Subject:
|
Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:07:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
672 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:19:33 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> I'm gonna go with "none"
I'll give you three to one odds and go for "dramtically negative",
myself.
> unless they find some way to redefine rewarding
> the owner of capital for risking his capital as something other than
> "interest".
Interestingly, I've heard one rumour that this is _exactly_ what
they're doing.
I suppose the system of investing in companies in exchange for shares
in it doesn't fall under this, so big companies would have relatively
little problems (aside from the difficulty with paying eachother when
the banks go bankrupt), but you lose startups completely.
> I rank banning interest right up there with defining Pi as exactly 3.
> Both are about the same level of removal from reality.
You can define pi as whatever you want, and it's not even that stupid
- but the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter won't
change.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) No bet. I keep thinking (at 2 am or so) that none==no OR negative. I should have just said negative too. (...) I was insufficiently precise and what you said is what I meant to say, basically. (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) I'm gonna go with "none" unless they find some way to redefine rewarding the owner of capital for risking his capital as something other than "interest". I rank banning interest right up there with defining Pi as exactly 3. Both are about the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
