@Glassnoser's banner p

Glassnoser


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 30 03:04:38 UTC

				

User ID: 1765

Glassnoser


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 30 03:04:38 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1765

I mean that you may be hearing people misuse the term, which why you have heard it used to refer to all the systemic exterminations of WWII, even though it properly only refers to the extermination of Jews.

That may be, but it's an incorrect usage of the term.

Why wouldn't the ecumene include Ethiopia and India?

Regression to the mean is an argument for having higher or lower trait thresholds for certain races, but not for excluding those races altogether.

Capgains are taxed based on a percentage of the appreciation. It's not like a financial transactions tax that is a flat fee every time a trade is made. A 20% gain will be subject to the same tax as 2 equivalent 10% gains would be.

Yes, but if you have to pay tax on the first 10%, you won't get another 10% gain. Let's say you have a $1,000 investment that grows at 10% per year and the capital gains tax is 25%. If you sell after two years, you'll have gained $210 and pay $52.50 in tax, leaving you with $1,157.50.

If instead you sold and rebought after one year, then you'd have a gain of $100 that year, leaving you with $1,075 after tax. That would give you another gain of $107.50 after the next year, in which you'd pay $26.88 after tax, leaving you with $1,155.62.

Dividends are taxed at either the personal income tax rate, or the capgains rate if they're qualified dividends.

It could be in a tax sheltered account though.

The less frequently you sell your assets, the lower the effective tax rate due to capital gains tax. Also, if it's something that generates a return other than through appreciation (e.g. a dividend paying stock or real estate), by holding to it longer, you realize more of the value in a form that doesn't count as a capital gain and so you pay less tax.

I'm a bit confused by this concept. Elsewhere, I've read that Scotland should also be on the other side of the line. Is this actually a robust concept and does it really explain anything?

I don't think that's what the legislation refers to. It's broader than that.

Isn't that evidence against the idea that property taxes don't reduce economic activity? Also, those properties are still developed and their owners are paying higher taxes than they would if they were not.

If we're not thinking of the same people, then what does being able to down vote accomplish?

If they can profitably insure dangerous drivers, what is the problem? Society is being compensated for the risk those drivers pose.

I guess they won't be satisfied then. I don't think the justice system should be retributive.

We need a rule against long-form bullshit then.

  1. That's what moderation is for.
  2. I don't understand what your second point is saying.

I disagree because if the link is on something sufficiently interesting, it's guaranteed that someone will have something to say about it. When it is about something not so noteworthy, then it makes sense to require some commentary.

I really don't get why the link alone isn't enough to start the discussion.

Whether people are happy is a different question than whether their purchasing power has gone up. It doesn't make sense to say that people's purchasing power has actually gone down because, even though it's gone up, they're actually less happy.

It's fine to say that there are more important things than the economy and that people's lives can be getting worse even if the economy is doing well, but that is not an argument that the economy is actually doing badly.

This is the first I'm hearing about this. Where is that happening?

This is the path Israel chose. Territorial expansion is not without its costs, it makes a lot of people very unhappy if you come in and take their land.

What are you referring to?

Why is it a bad thing that asset prices are high? That seems like a good thing to me.

That is explicitly for dumb questions though.

Why isn't it possible that people are biased in whether they report (or even remember) their reputable IQ or SAT scores? The numbers may line up simply because the bias is equal.

I had an hour-long intelligence test (they didn't call it an IQ test but I think it was equivalent) done by a psychologist as part of an experiment when I was 19. She said I was "in the top percentile" (I lost the paper results - maybe I should lose some points for that), which, depending on whether we interpret it as meaning at the top percentile or at the median of the top percentile, would correspond to an IQ of 135 or 139. I've probably lost some IQ points since then.

Maybe this is my ego deceiving me, but I just find it hard to believe I'm dumber than the average person here or on lesswrong. I think we're smart, but probably not quite that smart.

You can have a car dependent city without it being as inefficient as most North American suburbs are. There is no reason for so much space to be dedicated roads and parking. There's no reason for things to be so far apart. There's no reason for all the traffic to be concentrated along a few arteries and for the rest of the road network to be a maze. Fixing these problems would make cities more walkable and even more drivable, without sacrificing anything that people who like cars and space like.

You don't have to do what the urban planners in my city are doing, which is making the transportation infrastructure as hostile as possible to cars while doing very little to make it more walkable or making public transit usable.

But I am not part of that social justice movement and did not say those things. So why are you responding to my comment with that?

Not if your neighbourhood is a grid.

What are you saying, that you're staff and not a senior swe or that you're counting stock appreciation as part of your compensation?