That's not really how that works. Inflation is controlled by many factors, notably wage and loanable funds. When inflation increases, unemployment decreases because of additional hiring; this is destructive (it leads to more inflation), so central banks sell bonds to decrease the loanable funds supply and reduce business growth. When inflation decreases, central banks buy bonds to increase the loanable funds supply, spurring investment to create jobs, which increases inflation.

Fiscal policy plays a part, too. Increased deficit spending increases inflation, but too much causes crowding out: the government borrows a lot, reducing the loanable funds supply, thus reducing investment. Surplus slows things down: taxes aren't balanced by spending, so there's less spending available.

Interestingly, if the government taxes $1Bn and spends $1Bn, the impact is +$1Bn in economic activity: the tax multiplier is smaller in magnitude than the spending multiplier. Theoretically that doesn't apply to transfers; however, transfers move from low MPC to high MPC, which creates a differential in spending and impact. That differential tends to drive GDP growth rather than inflation: areas of higher income concentration are the baseline, and lower-income areas can only be lifted that high in the theoretical case, and not nearly as much in practice, so they're only normalizing toward existing outputs and prices.

Kind of, although $12k/year is excessive.

For a $6,000 annual NIT (Dividend) payment per adult, a Federal program would take a 12.5% FICA on all personal gross income (AGI) and corporate net profits. The tax adjustments involved buff most if not all of this out--you end up with a 7.35% OASDI FICA on payrolls (currently 6.2% payroll + 6.2% income) because OASDI benefits calculate the recipient's total benefit and then pay that in total including the NIT.

This benefit also grows faster than inflation, so you can steadily lower the 7.35% payroll FICA while increasing total OASDI benefits. I constructed it that way on purpose, and likewise designed it to pay out twice-monthly rather than at the end of the year so as to avoid floating a huge tax withholding all year.

The gross movement is about $2,100 billion in this Federal construction; however, as you observe, much of it comes from the same hands receiving it. The net movement is somewhere around $300-$350 billion. The total Federal taxes in 2016 were around $3,414 billion; the total expenditure was around $3,852 billion. Both the $2,100 billion and the $300-$350 billion figure are smaller.

Interesting as well: this NIT structure replaces EITC (which came about because people didn't like NIT paying non-workers, so we cut them out), which is itself around $150-$200 billion. It also increases means, lowering welfare claims; and it creates jobs (it diverts some spending to areas of low income and high unemployment, where spending can't support jobs) and new taxable GDP, increasing tax revenues and the size of the benefit itself.

It's about zero net tax costs at a budget-neutral level.

Yes, facts.

Poor person, $20, pays 50% into it, gets 125% out, net 75% negative income tax.

Rich person, $1,000, pays a 4% tax rate into it, gets 2.5% out, net 1.5% tax rate.

The funding source is of course regressive. If it were a flat 4.9%, the poor person pays $0.98 in, gets $25 out, net 120% NIT; while the rich person pays $49 in, gets $25 out, net 2.4% tax rate.

In the latter case, the impact is $5.02 greater for the poor person. In the former, the poor person faces a higher tax rate to claw that back so the rich person doesn't have to pay it.

This tired old argument. It's like saying it's okay to rape people if you pay them offsetting compensation, because they're overall better off.

There is a tax and a benefit. The benefit side is unchanged regardless of the tax source. That means starting from paying a benefit and then applying the funding source, you're either applying a regressive tax or a progressive tax.

If you don't think that makes sense, then let's drop the banking regulations we put in after 2008. Banks were rolling bad loans into CDOs filled with good loans on the reasoning that the whole package was overall net-good, thus banks were making bad loans and selling them to other banks to cash out. This whole "we did a bad thing but we rolled it up with good things so it's overall good" concept lead to a massive recession because they still did a bad thing.

What are you talking about? In my State NIT I pay like $80/year more (I'll probably be ahead anyway after the GDP growth effects, but that relies on my income never increasing again in my life). Universal healthcare would cost me an extra $800. The minimum wage I've proposed will push up prices, but I expect that won't increase as much as wages (for complex reasons, sufficient to say prices in aggregate mathematically can't increase in the same ratio as wages in aggregate), although the effect is less-pronounced as you go up through the income scale.

Of course I'm going to be on the paying end. It doesn't matter. I still get a benefit in terms of lower crime, lower poverty, a better safety net, and probably a higher wage income anyway--and that last one is only driven by the minimum wage, while all the other programs are a cost to me. Even zero-fare light rail would give me free light rail rides, but...I don't ride the light rail enough to more than half offset the additional taxes I'd pay.

Pretty much yeah. I've fought against sales and VAT for a while.

My proposal for Maryland is around $130/month right now, but grows faster than inflation. It also cuts like $500 million out of the Maryland budget because it replaces EITC and cuts back the TANF benefits.

Essentially, we put a 2% tax on all personal income (AGI) and corporate net profits, and distribute this in twice-monthly payments. That produces a continuous negative income tax (hence replacing the EITC: a Hawaiian senator called poor people "parasites" and that's basically the tone, so the NIT conversation eventually went to Russel Long's proposal to just cut out the parasites and only pay people who work, hence EITC), which grows with State GDP, hence faster than inflation.

My overall plan moves Maryland up from 5% (5.75% top) income tax to 10% (10.45% top), while eliminating the 6% sales tax. The savings is about 40% of what's needed to provide universal healthcare, too; and various State GDP impacts should cover the rest. Essentially, we'd trim the income tax some and apply another SIP to replace it.

Rough stuff, really.

ARM has better per-clock performance and lower power usage, so SPARC loses out. RISC-V has a lot of nice features, although some have said the design (ISA) may be inherently more power-hungry than ARM.

I'd like to see AMD make a competitor to Intel's Cyclone V SE SOC with a RISC-V core. If as you say you can implement RISC-V in less area, that's significant: more room for FPGA fabric.

Approximately and accurately to one decimal place.

So the United States was one of five countries with tax rates of 35% or higher in 2016, but dropped to 21% in 2018.

But UBI opponents keep saying if people had more money businesses would just raise prices exactly as much to counter this.

I like how one of the Youtube commentators is like "of course he's seen a coin toss before!" and I'm like "...I've seen a coin toss once in a video game."

Do people do this a lot?

Most people applying for an Amazon job won't have an answer for the first question and will see the second as a form of the first, thus apply the obvious shortcut: "I don't even know how to approach this." Physics students will have an answer for the first, and the basic framework will likely elucidate the second without much consideration.

To simplify a problem, you generally need a way to understand it. Once shown you don't understand the problem, you simplify it by bypassing it. If you asked me to calculate the surface area of a sphere and of half a sphere, I'd skip both because I don't know how to calculate the surface area of a sphere; there may be some obvious trick to a half-sphere, but I'm already aware I can't calculate the area of a sphere and, besides, wouldn't I need to calculate half the surface of a sphere anyway?

If your seals are below operating temperature, just rely on the initial firing to warm up the secondary backup seals, so when the primary fails you'll still be good.

If you can't find a round gasket, use a square one of the correct size and put it under compression.

Pull data into a cache line before the permissions check and then invalidate it and drop the cached value if the permission check fails.

The problem here is the first question sets the mind up for "I don't know this" and the second question is then contexted. If you know the catenary equations and whatnot, you look at the second and immediately see the obvious problem because you've got internal context with which to frame the question and so immediately process the framing. If you don't, you notice they're both similar problems you can't answer.

In other words: noticing that problem B is a special case of problem A is unlikely.

Likewise, what is this supposed to demonstrate? That you'll take a shortcut approach? Depending on the job, recognizing a shortcut might or might not lead to applying the wrong principles to a general problem on the assumption the inputs are going to fall in a range for which the solution works.