Is Trump Santa to the rich, Scrooge to the poor?
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:47 am
I believe he is.
PhilX
PhilX
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I don't have info to the contrary.wtf wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 5:34 am The nonpartisan liberals at the Tax Policy Center concede that 80 percent of Americans will see a tax cut in 2018, and that the average cut will be $2,140โwhich might be something to scoff at in D.C., but I imagine a bunch of voters surprised by these savings will be less cynical. Only 4.8 percent of Americans will see a tax increase.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/22/d ... es-about-t
Do you have info to the contrary? Or are you just repeating fake news?
I watch Fox News. The analysts who have appeared all make the same point, all thus disagreeing with Rep. Pelosi.wtf wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 5:34 am The nonpartisan liberals at the Tax Policy Center concede that 80 percent of Americans will see a tax cut in 2018, and that the average cut will be $2,140โwhich might be something to scoff at in D.C., but I imagine a bunch of voters surprised by these savings will be less cynical. Only 4.8 percent of Americans will see a tax increase.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/22/d ... es-about-t
Do you have info to the contrary? Or are you just repeating fake news?
What an interesting thought. The problem of determining intrinsic market value is first, very difficult; and second, a contradiction.bobevenson wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 9:05 pm As I have said repeatedly, the only proper form of taxation is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.
Under AEP definition, the intrinsic market value of something is what that something can be sold for in the free market. The term intrinsic means non-legal. A dollar bill has legal value, but its intrinsic value is limited to just paper and ink . The same for stocks and bonds, copyrights and trademarks. The legal use of the name Coca-Cola has a great deal of market value, and can be sold for a lot of money, but it has no intrinsic value at all. In other words, property is stuff, factories, equipment, land, automobiles, trucks, works of art, jewelry, yachts, etc., etc., etc. And everything in existence is audited and taxed, and is paid for monthly like a utility bill. It doesn't matter who owns the property or why, it is taxed at the lowest uniform rate possible since everything is being taxed. Fundamentally, it comes down to the concept that the primary function of government is the protection of property, and that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are essential by-products.wtf wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 10:03 pmWhat an interesting thought. The problem of determining intrinsic market value is first, very difficult; and second, a contradiction.bobevenson wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 9:05 pm As I have said repeatedly, the only proper form of taxation is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.
The intrinsic value of anything is what that thing is worth absent the market.
The market value is what the thing is worth absent intrinsic value.
Intrinsic value and market value are two entirely different things. The market value of a Beanie Baby was a few dollars, but there was a bubble in them and people bid them up to hundreds.
To bring this down to a contemporary example, what would you say is the intrinsic value of one bitcoin? We already know its market value, it's around $13k USD as of this moment.
After you've answered that, tell me what is the intrinsic value of a US dollar? Is it its purchasing power? No, that its current market value. The intrinsic value is the amount of heat it would give off if you burned it.
So what on earth do you mean by "intrinsic market value?"
So you agree with my point that intrinsic value and market value are two different things. And that therefore "intrinsic market value" makes no sense.bobevenson wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 11:00 pmA dollar bill has legal value, but its intrinsic value is limited to just paper and ink .
The concept of intrinsic market value is value apart from its legal status. An automobile has intrinsic market value, but a 100 dollar bill does not. They both, however, have market value.wtf wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 11:10 pmSo you agree with my point that intrinsic value and market value are two different things. And that therefore "intrinsic market value" makes no sense.bobevenson wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 11:00 pmA dollar bill has legal value, but its intrinsic value is limited to just paper and ink .
bobevenson wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 11:21 pmThe concept of intrinsic market value is value apart from its legal status.
Those two sentences contradict each other. Intrinsic value and market value are two distinct things. You seem to understand that, but strangely keep insisting that "intrinsic market value" makes sense.bobevenson wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 11:21 pm An automobile has intrinsic market value, but a 100 dollar bill does not. They both, however, have market value.
You changed the subject. Sure, intrinsic value is a thing. But "intrinsic market value" is NOT a thing, because intrinsic value and market value are two different things. The intrinsic value of a house is that it provides shelter for a family or group of housemates. The market value of that house fluctuates with the local real estate market.bobevenson wrote: โMon Dec 25, 2017 11:44 pm Please, intrinsic value is actual value, not legal value like a patent, copyright, stocks, bonds or currency. Can't you understand that?