great professor! I love this guy. He is more honest and courageous than most professors whom are afraid and hesitant to speak or shed light on these type of topics.
yes, those countries did not have to endure many successive generations of intentionally inflicted trauma whereby losing coping mechanisms along the way explains why Asian countries bounced back
A tax-deduction has nothing to do with a transfer. In fact - a deduction is exactly the opposite. It is a NON-transfer. The deduction means that there will be a certain amount of NO money that is being transferred NOWHERE, but that WOULD have been transferred without the deduction. This sloppy thinking is all to common in other sciences than economics and is based on the lack of understanding of the basic principle of taxation. If you tax the benefits of an activity, you also have to give a deduction for the costs of that activity. Thats why you get a deduction for the amount of transportation you have to do, in order to obtain the taxable working income you gain from work. The same goes for interest. The government WILL tax you for an interest surplus, and thus they have to give you a deduction for the opposite - namely the cost of interest on your mortgage. Perhaps sociologists should stick to sociology instead of explaining the economics they don't understand.
True, except that exceptions are combined with higher and more progressive rates. This is in part because smaller special interest groups are easier to organize than larger groups, because of limits to perception and self interest. The same is also true of spending, which is organized by small special interest, even when it's not beneficial to the economy. It also explains the reluctance to tackle deficits.
great professor! I love this guy. He is more honest and courageous than most professors whom are afraid and hesitant to speak or shed light on these type of topics.
you are right prof no equality no safety..
i need reference ? whats your suggestions .
yes, those countries did not have to endure many successive generations of intentionally inflicted trauma whereby losing coping mechanisms along the way explains why Asian countries bounced back
left - conservative ? :))
A tax-deduction has nothing to do with a transfer. In fact - a deduction is exactly the opposite. It is a NON-transfer. The deduction means that there will be a certain amount of NO money that is being transferred NOWHERE, but that WOULD have been transferred without the deduction. This sloppy thinking is all to common in other sciences than economics and is based on the lack of understanding of the basic principle of taxation. If you tax the benefits of an activity, you also have to give a deduction for the costs of that activity. Thats why you get a deduction for the amount of transportation you have to do, in order to obtain the taxable working income you gain from work. The same goes for interest. The government WILL tax you for an interest surplus, and thus they have to give you a deduction for the opposite - namely the cost of interest on your mortgage.
Perhaps sociologists should stick to sociology instead of explaining the economics they don't understand.
True, except that exceptions are combined with higher and more progressive rates. This is in part because smaller special interest groups are easier to organize than larger groups, because of limits to perception and self interest. The same is also true of spending, which is organized by small special interest, even when it's not beneficial to the economy. It also explains the reluctance to tackle deficits.
Triggered.
Clearly, you didn't listen to what was said ...