Minecraft creator and fellow Exile Notch banned from 10 year anniversary celebration for wrongthink

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

How about progressive taxation? BOOM problem solved NEXT

Laffer curve says no. Try again.

So progressive taxation is not to boost the economy, silly, it's to reduce income inequality, two very different things. The increased revenue you would get you could invest in 'equalisers' like healthcare and education.

Even if the voodoo economics theoretical Laffer curve is taken literally, many would argue cutting taxes from the rich does not result in 'trickle down economics', thus not boosting the economy at all.

Dude, the Laffer curve might be hard to calculate, but it's far from voodoo.

How much money are you getting if you tax a business 0%? 0, obviously.

How much money are you getting if you tax a business 100%? Again 0, because they can't conduct business that way.

Therefore, the maximum tax revenue possible is somewhere between 0% and 100% tax rate. The Laffer curve is the chart of this phenomenon: tax rate as x-axis, overall tax revenue as y-axis.

So what you're saying here, unwittingly or deliberately, is that you'd be willing to decrease tax revenues — essentially spending money — for the opportunity to tax the wealthy even more, for the sole purpose of taking money out of their pocket so they'd be closer to poverty.

I sure as fuck hope it's unwittingly.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Dude, the Laffer curve might be hard to calculate, but it's far from voodoo.

How much money are you getting if you tax a business 0%? 0, obviously.

How much money are you getting if you tax a business 100%? Again 0, because they can't conduct business that way.

Therefore, the maximum tax revenue possible is somewhere between 0% and 100% tax rate. The Laffer curve is the chart of this phenomenon: tax rate as x-axis, overall tax revenue as y-axis.

So what you're saying here, unwittingly or deliberately, is that you'd be willing to decrease tax revenues — essentially spending money — for the opportunity to tax the wealthy even more, for the sole purpose of taking money out of their pocket so they'd be closer to poverty.

I sure as fuck hope it's unwittingly.

You've taken the literal interpretation of a theoretical curve of voodoo economics.

It's like talking to someone who believes the Bible word for word, and that it took 7 days, literally, to create everything.

But let's follow this fantasy for a bit.

Which side of the optimal tax rate do you think we were before Trumps tax cuts? Does it then make sense there was so little benefit of it?

ANd no, you don't get decreased revenue absolute if you increase your income tax rate absolute. You might get less bang for your buck per % income tax rate, but not total. That's what the theoretical voodoo Laffer curve is meant to portray. And it's certainly not meant to be taken literally.

Look Jimbo, let's not make this overly complicated. Three simple points:
1. If a tax rate is too low, tax revenue can be $0. For instance, 0% tax rate.
2. If a tax rate is too high, tax revenue can be $0, because the tax effectively becomes a prohibition. For instance, 100% tax rate, or 2000% tax rate.
3. If a tax rate is not too high nor too low, it can generate more than $0 in revenue. For instance, the US government currently collects tax revenue.

THEREFORE, there is a certain tax rate that maximizes revenue; from this point, increasing tax rate decreases revenue until it eventually flatlines at $0, and decreasing tax rate decreases revenue until it eventually flatlines at $0.

I've noticed that there's a shitload of fake economics out there on the Laffer Curve. So if you want to call this effect whatever you want instead of the Laffer Curve, I don't care. The point is that taxing a behavior discourages it, and the more you tax income the more you reduce pre-tax incomes.

Can we at least agree to this much?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Look Jimbo, let's not make this overly complicated. Three simple points:
1. If a tax rate is too low, tax revenue can be $0. For instance, 0% tax rate.
2. If a tax rate is too high, tax revenue can be $0, because the tax effectively becomes a prohibition. For instance, 100% tax rate, or 2000% tax rate.
3. If a tax rate is not too high nor too low, it can generate more than $0 in revenue. For instance, the US government currently collects tax revenue.

THEREFORE, there is a certain tax rate that maximizes revenue; from this point, increasing tax rate decreases revenue until it eventually flatlines at $0, and decreasing tax rate decreases revenue until it eventually flatlines at $0.

I've noticed that there's a shitload of fake economics out there on the Laffer Curve. So if you want to call this effect whatever you want instead of the Laffer Curve, I don't care. The point is that taxing a behavior discourages it, and the more you tax income the more you reduce pre-tax incomes.

Can we at least agree to this much?

Dodging, and inability to answer simple questions.

I guess I will do the same.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Why is it notable?

Because we are never going to get rid of bigotry.

As long as they don't escalate into violence or assaults they are a non-issue in human life.

Extremely wrong. Words can destroy someone like nothing else can.

Not according to Rojimbo:

"

Boem wrote:

I used "socially destroyed" for a reason, some people's life where ruined by a charge of rape that was never factually backed up.

As for the "law against slander" it's kind of hard to press charges against anonymous accounts or groups using social media as cover for their actions.

You know about the Brett Kavanaugh case?

Serious impacts to his life, no substantial facts or evidence put forward by the person making the claim.

"

rojimboo wrote:

You mean Kavanaugh who is a Supreme court judge now after defending himself succesfully in court? I.e. he won? One of the most powerful men in the country? How was he destroyed, exactly?

"

rojimboo wrote:

Dodging, and inability to answer simple questions.

I guess I will do the same.

What questions? I see essentially one question. Regarding whether I believe the Trump tax cuts moved us closer to or farther from the Laffer maximum (that is, maximum tax revenue), I don't know; furthermore, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I am confident that the tax cuts increased incomes and contributed to economic growth, however. I think your view that they had minimal impact is from biased news sources that measured impact before most Americans could receive their tax refunds this year, and that we'll start to collect data in earnest starting next month and getting enough to do real analysis by February of next year, after Christmas retail numbers come in.

But that's a digression. I'm trying to focus on broader theory before getting to specific policy proposals.

I'm haven't even started talking about the relationship between the Laffer curve and progressive tax schemes. I would like confirmation we're on the same page regarding the basics of the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue before continuing.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Equality of outcome is not substantive evidence of equality of opportunity.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Most of the people arguing for equality of outcome and thinking it helps create equality of opportunity have never been on the other side - where hiring/firing/promoting decisions are made.

Hiring an unqualified person of a minority group to fill a quota, just means that less of that group will be good enough to get promoted. Which makes your organization look racist.

Promoting people who were unqualified in the first place to a higher level of responsibility is almost guaranteed to ensure they fail, and that they fail hard enough for everyone to notice and get fired.

Once again, the company looks racist if they fire them, and people who are talented below look to go work for another company that values good work over quotas.

Experienced HR legal teams know this. When they are forced to hire for quotas, they look for someone that they can fire on cause. False information on your resume? No problem, the HRM loves that, they can fire you at any time. You're hired!

So how does a company reach diversity goals without hiring unqualified people?

They make a big effort to find qualified people of the minorities they need and then give them sufficient training, and sufficient time to learn their job well before promoting them. If someone can succeed at a job 2 levels higher than the position they were hired for, they have a good shot at going as far as the openings allow.

I'm not talking theoretically here. This is something I have practiced successfully, to a degree where executives from around the country have flown in and asked how we achieved such a successful diversity program.

The other key factors are to openly and continuously let every single person know that the opportunity is there if they want it, show interest, are willing to train for it, and show aptitude. You'll need to teach them what factors are important to succeed in your business, and what personal attributed you want to see them display at work. (Honesty and quick reporting when you make a mistake, for example).

Training people for the next level is key. You might have to train four people to get one that works out. Don't punish people for trying to move up the ladder, or for coming back down. Let them try again.

Treat people equally, and as you would like to be treated, and most of the rest sorts itself out with honest communication.

Quotas always fail hard in the long run. Your company will end up with a very high turnover rate, spend too much of its payroll on training and on legal defense because of the people you had to fire, and lose any potential the company had to grow and expand because of well honed talent pool.

Bad rules will never replace having good people.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Dodging, and inability to answer simple questions.

I guess I will do the same.

What questions? I see essentially one question. Regarding whether I believe the Trump tax cuts moved us closer to or farther from the Laffer maximum (that is, maximum tax revenue), I don't know; furthermore, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I am confident that the tax cuts increased incomes and contributed to economic growth, however. I think your view that they had minimal impact is from biased news sources that measured impact before most Americans could receive their tax refunds this year, and that we'll start to collect data in earnest starting next month and getting enough to do real analysis by February of next year, after Christmas retail numbers come in.

But that's a digression. I'm trying to focus on broader theory before getting to specific policy proposals.

I'm haven't even started talking about the relationship between the Laffer curve and progressive tax schemes. I would like confirmation we're on the same page regarding the basics of the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue before continuing.

If you want me to treat a non-proven theoretical economic curve that oversimplifies things as gospel, it's not gonna happen.

EVen I can see that too much taxes would eventually hinder economic output, and thus you would get less revenue per % increase in income tax rate.

But the reverse did not seem to happen either, i.e. tax cuts 'paying for themselves' in increased output and thus revenue. This is why Bush called Laffer curve voodoo economics.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Why is it notable?

Because we are never going to get rid of bigotry.

As long as they don't escalate into violence or assaults they are a non-issue in human life.

Extremely wrong. Words can destroy someone like nothing else can.

Not according to Rojimbo:

"

Boem wrote:

I used "socially destroyed" for a reason, some people's life where ruined by a charge of rape that was never factually backed up.

As for the "law against slander" it's kind of hard to press charges against anonymous accounts or groups using social media as cover for their actions.

You know about the Brett Kavanaugh case?

Serious impacts to his life, no substantial facts or evidence put forward by the person making the claim.

"

rojimboo wrote:

You mean Kavanaugh who is a Supreme court judge now after defending himself succesfully in court? I.e. he won? One of the most powerful men in the country? How was he destroyed, exactly?

To be fair Dalai, i was talking about the accusation of guild being assumed by general public influencing prejudice when encountering the individual targetted by the accusation.

The accusation of guild doesn't hurt anybody.

The assumption by the populus that the accusation is accurate before due process can cause "social damage".

And it's that assumption that is generally targeted by these social games of guild vs innocence, power vs powerless, oppressor vs oppressed.
It rely's entirely on assumed prejudice to succeed, ironically exposing the prejudice of their entire "in-group".

Peace,

-Boem-

@Dalailama

Hey man, welcome back (if you were gone for a while - I was too).

Meanwhile Scrotie hasn't missed a day ;)