The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[iceaura]

Of course. But, once you do not provide any evidence here, your claims about this book are empty. And you don't even know if I have read it or not.

You say you haven't read it, and you post ignorance of its contents, but I suppose in your case that is not solid evidence - you have a point. I guess I really don't know whether you've read it.

Do you have to tell something interesting about Popper's own propensity interpretation of probability, and how it is related to Bayesian probability, or have you simply no idea about this?

My only immediate interest in Popper is that you claim authority from "theory", and so the basis of that theory is relevant; I respect Popper, and would accept the authority of sound analysis based on Popperian theory as a step toward persuasion. So when you claim to be "Popperian", the persuasiveness of your argument based on your "theory" rests partly on the accuracy of that claim.

Yet another example of a stupid rant without even a single argument about the content

I'm going to post what I was replying to, in case anyone missed it and thinks I'm being unfair or something when I don't "argue about the content". Here's the "content" I'm not arguing about:

We have no idea about what electrons think and do, so all our assumptions about them is purely hypothetical. Instead, we have a much better understanding of human behavior. So, the base for our theoretical constructions is a much better one in economy.

The guy who posted that also posted that the income tax is a lie because it is not applied to the increases in the stock market prices of shares people own.

 

[Schmelzer]

You say you haven't read it, and you post ignorance of its contents, but I suppose in your case that is not solid evidence - you have a point. I guess I really don't know whether you've read it.

And I have none that you have read it. Given that you could have easily quoted from the book to prove some of your claims about me misrepresenting him,

My only immediate interest in Popper is that you claim authority from "theory", and so the basis of that theory is relevant; I respect Popper, and would accept the authority of sound analysis based on Popperian theory as a step toward persuasion. So when you claim to be "Popperian", the persuasiveness of your argument based on your "theory" rests partly on the accuracy of that claim.

In other words, you have no idea what he has written about the Bayesian interpretation and his own propensity interpretation of probability. So, I simply repeat my point, namely that the probability interpretation is one point where I disagree with Popper, because I favor Bayesian probability, and think that Jaynes has a much better understanding about this point. The other large field of disagreement is that he is essentially a social democrat and I'm an anarchist. Nonetheless, some of his political arguments have their own value. So, when I say that I'm a Popperian, this is only a rough simplification of my position in scientific methodology, and certainly not an appeal to authority, he is none for me.

Let's also note that there is no such animal as fairness in American forums anyway, so it would not even make sense to complain about unfairness. Simply, your personal rants, if not supported by arguments about the content, have a value only for readers on the joepistole level.

That you don't know the arguments from Mises and have nothing to answer is in itself not a problem, one cannot know everything. That you think that simply naming me stupid is a replacement for an argument discredits only yourself. But repetitions of this are simply boring.

 

[iceaura]

In other words, you have no idea what he has written about the Bayesian interpretation and his own propensity interpretation of probability.

I linked you to one of the many proofs that Popperian theory is completely compatible with Bayesian probability.

So, when I say that I'm a Popperian, this is only a rough simplification of my position in scientific methodology, and certainly not an appeal to authority, he is none for me.

And that is exactly where I pointed out that you were not a Popperian. Your "position in scientific methodology" is exactly where you part company, directly, with Popper's theory. (And Bayesian probability as well, of course).

That you don't know the arguments from Mises and have nothing to answer is in itself not a problem - -

Of course. I am only reading what you wrote, which may or may not have anything to do with Mises.

Faced with your claim that quantum electrodynamics is "purely hypothetical" because nobody knows what electrons think and do;

while the claim that the market price fluctuations of stock portfolio investments are income hidden from the progressive income tax and therefore unavailable as data to analysts such as Piketty, has a much better basis in theory because you so much better understand human behavior,

I don't think "answer" is the proper response. I think framing and hanging the assertion around your neck in public is the proper response.

 

[Schmelzer]

I linked you to one of the many proofs that Popperian theory is completely compatible with Bayesian probability.

I have missed this link. So, please repeat. BTW, I have not questioned that many essential parts of the Popperian methodology are compatible with Bayesian probability. For the simple reason that I support both, thus, I think too that they are compatible.

But Popper himself has clearly rejected the Bayesian probability interpretation and proposed his own, propensity interpretation. Given that, as usual, you restrict yourself to personal attacks, without any arguments about the content (it remains completely hidden where, in your opinion, I'm not Popperian, except for the cheap polemical confusion between not accepting your cheap "evidence" and not accepting evidence out of principle.

Faced with your claim that quantum electrodynamics is "purely hypothetical" because nobody knows what electrons think and do;

You think I'm wrong about this? You somehow know what electrons think, in a way comparable to common sense knowledge about what other people think? Or are you unable to understand that talking about electrons thinking is metaphorical? Or are you one of the paddoboy types who think that quantum electrodynamics is a proven truth or so, rejecting completely the Popperian position that all our theories are hypotheses?

while the claim that the market price fluctuations of stock portfolio investments are income hidden from the progressive income tax and therefore unavailable as data to analysts such as Piketty, has a much better basis in theory because you so much better understand human behavior,

You would be able to quote Piketty about the much better sources, beyond the summaries of income tax declarations given by the government. As long as this is his main source, the results of investments, a major source of the increase of wealth of the rich, remains hidden. And, no, this source of increase in wealth does not vanish because you name them "price fluctuations". There are, of course, price fluctuations too. But if a firm regularly invests all their profits, instead of declaring them as profits and to pay them out as dividends, there will be not only fluctuations, but also a raise of the value in the average.

I don't think "answer" is the proper response. I think framing and hanging the assertion around your neck in public is the proper response.

Once you have no good counterarguments, this may be a reasonable decision.

You have failed to explain how Piketty finds out the raise of wealth of the rich reached in this way - by holding shares of companies which invest their profits instead of paying dividends.

 

[iceaura]

You think I'm wrong about this? You somehow know what electrons think, in a way comparable to common sense knowledge about what other people think?

You have a remarkably high opinion of the knowledge available to you via "common sense". You might want to reread Popper, in that context.

I was just laughing at your claim that your theoretical speculations about human behavior, as so frequently and even comically wrong in basic properties as they have been, were better based than the current theoretical speculations of electron behavior, which can predict not only basic properties but specific quantitative detail to one part in millions of repeatable accuracy and precision. Yes, I do think you are wrong about that. For instance: You keep telling me what I'm thinking, based on your idea of "common sense knowledge", and I can't recall a single time you were correct in that matter. One would think common sense, if you had any, would have told you to quit doing that.

Apparently "makes predictions in reliable agreement with subsequent observation" is not part of the evaluation of a well-founded theory, in anarchist world.

In other words, you have no idea what he has written about the Bayesian interpretation and his own propensity interpretation of probability. So, I simply repeat my point, namely that the probability interpretation is one point where I disagree with Popper, because I favor Bayesian probability, and think that Jaynes has a much better understanding about this point.

You claimed that Popper's theory conflicted with Bayesian probability. That was an error, on your part.

And, no, this source of increase in wealth does not vanish because you name them "price fluctuations". There are, of course, price fluctuations too. But if a firm regularly invests all their profits, instead of declaring them as profits and to pay them out as dividends, there will be not only fluctuations, but also a raise of the value in the average.

Well, that's what your broker will tell you - in the fine print, you will find a disclaimer along the lines of "you can lose all your money, and it's not our fault".

But the point is: This investment is not hidden, and it's not taken as income by the rich guy. Allow me to repeat: Not hidden. Not income. Rich guy can't buy a house, or pay for his children's college, with that money. It appears on the corporation's books, in excruciating detail available on demand for government audit, and summaries for the stockholder's report are produced every year by professional accounting firms.

You have failed to explain how Piketty finds out the raise of wealth of the rich reached in this way - by holding shares of companies which invest their profits instead of paying dividends.

And you honestly don't know, do you. You have no idea how someone would do that.

He has better and more comprehensive methods - two or three chapters worth - but the obvious and easy way is to read the financial documents filed by the corporations involved, or if you're feeling lazy and just need a quick answer, the market capitalization reported in the newspaper as the stock price, and add them up. Is this mysterious to you?

 

[Schmelzer]

You have a remarkably high opinion of the knowledge available to you via "common sense". You might want to reread Popper, in that context.

Popper has, especially after the shift from fallibilism to critical rationalism, underscored not only the unity of the scientific method, but of human problem solving in general. I have explained several times that what I name in this context "common sense" is the general method of problem solving, and not some particular popular "theories" which have been supported by the majority of people of various times. So, common sense in this sense is nothing which gives "available knowledge".

I was just laughing at your claim that your theoretical speculations about human behavior, as so frequently and even comically wrong in basic properties as they have been, were better based than the current theoretical speculations of electron behavior, which can predict not only basic properties but specific quantitative detail to one part in millions of repeatable accuracy and precision. Yes, I do think you are wrong about that. For instance: You keep telling me what I'm thinking, based on your idea of "common sense knowledge", and I can't recall a single time you were correct in that matter. One would think common sense, if you had any, would have told you to quit doing that.

Again, as usual, a lot of cheap (because unsupported) denigration. And you have, obviously, completely missed the point of the argument.

Simply think about the old Greeks. What they can tell us about human behavior, human intentions, human society and so on is worth to be read even today. What they wrote about natural sciences is simply BS. Why? Because we are humans ourselves. We know other humans quite well, because we communicate with them a lot, are able to see a lot of similarities between ourselves and other humans, and, therefore, have almost by necessity, quite reasonable theories about what other humans may want, what rules their behavior and so on. Similar information about electrons is, instead, nothing obvious, the old Greeks have not even known that they exist.

The consequence is that to develop physical theories we cannot rely on our naive theories, and empirical tests of our theories are essentially the only existing method for correcting our theories.

The situation in macroeconomics is, instead, very different. We know the microscopic parts of macroeconomics - the human actors - sufficiently well. Even the old Greeks have known them quite well, and, even if there was a lot of progress in medicine, biology, sociobiology and so on, this progress is quite small, simply incomparable with the corresponding progress in physics.

Given that we have quite good information about the microscopic base of macroeconomy, we have the possibility to derive, from this theoretical base, the macroscopic consequences of certain proposals how to organize society.

Instead, the empirical possibilities to measure - and, in this way, to identify errors in our macroeconomic theories - are much more problematic, because it is well-known and easy to see that every macroeconomic event depends on millions of different causes which influence them, and accidental decisions of a few powerful persons can have a lot of macroeconomic consequences. On the other hand, we have much less experimental possibilities. We are restricted to observation of what macro-economically happens. Even astronomy - which is also restricted to observation - has a much better observational base because there are so many stars and galaxies around. We have, instead, only a few countries, which, moreover, are increasingly unified into one global world. And, moreover, the available information about this essentially single "experiment" is highly distorted by the various interests of those who give the information.

So, we have, on the one hand, much better information about the theoretical base, the microscopic theory for macroeconomics, and, on the other hand, much greater problems with experiments and observations. This is something we have to live with. And the rational way to handle these differences is to put more importance to the theoretical considerations. I do not follow the Austrians who reject empirical methods completely, but empiricism, which is nonsensical even in physics, is completely off in macroenonomics.

Do you have some arguments to counter this, different from name-calling or laughing?

 

[Schmelzer]

You claimed that Popper's theory conflicted with Bayesian probability. That was an error, on your part.

First of all, I have not claimed this. Instead, I have claimed that I personally follow, in large parts, Popperian ideas, but also prefer the Bayesian probability interpretation. Which I would not do if I would see a conflict between those parts of Popper I accept and Bayesian probability.

Then, Popper himself has explicitly rejected Bayesian probability, and proposed his own propensity interpretation of probability. This is wiki level information, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_probability I have seen nothing from your side, no argument about this. So, as usual, only an unjustified claim.

In this situation, I would ask you, if you make a claim that I have made an error, to quote this error.

Well, that's what your broker will tell you - in the fine print, you will find a disclaimer along the lines of "you can lose all your money, and it's not our fault".

Who cares about disclaimers people are obliged to make if they don't want to be faced by the absurd American law system to pay huge penalties for the stupidity of their customers?

But the point is: This investment is not hidden, and it's not taken as income by the rich guy. Allow me to repeat: Not hidden. Not income. Rich guy can't buy a house, or pay for his children's college, with that money. It appears on the corporation's books, in excruciating detail available on demand for government audit, and summaries for the stockholder's report are produced every year by professional accounting firms.

First, I would not be so sure about what the rich guys can't do. To pay for the college of the children is, I would guess, an easy exercise. Simply because education the workers of the firm has always been part of what firms do. And who cares if the house is officially owned by the guy himself or by the family corporation (which makes it easier to minimize inheritance taxes, btw)?

It is quite funny to observe how you defend the rich here. A contradiction with your left position? Hm. But, no, it is not. What you defend here is the existing tax system, as being able to provide justice by progressive income taxation, if only the correct good guy is elected. So you have to present it as very powerful, knowing everything ("not hidden") and being just ("not income") at least in some parts I have criticized.

And you honestly don't know, do you. You have no idea how someone would do that.

Maybe, who knows? You would be able to show that I'm wrong and stupid by explaining here, with quotes, how Piketty does the job. For some unknown reason, you don't use this possibility. I guess, because it does not exist in reality.

But, no problem, let's admit that I have no idea how Piketty could find out, with sufficient certainty, the wealth distribution in society. What I have seen from Piketty is a nice try in plausible reasoning, essentially a quite good one, given the large problems with all the available data.

He has better and more comprehensive methods - two or three chapters worth - but the obvious and easy way is to read the financial documents filed by the corporations involved, or if you're feeling lazy and just need a quick answer, the market capitalization reported in the newspaper as the stock price, and add them up. Is this mysterious to you?

No, this is not a problem at all. The problem is how to find out how much of the stock is owned the poor, the middle class, the rich, and the superrich. Ok, the poor usually do not own anything - except, if they had some times a job, some pension entitlements, which are, afaik, backed in the US by pension fonds, which also own stocks. So, how to distinguish the stocks owned by the superrich from those implicitly owned by a bum who has, because of some work in the past, some pension entitlement?

Without doubt, one can make some plausibility arguments that the last part is negligible. Which is certainly not implausible. There are also some data about all these pension fonds and so on to estimate this. One can, I would guess, also find statistics about pensions, to estimate how much of the pension fonds is owned by which group of people. But for the middle class vs. upper class this is already much more problematic, because these groups own stocks themselves. And the rich and especially superrich use firms to manage (and tax-optimize) their shares. So even if, say, Trump really owns a share of, say, the Deutsche Bank, this will not be easily visible even if you know everything the Deutsche Bank has given as information to the authorities.

Your answer, by the way, has another weak point, which I have to repeat again, once you continue to ignore it: If you would have all the documents known to the IRS, you could probably find out a lot of interesting information. And there would be no problem at all about Trump not opening his income tax declaration. (Which is, of course, a very natural decision - if he is really clever as a businessman, the sum will be quite small, because he knows how to minimize it, and, therefore, in some conflict with his own claims that he is very rich.) But I would guess (feel free to correct me) that all this information is not open to the public, and, therefore, also not open to Piketty.

So, all he has is secondary information, a few statistics published by the government. Worth two or three chapters, not more.

 

[iceaura]

"Well, that's what your broker will tell you - in the fine print, you will find a disclaimer along the lines of "you can lose all your money, and it's not our fault"."
Who cares about disclaimers people are obliged to make if they don't want to be faced by the absurd American law system to pay huge penalties for the stupidity of their customers?

You should, because you could then avoid posting nonsense about income.

The risk of losing all your money rests not with anyone's stupidity, but with the fact that the gains available are not income - you have not received any of that money, it is not in your possession, and it can vanish at any time without having been exchanged by you for anything, or robbed from you in any way. It's an inherent risk you run by not taking the gains as income.

Your answer, by the way, has another weak point, which I have to repeat again, once you continue to ignore it: If you would have all the documents known to the IRS, you could probably find out a lot of interesting information.

The published summaries and breakdowns are completely sufficient. Nothing else is necessary.

First, I would not be so sure about what the rich guys can't do.

Nor will you bother to check. Because in your world, uninformed doubt is evidence of reality, rather than lack of information.

To pay for the college of the children is, I would guess, an easy exercise. Simply because education the workers of the firm has always been part of what firms do.

It is not, in fact, commonly done in the US. Because it is not easy to hide, and it is illegal, and it's cheaper to just set up a trust or something.

And who cares if the house is officially owned by the guy himself or by the family corporation (which makes it easier to minimize inheritance taxes, btw)?

The IRS cares. The bank accepting the house as collateral cares. The owner who wants to sell his house cares. And so forth.

Look: the whole point of setting up a corporation, usually, is to separate one's life from the risk of business reverses. The last thing most corporation owners want is to have business reverses take their house. Almost nobody wants the "family corporation" to own their damn house. And that's just given your unusual and specialized "family corporation" setup. With joint stock ownership as is most common among the investments of the wealthy- which if you recall was the situation we were discussing, wealthy people hiding their "real income" by not cashing out their investments - it's even worse.

What I have seen from Piketty is a nice try in plausible reasoning, essentially a quite good one, given the large problems with all the available data.

You haven't seen anything from Piketty, and you don't know what data is available or what the problems with it are. Like this:

So, how to distinguish the stocks owned by the superrich from those implicitly owned by a bum who has, because of some work in the past, some pension entitlement?

Implicit ownership is not ownership. Stock ownership by pension funds, broken down by type of fund and average amount of monthly payout and so forth, is published information. (And your notion of poor people in the US receiving significant pensions is fantasy).

And the rich and especially superrich use firms to manage (and tax-optimize) their shares

And these firms file tax documents with the IRS, and other documents with the SEC, and so forth.

One can, I would guess, also find statistics about pensions, to estimate how much of the pension fonds is owned by which group of people. But for the middle class vs. upper class this is already much more problematic, because these groups own stocks themselves.

The tax returns of all these groups, as well as the documents filed by their hired accountants etc, reflect their receipt of dividends and capital gains, and summaries of this broken down by declared income class are published by the IRS. This is simple and straightforward, and can be compared with the summaries of the data filed by the brokerages, fund managers, corporations involved, etc. In addition, the sizes of transactions - the sizes of the stock holdings bought and sold as units - is available information, filed as documents with the SEC. So is cumulative information from which one can discover the existence of entities making major purchases or sales of stocks and bonds. So is information about the identities and sizes of the holdings of the major stockholders of joint stock companies, also published in various breakdowns by the US government agencies involved. So is information from court cases and various government investigations, etc.

And so forth. It's a lot of work, and requires skill. But it's basically compiling and comparing available data - it's not a fundamentally mysterious task.

 

[Schmelzer]

The risk of losing all your money rests not with anyone's stupidity, but with the fact that the gains available are not income - you have not received any of that money, it is not in your possession, and it can vanish at any time without having been exchanged by you for anything, or robbed from you in any way. It's an inherent risk you run by not taking the gains as income.

It is an inherent risk you run by any sort of savings. The money in your mattress can be stolen too, and they can loose their value by inflation. Similar things are related with every type of savings.

Do you think income used for savings is not income? If yes, that means something which is not income is progressively taxed as income. If no, something which serves the same purpose as savings - investments into what one onws, instead of consumption - and is therefore essentially similar to income, is not taxed at all (or taxed at a much lower rate, whatever).

The published summaries and breakdowns are completely sufficient. Nothing else is necessary.

You think, such an unbased claim is enough? I have provided some arguments that they are not sufficient.

About hiding income spend for educating the own children:

Nor will you bother to check. Because in your world, uninformed doubt is evidence of reality, rather than lack of information. It is not, in fact, commonly done in the US. Because it is not easy to hide, and it is illegal, and it's cheaper to just set up a trust or something.

Fine. What is easy to hide and what is hard to hide depends, of course, on the actual legislation in the particular state you live. In fact, to find out if it is possible to hide this, is something which some (usually quite expensive) lawyers will find out. And if it appears that somehow the laws of Alaska have a nice loophole which allows this, they will set up a letterbox company in Alaska which will manage this.

About caring who owns a house - the company or the superrich using it:

The IRS cares. The bank accepting the house as collateral cares. The owner who wants to sell his house cares. And so forth.

LOL. Yes, the main point is that the IRS cares. So that if it is owned by the company, all what is necessary to manage it will be paid by the company, and decrease the profit and related taxes.

Look: the whole point of setting up a corporation, usually, is to separate one's life from the risk of business reverses. The last thing most corporation owners want is to have business reverses take their house. Almost nobody wants the "family corporation" to own their damn house. And that's just given your unusual and specialized "family corporation" setup.

Yes, we are talking here about the very special ways which can be used by the superrich to hide their real income. The "family corporation" setup is a known variant to optimize especially these particular questions as tax avoidance. Their intention is not to do real business with real business risks. We are not talking about standard methods which could be easily used by the middle class. The middle class is the milking cow of the state, not those in power.

BTW, you don't even recognize that this argument supports me. My point is that high income taxation leads to a reduction of declared income. And, reverse, that a decrease in income taxation leads, inversely, to an increase of declared income. The inverse process, of course, requires that declaring the income gives also some advantages. Like a decreased risk of imprisonment. Or, if we talk about methods which are legal, some advantage from point of view of the legal status of the ownership.

You haven't seen anything from Piketty, and you don't know what data is available or what the problems with it are.

Which is nothing but a defamatory claim, not supported by any quote from Piketty disproving one of my quoted claims about Piketty.

Implicit ownership is not ownership. Stock ownership by pension funds, broken down by type of fund and average amount of monthly payout and so forth, is published information. (And your notion of poor people in the US receiving significant pensions is fantasy).

I have not even claimed that they receive significant pensions, so that your accusation is fantasy. I have written about "implicitly owned by a bum who has, because of some work in the past, some pension entitlement". This specifies some uncertainty which you have to face if you use data about pension fonds to find out who owns how much. Feel free to ignore it, your choice. For a reasonable researcher would, if he would use such data at all, specify this as a possible source of error.

And these firms file tax documents with the IRS, and other documents with the SEC, and so forth.

Which are open access to be used by researchers like Piketty, and have been actually used by Piketty?

Sorry, but I'm not interested to learn that the US surveillance state is the most powerful surveillance state of the world and knows almost everything about its sheeple, and not only via NSA, but also via tax declarations. This is something I already know and do not doubt. We are discussing here the information which is public domain, usable or used by Piketty and other researchers, and what we know, and can know, based on these few data.

The tax returns of all these groups, as well as the documents filed by their hired accountants etc, reflect their receipt of dividends and capital gains, and summaries of this broken down by declared income class are published by the IRS.

Something reflects something else, and this something else is somehow summarized and published by the IRS. Sorry, but I do not doubt that the income tax data can tell us something about wealth distribution. But, given that it is natural for human beings to avoid paying taxes, increases in progressive income taxation will reduce the declared income even if nothing changes in reality, simply because people will tend to declare some things differently. Some will use illegal methods, others half legal methods, other completely legal methods, even if this has some disadvantages. Similarly, if taxation decreases, people will be less prone to go illegal and to accept various disadvantages, and the declared income will increase. Of course, may be the real wealth differences decrease too. But this is something very difficult to find out. And nothing in what I have seen in Piketty has suggested me that he has managed to solve this problem.

And the idea that the IRS has enough surveillance data to allow a team of researchers, giving it full access to the data, to find out a lot more about the real wealth distribution may be correct, but this is nothing which has, afaik, happened. Can be, can be, fine. But has been?

And so forth. It's a lot of work, and requires skill. But it's basically compiling and comparing available data - it's not a fundamentally mysterious task.

And it requires access to all the IRS data. And if you really want to cover the superrich, of all the tax bureaucracy of the whole world. And even this will cover only a part, namely the legal part.

 

[iceaura]

You think, such an unbased claim is enough? I have provided some arguments that they are not sufficient.

You have not. You have provided assertions based in ignorance of the publications of the IRS, the US Census Bureau, the SEC, the corporations themselves, and so forth.

This specifies some uncertainty which you have to face if you use data about pension fonds to find out who owns how much. Feel free to ignore it, your choice.

Rather than ignore it, I pointed to some of the information used to handle that uncertainty - the breakdown statistics on payouts and liabilities published by the funds themselves, the IRS summary data on pension income and payout declarations broken down by economic class, and so forth.

What is easy to hide and what is hard to hide depends, of course, on the actual legislation in the particular state you live. In fact, to find out if it is possible to hide this, is something which some (usually quite expensive) lawyers will find out. And if it appears that somehow the laws of Alaska have a nice loophole which allows this, they will set up a letterbox company in Alaska which will manage this.

We were talking about Federal law - the IRS. You can't hide from the Federal income or capital gains tax by opening a letterbox in Alaska.

Of course, legally you can't hide from Minnesota income taxation that way either - you actually have to move your personal, physical self to Alaska, pay for a residence, and spend considerable time in it, and not spend that time in Minnesota. Some of that stuff is very easy to check. There's a reason US rich people do their money-hiding off shore.

The "family corporation" setup is a known variant to optimize especially these particular questions as tax avoidance. Their intention is not to do real business with real business risks.

If they are legal, they are visible. If they are illegal, you (and your corporation) can get caught fairly easily on something like a house.

It is an inherent risk you run by any sort of savings. The money in your mattress can be stolen too, and they can loose their value by inflation

I can spend my savings, without paying taxes on it. I owe taxes on the interest received, because it's been paid into the account - it's my money. I can't buy anything with the increase in the paper value of my investments, because I haven't received them and they are not yet mine. Do you understand the difference between money you have received and money you have not received? Common sense, again.

Yes, the main point is that the IRS cares. So that if it is owned by the company, all what is necessary to manage it will be paid by the company, and decrease the profit and related taxes

And if the IRS audits him, he has been caught committing a felony. They can seize the house. And if the bank is defrauded thereby, they will sue. Of course people can steal. But if a lot of people steal a lot, it shows up in the summary stats, and analysts can allow for it.

My point is that high income taxation leads to a reduction of declared income. And, reverse, that a decrease in income taxation leads, inversely, to an increase of declared income.

We have always agreed on that point. The problem came from your declaration that lowering income taxes would lead to less money being hidden in wealth - instead, when Reagan and others did that in the US, rich people gained control of more wealth. Remember common sense?

Which are open access to be used by researchers like Piketty, and have been actually used by Piketty?

The IRS publishes summaries and compilations from all corporate tax returns, and joint stock corporations publish breakdowns of their financial dealings quarterly and yearly for anyone who wants to read them, and various professional analytical services investigate this or that industry in detail - libraries often stock their subscription output - and so forth and so on.

But, given that it is natural for human beings to avoid paying taxes, increases in progressive income taxation will reduce the declared income even if nothing changes in reality, simply because people will tend to declare some things differently. Some will use illegal methods, others half legal methods, other completely legal methods, even if this has some disadvantages.

You continue to insist that all this hiding of income is invisible, but every specific legal or half legal method you have mentioned is visible. I agree that more illegal maneuverings will be used at higher tax rates, but there are significant practical limits to their employment by US residents or citizens within the US - one must obtain the money invisibly, as well as spend it invisibly, and own the wealth invisibly, and sell it invisibly, permanently. An entire shadow economy must exist, as with illegal drugs. And laundering money is a serious problem even just with illegal drugs - an international operation with many more options than have the legitimate businessmen of Missouri or Ohio. It is often done in the US via fraudulently declared income of some kind, and enough taxes paid to look plausible - not even the drug dealers can completely hide really serious money inside the US for more than a few years. (If you want to know how this is done, check out the price/income ratio of a car wash in your nearest big city).

And it requires access to all the IRS data.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Michael]

Another sign of the Great Recovery from the Great Bankster Bailout via the WaPo: One of the nation’s largest pension funds could soon cut benefits for retirees

More than a quarter of a million active and retired truckers and their families could soon see their pension benefits severely cut — even though their pension fund is still years away from running out of money. Within the next few weeks, the Treasury Department is expected to announce a crucial decision on whether it will approve reductions to one of the country’s largest multi-employer pension plans.

The potential cuts are possible under legislation passed by Congress in 2014 that for the first time allowed financially distressed multi-employer plans to reduce benefits for retirees if it would improve the solvency of the fund. The law weakened federal protections that for more than 40 years shielded one of the last remaining pillars that workers could rely on for financial security in retirement.

For many workers, the promise of a guaranteed income stream for life — a benefit now nearly extinct for younger generations — was at times strong enough to convince them to sacrifice pay raises or other job opportunities. But after decades of challenges that left many pension funds in tough financial straits, some people are learning in retirement that the promises made to them may have to be broken.

The Central States Pension Fund, which handles the retirement benefits for current and former Teamster union truck drivers across various states including Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, New York and Minnesota, was the first plan to apply for reductions under the new law. Consumer advocates watching the case say the move could encourage dozens of other pension plans across the country that are facing financial struggles to make similar cuts.

Ava Miller, 64, and her husband, Ed Northrup, 68, could see their combined monthly pension income cut to about $3,000 from the nearly $7,000 they receive now, according to a letter they received from Central States in October. If the cuts go through, Miller, who worked as a dispatcher in Flint, Mich., said they will need to dip into their savings to help cover their $1,300 mortgage payment, heating bills and trips to visit her 84-year old mother. Northrup, a retired car hauler, has started applying for truck driving jobs that could supplement their potentially smaller pension payments. What makes the cuts more painful, Miller said, is that she took pay cuts so that the company could continue making contributions to the pension. "I did everything I was supposed to," Miller said, adding that she and her husband made extra payments on their car loan to cut down on their monthly bills after they received letters in October informing them of the potential cuts.​

Just think of the "Sweet Deals" to be had by SlumLords looking to scoop up some of the homes of the poor retirees. See, in Progressive Amerika, Bankers ruin the economy, get bailed out, and then retire on rent they make off the SlumHouses they own. See? It's a Win-Win for everyone. Well, for almost everyone. Or, I should say, it's a win only for the SlumLords and the parasitical Bankers infesting the bowels of America.


Don't worry Ava, "The Government" cares for you. It'll take care of everything. AND thus, another wonderful sunny day in The Land of the everything should be FREEEEEEEEEE and home of the SlumLord

 

[iceaura]

The potential cuts are possible under legislation passed by Congress in 2014 that for the first time allowed financially distressed multi-employer plans to reduce benefits for retirees if it would improve the solvency of the fund.

Sounds like capitalism to me, with government regulators getting out of the way as the free market people have always recommended.

Is there something wrong with free market pensions?

 

[Michael]

Sounds like capitalism to me, with government regulators getting out of the way as the free market people have always recommended.

Is there something wrong with free market pensions?

Excepts it's not a free market, doesn't use sound money and therefor isn't capital based and is hyper regulated by the State, everything from SSI insurance to so called private insurance, the government has distorted all markets. Worse, the central bankers have a stated policy of destroying savings, for the good of society, you know, because we use the roads.

That's not a free-market.

 

[Michael]

 

[Schmelzer]

You have not. You have provided assertions based in ignorance of the publications of the IRS, the US Census Bureau, the SEC, the corporations themselves, and so forth.

And of the whole library of Congress, of course. But, please, don't forget that what counts are only the arguments you have provided here, with reference to these sources. That somewhere out in the universe some arguments may exist which prove me wrong may be correct. But you have to find them, and to present them here. Else, they do not count.

Rather than ignore it, I pointed to some of the information used to handle that uncertainty - the breakdown statistics on payouts and liabilities published by the funds themselves, the IRS summary data on pension income and payout declarations broken down by economic class, and so forth.

You may, of course, think that all this information is available, and has been really used to show something. But this is, yet, your imagination. You have not shown it here. So it does not count.

We were talking about Federal law - the IRS. You can't hide from the Federal income or capital gains tax by opening a letterbox in Alaska.
Of course, legally you can't hide from Minnesota income taxation that way either - you actually have to move your personal, physical self to Alaska, pay for a residence, and spend considerable time in it, and not spend that time in Minnesota. Some of that stuff is very easy to check. There's a reason US rich people do their money-hiding off shore.

Do they? Some do, some not. It depends on what their lawyers recommend them. And, of course, you have not got the point of my remark. Which was not about a particular loophole in the real law codes of Alaska. It looks like that you simply don't know some elementary facts of life. Like here:

If they are legal, they are visible.

This is elementary nonsense. First of all, there are laws protecting privacy. There may be a lot of information visible to the IRS, even more to the NSA. But this does not mean that it is visible to all citizens, and even less to foreigners.

Then, if I declare I have X, it may be visible to the IRS that I have declared to have X. What the IRS does not know is if I really have X. This is not about me lying to the IRS. It may be completely legal to name something which, in common sense, would be named Y, to name X in the declaration. Why? Because this was the very intention of writing the law in this way, leaving a nice loophole, a loophole designed by the lobby in the interest of the guys behind the lobby.

I can't buy anything with the increase in the paper value of my investments, because I haven't received them and they are not yet mine. Do you understand the difference between money you have received and money you have not received? Common sense, again.

As well as it is common sense that the increase in the market value is not completely volatility caused by speculation, so that such an increase in value is an increase of my wealth.

And if the IRS audits him, he has been caught committing a felony. They can seize the house. And if the bank is defrauded thereby, they will sue. Of course people can steal. But if a lot of people steal a lot, it shows up in the summary stats, and analysts can allow for it.

Here you presuppose that what was described is illegal. But I have presupposed that it is legal. It makes no sense to defraud if you can do the same in a legal way. You don't know the legal way, I don't know it, but the highly paid specialized lawyer, far too expensive for us, knows how to do this in a legal way.

Does Piketty know all these tricks? Some of them he probably knows, as a professional scientist in this domain. But he knows them much less than the professional lawyer - else, he would have the possibility to work as such a lawyer and get much much more money.

The problem came from your declaration that lowering income taxes would lead to less money being hidden in wealth - instead, when Reagan and others did that in the US, rich people gained control of more wealth. Remember common sense?

The problem comes from your using the income tax to estimate the wealth. If one does this, it is clear that lowering income tax leads to rich people gaining wealth. For the obvious reason that they will hide less wealth, thus, declare more wealth. If they really gain wealth remains open. It is not implausible that they gain. But using the income tax declarations to prove this is inappropriate.

The IRS publishes summaries and compilations from all corporate tax returns, and joint stock corporations publish breakdowns of their financial dealings quarterly and yearly for anyone who wants to read them, and various professional analytical services investigate this or that industry in detail - libraries often stock their subscription output - and so forth and so on.

Fine. And the problem is how to extract useful information from such summaries. This information that some summaries exist somewhere gives us nothing.

You continue to insist that all this hiding of income is invisible, but every specific legal or half legal method you have mentioned is visible.

Nonsense. What I name, sloppily, "hidden", is using various especially designed loopholes to reduce taxes. In some very abstract sense, the user of the loophole declares that he is using this particular loophole. So, it is "declared". But is it visible? Of course, not. Because to see it, you have to know that this particular paragraph is designed to hide income. This paragraph is hidden in § 678.974 of some Tax Code PTQCG or so, and you don't even know that it exists. Even less you know about how the things declared under § 678.974 PTQCG appear in your beloved summaries from the IRS.

I agree that more illegal maneuverings will be used at higher tax rates, but there are significant practical limits to their employment by US residents or citizens within the US - one must obtain the money invisibly, as well as spend it invisibly, and own the wealth invisibly, and sell it invisibly, permanently. An entire shadow economy must exist, as with illegal drugs.

No, first, not at all permanently. What is named money laundry works nicely, and not only for illegal drugs. But you don't get the idea that the main way used by the superrich is using completely legal methods to hide the income. At least you don't understand that nor you nor Piketty will be able to identify income of the superrich which is hidden in tax loophole § 678.974 PTQCG, because you simply don't know about this possibility to hide income, nor about how the declared sum will appear in the IRS summaries.

It is often done in the US via fraudulently declared income of some kind, and enough taxes paid to look plausible - not even the drug dealers can completely hide really serious money inside the US for more than a few years. (If you want to know how this is done, check out the price/income ratio of a car wash in your nearest big city).

Nothing new. In Germany Italian restaurants have a similar reputation.

 

[iceaura]

And of the whole library of Congress, of course. But, please, don't forget that what counts are only the arguments you have provided here, with reference to these sources. That somewhere out in the universe some arguments may exist which prove me wrong may be correct. But you have to find them, and to present them here. Else, they do not count.

When you claim that sources of various kinds of information do not exist, it suffices to point to them.

You may, of course, think that all this information is available, and has been really used to show something.

And I think I have named them and pointed you straight at them, as well linked to at least one major book employing them and thoroughly indexed, footnoted, etc, for you to follow into the great mass of data available.

The problem comes from your using the income tax to estimate the wealth.

As one of many sources of information, it's not a problem - it's a fine source of a great deal of information regarding wealth, and anyone attempting to estimate wealth would foolish to ignore it.

If one does this, it is clear that lowering income tax leads to rich people gaining wealth. For the obvious reason that they will hide less wealth, thus, declare more wealth.

The US income tax is not levied against wealth - one of the ways to "hide" income is by accounting for it as an increase in one's wealth. You emphasized that earlier, remember? So one "hides" income by having ones wealth increase in the right way, and vice versa. You made a big deal out of that. You presented the example of a rich person owning a corporation and having the corporation buy him a house, etc.

Lowering the income tax rates results in rich people doing less of that, according to you - since their motive is less. So they should be registering more gain in wealth of that kind and less income, when rates are raised, and less gain in such wealth and more income, when rates are lowered. According to you - that's your idea.

Because to see it, you have to know that this particular paragraph is designed to hide income. This paragraph is hidden in § 678.974 of some Tax Code PTQCG or so, and you don't even know that it exists. Even less you know about how the things declared under § 678.974 PTQCG appear in your beloved summaries from the IRS.

The US tax code is public information. Anyone can read it, and many people do. Economists and theoreticians and researchers talk to the very best professionals in the fields, market analysts do the same, the IRS summaries and so forth account for such things, this is routine.

No, first, not at all permanently. What is named money laundry works nicely, and not only for illegal drugs.

Money laundry does not hide the money. That's the opposite of its role - the reason one pays to launder money (and it always costs something) is to be able to declare the money, make it visible, without suffering the consequences of its origin being visible. Because keeping one's money hidden restricts one's use of it, access to it, benefitting from it.

 

[Schmelzer]

When you claim that sources of various kinds of information do not exist, it suffices to point to them.

But your claims about what I claim are known to be fantasy. That there exists a lot of informational BS is well-known and not questioned at all. What is questioned is that public information sources exist which give some particular, very special information - the information we would need to identify, correctly, the real distribution of wealth.

To object, it is not at all sufficient to tell me that there exist various IRS summaries. You have to give links to particular sources of information, say, one particular summary, with the details about what is summarized, and some arguments about how one can derive, from this particular summary, some information about the real wealth distribution.

And I think I have named them and pointed you straight at them, as well linked to at least one major book employing them and thoroughly indexed, footnoted, etc, for you to follow into the great mass of data available.
As one of many sources of information, it's not a problem - it's a fine source of a great deal of information regarding wealth, and anyone attempting to estimate wealth would foolish to ignore it.

You have linked one book, Piketty, indeed. The main source of information of this book was the income tax. This source of information I have criticized. That this book may contain also some footnotes with other information is as irrelevant as the fact that the library of Congress contains even much more information.

I do not propose to ignore it - but these data do not allow to make conclusions about the critical question how the income tax itself influences the wealth distribution. Simply because a change in the income tax changes the income tax declarations too, and to find out how much of this change is caused by real changes in the wealth distribution and how much is a consequence of differences in tax declarations is very difficult.

The US income tax is not levied against wealth - one of the ways to "hide" income is by accounting for it as an increase in one's wealth. You emphasized that earlier, remember? So one "hides" income by having ones wealth increase in the right way, and vice versa. You made a big deal out of that. You presented the example of a rich person owning a corporation and having the corporation buy him a house, etc.

Yes. So, how do Piketty's data account for this part of the wealth? They don't. (If you think they do, in some footnote I have ignored, feel free to quote the footnote, please with a correct reference to the book and the page - I have downloaded several books of this guy and would have to search, else.)

Lowering the income tax rates results in rich people doing less of that, according to you - since their motive is less. So they should be registering more gain in wealth of that kind and less income, when rates are raised, and less gain in such wealth and more income, when rates are lowered. According to you - that's your idea.

In a rough approximation, yes. Except that it not at all clear how the diffuse "gain in wealth" is "registered", and even less how the various ways to "register wealth" appear in your summaries. Up to now you have made a lot of claims that everything about this is well-known to everybody, but without any details.

The US tax code is public information. Anyone can read it, and many people do. Economists and theoreticians and researchers talk to the very best professionals in the fields, market analysts do the same, the IRS summaries and so forth account for such things, this is routine.

Fine if this is routine. This does not change the fact that your information about this is completely useless, because you have not provided any particular detail, any particular IRS summary which would support one of your claims.

Money laundry does not hide the money. That's the opposite of its role - the reason one pays to launder money (and it always costs something) is to be able to declare the money, make it visible, without suffering the consequences of its origin being visible.

Fine to see that you know this. This was my point for mentioning this, to reject your "one must obtain the money invisibly, as well as spend it invisibly, and own the wealth invisibly, and sell it invisibly, permanently." Not permanently, but only until the laundry has transformed them. Anyway, this is only a side remark. Because the superrich have no reason to do illegal things, given that they have essentially written the law codes for themselves.

 

[iceaura]

That there exists a lot of informational BS is well-known and not questioned at all.

Then you will make no more claims contradicting the existence of the kinds of information I have described, and that one can find referenced in numerous sources to which you have been pointed.

What is questioned is that public information sources exist which give some particular, very special information - the information we would need to identify, correctly, the real distribution of wealth.

You have been posting nonsense in this arena - such as your insistence that the details of individual tax returns would have to be public in order to describe the class distribution of wealth. So you need to provide some kind of argument that indicates the overwhelming bodies of well known sources of information are inadequate, despite the routine use of them by thousands of researchers, business consultants, tax and expenditure officials in government, etc.

You have linked one book, Piketty, indeed. The main source of information of this book was the income tax.

No, it wasn't. You insist on making claims about the contents of a book you have not read. That is quite silly of you.

Simply because a change in the income tax changes the income tax declarations too, and to find out how much of this change is caused by real changes in the wealth distribution and how much is a consequence of differences in tax declarations is very difficult.

It's a lot of work, sure.

But noticing that your claims, which started by confusing wealth and income and ended by making projections directly contradicted by events (and self-contradictory to a degree), are wrong, takes no such amount of work.

This does not change the fact that your information about this is completely useless, because you have not provided any particular detail, any particular IRS summary which would support one of your claims.

I have named several, pointed you to sources in which many more are visible, and so forth. If you don't care, you don't care - why should I care whether you bother to learn basic facts of the world? I simply call you on your ignorant fiction when you post it, and go back to making supper.

Fine to see that you know this. This was my point for mentioning this, to reject your "one must obtain the money invisibly, as well as spend it invisibly, and own the wealth invisibly, and sell it invisibly, permanently." Not permanently, but only until the laundry has transformed them. Anyway, this is only a side remark. Because the superrich have no reason to do illegal things, given that they have essentially written the law codes for themselves.

Of course. But legal is visible. To remain invisible, it has to stay illegal.

In a rough approximation, yes. Except that it not at all clear how the diffuse "gain in wealth" is "registered", and even less how the various ways to "register wealth" appear in your summaries. Up to now you have made a lot of claims that everything about this is well-known to everybody, but without any details.

You are quite dedicated to this ignorance of yours.

Ok, here's one - you introduced it, I'm going to tweak it a bit to make it realistic:

Some rich guy forms a special purpose corporation (say, in Delaware), and has it buy a house for him to live in, so he doesn't have to pay income or capital gains taxes on the money necessary to buy a house (until the corporation sells the house, at which point the difference between the purchase and sale prices are going into somebody's books). Mind: not "the family corporation" that provides him and his family with income via hopefully profitable but possibly not enterprise - that would put the house at risk from business reversals, and probably be in violation of the law anyway. And certainly not a joint stock corporation with public shareholders interested in any reduction in their returns on investment. So a dummy corporation that makes no profit itself, is an investment of his other owned corporations, and does little except own and maintain this house.

The point is: the fact that this house is owned by a wealthy person is visible. So is the assessed tax value of the house, and the identity of the entity paying the property taxes (in most States, the dummy owner is paying higher property taxes than a resident would - "homestead" tax rates are not available to those not living in the house) - it's on the property tax roles. The fact that it and its title holder are unencumbered by liens and mortgage loans is public information (title insurance companies keep track of this carefully). Everything anyone needs to know to safely buy this house at a fair price is visible information.

And it's not that much work to compile all of that information for - say - the county I live in, the State I live in, or the country I live in. One is now fairly launched on a reasonable and useful estimate of the income class distribution of the wealth embodied in residential real estate of that kind - county by county. Here's a place to start: https://beaconbeta.schneidercorp.com

And so forth.

 

[Schmelzer]

Then you will make no more claims contradicting the existence of the kinds of information I have described, and that one can find referenced in numerous sources to which you have been pointed.

If you have some evidence that some kind of information exists, you can prove this by making a quote here, with a link. Until you have done this, my claim that this kind of information does not exist is what we have to assume - because I cannot prove non-existence claims, but you can prove your existence claims, you have the burden of proof.

And to mention that somewhere in the library of Congress or so such sources exist does not count. As well as claims that in some footnote in Piketty some reference exists.

You have been posting nonsense in this arena - such as your insistence that the details of individual tax returns would have to be public in order to describe the class distribution of wealth.

As usual, without quote and link, and, as usual, distorted. So, again, if you think I have posted nonsense, 1.) make a quote of the particular claim you think is nonsense, 2.) add a link to the source of the quote (you could use the reply function which manages this for you), 3.) provide evidence that this is nonsense. This evidence also consists of quotes, with a reference to the source of the quote. If this is a book, with page number.

So you need to provide some kind of argument that indicates the overwhelming bodies of well known sources of information are inadequate, despite the routine use of them by thousands of researchers, business consultants, tax and expenditure officials in government, etc.

No. All I have to do is to wait until you start to provide a particular reference to a particular source of information. You know, with quote and reference. Then I can take a look at this particular source, and decide if I will accept this as a reasonable source of information, or if I criticize this particular source as being insufficient for some particular reasons.

You insist on making claims about the contents of a book you have not read. That is quite silly of you.

That I have not read it is your fantasy. Anyway, it is irrelevant. If you think I have made a claim about the book which is wrong, then 1.) see above 2.) see above, 3.) see above.

It's a lot of work, sure.
But noticing that your claims, which started by confusing wealth and income and ended by making projections directly contradicted by events (and self-contradictory to a degree), are wrong, takes no such amount of work.

Of course, if you restrict yourself to simple claims it takes not much work, a few seconds for writing "you are stupid". Instead, to 1.) correctly quote the claim which is IYO wrong, 2.) to do this with a link, 3.) to provide reasonable evidence that the particular claim is indeed wrong requires at least a little bit of work.

I have named several, pointed you to sources in which many more are visible, and so forth.

Naming some authors like Piketty or institutions like the IRS, and adding, say, the library of Congress which contains a lot more visible things does not count, sorry. Ever seen how in a scientific paper sources are quoted and referenced?

But legal is visible. To remain invisible, it has to stay illegal.

First, even this is wrong. I may be not obliged to declare something, because of some § 1739.58 of some code. In this case, it is legal not to declare this X, but it is not even visible to the IRS. Then, again, visible to IRS investigators, (even this possibly only after they have found sufficient evidence to start investigations) does not mean visible to the public.

Ok, here's one - you introduced it, I'm going to tweak it a bit to make it realistic:

Some rich guy forms a special purpose corporation (say, in Delaware), and has it buy a house for him to live in, so he doesn't have to pay income or capital gains taxes on the money necessary to buy a house (until the corporation sells the house, at which point the difference between the purchase and sale prices are going into somebody's books). Mind: not "the family corporation" ...And certainly not a joint stock corporation with public shareholders interested in any reduction in their returns on investment. So a dummy corporation that makes no profit itself, ....

The point is: the fact that this house is owned by a wealthy person is visible. So is the assessed tax value of the house, and the identity of the entity paying the property taxes ...- it's on the property tax roles. The fact that it and its title holder are unencumbered by liens and mortgage loans is public information (title insurance companies keep track of this carefully). Everything anyone needs to know to safely buy this house at a fair price is visible information.

And it's not that much work to compile all of that information for - say - the county I live in, the State I live in, or the country I live in. One is now fairly launched on a reasonable and useful estimate of the income class distribution of the wealth embodied in residential real estate of that kind - county by county. Here's a place to start: https://beaconbeta.schneidercorp.com

Nice story. But how one makes the step from "a dummy corporation" to "a wealthy person"? It may be not "a joint stock corporation with public shareholders interested in" whatever. But why not a joint stock corporation where the stocks are owned by shareholders which are, say, good friends of that wealthy person? Or other corporations? Together with some sheeple interested in whatever, which is irrelevant because they don't have the control package anyway? Then, even if it is a person - how do you know how wealthy it is? How much time and resources will Piketty spend to find out if this owner owns more than this share of the corporation?

And so forth ....

 

[iceaura]

If you have some evidence that some kind of information exists, you can prove this by making a quote here, with a link. Until you have done this, my claim that this kind of information does not exist is what we have to assume

That's how your world operates - your "common sense" presuppositions are held to be valid unless other people do a lot of work, at which point you will think it over and decide whether they need to do more work still. There is no "we" in that manner of making assumptions.
Like this:

"You have been posting nonsense in this arena - such as your insistence that the details of individual tax returns would have to be public in order to describe the class distribution of wealth."
As usual, without quote and link, and, as usual, distorted. So, again, if you think I have posted nonsense, 1.) make a quote of the particular claim you think is nonsense, 2.) add a link to the source of the quote (you could use the reply function which manages this for you), 3.) provide evidence that this is nonsense. This evidence also consists of quotes, with a reference to the source of the quote. If this is a book, with page number.

There's no link involved, no evidence. This is where your "common sense" reveals its nature - it's quite obvious, to anyone with actual common sense, that one does not need access to individual income tax returns to arrive at realistic estimates of a society's distribution of wealth, using summary information from government revenue and tax agencies among other sources. It is even possible to arrive at such estimates for places and times without income tax at all - such as the US prior to 1913.

"You insist on making claims about the contents of a book you have not read. That is quite silly of you."
That I have not read it is your fantasy

I took your word for it, true - foolish of me perhaps, but your posts are consistent with your claim.

Naming some authors like Piketty or institutions like the IRS, and adding, say, the library of Congress which contains a lot more visible things does not count, sorry. Ever seen how in a scientific paper sources are quoted and referenced?

I'm not trying to publish, I'm discussing a basic situation of ordinary life with someone who is confused about the difference between wealth, capital, and income.

First, even this is wrong. I may be not obliged to declare something, because of some § 1739.58 of some code. In this case, it is legal not to declare this X, but it is not even visible to the IRS

That just means it isn't income. It's still visible - it is recorded as wealth, capital, retained earnings, costs, etc, in some form. Books are balanced.

But why not a joint stock corporation where the stocks are owned by shareholders which are, say, good friends of that wealthy person? Or other corporations? Together with some sheeple interested in whatever, which is irrelevant because they don't have the control package anyway?

That would make the books public - summaries filed with the IRS and the SEC and others, occasionally audited, etc.

Then, even if it is a person - how do you know how wealthy it is? How much time and resources will Piketty spend to find out if this owner owns more than this share of the corporation?

Probably none. What difference would it make?

Remember yourself arguing that the US Civil War was fought over matters of wealth and income distribution in the Northern and Southern parts of the US that did not include slaves and slavery - you had information about it, right? Do you think Piketty's estimates of the wealth distribution in the US then - made without any income tax documents whatsoever - are reasonable?