How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Tiny, I had nothing to do with this.

what???? you asked, tiny explained. you had everything to do with this.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

what???? you asked, tiny explained. you had everything to do with this.

I had nothing to do with the challenging rebuttal. dilby.














Yeah,


I should have quoted him.

[Tiny]

And as to the word slave, that’s what Sanders and Warren think we are, slaves. Their boys in Berkeley, Saez and Zucman, have done lots of work trying to figure out how much they can bleed people without killing them. They come up with tax rates that they believe will maximize government revenues. Then Sanders and Warren add on a few percent and run with it.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

And as to the word slave, that’s what Sanders and Warren think we are, slaves. Their boys in Berkeley, Saez and Zucman, have done lots of work trying to figure out how much they can bleed people without killing them. They come up with tax rates that they believe will maximize government revenues. Then Sanders and Warren add on a few percent and run with it.

When you think you have to put up with being treated like one, then you are a slave.

[oeb11]

Marxist minions are indoctrinated slaves to their idotology
Thank U - 95!
epic illustration of self-induced slavery by delusion.



I'll just post - "Che ' - with a long hot hard cigar.

[billthecat46]

"Well, that's not the way the system should work. People shouldn't be motivated to sell risky businesses and investments and invest the proceeds in tax free municipal bonds and the like." Well our 'influencer' didn't have to sell anything for his $173 million. And if he "only has $100 million after taxes, so what? That's still a ton of money. Again any capitals gains he gets from his stock portfolio is still only taxed at the time of sale. And only at 20%, not 40%. So if his $100 million was at $400 million at the time of sale, he would only pay $60 million in taxes on his capital gains, leaving him with a cool $340 million. I don't see a problem here. He's still filthy rich even after paying nearly $140 million in taxes.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by billthecat46

"Well, that's not the way the system should work. People shouldn't be motivated to sell risky businesses and investments and invest the proceeds in tax free municipal bonds and the like." Well our 'influencer' didn't have to sell anything for his $173 million. And if he "only has $100 million after taxes, so what? That's still a ton of money. Again any capitals gains he gets from his stock portfolio is still only taxed at the time of sale. And only at 20%, not 40%. So if his $100 million was at $400 million at the time of sale, he would only pay $60 million in taxes on his capital gains, leaving him with a cool $340 million. I don't see a problem here. He's still filthy rich even after paying nearly $140 million in taxes.

I don't exactly know what's going on there, but it sounds like you got my back a little. Or, you're just pushing back on Tiny's hypothetical.

Anyway, all those numbers are making my hangover worse. As I sip on a glass of red with my brunch.

[rexdutchman]

They gonna make us you and me poor , I got a problem no more hobbying for us Hmm

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by billthecat46

"Well, that's not the way the system should work. People shouldn't be motivated to sell risky businesses and investments and invest the proceeds in tax free municipal bonds and the like." Well our 'influencer' didn't have to sell anything for his $173 million. And if he "only has $100 million after taxes, so what? That's still a ton of money. Again any capitals gains he gets from his stock portfolio is still only taxed at the time of sale. And only at 20%, not 40%. So if his $100 million was at $400 million at the time of sale, he would only pay $60 million in taxes on his capital gains, leaving him with a cool $340 million. I don't see a problem here. He's still filthy rich even after paying nearly $140 million in taxes.

The 23.8% top rate (not 20%) is only available if you hold an asset for 366 days or more. And under the House Ways & Means Committee's proposal it would go up to 31.8%. But that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

If you are taxed on your positions annually, every 365 days, using mark-to-market accounting, presumably you'll have to pay at the higher rate for short term capital gains. Which is currently 40.8%, and which would be 43.4% if the Trump tax cuts are done away with. That's in a state like Texas which has no state income tax. In California add 13.3% and in New York City add about 14.5%. Then you've got the new 3% Surtax that the House Ways and Means Committee is proposing on higher income taxpayers. Add it all up and you're looking at 46.4% in Texas and around 60% in California and New York City.

Given that this is supposed to be a billionaire's tax, I can guaran-damn-tee you the politicians would specify the higher short term rate. Taxing the billionaires at a high rate is popular among the people. Probably just like taking all the property away from the Jews was in Nazi Germany.

I probably shouldn't have used a passive income example. This is my reply to Eccieuser earlier in the thread,

Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks, no cigar in his mouth this time! I used a passive investment in shares of stock as an example because that's an easy way to explain how a mark to market tax would work. But the majority of the people affected own their own businesses. They're investing their blood, sweat, tears, and most importantly business profits back into their companies. If you make them write a pay the IRS every year for profits they never realized, it's going to hurt them, their employees, and their customers. There are exceptions, but most of the profits are invested in worthwhile ways, not in third homes and yachts and the like.

I'm a big believer in the invisible hand. Provide a basic social safety net, insure our children are able to make it, provide for decent public infrastructure, and leave as much as possible in the private sector. The federal government is inefficient and mucks up a lot of what it touches. I don't feel so strongly about local and state government though. Where I live, I think they do a good job with the money we pay them.

[eccieuser9500]

The invisible hand isn't so hidden if it doesn't apply to everyone.


United Airlines wants customers to pay for something they may find outrageous



https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/art...nd-outrageous/

These days, the airline has led the assault on vaccine recalcitrants by insisting employees get vaccinated or lose their jobs, which seems quite boisterously sane.

Yet with confidence comes a certain potential overreach.

No, I'm not specifically talking about the way all airlines, the minute there's some global event, beg the government for money. Many, many billions.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The invisible hand isn't so hidden if it doesn't apply to everyone.


United Airlines wants customers to pay for something they may find outrageous[/url]

Don't pin that on me. I'm a classical liberal. And that's crony capitalism. Corporate welfare needs to go. I'd much rather see money spent on an efficient social safety net.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The invisible hand isn't so hidden if it doesn't apply to everyone.

Kudo's btw on the Uber piece by the Wall Street Journal in some other thread. Or maybe this one, I don't remember. You've learned how to pull my strings, just quote Reason magazine and the WSJ and you'll take all the wind out my sails if I were intending to argue with you.

I don't know what to think about that btw. Uber loses money and would have gone bankrupt if investors hadn't kept pumping money into it. You've got a lot of poor people who don't have cars who use Uber. And the Uber drivers aren't making much. So who should bear the burden? The only good solution is to let the invisible hand decide. Talk to the hand.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Kudo's btw on the Uber piece by the Wall Street Journal in some other thread. Or maybe this one, I don't remember. You've learned how to pull my strings, just quote Reason magazine and the WSJ and you'll take all the wind out my sails if I were intending to argue with you.

I don't know what to think about that btw. Uber loses money and would have gone bankrupt if investors hadn't kept pumping money into it. You've got a lot of poor people who don't have cars who use Uber. And the Uber drivers aren't making much. So who should bear the burden? The only good solution is to let the invisible hand decide. Talk to the hand.

Nice. Very nice.

Now check out a video I've posted before in dilbert's thread calling me out. In a few minutes.

[rexdutchman]

Don't forget the 79 Billion for the IRS to fuck us ( tract more then 600.00 dollars ) Hmmmmm

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Don't forget the 79 Billion for the IRS to fuck us ( tract more then 600.00 dollars ) Hmmmmm

Yeah. No more $800 hookers or SB's, unless she'll let you file a 1099 on her. And what are the chances she'll give you her social security number?