[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[Author]

Posts