Thanks Max for the information and for sharing part of your underground classic.
Max wrote, > A more neutral way of describing this is to note that > if you earn a dollar and save it, as opoosed to spending > it immediately, you pay more tax in the first case then > in the second. To help me understanding the issue: Assume a 10% tax rate: Case 1 Income = 1,000 savings = 0 taxable income = 1,000 tax = 10% x 1000 = $100 summary income = 1,000 tax = 100 tax rate = 10% Case 2 Income = 1,000 savings = 500 INTEREST INCOME = 100 taxable income = 1000 + 100 = 1,100 tax = 10% x 1,100 = $110 summary income = 1,100 tax = 110 tax rate = 10% The second person pays more tax (but same tax rate) because they have more income. However, ..... >They are instead the time-translation > of some primordial stock. So the argument is that interest earnings is NOT really income. Rather, it is merely something that accounts for the different value of money at different times and, so, should not be taxed: it is merely the same money, but at different times? In this view, case 2 income is really 1,000 and the tax rate is 11%? If this logic is accepted, this implies that interest income is not income at all in any case. No? Really strange. Eric
