||||||||||||

Embarrassed to be here.

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@Bluebearmonkey Is it comparative advantage when domestic production is maintained by capital controls and yuan guidance? China gets manufacturing dominance and the world gets lower real interest rates (through China's bond ownership). It's a strategic tradeoff for national security, not magic.

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@TheRealDavey2 This is a argument against tax in general, rather than an argument against CGT. Am I not entitled to consumption? Abolish gst- same argument. The question is why should a gain attract a lower tax than on regular income?

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@BrentHodgson You should have led with straw man 2, Gerard just doesn't know the difference between marginal and average.

However, straw man 1 exists. A retiree who owns shares with average gains but isn't pension eligible will be effected, the rich who make 45k+ in dividends won't pay it

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@alanthefisher @LinkofSunshine Another victim of misunderstanding baumols cost disease ☹️

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@Rakeshhkumaar Because land is a monopoly and we have neo-feudalism as a result (land value tax solves this)

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@TaxPawspective I mean, tax schemes can be more or less lucrative depending on the situation. It seems that dropping CGT in 1999 had a bigger impact because capital gains expectations were higher in 1999 than they were in 1985. Effectively acting as a multiplier of gains. Is that plausible?

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@HowardFMaclean I think capital/labour tax equivelence is justifiable as long as you can rollover gains. There shouldn't be a tax event for reallocating capital to a more efficient purpose- and timing for a lower bracket is socially desireable to encourage saving.

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@HuxleyMick @Sauronlordking The return percentage stays the same because the house price changes, not the rent.

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@decoysleepr @OS2NOX Facts, it's not like he helps his landlord mother out by housing her while she continues to rent out her own property.

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@sandylanceley @HowardFMaclean What did incomes do in that time? If less people -> less income -> lower rents then yes the story absolutely makes sense. But if income is the mechanism, then what are we trying to reduce?

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@BhagsNStonks @AshPolitik @tax_oz I think the tax concession has to be useful in and of itself to justify a concession. Like an allowance of cost basis for retained earnings to avoid double tax (company and capital gains) or franking credits, not just because we're handing money to investors for the sake of it.

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@BhagsNStonks @AshPolitik @tax_oz I still engage in market risk when I invest my post-tax income from labour. Why should this type of investment be treated less preferencially than sweat equity?

Then there's the massive incentive to tax dodge by reclassifying labour income as capital income. Highly distortionary

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@sandylanceley @HowardFMaclean Investment activity impacts the asset to income price ratio more than the rent to income ratio

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@sandylanceley @HowardFMaclean But income is the mechanism behind most of those things creating demand. More people doesn't change the rent to income ratio, those people increase local incomes which increases demand. Rent to income is actually pretty constant over time (25-30%).
https://t.co/2UWXSaWQEp

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@BhagsNStonks @AshPolitik @tax_oz If we're talking $0 basis, why should someone be taxed differently because they got their wage paid in 'sweat equity'? That's different to income that's already been taxed once when first earned and then invested.

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@BWJacksonX @geoplanetary @brianluidog https://t.co/xbvUiLMOOu

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@sandylanceley @HowardFMaclean Rent to income ratios factor in demand. Higher income -> higher demand for housing. It's a measure of supply responsiveness.

It doesn't make sense to cut demand (income) to spite the face. Real demand achievements look at inequality, or investment/land banking (usually both).

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@DrCameronMurray If immigration has these negative impacts why not let immigration float and charge a migration levy equal to the marginal social costv of migration? Trade offs happen in any transaction but we should utilise net benefits where they exist

[|||||||||||| @axiomaticmemes]

@Y192814512 @river_is_nice The licences for frequencies are a form of privatisation lmao they give you a right to be protected from 3rd party interference.

The entry barriers that you validly stated pale in comparison to the fact that you're on the steeper part of the marginal cost curve than verizon