does he think people just keep a bunch of cash on hand? or that people don't sell assets to pay other taxes? or that some sort of alchemy happens when you convert money to something else? that there is a real economic difference between a tax for money versus a tax for something in equivalent value?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47255679)

he's writing and ability to use xo indicates at least middling intelligence. is he the genius? someone that has been running a subtle schtick for a decade? or is he real?

both possibilities terrify me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47256717)

(Guy who "gets it" and jumps before the plane crashes)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594002)

didn't see this thread originally, but it's just gunnerattt being a stupid bitch.

wealth taxes don't work and people who support them are stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47593951)

i'd love to hear you explain yourself here. let's say that in exchange for your services i give you a house worth $1m. let's say under an income tax system you would have to pay 10% on the house the year you receive it, and under a wealth tax system you would be taxed 10% on it sometime in the future.

why is the same illiquid asset harder to value when it is taxed in the future as wealth versus when it is received as income?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47593969)

that's how it works now and if your example is as straightforward as it is supposed to be. that's it. my wealth after paying income taxes is $.9m

for some reason, you think no wealth tax would be owed this first year. whatever. what the house is worth when the wealth tax is due needs to be redetermined because valuations change. yes, they can change in the year the house was earned, but it was agreed to by the parties at the time to be $1m so that makes it easy and income taxes are based on annual income.

what about the house? whatever time period you choose after it was acquired, will require a reevaluation. that's harder. a lot harder.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47593985)

LJL you're so fucking stupid it's insane

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594006)

Lol thanks for reminding me about this recent thread where you revealed that you apparently also have no idea what the term "intrinsic value" actually means -- and then dropped the SHOCKING REVELATION on us that gold is ackkkkkkkshually inherently valuable from a utilitarian perspective because "it's going to take humans to space" (citation needed).

https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5517972&mc=90&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594047)

Let me stop you right there, hoss -- what is "intrinsic value"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594059)

what is the definition of intrinsic value that you wish to use?

i'll provide a different one if i don't like yours

and what is the intrinsic value of bitcoin?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594460)

How come you can't just answer the fucking question, retard? This isn't rocket science, what is your definition of "intrinsic value" (and please make sure that whatever definition you give here accords with your claims in the thread which I linked above that the price of gold in 2024 is heavily tied to gold's "intrinsic value," while BTC "has no intrinsic value").

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47595965)

and when you say durr durr this isn't rocket science, well, it can be equally complicated, durr durr

so what is your definition of intrinsic value wrt gold or bitcoin?

durr durr silence coming up

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47596059)

Sorry, I have another follow-up question to ask you re your definition:

-- Is the fact that people like gold simply because they like owning gold and/or hope that its relative purchasing power will increase over time (this is called "speculative investing") a form of "intrinsic value" with respect to physical gold?

Let's be clear, I'm NOT talking about wanting to own gold because it can be molded into some sort of design and then worn decoratively in the form of jewelry, which is kind of a retarded use for something IMO but I'll grant that it is a legitimate "use case" from a utilitarian perspective.

I'm talking about wanting to simply own a physical bar or round that is made out of gold which you cannot wear and which instead you just keep sitting inside of a locked safe, and where the "value" from owning that object comes entirely from: (a) you just like owning it because you like owning it and it makes you "feel good" to own it and that's that, (b) you hope its relative purchasing power will increase in the future ("speculative investing"), or (c) some combination of those two factors. (AFAIK there is no other "uses" for a bar or a round made out of gold that just sits inside a locked safe, but please feel free to share additional "uses" if you think I'm missing some here. And if you want to be a faggot and say "Uhhhh well how about doomsday prepping," you can consider that "use" to be lumped in under (b) because you're hoping that the relative purchasing power of your physical gold will increase exponentially after SHTF and you can then use it to buy a bunch of goods and services that you might want or need within the post-apocalyptic hellscape -- aka, "speculative investing" vis-a-vis relative purchasing power in the future.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603017)

"so what is your definition of intrinsic value wrt gold or bitcoin?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603054)

No, you didn't actually finish answering my question about what exactly does and doesn't constitute "intrinsic value" in your world as it applies to physical gold.

That's why I am asking you to clarify whether what I laid out above constitutes part of the "intrinsic value" of owning a bar / round of physical gold that just sits and collects dust in a vault, in you opinion.

Once you clarify that, then we can proceed with the comparative discussion about physical gold vs. BTC. But you're the one who made the affirmative claim that physical gold has "tons of intrinsic value" and BTC has "no intrinsic value," so you now have to define what exactly does and doesn't constitute part of physical gold's "intrinsic value" before we debate the dichotomy that you have posed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603057)

for purposes of this branch, i do not consider speculation or storage to be part of gold's intrinsic value.

what is your definition of intrinsic value?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603109)

OK so then we're in agreement that if I own a bar or a round made out of gold and I just keep it in a locked bank vault collecting dust, the use of gold in that form has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of "intrinsic value" that is inherent to gold as a substance. Good.

Would it SHOCK you to learn that right now in 2024, ~40% of physical gold is being used for precisely that purpose? Meaning that ~40% of the relative purchasing power of gold as a substance at the moment (aka the "value" as that term is commonly used in the free market where "value" is measured by the price in fiat currency that you have to pay to own [X]) would vanish overnight if people suddenly stopped putting it to use in this fashion which we have just agreed has absolutely nothing to do with gold's "intrinsic value" as a substance?

After you answer that final question, I will give you my definition of "intrinsic value."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603131)

just because 40% of people treat gold this way, it doesn't mean that 40% of gold's value disappear if people stop treating gold this way. it still may have plenty of value in uses that are not supported at its current price, but would be at a price above 60% of its current value.

anyway, go.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603147)

The current total global market cap for gold is ~$16 trillion. ~40% of $16 trillion is $6.4 trillion, which means that $6.4 trillion of gold’s current global market cap has absolutely nothing to do with any “intrinsic value” that gold has as a substance. That portion of the market cap for gold is 100% derived from its "speculative investment and/or value store" functionality, and nothing more. You've already conceded that.

The current total global market cap for bitcoin is ~$1 trillion, with BTC selling at ~$65k/coin. I assume you won't dispute that because those are simply facts that you can independently look it up for yourself.

By operation of pure logic and simple math, that means that the market cap for BTC could ~5.5x from here simply by siphoning off / digitally mirroring gold’s currently-existing *non* “intrinsic value” use case – which would give each BTC a whopping value of $350k *without even requiring us to address whether BTC actually has any “intrinsic value” or not.*

So yeah, let’s table the whole debate on whether BTC has “intrinsic value” or not until a BTC is worth >$350k. After that point, I’ll concede that it becomes fair for you to claim that maybe BTC is overpriced because it doesn’t have any “intrinsic value” to justify a larger market cap, and then BTC proponents will need to justify additional valuation by identifying some sort of "intrinsic value."

But up until that point, as it continues to increase in value (which it will) BTC will only be doing what physical gold has already successfully done for millennia – serving as a wealth store and a speculative investment vehicle for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with any considerations of “intrinsic value.” And trying to differentiate BTC's "real value" from physical gold's "real value" up until that point is pure bullshit, as this exercise has proved. Up to that price point, BTC and physical gold will be serving functionally identical purposes and are demonstrably being used for exactly the same ends by the people who choose to buy and own them ***for reasons that are not tied to any form of "intrinsic value" in either instance***.

HTH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603177)

and now you want to "table the whole debate" on whether or not bitcoin has intrinsic value.

bitch, define intrinsic value so we can see how bitcoin has any intrinsic value based on your definition.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603233)

Here's my current definition of "intrinsic value" for purposes of this thread: "A term that sealclubber doesn't actually understand because he's a fucking retarded Zionist kike."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603259)

I literally blew your intellectual asshold out so hard in this subthread that I earned that finish, retard. HTH, now go scurry off and clean up that torn and bleeding hold.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603311)

going so far as to posit it means another asset's non-intrinsic value. stupid fuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47604443)

gold's history as a store of value is so well-grounded that it could arguably be considered intrinsic value.

bitcoin? lol, no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47604449)

also fyi sealclubber tbf and i disagree about btc, in case you're think i'm just stanning for him as a coiner.

edit: LMAO unbelievable sealclubber was typing his above response as i was typing this. don't want to comment again to step over your subthread wasteland, but sealclubber you fucking imbecile he explicitly lays out how he believes BTCs speculative value is justified even if BTC has ***NO*** intrinsic value and all you can do is repeat for the 80th time your ask him to define BTC's intrinsic value.

HIS POINT IS THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER, JUST LIKE GOLD'S PRICE HAS ONLY A MINISICULE RELATIONSHIP TO IT'S INTRINSIC VALUE.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603240)

why is it harder to value an asset *TODAY* then value it at some time in *THE FUTURE*? in both an income and wealth system the government will have to audit the value of assets. are you not familiar with the concept of people misreporting the sale price of cars and property already to evade taxes?

what would happen if you reported the house as being worth $100k on your income tax? what if you reported it as being worth 100K in the future on a wealth tax? how is that different? again, in both scenarios the asset has to be valued somehow. the only difference is now or in the future.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594015)

your example described bartering. the parties are the guy who provided services, me, and the guy who paid with a house, you.

we agreed my services were worth $1m which was paid by the house.

i never said it was harder to value an asset today than at some point in the future. in fact, i said the exact opposite because we are considering an asset that is being valued by the parties to pay for services

what would happen if i reported the house being worth $100k on my income taxes?

before i answer that, why did you change it from $1m to $100k?

whatever the house is worth, i already do have to report that valuation on my income taxes for that year because it was income.

valuing the house now is different because we know the value now. valuing the house in the future requires a reevaluation because the value of assets changes over time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594036)

but this doesn't really change anything from the last go-around. the issue we're talking about is how it's value is determined.

"before i answer that, why did you change it from $1m to $100k? whatever the house is worth, i already do have to report that valuation on my income taxes for that year because it was income."

i didn't change the value, i'm talking about a situation where someone undervalues an asset to pay less tax. how do we know the value is $1m now? you said the parties agreed, which is just self-reporting. obviously there would be a huge incentive to underreported the assets to pay less tax. that's why i provided you with the examples of people underreporting auto and property sales today.

just take the price out of the hypo and say i paid you with a house. how would valuing it today be different then valuing it at some time in the future?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594062)

now you have changed the question. durr durr what if the parties agree the value of their transaction was worth less than $1m, but only $100k. so now you say what happens if someone "undervalues" an asset so that less taxes can be paid. well durr durr durr...this is what the irs is supposed to oversee. you have shifted from an honest bartering situation--which is permissible and is considered income and is based on the parties' valuation--to a situation where the parties are committing tax fraud by undervaluing the asset

what in the flying fuck this has to do with wealth tax remains to be seen

now you have a different hypo in your last paragraph.

durr durr

if you paid me with a house, how would valuing it today be different than valuing it at some time in the future?

this is easy or should be. i performed services worth x. you paid me with an asset we agreed is worth x. that's it. i report income of x. my income was your asset.

how is that different than valuing it in the future? because in the future i need to get the fucking asset appraised in order to know what it is worth. what was worth x in april of 2024 is almost always worth something different in the future.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594471)

if we agree that something is worth x does that make it so? why is my appraisal of what an asset it worth today any different than later? why does one situation require an appraiser and one doesn't? and who says we even put dollar figures on it at all? that's not how asset based transactions are conducted in real life, you know? what if i was compensated in stock in your non-public company at the par value of $1 a share for 1000 shares. is the listed par value the value? or can we just make up any number we'd like?

"which is permissible and is considered income and is based on the parties' valuation--to a situation where the parties are committing tax fraud by undervaluing the asset"

so you agree that there will need to be some sort of auditing of the valuation of assets in either scenario? so, if assets need to be audited now to ensure people are self-reporting correctly, how is that different in the future?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594524)

"why is my appraisal of what an asset it worth today any different than later?" because it's not just your appraisal, but also mine. it's also only being done once because we are taxing my income. taxing wealth requires reappraisals, probably yearly.

"why does one situation require an appraiser and one doesn't?" because i know what my time is worth and you know what your asset is worth and the nature of our agreement is to use a fair value. the nature of a wealth tax is to undervalue one's wealth

"and who says we even put dollar figures on it at all?" are you stupid?

"that's not how asset based transactions are conducted in real life, you know?" what?

"what if i was compensated in stock in your non-public company at the par value of $1 a share for 1000 shares. is the listed par value the value? or can we just make up any number we'd like?" yes, non-public shares are generally used to pay someone outside of the company for work done. what the fuck is with your drivel? if you are paying me with non-public shares then i am getting access to your non-public books and coming up with an independent valuation. you are far past absurdity with your dipshit hypos.

"what if i was compensated in stock in your non-public company at the par value of $1 a share for 1000 shares. is the listed par value the value? or can we just make up any number we'd like?" now you have flipped it and you are doing work for me? that's ridiculous. i'd never hire you to do shit. durr durr par value par value!!

"so you agree that there will need to be some sort of auditing of the valuation of assets in either scenario? so, if assets need to be audited now to ensure people are self-reporting correctly, how is that different in the future?

" you understand wealth taxes aren't just done one time, right? you understand that the value of assets change, right? 

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47595949)

i don't see any other way to point out the gap you your reasoning. your reliance that a self-reported value of an asset is more reliable when a transaction is conducted is stupid. i don't see how you can be made to understand that in both circumstances you're relying on people to self-report, and both cases will require auditing to ensure accurate reporting. assets aren't more difficult to appraise now or some date in the future. that's the point i was trying to make, although you can't seem to understand that, or really even understand what we're even talking about.

you also keep trying to shift the topic to wealth needing to be appraised more frequently under a wealth tax system, which is beyond the scope. the issue was why you thought assets received as income are easier to appraise than assets held as wealth. the frequency in which an asset must be appraised has no bearing on how difficult it is appraise it at any given time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47602695)

it's not a "self-reported value" of an asset when the transaction is conducted because "self-reported" implies only one person is reporting and also that there is some subjectivity. there isn't. a transaction occurred and the price is established and that price, absent bullshit, establishes the present value of the asset

once time goes on, either an appraisal needs to occur or there is "self-reporting" when the reporter is incentivized to make the value as low as possible.

we don't need to speculate. your faggot proposal for a wealth tax has been tried and is failing

"Back in 1990, around a dozen European countries had a wealth tax, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Today, only four European countries have it: Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and Belgium.

Most European governments eliminated the tax because it was problematic in design and enforcement, and France was the latest to scrap it in 2017. They often hit people with plenty of assets but little cash on hand to pay the taxman."They can be really difficult to administer and ensure even a moderate compliance rate," Daniel Bunn, the director of Global Projects at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, told Business Insider of the European wealth tax experience.

He added that it became difficult for governments to justify the high administrative cost of enforcement as the rich were able to move assets and capital out of the country into lower-taxed jurisdictions, often within Europe.

also, one of those isn't even doing anything remotely close to a 'wealth' tax, belgium

"Belgium introduced a limited wealth tax on security holdings last year, the Financial Times reported.

The Belgian government enacted a 0.15% tax on the securities accounts of individuals with holdings over €500,000, or $553,000"

that's a security holdings tax and all it does is disincentivize having security holdings

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47602714)

1) yes, you are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47602956)

this thread is about marveling how you did not even realize a wealth tax anticipates liquidating assets to pay it. in the thread i debate with plenty of people for and against a wealth tax. the issue here is you are literally too stupid to understand basic concepts.

again, you are very, very stupid. and it's not because we disagree on wealth tax generally. there were plenty of smart people in the thread opposed to the wealth tax. the issue here is that you cannot understand basic concepts, nor can you engage in logical and ordered thinking. you're dumb.

do you think most of this board is for a wealth tax? i doubt it, i'm the outlier here. do you know when even those people say you're stupid, even though they agree with your conclusion? because you're fucking dumb.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47602981)

you are a retard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603070)

if your goals are to be a retard and disincentivize lots of things beneficial to society, then you might just like the wealth tax

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603118)

i'm not engaging with you on it because you are literally too dumb to understand what i'm saying. again, this has nothing to do with the wealth tax generally, as you can see in the thread linked i had length discussions with plenty of people that disagree with a wealth tax. go read that if you want to see my thoughts on it at a higher level.

i'm not engaging you for the same reason i don't discuss literature with an illiterate person. you don't understand the fundamental concepts. it took me like 10 poasts in the first thread to figure out you didn't even contemplate people liquidating assets to pay a wealth tax. in all our time here i still haven't been able to get you to understand WHAT i'm saying. again, not make you AGREE. there are legitimate and intelligent counterarguments. the problem here is that despite great effort i cannot manage to get you to understand wtf i'm even talking about.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47603211)

even his dumbfuck moniker is stupid. so edgy! sealclubber! ahahhaa.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47587480)

to this day it boggles my mind that anyone, especially someone that has been debating libertarian bullshit online for years, could be so stupid. if you told a person of average intelligence about a proposal to tax X% of someone's wealth they would not have to be told this. especially considering no one with ANY wealth keeps a significant portion in literal cash in a checking account.

but, i guess to sealclubber, once cash is converted to a money market fund some strange alchemy occurs that shields it from taxation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47587635)

determining income is way easier than determining wealth. anyone claiming otherwise is equally dense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47593959)

It's impressive that you're still aggressively deriding other people as "dense" ITT

Extremely retarded and kind of insane, but also oddly impressive in a weird way

Good for you brother, good for you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47594010)

so, you disagree with this claim, right?

cualsrbtaygfah

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&forum_id=2#47596064)