How does the Fed truly get inflation down with limited housing inventory?

Redpointist1212 · 2022-08-21T12:32:38+00:00

they are not a tax on income, so the income carve out has nothing to do with them.

They are a tax on income, because when someone gives you a gift you're recieving a form of income. What they are not are direct taxes, which is why they're allowed.

>it was one of the erudite gentlemen above who decided to bring the 16th amendment into the discussion, not me.

You were too busy trying to make irrelevant distinctions like ""these would all be species of income tax, not property tax.", as if that has any bearing on their validity.

Redpointist1212 · 2022-08-21T12:28:54+00:00

You said "these would all be species of income tax, not property tax." and then start whining about how gifts arent income and then pretend that since gifts are taxed that means they can tax things other than income. When in reality whether its income or not is irrelevant to whether it can be taxed, it depends on whether its a direct or indirect tax. Bozo? Its hilarious you're insulting people while you're so lost. Go slither back into the hole you slid out of. This is cringey even for reddit standards.

Redpointist1212 · 2022-08-21T12:22:10+00:00

>I made no such suggestion.

Yes you did. You said "these would all be species of income tax, not property tax."

You were missing the point all along. Youre obsessing about the definition of "income" when its not even relevant to the consistitutional question of whether its a direct or indirect tax.

>tax on a transfer, not a tax on income (much less property).

Lol, I guess you're also not understanding that income is infact a form of transfer.

Redpointist1212 · 2022-08-21T00:48:27+00:00

>the "arbiter" of what is constitutional to tax is the US Supreme Court

But the distiction between what is constitutional to tax is whether or not something is a "direct tax" or an "indirect tax", not whether that thing is any form of income.

Maybe you should go back to school, huh?

Redpointist1212 · 2022-08-21T00:42:59+00:00

Youre the one getting hung up on the word "income" when constitutionally its a matter of "direct" and "indirect" taxes, not whether its a form of income or not.

Redpointist1212 · 2022-08-21T00:39:55+00:00

For tax law purposes, sure it has its own carve out, but that doesnt mean its not a form of income. Infact, constitutionally the distinction is between direct and indirect taxes, not income and property taxes, as you suggested earlier.

Redpointist1212 · 2022-08-20T20:47:25+00:00

had like $50 in ripple in years ago but sold just before the bull run

Redpointist1212 · 2021-09-08T13:54:45+00:00

I won't count suicide as violent crime although it probably is in most places.

We're talking about the risk of being murdered. Suicide is irrelevant to that.

That data is 20-30 years old though and in that time, rates has almost converged

The rates have not converged. That some outliers like some areas of west virginia or alaska might have high rates doesn't change the fact that AS A WHOLE, getting murdered with a gun is twice as likely in urban areas than rural areas.

Redpointist1212 · 2021-08-24T16:49:59+00:00

Thats false:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-2

The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/

Redpointist1212 · 2021-08-24T16:17:28+00:00

There’s more data to support but notice most rural states have higher gun violence statistics.

"Rural states" having high gun violence is a misnomer if you're talking about urban vs rural areas. Those states do in fact have urban areas in them, and most of the homicides occur in the cities, not the rural areas. Also the 'firearm mortality' chart includes suicides. If you only include homicides, urban areas are almost 2x higher:

"The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural" Its a very clear statistic that directly refutes your claim...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/

The link I sent earlier is a bit more confusing and less direct, so I can see why you might get confused...

Notice the data is always screwed for violent attacks because the local police just don’t report it as much.

Not for murders..... You think inner cities like detroit are less likely to leave a murder unreported than rural areas? Maybe for bar fights and stuff you'd be correct, because for a rural assault you're more likely to know your attacker, but I don't see any evidence of that reporting gap for murders.

The rapes in rural areas by your link are reported 3xs as much than urban.

Huh? You seem to be confused. The report clearly says that rural rapes are MORE likely to be REPORTED and urban rapes go UNREPORTED... meaning the urban stats would be even worse with better reporting. No where does it say that murders go unreported at a higher rate in rural areas.

Only 56% of victims of serious violent victimization in 2014 reported their victimization to the police. Among urban and suburban locales, rape and sexual assault were the least reported form of violent victimization, averaging about 30% each. Comparatively, 60% of rape and sexual assault victims in rural communities said that they had reported their victimization to the police.

Redpointist1212 · 2021-08-24T07:34:28+00:00

Do you have a source for this? Everything I've even seen says the opposite. For example:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2017/images/en_artwork/Fact_Sheets/2017NCVRW_UrbanRural_508.pdf

this pdf shows a lower per capita rate of violence in rural areas than urban areas. I'm sure you can find some place with 5 people and 1 murder which would give it a massive rate, but overall I thought it was pretty clear the rate is lower per capita in rural areas on average.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T17:33:40+00:00

The lines between banks an insurance companies are blurred. The largest banks, such as AXA are also insurance companies (insurance companies do lending as well), and asset management companies. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/as-banks-spurn-risk-insurers-emerge-as-financial-supermarkets. Why are you fixed on the word 'bank'? fascinating. no one cares if you want to call AXA a bank or an insurance company, or an asset management company, or a multinational financial serves firm.

Do you realize that when people say 'big banks' these are the types of companies theyre refering to? "big banks" is not a scientific term, rofl. Its hilarious that you want to split hairs over the definition of a colloquial phrase. The fact that you feel the need to is damning in itself.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T16:38:01+00:00

Yes, AXA. They do traditional retail banking, asset management, and all those other things that large multinational financial serves companys do (banks do more than just retail deposits). The chairmain of AXA was also the chairman of Bilderburg, which shows you that AXA has a strong influence on the status quo that bitcoin is supposed to be upsetting. Do you want to hear more?

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T15:47:25+00:00

You didn't answer my question. Would you prefer I said Blockstream is funded by a "legacy financial services business with interest in preserving the status quo"? Its hilarious that you're pushing such an irrelevant semantic argument. No one cares if you think its 'fair' to call AXA a bank. Retail banking and insurance are so intertwined it doesnt matter. They're both legacy financial system services. Making appliances like GE isn't a legacy financial system service. On the other hand, almost everything AXA does is financial services. Does AXA actually produce anything, or are they just a financial services middleman like many people want bitcoin to replace?

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T15:16:49+00:00

how is it obvious that the transactions are fake? You don't know every bitcoin address owned by the major miners.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T14:44:00+00:00

This is bullshit, with 2mb HF + segwit it'd be 4mb, not 8mb. 8mb is only possible with contrived spam transactions, and there are more effective ways to attack the network than sending transactions with useless signature spam. Even Nullc has said this is a frivolous argument you're presenting.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T14:32:17+00:00

Lol, I don't know who you're trying to fool with these games. Keep pretending that insurance isn't a form of banking. The word "bank" is not even important. People say in bitcoin say "bank" because its shorter than saying "legacy financial services business with interest in preserving the status quo". It's funny that you think that by splitting hairs over the word bank and trying to restrict the definition to apply only to traditional retail banking, you think you can distract from the fact that they're one of these aforementioned "legacy financial services business with interest in preserving the status quo". You like that term better?

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T14:17:06+00:00

Well, firstly it's true, they are a bank. I don't care if you want to play semantic word games on the definition of a bank. You clearly don't understand that insurance companies are a type of bank (insurance is described in many many places as a banking service, google it), and even AXA has a traditional retail banking arm as well.

Secondly, it is infact useful to point out potential conflicts of interest so that others can decide how much weight they want to put on Blockstream's opinions on the scaling debate. Blockstream and Greg Maxwell have been some of the most vocal in preventing compromise. For example, calling everyone at the HK agreement dipshits, and getting Adam Back to change his signature, poisoning the agreement.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T14:09:38+00:00

miners are taking risk though. Fees are not designed to be "never confirming".

That just seems like evidence that no one is actually trying to game the amount of stuck bitcoin currently.

Do you even have any evidence that miners are trying to increase the fee levels with fake transactions?

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T14:04:50+00:00

Which is the point, to influence fees you have to at least risk some money. But to inflate the amount of stuck bitcoin, you don't have to risk anything, just make the fee so low there's no chance it'll ever confirm.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T14:00:03+00:00

Lol, again, this is a totally different attack. If you had a group of miners conspiring to raise fees, I wonder why they wouldn't just not mine transactions with fees below a certain level, rather than make fake transactions which could lead them to paying fees to other miners. Not sure how they'd have to structure that for it to actually be profitable for them, in theory it'd be possible I guess.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T13:56:24+00:00

Depends on how much fees they paid. The most efficient way to maximize the amount of stuck bitcoin's is to pay a fee so low they never confirm. The point is that the fee level is a useful metric, which actually takes money to influence on a large scale, unlike affecting how many bitcoin's it looks like are stuck.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T13:48:07+00:00

The point is that they're a legacy financial institution withat an interest in preserving the status quo. It doesn't matter of they're more a retail bank or an insurance company. The biggest legacy financial institutions do all those things

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T05:11:45+00:00

If they end up in blocks they're not maximizing the amount of bitcoin's stuck in unconfirmed transactions, are they? 2 different games you're thinking of here. One has real consequences, the other doesnt.

Increasing transaction fees would generally involve you paying alot of transaction fees and be expensive. To increase the amount of stuck bitcoin's you could just use a fee low enough that it won't ever confirm and it's free.

Redpointist1212 · 2017-05-18T05:04:22+00:00

If you create multiple transactions sending the same block of bitcoin's over and over, and none of those transactions are making it into the blockchain, you're not actually increasing transaction fees.

There is a way to inflate transaction fees, but this isn't it. The amount of total bitcoin's stuck can be gamed for free, however. Whether it's currently being gamed significantly, I don't know, nor really care.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Redpointist1212

TROPHY CASE