Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sell now. (Score 2) 371

by lee1026 (#45544467) Attached to: Bitcoin Tops $1,000 For the First Time

So what is V? For something like bitcoin, it is entirely plausible that it will end up being extremely fast (average stay of 1 hour in someone's hands). If that is true, the "market cap" of bitcoins will be on the order of less then a billion, which means that it is already overpriced.

Of course, neither one of us knows how big V is....

Comment: Re:Employability (Score 1) 344

by lee1026 (#43562735) Attached to: New Study Suggests No Shortage of American STEM Graduates

My point is as the tax rate currently stands, it will be really, really, hard for the people at large to not benefit somehow from GDP doubling. The fact that the population would benefit doesn't mean that it is fair, but you can have an unfair situation that helps everyone. Whether it is "a good thing" probably depends on what the alternatives are and what precisely this world look like. For example, a world where a robot owning super rich gets all of the income, pays around half of it in taxes, and the taxes support the rest of the population to sit around comfortably and do nothing probably isn't too terrible. (at least from a fairness/hedonistic perspective)

That 39.6% you mentioned is just federal income tax. There is a whole lot of other taxes, not least state/local taxes. The 1% by and large tend to live in CA/NY/MA/IL, and state taxes will bring that up by a lot. If this hyper rich acts anything like the hyper rich of times past, they will also pay a rather large sum in property taxes.

The issue with marginal vs top tax bracket is purely academic in the situation that you posed - in a world where the 1% is making 198% of current US gdp, their income would be around 10-20 million dollar each. I don't think it matters too much what the tax is on the first 400K is in that world.

I am aware that the Buffett rule didn't actually pass, but I also noted that the discussion in the Buffett rule that it would raise a relatively small amount of money. Going by this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_Tax_Rates_for_Selected_income_groups_Under_a_fixed_Income_Distribution,_1960-2010.jpg

It would appear that the superrich isn't actually that good at hiding their money, being taxed at something around 30% on the federal income tax.

Comment: Re:Employability (Score 1) 344

by lee1026 (#43560897) Attached to: New Study Suggests No Shortage of American STEM Graduates

Using your own links, top 1% pay 30% of their income in income tax alone. Add in 10%ish for payroll, another 10% for state and local, the rich would pay 50% in taxes. (which is more or less what they pay today).

Under your premise of doubling GDP, that means that tax revenue would equal today's GDP. In other words, you can improve the standard of living for the 99% by just using that sum. As to your concerns for the military spending everything, the vast majority of federal spending is on social security and medicare, which isn't exactly military spending. State and local spending tends to be dominated by education.

Again, this is mostly academic, as no one is proposing anything that will double GDP, but the point still stands that doubling GDP is nothing to be trifled with, even if you allow for completely absurd assumptions in the income distribution afterwards.

Comment: Re:Employability (Score 1) 344

by lee1026 (#43560147) Attached to: New Study Suggests No Shortage of American STEM Graduates

At current tax rates, that 1% in your scenario might pay so much in taxes that the 99% would still have more money then the status quo in post-tax and transfer terms.

(Assuming that this 1% gets taxed at the highest tax bracket for both state and federal, lives in high tax states (as current 1% tend to do), and continue to spend a good chunk of their money on property, which are subject to large taxes of their own)

I'd rather be led to hell than managed to heavan.

Working...