a normal 401k. ~a
[2022-02-28 17:14:47] - Daniel: I guess my way of looking at it is that if I have something like a 75% chance of retiring successfully (ie, not running out of money) with an average of like $8 million left over after death, I would seriously consider trading that for a 100% chance of success and $0 left after death (sorry kids). -Paul
[2022-02-28 17:05:44] - I think mostly cause you give up on that potential growth 80% chance to come out ahead by keeping it yourself. Even the 20-5% chance of you going under in the models generally assumes you made no changes along the way. So if you are willing to potentially trim your budget / find new income stream(re:job) if you had to you should be able to avoid hitting empty in most scenarios I think. -Daniel
[2022-02-28 16:57:21] - "investments" in the traditional sense, but isn't the trade-off potentially worthwhile in some cases? -Paul
[2022-02-28 16:56:47] - Daniel: Good point. I had completely forgotten about those since they seem to have such a bad reputation. So why don't more people use annuities? I get they might be bad
[2022-02-28 15:59:09] - You trade potential growth for "guaranteed" payments. -Daniel
[2022-02-28 15:58:55] - Paul: Service exists - called an annuity. -Daniel
[2022-02-28 15:36:12] - Would it be a viable business to offer a service where you essentially convert a person's 401(k) / retirement funds to a pension? In other words: people would exchange the upside from their retirement accounts for the safety of guaranteed income. -Paul
[2022-02-28 15:34:52] - Random thought I had over the weekend: Considering the big gap between expected retirement amount in an average scenario and covering the bases for a worst case scenario (ie, the idea we should be working until we're expected to have tens of millions of dollars by end of retirement so we can achieve a 90%+ chance of success)... -Paul
[2022-02-28 15:32:56] - a: We do, but my main argument for flatter taxes is not really based on helping to improve the economy or anything like that. I just don't see wealth inequality as an inherently problematic thing AND I don't think the tax system should be used as a tool to try to "fix" it. -Paul
[2022-02-28 14:59:09] - a: Zelensky had an interesting life before becoming Ukraine's president. - mig
[2022-02-28 14:53:25] - paul: oh, then i agree. the framing is wrong. but based on conversations we had last week I assume we disagree on other things. ~a
[2022-02-28 14:33:19] - a: "how did taxing bezos more or less change that outcome?" I didn't say anything about taxing Bezos changing this outcome. These are thoughts about wealth inequality and how I think it's the wrong framing because it tries to equate something which I think is either unrelated or differently related. -Paul
[2022-02-28 14:32:27] - and how does taxing musk change that outcome? ~a
[2022-02-28 14:32:12] - a: Similarly with Musk: the legacy auto workers have lost some market value, but Tesla is worth all that and more along with providing options for better (and likely more environmentally friendly) cars for people. -Paul
[2022-02-28 14:32:03] - paul: uuuh, you skipped half. how did taxing bezos more or less change that outcome? ~a
[2022-02-28 14:31:24] - wtf ~a
[2022-02-28 14:31:17] - a: "how could you possibly know this is true?" In terms of proof? Maybe it's not provable, but it seems like common sense. What has been the net result of Bezos creating Amazon? Some smaller brick-and-mortar stores have gone out of business, yes, but he also created over a million (often high paying) jobs, incredible shareholder wealth, and access to cheaper/more convenient products for all Americans. -Paul
[2022-02-28 14:29:48] - paul: "what was the market expecting?" i mean nobody knows yet how the russia thing is going to turn out. how are the sanctions going to play out? how is the war going to expand/increase? of if that even happens at all? . . . i'm a bit surprised that you're surprised? ~a
[2022-02-28 14:27:59] - paul: what's more, what are your thoughts on having car storage (parking) on public property? it seems weird that the market shouldn't be setting the rates for car storage, we generally don't allow people to store other things on public property, like their other belongings. i can't otherwise use it as public-storage. and, living on the street is generally frowned upon, even though it is allowed in some special circumstances. ~a
[2022-02-28 14:23:49] - paul: i get that you don't like dense urban environments, but in those places, would you be good with having a paris-like central business districts that allows driving only for the disabled/deliveries/residents/public-transit? (link if you haven't heard about paris's thing. many other countries already do this) ~a
[2022-02-28 14:10:27] - paul: "'wealth inequality' framing". i'm fine if we get rid of this framing. what framing would be beneficial for increasing the top marginal tax rate?
~a[2022-02-28 14:09:14] - paul: "I don't think wealth creation is some zero sum game where in order for Bezos and Musk to have lots of money, they have to take it away from others" i don't think this either, but ironically this suggests to me that increasing the taxes on bezos won't decrease the jobs he creates. increasing taxes on bezos isn't supposed to be a punishment. i do not think billionaires are evil, or need to be punished, or need to "not exist". ~a
[2022-02-28 14:06:06] - paul: "or, actually, there is, but it's not the direction people tend to assume". although i agree this is a possibility, how could you possibly know this is true? you're basically describing trickle-down economics, or are you suggesting something slightly different? are you suggesting that if we decrease the taxes on bezos, it'll have a positive effect on the rest of us? there have been studies on this. ~a
[2022-02-28 03:47:30] - A little weird futures look so bad. I mean, what was the market expecting? Sometimes I feel like the market is too forward looking. Other times it seems to have no foresight at all. -Paul
[2022-02-28 03:46:40] - a: Yeah, I imagine a lot of places it would be rough adding bike lanes, just like it's rough adding more car lanes (or pedestrian walkways). That's way I tend to dislike dense urban environments. I would not consider where you live the suburbs. -Paul
[2022-02-28 03:44:12] - a: So I think the "wealth inequality" framing just unnecessarily complicates things. Does it matter if somebody has 10x more houses than somebody else? Or should we just worry if everybody can afford a house? -Paul
[2022-02-28 03:42:35] - a: I don't think wealth creation is some zero sum game where in order for Bezos and Musk to have lots of money, they have to take it away from others. In fact, I think those individuals grow the pie and make others wealthier and better off as well. -Paul
[2022-02-28 03:41:37] - a: I probably didn't do a good job of stressing that I don't think there's a meaningful connection between Bezos' wealth and the condition of the less affluent (or, actually, there is, but it's not the direction people tend to assume). -Paul
[2022-02-28 03:38:57] - a: It's not even about poverty or fulfilling basic needs. It's about looking at the majority of society and seeing if they live a good life. -Paul
[2022-02-28 03:37:33] - a: You're reading a lot more into the four things I randomly called out than I did.
I mostly just wanted to pick a few things that people would spend money on to have a happy life. -Paul[2022-02-27 23:17:01] - paul: oof, i just looked at the futures for tomorrow morning. yikes. ~a
[2022-02-27 22:49:43] - paul: "Why does it have to be a zero sum game?" oh yeah, uuuuh, where you live it might be possible in (only) a few places, but where i live (do i live in the suburbs??? serious question!) adding a bus lane and/or a protected bike lane (or bike path) will require purchasing some private-property, or decreasing a few feet from single-occupant car lanes. ~a
[2022-02-27 22:45:52] - paul: same question as before, but for "steak dinners every night". i forgot you specifically put that in there. if you can afford steak dinners every night, that's not something a lot of people can afford, so i feel like it is a borderline-wealth-inequality discussion if some people can buy three new yachts every week for the next 25,000 years. ~a
[2022-02-27 22:43:42] - paul: ah ok gotcha. so pulling this thread a bit further: you specifically picked "grocery bill...? Housing? Clothes? Vacations?" why those four? in the history of time, that fourth thing was almost never on the table for people even outside of poverty. why would you put vacations into the list of things that it's not ok for people to be missing to be out of poverty? iow, vacations seems * very * wealth-inequality-ish to me. ~a
[2022-02-27 21:28:27] - mig: Yeah, that was one reason I thought Putin wasn't going to invade: because it seemed like a supremely stupid idea. Seems like nearly the whole world is united against him (minus China and India, a little bizarrely). -Paul
[2022-02-27 21:26:01] - a: "so, you agree that there is an amount of wealth inequality that would seem to be a problem?" No, I'm saying there's some level of poverty that is a problem. The difference between the top and bottom is not. -Paul
[2022-02-27 20:26:23] - paul: "If those things cost more than a penny, then that would seem to be a problem, no?" so, you agree that there is an amount of wealth inequality that would seem to be a problem? if so, maybe we agree, but i thought you were saying the opposite earlier. ~a
[2022-02-27 15:52:28] - while it may be news outlets trying to be more optimistic it looks like this invasion has been a disaster for the Russians. at best it’ll be a pyrrhic victory. - mig
[2022-02-27 04:27:49] - https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/595919-62-percent-of-voters-say-putin-wouldnt-have-invaded-ukraine-if-trump This is super interesting: "85 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of Democrats answered this way" -Paul
[2022-02-27 04:17:14] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/02/25/judge-thomas-jefferson-high-admissions/ Might be of interest to some people here. -Paul
[2022-02-27 04:11:07] - a: Basically, I think it's okay to support cyclists without declaring war on cars.
-Paul[2022-02-27 04:10:48] - a: "and if that means less car parking or less car (non bus) lanes, you're still down with this plan?" Why does it have to be a zero sum game? I suppose maybe in cities that would be relevant, but doesn't seem like it has to be zero sum in the suburbs. -Paul
[2022-02-27 04:08:14] - a: I mean, if I can afford steak dinners every night and nice vacations every year and whatever else.... why does it matter if somebody else can afford a million steak dinners every night? -Paul
[2022-02-27 04:07:05] - a: "what if everybody but me made $.01 per year. and i make $100000 per millisecond?" It depends. How much does the average grocery bill cost? Housing? Clothes? Vacations? If those things cost more than a penny, then that would seem to be a problem, no? -Paul
[2022-02-27 04:05:26] - Daniel: Yeah, it makes sense in some ways, but it's also a little... I dunno... off? I mean, if I am on my death bed with $5 million still in the bank... I'm going to regret not having retired sooner. -Paul
[2022-02-26 04:11:55] - Paul: I probably will retire only if there's less than a 5% or 10% chance of failure (90 or 95 percent or higher chance of not running out of money before i die). ~a
[2022-02-26 04:07:43] - paul:. what if everybody but me made $.01 per year. and i make $100000 per millisecond? are there any issues with this scenario? are there any amounts of inequality that could have special costs? ~a
[2022-02-25 22:02:43] - paul: ironically one of my favorite bike lanes in DC is a shared bus/bike lane. no cars. ~a
[2022-02-25 22:01:04] - paul: sounds good with me. and if that means less car parking or less car (non bus) lanes, you're still down with this plan? ~a
[2022-02-25 21:50:33] - I think my planner person was shooting for 80%. I think a lot of plans end with the possibility that you have a fair chunk of excess money. Because otherwise it would be to easy to run out with downswings. -Daniel
[2022-02-25 21:44:49] - https://reason.com/2022/02/25/biden-nominates-ketanji-brown-jackson-to-the-supreme-court/ Also, Biden announced his SCOTUS pick. Early indications are she seems to be pretty good on criminal justice reform issues, so that is promising. -Paul
[2022-02-25 21:36:32] - I'm curious what kind of success percentage you all would feel comfortable with in terms of retiring early. Obviously there's a lot of variables at play, but if somebody told you that if you retired right now you had a 50% chance of your money lasting... would you take it? 60%? 70%? -Paul
[2022-02-25 21:34:50] - My main takeaway was that the range of outcomes, especially if you're talking about retiring early and having a drawdown period of 40 years, is pretty wide. And even if the average scenario has you departing this mortal coil with $10 million left behind, there's still a ton of scenarios where you run out of money early and have to eat $0.25 ramen for the rest of your life. -Paul
[2022-02-25 21:32:32] - The interesting thing was, both of those plans had me ending up with like millions of dollars left after the "end of plan" (ie, my death) even with the "bad scenario", which is really far more than I expect to need to leave to my kids.
-Paul[2022-02-25 21:30:36] - First off, their idea of retiring early was at 60, which was a little disappointing. The good news, though, is that according to their monte carlo simulations, I've got like a 78% chance of being able to retire at 65 and a 76% chance to retire at 60. That sounds pretty good. -Paul
[2022-02-25 21:28:39] - Random aside: I had a meeting with some.... I dunno, financial planners? People from Morgan Stanley trying to convince me to switch some money to them for them to manage. They were taking a look at my financial situation and providing feedback on if I am on track to retire (or even retire early). -Paul
[2022-02-25 19:19:42] - a: Thoughts? I agree. Get those damned bikes off the roads. You'll probably take that as some radical anti-bike screed, but I actually see it as being on your side. If there are enough bikers to support completely separate bike lanes, great! Let's do it. I think it's unsafe to have bikes and cars sharing the road like that. -Paul
[2022-02-25 19:17:06] - Daniel: Isn't what we really want to just raise the wealth / standard of living of everybody / the bottom 50% / however you want to define it? Why throw in the complicating factor of comparing it to the wealthiest people? -Paul
[2022-02-25 19:15:04] - Daniel: I'm saying wealth inequality is the wrong thing to focus on. For example, if we doubled the wealth of the bottom 50% tomorrow and tripled the wealth of the top 1% at the same time, wouldn't that be a miraculous outcome? At the same time, wouldn't wealth inequality be worse? -Paul
[2022-02-25 18:47:21] - a: she's not the only and she's got an not insignificant amount of support. There's also Warren and Sanders. - mig
[2022-02-25 17:38:00] - paul: https://i.redd.it/utch393yazj81.jpg thoughts?
~a[2022-02-25 17:26:47] - mig: why should we care what aoc wants? i mean, i get that she has more say than you or i, but she's just one us representative. right? ~a
[2022-02-25 17:20:37] - biden has a supreme court nom nom nom. jackie brown. ~a
[2022-02-25 17:13:47] - mig: I'm not aware of AOC wanting wealth equality. I think she also just wants less inequality. I could believe she might want a wealth cap in a magical world but even that still doesn't equal wealth equality. -Daniel
[2022-02-25 16:36:49] - daniel: I don't want wealth equality. you may not want it personally, but a lot of the louder voices talking about wealth inequality (AOC) certainly do. - mig
[2022-02-25 15:00:51] - paul: I don't get your points around wealth equality. I think you are either misunderstanding something or just making a strawman. I don't want wealth equality. I want less wealth inequality and want to be fair on the tax burden and not the tax amount. You can have those things and still let Bezos/Musk be the wealthiest in the country. -Daniel
[2022-02-25 14:59:27] - a: And those seem like they should be two entirely different conversations that shouldn't have much to do with each other. In a vacuum, is it a problem if somebody can't afford food? Clearly yes. In a vacuum, is it a problem if Bezos is buying a yacht? I don't think so? -Paul
[2022-02-25 14:57:07] - a: Also, I think "wealth inequality" is the wrong way to look at it because it unnecessarily combines two different ideas: Some people have a little and some people have a lot. -Paul
[2022-02-25 14:51:35] - a: And I think history has shown that scenarios where wealth inequality is low tend to be scenarios where everybody is equally poor, not equally wealthy. I don't see any kind of economy or society where it is possible to both encourage and cultivate people like Bezos and Musk and Jobs while also not having wealth inequality. -Paul
[2022-02-25 14:48:40] - a: And I believe that wealth inequality is a natural result of a growing and innovative economy. Who are the wealthiest people in America? Bezos and Musk. Why are they the wealthiest? Because they built some of the most innovative companies of our generation. Do we want an economy like ours where we have these amazing companies being created? -Paul
[2022-02-25 14:46:53] - a: And to me, the natural outcome of a society where people are free to be lazy and free to take risks and start a revolutionary EV company and everything in between means that some people are going to have more, and some people are going to have less. -Paul
[2022-02-25 14:45:23] - a: Assuming we work from the basis that people are different, then in any kind of reasonably free society, some people would be lazy and do the minimum required amount of work. Some people would be hard workers. Some would be risk averse and want safe jobs. Some would be gamblers and start their own business or work dangerous jobs. -Paul
[2022-02-25 14:44:03] - a: "what is your thoughts on wealth-inequality?" I was just thinking about making a point about this. I don't see wealth inequality as inherently bad. In fact, I see it as an inevitable result of a system where people are free. It's less that I think wealth inequality is a good thing, and more that I see wealth equality as an incredibly bad thing to try to enforce. -Paul
[2022-02-25 14:41:53] - a: I think Tim and I worked out the XLNX / AMD thing. Switched the ticker to AMD. Kept the XLNX starting value. Modified the current value to be 1.74 times the current AMD share price. -Paul
[2022-02-25 14:40:51] - Daniel: "Even the really progressive ideas of like 80% rates on multi millionaires leaves them with more money than rando paying 15/20% on their 65k" Right. And I am saying I don't see the tax system as a way of fixing wealth inequality. I see it as a way to raise funding for the government. -paul
[2022-02-24 20:00:12] - for fun i just bought 80 shares of erus. ~a
[2022-02-24 19:53:53] - for example, this russian etf was -7% yesterday, and -19% today (-45% ytd). apparently, western buyers are buying tons of russian stocks today (i.e. the -19% would have otherwise been much worse). ~a
[2022-02-24 18:36:48] - it is interesting to me looking at the many many things that went up in this down market. today is definitely polarizing. ~a
[2022-02-24 18:26:37] - paul: "soaring on news", yeah even before the market opened this morning, i saw -3% on stock market futures (which is not close to where the "circuit breaker" does its thing, but still a super crazy large drop regardless). so yeah, i'm not sure this counts
~a[2022-02-24 18:21:46] - paul: what is your thoughts on wealth-inequality? do you see any upsides or downsides at all to wealth inequality at *any* level? go crazy with me: what if everybody but me made $.01 per year. and i make $100000 per millisecond? are there any issues with this scenario? ~a
[2022-02-24 18:17:21] - paul: "Does that make sense?" 1. no. i think you did it backwards. if you bought 1 share of AAA for $1 ($1), late got 10 shares of BBB for $1 each (+900%). your *starting* price (in BBB terms) is $0.10 (+900%). 2. much more importantly though, i'd expect that you should confirm that your change adds up. before and after your change, you should see approximately the same return. so in case i'm wrong, you can confirm i'm wrong. ~a
[2022-02-24 15:40:47] - It was trying to show your idea of "fair" in this context doesn't make sense. -Daniel
[2022-02-24 15:40:31] - Paul: No - having more equitable burdens doesn't lead to the same financial situations. Even the really progressive ideas of like 80% rates on multi millionaires leaves them with more money than rando paying 15/20% on their 65k. The paying everyone the same statement isn't a real idea - but a way to try and show that since we don't pay the same we shouldn't tax the same. -Daniel
[2022-02-24 15:37:59] - Daniel: "I (we?) aren't trying to equalize the financial situations" Maybe semantics, but isn't that the goal to move towards, though? The disagreement here is all about how a flat tax would hit less affluent more, and so we need to hit the wealthier harder to even things out. You even mentioned paying everybody equally. -Paul
[2022-02-24 15:32:59] - Paul: I (we?) aren't trying to equalize the financial situations. Having equal tax burdens does not lead to equal financial situations. -Daniel
[2022-02-24 15:29:31] - Sanity check: For the XLNX acquisition in Fantasy Investing (for those who don't know, AMD acquired the company on Feb 14 and shareholders got 1.74 shares of AMD in exchange for each share of XLNX), I changed the ticker to AMD and changed the starting price to the XLNX starting price times 1.74. Does that make sense? -Paul
[2022-02-24 15:27:50] - Actually, I just realized that's my portfolio. The market is down. Even weirder. -Paul
[2022-02-24 15:27:15] - *Record Scratch Change of Topic* Today seems like a prime example of the market selling off on rumor and soaring on news. Bizarre to see things up the day Russia invades. -paul
[2022-02-24 15:26:30] - Daniel: I don't buy into the Harrison Bergeron idea that we need to equalize the financial situations of everybody. -Paul
[2022-02-24 15:24:43] - Daniel: "I think the idea is to have a fair burden not a fair amount in terms of taxes" Yeah, I understand that's what you (and Adrian?) want, but that's not my goal with taxes. I don't get why it makes sense for the wealthier to pay more in taxes any more than it would make sense for the rich to pay more for pizza or a hammer or whatever. -Paul
[2022-02-24 15:13:31] - Unless we pay everyone the same - then a set amount would make sense. But I would assume that is a no go since that is not capitalism so if we are agreed that people can be paid differently then why not taxed differently? -Daniel
[2022-02-24 15:12:24] - I think the idea is to have a fair burden not a fair amount in terms of taxes. A tax amount of 1k to someone who makes 30k a year is a much bigger burder than to someone who makes 1 mil. -Daniel
[2022-02-24 14:18:25] - a: More seriously (and less assholishly), I guess I don't see how it's relevant that the tax rate was (IMHO) worse in the past. -Paul
[2022-02-24 14:17:38] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States Yes, if only we could return to the idyllic time period in the past when everything was better.
-Paul[2022-02-24 03:47:59] - paul: here's a bigger point. the marginal rate wasn't just a bit higher in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. it was muuuuch higher. i'd propose increasing it, but maybe not that high. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:45:46] - paul: the problem with the 1810s is it's hard to imagine living in 1810s. we didn't know what chlorine was in 1810. or iodine. nobody knew what appendicitis was. no stethoscope. lol, gerrymandering was invented in 1812. can you imagine the us before gerrymandering??? "the united states annexes the republic of west florida", "beethoven composes his famous piano piece, für elise.", yikes. whereas, you and i sorta remember the 80s. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:39:13] - yeah. i do need to take a victory lap on that, thanks! we always make these predictions, i consider them the most important thing in the world, then i immediately forget them. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:38:17] - oh right. that putin was going to invade. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:38:06] - i forget already what i predicted. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:37:25] - a: I need to get some sleep now, but you can take credit for likely being right about Putin and Ukraine (I think you were on the other side of that prediction?) -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:35:17] - thanks, i did like my nice trick. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:32:20] - I think we're still at the point where the country existed longer without a federal income tax than it has with one. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:31:40] - a: Yeah, nice trick with making it seem like the normal state of things is a more progressive tax system, but I'll see your comment and suggest returning to tax rates as seen in the 1800s, 1810s, 1820s, 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s and maybe 1920s? -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:29:31] - Obviously we're not even touching upon balancing the budget or paying down the debt, which should probably come first before cutting spending to $500 billion. Yeesh, we are so boned. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:28:36] - paul: ironically i think we should make the tax system less "fair" (by your definition). i'd like to see the wealthy taxed a higher marginal rate (earned income) than they are today. it would bring us in line with their tax rate seen in the 30s. and the 40s. and the 50s. and the 60s. and the 70s. and the 80s. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:27:02] - I didn't even intend for that "aim high" pun either. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:26:32] - a: But I'm also the crazy guy who thought gays should be able to marry and marijuana should be legal decades ago and look where we are now. Aim high and sometimes you can gradually work your way there. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:25:27] - *changes. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:25:10] - yes. i think we'll def agree that small charges are preferable. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:24:49] - a: Like, I would love the government to be like 90% smaller, but even I wouldn't necessarily suggest laying off 90% of the government tomorrow. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:24:14] - a: *Shrug* I was trying to meet you in the middle for a compromise, but if you prefer I just stick to my original position, that's fine with me. Are we talking our ideal or what is more practical as a transition? It should be obvious those are two separate things, no? -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:23:15] - i'll grant you that i'm being a bit of an asshole here. so, yeah, having a minimum income cut-off or flat percentage for all would at least be mechanically possible. but . . . i think you'd end up with a bloody revolution within a decade. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:21:04] - paul: "I would charge them the same"?
~a[2022-02-24 03:20:20] - paul: maybe i'm just being a jerk, but i thought if you go into the store and ask for a hammer, they don't ask you for your income (for the cut-off purpose). this doesn't fit the definition of equal in any other contexts? my point: having "equal" mean "fair" is dumb. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:20:16] - a: Fairer than what we currently have. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:19:25] - a: In my magical fantasy world where I get to make all the rules? Sure. We can start at $1k. Sounds reasonable. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:18:55] - paul: how is that fair? ~a
[2022-02-24 03:18:23] - a: Sure. I'm certainly open to the idea of a minimum income cut-off (or heck, even just a flat percentage for all) as a starting point. I like a tax system that is more equal but I realize we're so far from that now that changing it to the opposite extreme overnight would be a shock. -Paul
[2022-02-24 03:17:15] - paul: if you'd like to throw out a number so we can level-set, that sounds great. which would you prefer? $1000/year? more? less? ~a
[2022-02-24 03:14:35] - paul: close: my point is that if you want to get the federal budget low enough that every adult (???) pays the same amount, you're still going to send a bunch of people to the poorhouse. ~a
[2022-02-24 03:14:02] - a: But I don't think that's as much an argument against making taxes equal as it is an argument that we spend too much. -Paul
prev <-> next