4 ms·

...you're right. I was figuring a marginal tax rate of about 40% and dividing by 15%, then rounding up. In practice the number is closer to 2x, as you said.

...you're right. I was figuring a marginal tax rate of about 40% and dividing by 15%, then rounding up. In practice the number is closer to 2x, as you said. Why does that change the analysis?

sokoloff 6y ago
If the magnitude of the difference doesn't change the analysis, why mention it in the first place?
- newacct583 6y ago
  "Income tax is significantly higher than capital gains, and that clearly contradicts the contention that we preferentially tax things we hate." Do you actually disagree with that statement? If the essence of the argument doesn't change, why argue with numbers in the first place?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    The second half of that statement is purely argumentative and as stated can neither be falsified nor proven true. The first half of the statement is also not obviously true to me, given the large amount of wage income that is federally marginally taxed at 22 or 24% and the large amount of long-term capital gains that are taxed at 23.8%. Is some wage income taxed higher than some investment income? Obviously, yes. Is that done specifically to disincentivize work? I don’t think so. Are long-term capital gains and qualified dividends taxed lower in order to incentivize long-term investing? I think so. Do we conclude from that that politicians hate workers more than investors? Exploring that requires looking at facts not yet in evidence here.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > The second half of that statement is purely argumentative and as stated can neither be falsified nor proven true. OMG. I was paraphrasing YOUR COMMENT! Precisely because it's irrefutable nonsense. [And the fact that you came back after nine hours to edit your comment to make it look like you had more to say is just... <chef's kiss>]
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        The edit window for comments on HN is 2 hours, so I most certainly and provably did not do the thing you have accused me of doing.

...you're right. I was figuring a marginal tax rate of about 40% and dividing by 15%, then rounding up. In practice the number is closer to 2x, as you said. Why does that change the analysis?

sokoloff 6y ago

If the magnitude of the difference doesn't change the analysis, why mention it in the first place?

newacct583 6y ago
"Income tax is significantly higher than capital gains, and that clearly contradicts the contention that we preferentially tax things we hate." Do you actually disagree with that statement? If the essence of the argument doesn't change, why argue with numbers in the first place?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  The second half of that statement is purely argumentative and as stated can neither be falsified nor proven true. The first half of the statement is also not obviously true to me, given the large amount of wage income that is federally marginally taxed at 22 or 24% and the large amount of long-term capital gains that are taxed at 23.8%. Is some wage income taxed higher than some investment income? Obviously, yes. Is that done specifically to disincentivize work? I don’t think so. Are long-term capital gains and qualified dividends taxed lower in order to incentivize long-term investing? I think so. Do we conclude from that that politicians hate workers more than investors? Exploring that requires looking at facts not yet in evidence here.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > The second half of that statement is purely argumentative and as stated can neither be falsified nor proven true. OMG. I was paraphrasing YOUR COMMENT! Precisely because it's irrefutable nonsense. [And the fact that you came back after nine hours to edit your comment to make it look like you had more to say is just... <chef's kiss>]
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      The edit window for comments on HN is 2 hours, so I most certainly and provably did not do the thing you have accused me of doing.