Off topic galore

[2daMoon]

Wealth taxes are inevitable. As a TSLA super bull I think you have to acknowledge that. TeslaBots, self driven vehicles etc. UBI is going to happen and needs to be paid for. The sensible thing would be to start with 1% to initiate a smooth change of paradigm.

Feeling like a leftie here is a strange feeling when I am now used to disguising my UK centrist politics in a UK where everyone I meet is to the left of me.

Have you accounted for the deployment of Renewables/Batteries causing the cost of Energy to head toward zero and how this paradigm shift in economics will play into the concerns raised?

This Green Tidal Wave (as one Tesla bull often calls it) would lead to a significant amount of "good deflation" and should result in easily funding the cost of UBI.

Imagine the effect of free energy on the cost of living. Most of what anything costs is to pay for energy in bringing it to market.

 

[2daMoon]

Taxes have been much higher in the US in the past and are so currently elsewhere and it does not stifle innovation and growth. No one says "I'm not going to create something because it might make me rich and I'll have to pay more taxes".

So, you are saying that taxes never figure into a business plan or investment strategy?

If so, why is this a topic of conversation on an investment forum?

 

[JRP3]

So, you are saying that taxes never figure into a business plan or investment strategy?

No, I said that taxes do not stifle innovation or the drive to increase wealth which was your basic premise. There is a drastic difference.

 

[2daMoon]

No, I said that taxes do not stifle innovation or the drive to increase wealth which was your basic premise. There is a drastic difference.

If taxes are a consideration in business and investment planning, then, a change in tax would result in a change in the strategy being employed.

If a change to a higher tax cost thwarts application of a strategy which was viable prior to the change, then, that would seem to point to the change in tax being what stifled that instance of potential growth.

 

[JRP3]

"If we improve our product our sales and profits will go up but let's not do that because we'll pay more taxes", said no one ever.

 

[2daMoon]

"If we improve our product our sales and profits will go up but let's not do that because we'll pay more taxes", said no one ever.

"If we improve our product our sales and profits should go up based upon existing tax law, however, with the new tax law we won't be profitable with these improvements. Let's rethink how to survive in this new tax environment." could easily have been uttered a multitude of times over the centuries.

Anyone who argues in absolutes always seem to me to be overlooking the infinite shades of gray that make up most of the possibilities that will fall somewhere between the polar extremes. Binary arguments are unlikely to provide an accurate assessment when viewing any complex system.

On the one hand I understand what you have stated. In fact, I support the idea of me paying more taxes because that means I've cashed out on bigger gains. However, taxes are a factor on when and how I might cash out. My choice will include figuring for taxes, aiming for the most efficient bracket, etc. for any distribution I take.

However, any U.S. tax that targets a specific group (i.e.: the "wealthy") would be an exception to the US Congress' authority under the document the congress-critters have sworn to uphold. Without an amendment I doubt a "Wealth Tax" would survive the first constitutional test in court.

 

[jbcarioca]

…the shat ton of issues related to having to blend ethanol. The problem is that the subsidy doesn't really cover the costs of doing business. Ethanol is nasty gumming crapola of a fuel. It creates hundreds of issues in the refineries and in vehicles....

Some other context might be relevant. Brazil is perhaps the only major country that uses lots of ethanol as car fuel, other than the idiotic US practice. Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane and is generally cheaper than is gasoline, even the ultra-cheap ‘commun’ that has no additives at all. Gasoline, though is 27% ‘ alcool‘. Skipping the refining issue, which is very efficient in Brazil, the stuff is quite sticky so fuel injectors require periodic cleaning and/or replacement. Leaving a car unused for a few weeks and t will probably run poorly. Using fuel system cleaner additive even few months works. The Pure ethanol cars that were common a few decades back are uncommon now.

For that reason, among all the others, I am thrilled to have a BEV now in Rio de Janeiro.

Now my brother-in-law must cope with my old BMW.

FWIW the Rio de Janeiro State annual car tax IPVA is 1/8 the cost of an ICE. With IPVA annual tax of 4% (based from initial price) BEV operate is attractive.

 

[nativewolf]

Some other context might be relevant. Brazil is perhaps the only major country that uses lots of ethanol as car fuel, other than the idiotic US practice. Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane and is generally cheaper than is gasoline, even the ultra-cheap ‘commun’ that has no additives at all. Gasoline, though is 27% ‘ alcool‘. Skipping the refining issue, which is very efficient in Brazil, the stuff is quite sticky so fuel injectors require periodic cleaning and/or replacement. Leaving a car unused for a few weeks and t will probably run poorly. Using fuel system cleaner additive even few months works. The Pure ethanol cars that were common a few decades back are uncommon now.

For that reason, among all the others, I am thrilled to have a BEV now in Rio de Janeiro.

Now my brother-in-law must cope with my old BMW.

FWIW the Rio de Janeiro State annual car tax IPVA is 1/8 the cost of an ICE. With IPVA annual tax of 4% (based from initial price) BEV operate is attractive.

Hey, that's cool. Ah...so if you know Brazil's sugar cane ethanol business than you know that is as good as it gets....the USA by comparison is a piss poor expensive alternative. Though I understand that the sugar cane must be produced immediately almost it's only drawback. However as a fuel it is far better and much cheaper to produce. Last I had seen is that it was 40% cheaper to produce than the US corn based ethanol which makes sense as it removes the complex processes of converting corn to ethanol.

And to other posters thinking gas prices increase without ethanol there has never been any evidence at all that ethanol lowered fuel prices in the USA, if anything the opposite- this is my somewhat old and dated memory of the data but I am fairly sure that any new econometric analysis will show the same. Ethanol is and always was a sham in the USA. It was a field that I am familiar with both professionally and from an academic POV. So if/when ethanol subsidy is removed something may/may not happen with fuel pricing. I expect not much, a bit cheaper fuel but better gas milage when you get rid of the low energy ethanol. If I was running a major refinery and no longer had to deal with that stupid credit program I could fire a couple of people just on the credits and paperwork side of things. Then I could fire a slew of people needed to keep the ethanol blend program working, etc etc.

My interest in this has been renewed due to Tesla. It's going to have huge impacts in the midwest when corn ethanol market collapses- supposedly it is responsible for 20% of corn pricing. We are in a commodity boom but when the next bust happens and the subsidy is not there....what then...what then? As Tesla ramps and gasoline purchases are crimped ...what happens to this agricultural land? Fairly far off topic. Thanks for the insight

 

[jbcarioca]

Hey, that's cool. Ah...so if you know Brazil's sugar cane ethanol business than you know that is as good as it gets....the USA by comparison is a piss poor expensive alternative. Though I understand that the sugar cane must be produced immediately almost it's only drawback. However as a fuel it is far better and much cheaper to produce. Last I had seen is that it was 40% cheaper to produce than the US corn based ethanol which makes sense as it removes the complex processes of converting corn to ethanol.
...We are in a commodity boom but when the next bust happens and the subsidy is not there....what then...what then? As Tesla ramps and gasoline purchases are crimped ...what happens to this agricultural land? Fairly far off topic. Thanks for the insight

One additional point might be relevant. Bolsonaro and trump made a deal for export of US ethanol to Brazil. That was widely ridiculed here for all the obvious reasons, primarily that the general discussion here is that or cane ethanol is typically ~20% cheaper or so on a BTU comparison excluding subsidies. For the US ethanol to be a responsible choice was unbelievable and indefensible. That was so obvious to even ignorant people that it cost Bolsonaro another few percentage point in his awful popularity figures.

All that is without the context of increasing agitation for and implementation of reduced taxation for BEV's. There are four different tax classifications involved so it is bureaucratically complex. We citizens call it "The Brazil tax". Still IPI, a sort of not quite exactly a VAT, it not charged for BEV. Duties still apply and cost roughly 30%. the annual IPVA is State level and there is therefore strong incentive to try to register in favorable States (eight Staets are zero or nearly zero).

Solar panels are now produced in Brazil and some excellent ones are reasnably priced and end with payback in two to three years. Li-ion batteries are produced here too, some from CATL through Moura and others from BYD are standouts but this si a slower adoption than are panels.

Since we are off topic, I included a few more details. Brazil now is the sixth or seventh largest vehicle market in the world. EV's are growing rapidly in bus fleets, and Mercedes Benz is now making electric trucks (in Rio de Janeiro State). JAC has a variety of small trucks and cars on sale and are having notable success, even though they get virtually no press (JAC really is not a household name here). So fast growth from a tiny base.

The reason is as always, lack of infrastructure. Were Tesla to finally come and establish a Supercharger network there would be instant market growth, as there has been elsewhere. They might even fill my 2016 Model 3 reservation, which opened the day after the US.

 

[JRP3]

However, any U.S. tax that targets a specific group (i.e.: the "wealthy") would be an exception to the US Congress' authority under the document the congress-critters have sworn to uphold. Without an amendment I doubt a "Wealth Tax" would survive the first constitutional test in court.

Any progressive tax structure targets the wealthy, as it should. I should make it clear that I'm not arguing specifically for a wealth tax I'm just disagreeing with the point you make about stifled innovation. In fact I could just as easily see the opposite effect, i.e. "we need to find savings elsewhere in the company", leading to further improved processes.

 

[2daMoon]

Any progressive tax structure targets the wealthy, as it should. I should make it clear that I'm not arguing specifically for a wealth tax I'm just disagreeing with the point you make about stifled innovation. In fact I could just as easily see the opposite effect, i.e. "we need to find savings elsewhere in the company", leading to further improved processes.

My comments were not meant to be about Income Tax and existing tax schemes which individuals and businesses currently face. I thought this discussion was about taxing unrealized gains on stock shares being held long term. Perhaps we have been talking apples vs. oranges?

Such a tax would be convoluted and complex to apply (compared to Cap Gains tax) without it also being detrimental toward speculation for growth and innovation.

Shouldn't taxes on such assets only be assessed upon sale when gains/losses can be clearly defined, without having to account for market variations and other applicable factors during any given tax year?

I don't like the idea of a HODLer being punished for supporting a company they have established faith in.

 

[JRP3]

I've been mainly focused on disagreeing with your basic premise that taxes will stifle innovation. I'm not necessarily in favor of a wealth tax but I don't think that a 1% tax on wealth would slow innovation.

 

[2daMoon]

I've been mainly focused on disagreeing with your basic premise that taxes will stifle innovation. I'm not necessarily in favor of a wealth tax but I don't think that a 1% tax on wealth would slow innovation.

The premise behind any "wealth" tax is to make equal something that by nature clearly isn't. In this case the concept of Wealth Equality presumes that those who do not innovate and create should be rewarded for their lack of contribution while those who do create and innovate should have the fruit of their labor run through a Cuisinart and distributed by the spoonful to the multitude who did not earn it.

Such a method is usually considered a Socialist approach to economics. I am unfamiliar of any instance where this method has been applied and the nation applying it has then grown production and innovation at a rate that exceeds other nations where such a method was not implemented.

Granted, there are issues with many of the wealthy who could be putting more of their wealth to better use that might inspire creativity and innovation among any who aspire to that end and do not have the means to do so.

In balance, there are also many of those who find their creative passion fulfilled in convoluted attempts to have government agents strong-arm others into providing for them when all they have created is a welfare state that punishes the creative and rewards those who prefer more idle pursuits.

So, regardless of the percentage, the implementation of any wealth tax will inevitably result in reduced creativity and innovation the steeper the curve toward reward becomes.

 

[Nocturnal]

Can't help but laugh at myself that I am so anxious to pay $50 for a whistle.

Maybe this is a message to my frugal self.

They are selling for around $150 on Ebay right now. Makes $50 seem like a good deal.

 

[Ogre]

They are selling for around $150 on Ebay right now. Makes $50 seem like a good deal.

I should have bought 100 of them!

 

[SOULPEDL]

They are selling for around $150 on Ebay right now. Makes $50 seem like a good deal.

Clicking on it sends me to a 404 error. Sometimes. So guessing 3 Million clicks per second, server overload over a freakin $50 whistle!

 

[lafrisbee]

Can't help but laugh at myself that I am so anxious to pay $50 for a whistle.

Maybe this is a message to my frugal self.

No. I see it. It is still there.

 

[lafrisbee]

No. I see it. It is still there.

PSYCH!
(OK mods delete the two of them I had my fun.)

 

[Krugerrand]

Clicking on it sends me to a 404 error. Sometimes. So guessing 3 Million clicks per second, server overload over a freakin $50 whistle!

And missed it AGAIN because of doing something for someone else. Fudge people!

 

[Buckminster]

Beautiful:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1466136679572459529