And on further reflection it appears to me that, yes indeedy, provided the rate of income tax is less than 100%, it is perfectly possible for someone to pay your taxes… and the taxes on their gift… and the taxes on the taxes… and so on. So, no perpetual motion machine.
Sure. Let’s say Lib has $100 income, which askeptic is going to pay 20% tax on for him. askeptic should give Lib $25. Total income is 125, 25 paid in taxes, 100 left. It’s really only simple algebra.
See Can someone else pay your taxes? (discussing the Richard Hatch case, explaining the tax on payment of income tax problem and its solution).
But I have to pay taxes on the $25 he gave me, so he’ll have to pay me that. And then I’ll have to pay taxes on that. And so on.
Exactly! Which is why it’s not only better to travel hopefully than to arrive, it’s necessary: Zeno showed that you could never get there. This is simply an application of Zeno to taxation, and is therefore equally true. 
Antelope Freeway, 1/64 mile. Antelope Freeway, 1/128 mile. Antelope Freeway, 1/256 mile…
I’m still trying to figure out how Warren Buffett’s plan for his wealth is substantively different than askeptic’s plan for Buffett’s wealth. All I can gather is that Buffett giving away $37 billion = no problem, but askeptic giving $39.5 billion away = requires magic.
askeptic, I suppose you’ll have to keep two and a half billion as opposed to a couple hundred million. I hope that doesn’t impact your partying like a sober rock star plans.
And as to the question of whether a person could ever pay someone else’s taxes, I present Achilles and the tortise. It works better as metaphor than it does as an unsolvable math problem, mostly because it is solvable.
Ah, Mr. Firefly, great minds simulpost.
Stop and think about it, Liberal. If he gives you $25, he is paying twenty on your hundred and five on his twenty-five.
Well, we covered that. Buffett isn’t giving away $37 billion. Dollars are currency. He’s giving away $37 billion worth of assets.
I see, you’re right guys. It’s a geometric series. Sorry about that. Of course, he’s giving me $37 billion. That’s dollars, not assets.
Jesus is nice. You’re not.
I think my board could figure out how to convert currency to assets…wait a minute you would be on it…maybe not.
The currency/assets wiggle is stupider than I gave you credit for.
You’re off the board. Lekatt is on.
No I am not talking about a board made of wood. Just so you’re clear.
:eek: Can’t they, like, get in trouble for that?!
Maybe, but you just fill a Jack Daniels bottle with iced tea and nobody will know.
Now that’s just plain dumb. Go learn something about law, and then come back with pie.
candyman, Candyman, CANDYMAN!!
I wasn’t talking about law; I was talking about ethics.
So we did. The Achilles and the Tortoise form of the paradox is the more precise equivalent, though.
:tips hat:
News to me. Since when has algebra been “simple”? :dubious:
Then again, while math in general (minus geometry, which came quite easily to me) always stuck in my craw, my son just breezes through it – taking as he is, two college level courses in calculus and trig. Beats the hell out of me when he tries to explain the stuff to me. OTOH, he’s always joshing me that he needs a dictionary around when speaking to me regardless of the language we use to communicate in (English mostly). So I guess it’s different strokes for different folks.
Appreciate your lucid reply though.
The point I was trying to make in my prior posts (which 'luc elucidated on) was and is that to some of us, “envy” has jack-all to do with trying to build a more socially and economically balanced society. Which doesn’t mean (and I speak only for myself now) that there won’t be different economic levels and/or social classes, but rather that most people will be given the opportunity to develop their talents and ambitions to their fullest. Whether they are content with getting by or want to reach for the stars is up to each individual. Meaning that just because you’re born in the ghetto in the lottery of life, you shouldn’t be condemned to remain there without necessarily being the exception to the rule.
Oh and BTW, Lib, I might not be part of The Beautiful People, but am also far from a pauper myself. Born with the proverbial silver spoon was I – it’s gotten a little rusty since, but that’s mostly due to the fact that I’m not into, if you’ll pardon the expression, jerking-off to my bank account.
That’s even dumber. :rolleyes:
Nitpick:
That’s the Antelope Valley freeway.
The donor would simply take the diminishing recursion into consideration before determining the size of the gift. So the simple answer to your question “How can you pay my taxes?” is “By cheque.” If you find the repeated taxation of the same income as it passes from donor to donee offensive, then simply change your tax laws to eliminate gift taxes under certain situations.
There is nothing fixed in stone that says that a government must have a gift tax. I realize that the USA generally has a gift tax, but up here in the Great Socialist Kanukistan we do not have a gift tax in most circumstances (there being exceptions for the gift triggering of capital gains in which the tax on the gain has not been paid over the years, and for gifts from employers in which the employers want to deduct the gifts from their pre-tax income). Our theory is that personal income should only be taxed once as income, so once a person has paid their income tax, that person is free to give away their after-tax income without any further income tax ramifications for either the donor or donee.