Humanities desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 2

A book by Rabani Mauri, 1532, de Clericorum institutione et Ceremoniis ecclesiae:

I am trying to find out about my book. Rabani Mauri, 1532, "Archeveque de Mayence abbe de Fulda" I have found one or two copies on World Cat that are housed in libraries-Spain, France. I did find significant information on the author on Wikipedia: an archbishop in Germany, circa 800AD. I see information regarding many of his other works but not this. This is an actual book published by "Coloniae, 1532, Latin."

There are other publications by Rabani Mauri on ABEbooks. And there are books ABOUT Rabani Mauri, however, nothing about THIS book.Aristocrat Books II (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Rabanus Maurus about the author. The book is mentioned there. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case it is an early printing of a work originally written in the 9th century. It was printed in 1532 in Cologne, which is the editio princeps of that particular work, according to the article. It's also on Google Books. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which article claims that the 1532 edition, catalogue, DFG online is the editio princeps? An early edition was printed in Pforzheim in 1504, BSB online, DFG online. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Wikipedia's editio princeps article. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in Latin grammar "Rabani Mauri" is the genitive case form of "Rabanus Maurus"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anencephalic Infants and Citizens

Are anencephalic infants considered citizens of their respective countries (if his/her/its parents are citizens)? I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I'm genuinely wondering about this. On one hand anencephalic infants have been born, and yet on the other hand they don't have functioning brains. Futurist110 (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to depend on the country, but I'd say yes, in most. Since Nazi Germany exterminated the mentally impaired (among many others), any attempt to deny them citizenship looks rather bad. StuRat (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was currently legal to euthanize disabled infants (at least in some cases) in some countries, such as the Netherlands? If so, what would be the point of granting them citizenship in those countries? Also, I want to point out that denying citizenship to someone does not necessarily mean that the govt. that denied this individual citizenship supports killing this individual. Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "granting them citizenship". If they are considered human beings, born of a human mother - and they are - then they are automatically citizens from the moment of birth. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since granting citizenship happens automatically when somebody is born in a country (in most places), denying them citizenship would require the effort, say a hearing to determine their mental capacity, and what would be the point in that ? Just a needless expense. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, not really I mean on the "automatic" point, not the "needless expense" one — our jus soli article implies that the US practice is the exception rather than the rule. (In particular, Jack, it is not the rule in Australia.) I suppose if you add the condition that both parents are citizens, then it's probably true. --Trovatore (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your responses. Yeah, I guess that it would be pretty pointless to make an effort to deny them citizenship when there are much more important and urgent matters to handle. Futurist110 (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. Not only do they remain citizens, but many of them grow up to be prominent salesmen, politicians, and reality show stars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an odd question, really. I think it's much more likely that people like this would in the past have been denied their human rights altogether, and quietly put down. Focussing on their citizenship would not be the thing. Besides, what if they did manage to deprive some poor unfortunate anencephalic of their citizenship? What then? Deport them? Jail them? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it legal to euthanize anencephalic infants in some countries (including at least some developed countries) today? Futurist110 (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it? Got a cite? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of euthanasia may of some interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From our article, these babies are treated as if they are dying. In the UK they would be put on the Liverpool Care Pathway or something like it. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get a little bit of a disconnect reading the article, where it talks about on the one hand that they try to keep them comfortable, but on the other hand asserts that they are incapable of ever gaining consciousness. How can you be comfortable or uncomfortable if you can't ever be conscious? I mean, you can be uncomfortable when you're asleep, I suppose, but sleep is a reduced-alertness state of consciousness, not total incapacity for consciousness. Are these measures really for the "patient", or are they just to make us feel better? --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this woman's story. She lived round the corner from me and I can vouch for the fact that there seemed to be nothing wrong with her, she seemed to be a perfectly normal woman. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP has no article Normal woman. I thusly suspect that no reputable evidence points to the existence of such a cryptid. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we have a Normal man article. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to support the idea that most of us only use a small portion of our brains. Perhaps the rest is there for redundancy in case of injury. Geniuses and people with an eidetic memory may use more of their brain than others. Or perhaps it is used by the rest of us, for things like "intuition". For example, when we think somebody is lying to us, this is likely due to evaluating a series of nonverbal cues. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ordinary language philosophy a philosophical school of thought or a philosophical movement?

The definition given by Merriam Webster online states that OLP is a trend in philosophical analysis that seeks to resolve philosophical perplexity by revealing sources of puzzlement in the misunderstanding of ordinary language. With this definition it appears that OLP is a sort of movement and not a philosophical school of thought because if it is then what does it say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the article, and compare analytic philosophy. It is closely related in spirit, at least - the diiference is in the view of language as either some deep abstraction, or as an everyday communication tool. I dont know how the terms "school of thought" and "movement" are used in everyday philosophy, so i can't answer your actual question, sorry ;)IBE (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did a billiards player commit suicide because of a fly?

Seemed to be another urban legend in our Chinese sources. Details are like:

on September 7th 1965, at a world tournament of snooker(some sources uses 台球/Cue sports) in New York, Louis Fox and John Derry(rough transcription from Chinese) were competing for champion with a winner's purse of $40,000. When Fox was about to win the game, a fly stopped on cue ball he was going to hit and buzzed for a moment. Fox tried, for several times to get rid of the fly but the fly kept coming back. When he tried to poke the fly by the cue stick, the cue stick touched the cue ball and he commited a foul. Derry took the chance and won that game. The next day Fox drowned himself in the river.

For those who knows Chinese there is a copy of this story in Chinese. The most widely used title for this article is "落在主球上的苍蝇"(Fly on the cue ball).

As an instant idea I checked 1965#Deaths but there there are no such records. Are there anything ever similar to this seemingly ridiculous event?--Inspector (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same event is mentioned here - but it supposedly occurred in 1865, not 1965. "Louis Fox... and John Deery were playing for the championship that year, and Fox — needing only a few more balls to win —was at the table when a fly settled on the cue ball. He waved it away with his cue, but it returned before he could shoot. This happened again, and then again. The third time Fox accidently jostled the ball with his cue tip, which cost him his shot, and Deery came to the table and won the championship. Fox, it is said, ran from the hall and leaped into a nearby river, where he drowned." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources recorded this event?--Inspector (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 1951 article. What the primary sources, if any, are, is a more difficult question [1]. Paul B (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there wikipedia articles related to the people and tournaments in this story?--Inspector (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't snooker; it was billiards. Paul B (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Another version of the story here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's just one more step closer to the original source. --Inspector (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John A Thatcher, Championship Billiards, Old and New, 1898 (p.103) says; "September 7th of the same year John Deery, at Rochester, N. Y., became champion by defeating Louis Fox, McDevitt's record average was not beaten, but Fox made a record (276) for high run. The loser, some time after his defeat, was found dead in the river, and it has always been claimed that, crazed by grief, he committed suicide." So we have a suicide, probably because he lost, but no mention of a fly. Alansplodge (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A step closer; The New York Times: May 11, 1867 says "The body of LOUIS FOX, the billiard player, who mysteriously disappeared from Rochester in December last, was found yesterday, floating in the river at Charlotte, seven miles below Rochester, by two boys who were boating near Charlotte Dock. His death is undoubtedly accidental." Suicide or not and fly or not, we can be certain that he didn't run from the hall and leap into a nearby river, unless it took him 15 months to get there. Alansplodge (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just about exhausted every last corner of Mr Google's basement, but one last scrap comes from William Farley Peck, Semi-centennial History of the City of Rochester: With Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Some of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. 1884 (p.155), I got a tantalising "sippet view" which by using different search phrases, managed to expand to this: "On the 10th of May some boys found in the river at Charlotte the body of Louis Fox, a celebrated billiard player, who had been missing since the 4th of the previous December; he had undoubtedly committed suicide in aberration of mind, mainly induced by chagrin over the loss of the champion cue of the United States in a contest with Joseph Deery at Washington hall more than a year before his disappearance." So still no fly, but if true, it would cause most people a bit of chagrin wouldn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fly thing just originated later.--Inspector (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading this story many years ago. It might have been in Stranger than Science or maybe Ripley's Believe It or Not. It could well be that someone connected some dots to make a story more dramatic. It's been known to happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Google Books entry for an 1892 publication[2] confirms that there was almost a 2-year gap between Fox's billiards loss and the discovery of his body. Googling [Louis Fox billiards] indicates that many people believe that the loss led to the suicide, and belief can be more powerful than facts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite occasional claims to the contrary, we do not have "an article on everything", so I took it upon myself to create one for Louis Fox. It's fair to say that he's notable only for this legend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Bugs! I've added a note that he was defending his title as US champion to the article, and added his name to List of people from Rochester, New York so that it's not an "orphan". Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there anything else that can be found about Louis Fox? Were billiards players well-known to the public during that time?--Inspector (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page 21 of this 1921 publication is a group shot with both Fox and Deery. [3] This NYPL page has prints of several billiards players including Deery and Fox.[4] What would be the rules regarding inclusion of any of these pictures in the article? Obviously they did to the mid-19th century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much anything published before 1923 in the United States is out of copyright in the United States: Template:PD-US... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look into uploading that group photo. It shows several prominent players of the day and also perhaps gives an indication of his age. I can't find his birth year anywhere. A contemporary obit might. I'm not so sure about the individual photos. That is, I'm not sure whether a studio producing prints counts as "publishing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That group photo is in the John A Thatcher book linked above, published in 1898, so out of US copyright now. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gateless public transit

SkyTrain (Vancouver) does not use fare gates. Are there any other public transit system in the world that does not use fare gates?Dncsky (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must be many. Vienna, for sure. From memory, I think many of those in eastern Europe as well. These cities operate spot checks on trains instead. --Viennese Waltz 14:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public transport in Berlin has no fare gates, just spot checks. Pais (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the majority of public transit systems in Europe are gateless. I recall that the hotel I stayed at in Berlin gave me a public transit pass (just dates filled in one off a pad) and warned me to show it "if you get controlled".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Great to see the honor system alive and well. Is there any such systems in North America (other than Vancouver)?Dncsky (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just look to the south— neither Seattle nor Portland use gates for light rail. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Light Rail.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK most minor stations are ungated, but major stations often have gates (but not always: I have rarely been asked for a ticket at Manchester Piccadilly station, for example). I know one station which has gates, but I have only seen them used at rush-hour; otherwise they are left open. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the main London rail termini have mechanical gates, as does the whole of the London Underground, but not the newly refurbished London Overground. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many Docklands Light Railway stations are ungated (apart from the ones that are also Underground stations). Gandalf61 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trains in Perth, Western Australia are ungated except at major terminals. IBE (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

SkyTrain fare gates are here/coming soon to a station near you (or rather me).[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for quotation

"I believe stories are written and read to rebel against the fact that you only live once." Any idea who said this? It's supposedly from an author. Dncsky (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you google it? μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did - it appears on an awful lot of recent blogs attributed to "my favourite author". I eventually found this blog which has a post that says; "If anyone’s wondering, the “favorite author” who said that “I believe that stories are written and read to rebel against the fact that you only live once”, is Kaoru Kitamura — I think in 'Flying Horse'[6] although I may be wrong about that." So there you have it - maybe - it's not really a reliable source. Alansplodge (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Thanks for your help. I'll just leave the original line here for the archive: 「小説が書かれ読まれるのは、人生がただ一度であることへの抗議からだと思います。」Dncsky (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Conducting and musicianship

Are orchestral conductors also likely to be notable musicians? To what extent do their skill sets overlap? A quick look at the Wikipedia articles on conductors I have heard of, which is not very many, shows that Herbert von Karajan was a child prodigy on the piano but was not a musician in later life; that Franz Welser-Möst was a violinist but abandoned it due to a car crash; that Zubin Mehta and Claudio Abbado both studied piano but do not seem to have pursued it very far; and that Daniel Barenboim (perhaps the living conductor with the most notability as a musician?) is also an acclaimed pianist. --Viennese Waltz 17:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that "musicianship" means more than just performance, then Esa-Pekka Salonen was a notable composer before becoming a notable conductor. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was using it to mean virtuosity, or musical ability. I'm not so interested in the overlap between conducting and composing, but thanks for the link anyway. --Viennese Waltz 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all conductors studied one or more instruments as part of their training, if only because it's long been academically impossible to go from untrained musician to conductor in one step. Conducting courses would not accept you unless you can prove you have good theoretical knowledge of music and composition, and practical knowledge of one or more instruments to at least a certain standard. But there are good reasons for music education institutions to have such requirements. You have to know all about how instruments work, what they're capable of etc, to know how to bring out the balance between instruments in an orchestra. Some people go into music with the firm idea of being a conductor, and learn an instrument along the way. Others come to conducting later in life, after they've already had a major career as an instrumental performer or even a singer: Vladimir Ashkenazy, Plácido Domingo, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Daniel Barenboim are in that category. Some conductors start out as orchestral musicians and were never soloists: Zubin Mehta was a double-bass player, Arturo Toscanini was a cellist. Some have parallel careers: Leonard Bernstein and Georg Solti were pianists who recorded as both pianists and conductors, although more of the latter; and Richard Tognetti is frequently a violin soloist along with his conducting. Some continue with their private practice of their chosen instrument after becoming conductors, others may not. But whether their public profile includes instrumental/vocal performance or whether they're only ever known as a conductor, you can be virtually assured all conductors studied one or more instruments as part of their training. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that just about every notable conductor you can think of has had a previous notable career in music, another example is Daniel Barenboim who started off as a pianist. I would think that it would help to earn respect from the orchestra. However, an episode[7] of the British TV series Faking It coached a punk rocker who couldn't read music and in four weeks, were able to fool the judges at a competition for up-and-coming young conductors. He didn't win though. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British citizens, House of Lords

In the draft of the Scottish independence referendum bill, the list of eligible voters includes both "British citizens resident in Scotland" and "members of the House of Lords resident in Scotland". Why did they need to have the latter category? Are there members of the House of Lords who are not British citizens? Lesgles (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously asked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_October_15#Eligibility_for_voting_on_the_Scottish_independence_referendum --TammyMoet (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Members of the House of Lords don't usually get to vote, along with prisoners and lunatics (that's probably out of date now, but it sounds rather good). Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Education Service of the UK Parliament agrees with me: "7) Members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote: True." So perhaps all the Noble Lords north of the border will be voting "YES". No mention of lunatics though. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone; I should have checked the archive first. Their reason for including the category now makes sense to me (though I'm not sure the intricacies of the UK parliament ever will). Lesgles (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

equal capital gains taxation theory

Hi, I have a question on the recent American social philosophy of equal taxation on capital gains. e.g. some people say that if someone pays some 40% of their gross earnings on taxes, it's not quite fair to tax capital gains at a far lower amount.

So, I have a question about this theory. According to this theory, if I have just started a company with my own capital, on the gains of which I should pay 40% - isn't it only fair that someone should guarantee me that money to the same extent that a "working" person's paycheck is guaranteed by his employer? (I know that capital allocation isn't considered work by this theory, but, I'm just asking). Then I could see how it's fair. But a working person can't work for a year and end up with net 0 income or a loss - unlike the owner of the capital.

So I just think if you're going to go ahead and tax my capital gains at 40% (or whatever) then I should have the same assurance of actually receiving those gains as an employee who has just landed a job. This is not quite a hypothetical. I just started a company with almost no capital, and would love to be able to rely on it as a paycheck.

Can I write some organizations who would ask me to pay 40% capital gains, and say I will support it if they will guarantee my gains? Or, how else can we make this situation more equitable?

thanks for any references or analysis regarding my question. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the answer is to pay yourself a salary. That salary is therefore guaranteed as long as the business lasts. Of course, this does mean you will have less capital to run your business. Or, alternatively, if you have the ability to run a business but don't want to take the risk, perhaps you should work as a manager or business consultant. Also, it's not quite true that working class people are guaranteed an income. Many are unemployed, and not all of them are eligible for unemployment compensation. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the tax rate doesn't (at least in a way that's clear to me) affect the unemployed, just as the capital gains tax doesn't affect people who aren't making capital investment. What you just said about paying myself a salary does not make very much sense to me: why would I take money out of a company via a salary if the company can use that money to grow? To put a concrete example behind it: if I spend a year turning a dilapidated property into something valuable, then turn around and sell it, are you saying that I should somehow get the new buyer to buy it at my purchase price, and pay me a back salary? When you buy a painting, should you pay the artist a collector $17.50 for the cost of goods, and then try to figure out who should get back salary? I don't really see how a salary instead of capital gains is possible in the general case. Nor do I see how I can turn the task of investing capital cleverly and making it grow into a "wage" - that should be taxed equally - except if someone gaurantees that growth to a similar extent as a paycheck. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tax rate affects the unemployed by denying them the opportunity to build up a cash reserve while they do have jobs, to live off when they are unemployed. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To look it at another way, those with most of their income from capital gains tend to be wealthier than those with most of their income from wages (it's not always true, but is in general). So, the issue then comes up of who should pay the higher tax rates, the wealthy or the poor. There are several arguments for charging the wealthy higher rates:

1) They have more of an ability to pay. That is, they won't become homeless, as poor people might, if you tried to charge them those rates.

2) Over time, there is a steady accumulation of a larger percentage of the wealth of a nation in the hands of a smaller and smaller portion of the population, and this isn't good for society and undermines democracy. Only charging a progressive tax rate can prevent this trend.

Now, an argument could be made that raising the capital gains tax to match the income tax is a rather blunt instrument, and instead capital gains taxes should have their own progressive rate system, so low income people with most of their income from capital gains aren't taxed as if they were wealthy. I'd agree with that. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the highest marginal tax rate in the United States, even after the recent increase on top incomes, is still below 40%. The current rate on capital gains is only 20%. Considering that the vast bulk of capital gains go to the very wealthy, who face virtually no risk of financial hardship, charging a lower rate on that form of income than many working people pay on their income seems unjust, especially since, as StuRat points out, working people face a risk at any moment of unemployment, which could result in rapid financial ruin. Marco polo (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I don't buy that "working people face a risk at any moment of unemployment, which could result in rapid financial ruin". I consider capital allocation to be hard work: deciding how to renovate a property (using your own labor for free or others' labor at their market prices) so that it becomes worth is, in my estimation, also work, and so is making investments. The difference is, a person renovating a property may not see an appreciation, whereas a person who is selling his skilled labor does not face the same risk. (He doesn't buy and then sell it - he just produces it.)

To get back to my example. I'm in my late twenties, have about a semester of college, and my net worth if I'm being honest is probably negative a few tens of thousands of dollars all told (student loans, some family help and so forth) - so, almost nothing. I could work, however instead I am working on increasing the value of capital I own, i.e. a company. I am not being paid for this work - and there is a chance that it will become worth $0, or, indeed, a personal liability. This is unheard of for anyone except a criminal. Only a criminal can have work that is has a net negative, and he is hoping to ride out variance, like some kind of reverse lottery. (You get paid with every ticket - crime - and one time you lose big and get locked up). That is the only "job" that faces the kind of risk that capital does. Excuse how blunt I am. What I am saying is that if we want to treat my taxes similarly to "earned" income (as opposed to capital gains), it is only fair to ensure my capital gains to the same extent that I would be ensured if working. I can count on making $10 per hour working without accruing any special liability from working. Therefore, the government should guarantee me $10/hr in capital gains per hour that I spend working on producing them. FOr others, it should guarantee their opportunity cost - an accountant should be guaranteed $60/hr in capital gains, an MBA $80/hr. On the flip side, the capital gains should then be taxed similarly as though they were income: after all, that is just what they are, another source of income. Why do people not consider a "no pain, no gain" mentality? If nobody will assure me a capital return, then why should I pay taxes on it as though it were a wage - which it's not? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equal taxation on capital gain and income tax does not make sense. I know it's a hard sell because the rich is a popular and easy target due to the current global economic downturn.

Keep in mind income tax is usually guaranteed, and in Canada there is also employment insurance. "Working people face a risk at any moment of unemployment, which could result in rapid financial ruin." If that's truly the case, then the problem and solution should be with the society safety net, not with the taxation system. People only focus on the success stories and the juicy gain, but ignore the risk and failure on many business and investments. One example: "This investor class is doing very, very well. “In the last year alone, the cumulative net worth of the wealthiest 400 people, by Forbes’s calculation, rose by $200 billion. That compares with a 4 percent drop in median household income last year, according to the Census Bureau,” writes Nocera.". Sure, but you are look at companies that succeeded, what about the companies that failed?

Hell I'm explaining this poorly, see 1, 2

But let's say capital gain is change to the exact same rate as income tax, you would just have capital flight. How would that actual help to broaden the tax base, increase revenue and reduce deficit?

The real focus should have been on the abuse and systematic/regulation failure in the financial sector - privatizing profits and socializing losses. PBS did a piece and no one seems to care (the Dodd-Frank Act is a joke). Royor (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a distinction needs to be made between true entrepreneurs and mere investors. True entrepreneurs might be defined as those who put a substantial (should be a specific quantity for tax purposes, maybe >10%?) share of their net worth at risk in an effort to create one or more new businesses. Maybe any gains on capital put forward by these entrepreneurs might receive favorable tax treatment. However, I do not see the justification for giving favorable tax treatment to the very wealthy who receive most of their income from money invested in a diversified manner in a wide range of "safe" established businesses. As for capital flight, that is an argument for international cooperation to combat and penalize tax avoidance. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about taxation in the USA, but in Britain someone who buys and sells property rather than working for a salary could expect to pay less tax, not more, even though the CGT rate is higher than the basic income tax rate. The "principal private residence" is exempt from CGT, however much money you make on selling it, so some people act as property developers by doing up one house at a time, which they live in. There is extra room for manoeuvre if you put properties into a child's or cohabitee's name. Then there is a personal allowance on disposing of capital goods, whether it is shares or real estate; currently the first £10,600 is exempt from tax. There is also a "taper" on the tax, i.e. the rate falls if you have had the asset for a long time. So CGT is a really easy tax to minimise or avoid. But there is something else that doesn't fit with your (OP's) scenarios. If you are in business buying and selling expensive items like real estate or cars, then those items are your stock-in-trade, not assets of the business. So when they are sold the income is treated as profit, not capital gains. It is subject to tax but at whatever the rate for corporation tax (tax on profit) is, not the CGT rate. Obviously things could be quite different in the American system. It sounds like you need a good accountant. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, I believe that a person's principal residence is also exempt from CGT. In the US, I'm fairly sure that there is no personal allowance that is exempt from CGT on other forms of capital gains. The key difference from the UK, however, is that apparently in the UK, capital gains are taxed at a higher rate than other forms of income. By contrast, in the US, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate. In the US at least, real estate and personal property sales make up a relatively small share of taxable capital gains. Instead, sales of investments in securities (bonds) and equity (proprietorships, partnerships, and, especially, shares or stocks) make up the bulk of taxable capital gains. Income from capital gains in the US is concentrated narrowly at the very top of the income pyramid, and such income represents a large share of the income of households at the top of the income pyramid, so taxing it at a much lower tax rate than the wages and salaries of people with low or modest incomes has attracted criticism from political and social justice perspectives. Marco polo (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the UK only high income people pay any CGT at all. They would generally be higher rate taxpayers so pay tax on their capital gains(above the allowance) at the same rate as their top tranche of income. Another way they minimise tax is to sell and buy back some stocks or shares every year, so as to get maximum benefit from the allowance. So it seems like a no-brainer to increase the CGT rate in the US, but watch out so you don't create loopholes. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something but some of the above comments seem confusing to me. From [8] [9] neither seems to be the case at least generally. The highest income tax bracket is 50% going down to 45%. The CGT rate is either 18% or 28% depending on income. I have looked at the details, since the lowest income tax bracket is 20% (although there is a 10% bracket for savings), it's possible some people will be paying a higher CGT tax rate than their marginal income tax rate but it would seem this would be rare except for people with a low income but high capital gains. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in NZ which doesn't have a CGT for most purposes including property, technically income tax can be due on any profit people make buying and selling houses if that's what they set out to do. Despite what our article previously claimed, there's no actual exemption for property someone is living in (although it makes it harder to make the case they were buying it intending to resell it for profit). So if someone is doing what Itsmejudith suggested technically in NZ without a CGT unlike apparently what the situation is in the UK with one, they would have to pay tax, and at the same rate as what anyone else making the same amount if income would pay (because it's the same tax). But there's a lot of criticism about the limited and difficulty enforcing the law and frequent calls to introduce a CGT. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]