evanpw

Individual states used to be more sovereign. It's similar to the structure of the European Parliament (where small countries have 10x as many representatives per capita as large countries), or the UN (where otherwise China and India would have 1/3 of the votes).

> there is no progressive taxation for capital gains

(I know this is not your main point, but) short-term capital gains are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, and long-term gains have three brackets (0%, 15%, and 20%).

Unfortunately, no: https://stackoverflow.com/a/40714311/4807623

My biggest complaint with structured bindings is that you have to give a name to every element, so if you're compiling with -Wall, you get a lot of "unused variable" warnings. Similar functionality in other languages lets you use _ to mean "I don't care", but in C++ that's considered just a regular single-character variable name.

Any time I hear something sensational about quantum computing, I check Scott Aaronson's blog for the real story. Here's his blog post on this topic: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3827.

I know you said "generally", but there are some significant exceptions (like VXX): https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/VXX#eyJpbnRlcnZhbCI6IndlZWsi...

Even the prospectus says "The long term expected value of your ETNs is zero": http://www.ipathetn.com/US/16/en/details.app?instrumentId=25...

Your example seems to have nothing to do with carried interest. There's a single investor; no investment manager. The question around carried interest is whether certain types of income earned by investment managers should be classified as labor or capital income, whereas you have one person with labor income and one person with capital income, and are asking who should be taxed more heavily.

FWIW, the common rebuttal scenario goes like this:

You and I earn $200k in wages, and each pay $100k in taxes. You spend your remaining $100k on a boat. I invest my $100k, and 5 years later it's worth $200k. Suppose that $100k gain is taxed like ordinary income at 50%. After taxes I have $150k, which I also spend on a boat.

Without taxes, you would have had $200k to consume in year 0, but you actually got $100k; your effective tax rate is 50%. Without taxes, I would have had $400k to consume in year 5, but I actually got $150k; my effective tax rate is 62.5%.

Who should pay the higher tax rate? The person who consumes their wage income immediately, or the one who defers consumption? For them to be equal, the capital gains tax rate has to be 0%.

I took GP to mean that "tech bros" (with all of the negative stereotypes that implies) are not dominant, not that men aren't.

It would be completely consistent for more money => more happiness for each individual person, but for differences in happiness between people to be dominated by non-monetary factors (personality, relationships, local culture, etc.). The problem is that you probably can't make that hunter-gatherer much richer without completely changing the culture they live in.

The deduction is capped at $10k starting in 2018.

For those who are interested, the phrase to Google is “compensating differential”

Talking about asymptotics already assumes that the universe is infinite. Any smooth, finite spacetime will have finite energy. The interesting thing about asymptotically flat spacetimes is that they can be infinite in volume but have finite energy.

I've never understood why people care so much about dividends. The stock price drops by the amount of the dividend on the ex-date, so a stock with dividends that are always reinvested is equivalent to a stock that never pays any dividends. (Unless you're holding it in a taxable account, in which case you have to pay taxes on the dividend and actually come out behind).

You can only deduct 10k of state taxes starting next year

Apparently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides), the suicide rate at Foxconn during that period was lower than the overall Chinese or US suicide rate.

> How much more of a strain we'd be placing on the earth's resources?

If the immortality is based on "brain uploading", maybe just an extra EC2 instance per family of four.

> Meanwhile the wealth gap is at historic highs. Increasing demand when supply is already low should bring up wages.

Tariffs are an extremely inefficient form of redistribution. If you want to fix the wealth gap, just make the pie as large as possible and redistribute directly.

> Tariffs will not generally improve the welfare of Americans, removing the tariffs after our global competitors have ceased their own unfair trade practices, improved worker conditions, stop polluting so much, etc. may improve the welfare of everyone.

I'm not sure what to make of this. It sounds like the plan is to make ourselves worse off in the hope that it also damages China? Most of the difference in labor practices comes from the fact that the US is much richer than China. It's unlikely that we can convince China to stop being poor by taxing ourselves.

But US unemployment is at historic lows [1], and US manufacturing output is at historic highs, so why now? It's also notable that tariffs are one of the few policies that economists are almost in universal agreement about [3].

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS [3] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs

So do police and prison guards' unions, and they're much larger: https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/02/are-for-profit-prisons-or....

That's not true: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm. Though sometimes people look at the non-food/energy components separately because they're less volatile (supposed to be a better predictor of future inflation).

Sounds more monetarist: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-differe...

QBasic was the free version included with DOS and was only an interpreter. QuickBASIC was the full commercial version which included a compiler.

Notwithstanding entirely valid concerns about student loans, this is pure clickbait. The feds also own 30% of the nation's land (640M acres), and have the exclusive right to collect $3T+ per year in taxes (not to mention they can literally print dollars).

Since birth order is immutable, what would you gain by a longitudinal study? You still only get one data point per person.

This is the same as measuring developer productivity by counting lines of code: perfectly objective, but worse than useless.

Yes, at least in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

What dates do you see missing data for?

That's undefined behavior. References in valid C++ cannot be null.