Which party will support this effort?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Also, Roger, your graph is somewhat misleading and does not really address your point. At varying times, the top tax rate might only have applied to .01% of taxpayers, or as much as 10%. It doesn't say much about the overall rate of taxation, which has been fairly steady.

Also, you're only looking at one country. As I noted before, Russia and other former Soviet states have seen revenues rise with lower tax rates.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Josh Cryer wrote: Oil shale according to the BLM is supposed to be competitive at $30 a barrel.
Eventually, but there's a long learning curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics
The various attempts to develop oil shale deposits have succeeded only when the cost of shale-oil production in a given region comes in below the price of crude oil or its other substitutes. According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would range between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values). This estimate considers varying levels of kerogen quality and extraction efficiency. In order for the operation to be profitable, the price of crude oil would need to remain above these levels.
Prices do drop later:
The analysis also discusses the expectation that processing costs would drop after the complex was established. The hypothetical unit would see a cost reduction of 35–70% after its first 500 million barrels (79×106 m3) were produced. Assuming an increase in output of 25 thousand barrels per day (4.0×103 m3/d) during each year after the start of commercial production, the costs would then be expected to decline to $35–48 per barrel ($220–300/m3) within 12 years. After achieving the milestone of 1 billion barrels (160×106 m3), its costs would decline further to $30–40 per barrel ($190–250/m3). [5] [6] A comparison of the proposed American oil shale industry to the Alberta tar-sands industry has been drawn (the latter enterprise generated over one million barrels of oil per day in late 2007), stating that "the first-generation facility is the hardest, both technically and economically".[7][8]
They are going to start oil shale operations in the U.S., politicians permitting. But they're not going to start pumping tomorrow; it's a long process.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:
If I'm going to have to put in 100 hrs a week to start a business, if the government is going to take 90% of the profit do I have a reduced incentive to put in all that work?.
Just look at what you wrote, jeese, in case you missed it I'm talking 'bout PERSONAL INCOME TAXES.

I dont know how personal income taxes get applied to business profits. I guess you were reading too quickly and missed that.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:
Well then, you're an idiot on economic matters. .
Much love back to you Dave.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:Also, Roger, your graph is somewhat misleading
Which graph are you referring to ? I posted 3.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Roger wrote:
TallDave wrote:
If I'm going to have to put in 100 hrs a week to start a business, if the government is going to take 90% of the profit do I have a reduced incentive to put in all that work?.
Just look at what you wrote, jeese, in case you missed it I'm talking 'bout PERSONAL INCOME TAXES.

I dont know how personal income taxes get applied to business profits. I guess you were reading too quickly and missed that.
Sigh. Obviously you don't own a business. Business owners pay personal income taxes on our business income.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Roger wrote:
TallDave wrote:
Well then, you're an idiot on economic matters. .
Much love back to you Dave.
Yep. Reap as you've sown.

Again, if your response to a basic tenet of economics is derisive laughter, then you need to go take an Econ 101 class before sitting at the adult table.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Roj wrote: Business owners pay personal income taxes on our personal income from the business profits
Is that actually correct ? Or were you typlng too fast?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Roger wrote:
TallDave wrote:Also, Roger, your graph is somewhat misleading
Which graph are you referring to ? I posted 3.
The one that says "top tax rate."

The so-called Laffer curve has been around since a bright Muslim in 1377 noticed subjects produced more revenue at lower tax rates.
"In the early stages of the state, taxes are light in their incidence, but fetch in a large revenue...As time passes and kings succeed each other, they lose their tribal habits in favor of more civilized ones. Their needs and exigencies grow...owing to the luxury in which they have been brought up. Hence they impose fresh taxes on their subjects...and sharply raise the rate of old taxes to increase their yield...But the effects on business of this rise in taxation make themselves felt. For business men are soon discouraged by the comparison of their profits with the burden of their taxes...Consequently production falls off, and with it the yield of taxation."
It's pretty well accepted (thought not universally), for the reasons Ibn and I stated; generally the argument is whether we're on the right or left side of the curve (i.e. whether current tax increases will raise or lower revenue).
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Roger wrote:
Roj wrote: Business owners pay personal income taxes on our personal income from the business profits
Is that actually correct ? Or were you typlng too fast?
Four years of Accounting, a CPA license, seven years of paying taxes on my businesses and investments.
Last edited by TallDave on Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:
Again, if your response to a basic tenet of economics is derisive laughter,
I didn't call you an idiot, did I ?
I thought you were really funny, but I DID NOT CALL YOU AN IDIOT.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Switching to oil, some interesting plates from the USGS concerning NPRA.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs045-02/figure6.html
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Roger wrote:
TallDave wrote:
Again, if your response to a basic tenet of economics is derisive laughter,
I didn't call you an idiot, did I ?
I thought you were really funny, but I DID NOT CALL YOU AN IDIOT.
The sentiment was no less clear for being implicit.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Chuck Connors
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 pm

Post by Chuck Connors »

TallDave wrote: Sigh. Obviously you don't own a business. Business owners pay personal income taxes on our business income.
Thank you...someone finally understands. If you want to go back to the front on this topic...Tax breaks for Corporations and/or lower taxes for Personal Income are a good thing. Why? For the reason above.

BTW, my wife if Russian...personal taxes in Russia run about 12-13%. You started talking about US taxes between 30-35% and they just don't get it (ie. what's the point of working if it will all go to the Government).

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Re: Effect of Present Value tables.

Post by Helius »

Roger wrote:
Helius wrote: They're sitting on the light sweet crude for now, which tick's quite a few people off.
That is a conspiracy theory for sure. Boy oh boy. A large conspiracy theory too, for every oil producing nation, every oil company on the planet is acting in concert in order to accomplish this goal.

Bar keep, get me a shot....make that 2 shots.
I'ts no conspiracy; It's just that no individual oil company with lease holding s would want to Invest in huge capital projects that will trend toward excess capacity in a decade or so, so long as they can sit on the leases. Evidence of this is whenever there's a refinery fire, refinery feedstock inventory goes up, finished product inventories decline the price of Product climbs. It would be senseless for them to build more refinery capacity. The oil companies aren't in cahoots, it is an a individual company's decision, that just crosses the industry.

Post Reply