Joe Biden 2021

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

Anyway wtf are you even arguing with me about, I know you're an educated person, maybe I misunderstood.  My position is, if you have income, tax it as income.  I don't give a fuck it if is income off investments, whorehouses or you, Don Johnson blowing your black counterpart.  Pay up motherfucker.

[Don Johnson 4754]

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

Prime example of a guy you might think is a billionaire and you spend a year valuing every business and asset he has an interest in, only to find out that he's worth about $600 million and the billionaire tax doesn't even apply to him.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

The Judge is drunk. It's the only explanation for page 141

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

Every dollar you own should be taxed the same.  A dollar is a dollar.   

[Michael Knight 12989]

 

[Don Johnson 4754]

2 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Anyway wtf are you even arguing with me about, I know you're an educated person, maybe I misunderstood.  My position is, if you have income, tax it as income.  I don't give a fuck it if is income off investments, whorehouses or you, Don Johnson blowing your black counterpart.  Pay up motherfucker.

If I make $100 blowing Tubbs, I should pay tax on that income.  No one has argued that.  That's different than a wealth tax or a cap on wealth.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The Judge is drunk. It's the only explanation for page 141

Drunk or not, is there an explanation as to why every dollar of income shouldn't be taxed?  

[Satoshi 129]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

 

3) I guess it’s the company you keep, but most people I know don’t want to be told there is a cap on earnings and potential. You will get a cap on effort and outcomes.
 

 

Well put. 

[Don Johnson 4754]

3 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Drunk or not, is there an explanation as to why every dollar of income shouldn't be taxed?  

Who is arguing against that?

[jimmyjazz 46001]

Just now, Don Johnson said:

Who is arguing against that?

Well, the first $X shouldn't be taxed, but that's at the other end of the spectrum.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

1 minute ago, Satoshi said:

Well put. 

That's bullshit.  So if your Russian ass only earns $5 per hour, as opposed to $6 if you suck some dick, you're gonna suck dick?   

Fuck all you guys.  This is America.   Suck dick, run for office, win on the GOP ballot.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

3 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Who is arguing against that?

i thought you were, but hey, I was drunk.  Ahem.

[landman 559]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

2) You are admitting that a wealth tax is divisive. Okay.

Heres the other thing.  There shouldn't be the need for a wealth tax.   If a motherfucker had any scruples, he wouldn't be so wealthy that we'd be discussing this.  Instead, what you get, is this.

 

Glad I'm not the only one that is bothered by the crooked candles.

[Biff Tannen 45695]

May have been addressed, but I think it's hilarious that the two extreme ends of this argument seem to have been $2 million and $1B.  $2 million is clearly way too low, but I really think one of the main reasons people defend billionaires is they have no clue what a billion actually is.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/heres-what-one-billion-dollars-looks-like-b9947c0e8794

 

[washparkhorn 9939]

The 700 billionaires subject to the plan killed it in Congress. 

The proposal was aimed at how the ultra wealthy (700 billionaires) borrow against their wealth without adverse tax consequences.

WSJ story on the issue:

Rising stocks and rock-bottom interest rates have delivered a big perk to rich Americans: cheap loans that they can use to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their tax bills.

Banks say their wealthy clients are borrowing more than ever before, often using loans backed by their portfolios of stocks and bonds. Morgan Stanley wealth-management clients have $68.1 billion worth of securities-based and other nonmortgage loans outstanding, more than double five years earlier. Bank of America Corp. said it has $62.4 billion in securities-based loans, dwarfing its book of home-equity lines of credit.

The loans have special benefits beyond the flexible repayment terms and low interest rates on offer. They allow borrowers who need cash to avoid selling in a hot market. Startup founders can monetize their stakes without losing control of their companies. The very rich often use these loans as part of a “buy, borrow, die” strategy to avoid capital-gains taxes.

Many wealthy people are also borrowing against their portfolios. When Tom Anderson started at Merrill Lynch & Co. in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in 2002, many of his fellow advisers had just one or two securities-based loans in their book of business. Over the years, he encouraged more clients to borrow and noticed peers doing the same. Now it is common for advisers at big firms to have dozens of these loans outstanding, he said. Merrill Lynch is now a part of Bank of America. “You could buy a boat, you could go to Disney World, you could buy a company,” said Mr. Anderson, who now consults with banks on how to manage the risks associated with these loans. “The tax benefits are stunning.”

For borrowers, the calculation is clear: If an asset appreciates faster than the interest rate on the loan, they come out ahead. And under current law, investors and their heirs don’t pay income taxes unless their shares are sold. The assets may be subject to estate taxes, but heirs pay capital-gains taxes only when they sell and only on gains since the prior owner’s death. The more they can borrow, the longer they can hold appreciating assets. And the longer they hold, the bigger the tax savings.

“Ordinary people don’t think about debt the way billionaires think about debt,” said Edward McCaffery, a University of Southern California law professor who says he coined the buy-borrow-die phrase. “Once you’re already rich, it’s simple, it’s easy. It’s just buy, borrow, die. These are planks of the law that have been in place for 100 years.”

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2021/07/buy-borrow-die-how-rich-americans-live-off-their-paper-wealth.html

Again - this is all moot. The 700 billionaires killed the legislation through the Congress Critters they own. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Imagine saying "I'm not going to play your games and answer stupid what if's" when asked to answer a question about a direct comment and quote made. You said it was obviously wrong and mocked the idea that a trillion dollar company will necessarily mean there are billionaires due to how organizations are both created and owned. I said "wow, that's completely wrong but in off chance I'm wrong, can you walk me through your thinking?". 

What law could be changed tomorrow that would co-exist in a world where a trillion dollar company could exist and no billionaires? Just answer the question.

You can't, because you are wrong and your understanding of business is horrendous.

These are the kinds of people who want to tell businesses and economies what is best-- people who have no experience or understanding of how things actually work. Woefully ignorant, but emotional and romantic.

Any wholesale change to American capitalism and the way America does business will be revolutionary. Literally. 

Ah yes. Complete oligarchy where we are heading (even without your internet idiocy) or bloody revolution which may be where we are heading because of dipshits like you who like to claim they are smart on the net. How romantic.
 

Truly there is no other way.

I thought you were lamenting how you got banned from this place due to a bunch of meanies? I’m starting to think they were right in the first place.

[JimmyJames 12271]

52 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The 700 billionaires subject to the plan killed it in Congress. 

The proposal was aimed at how the ultra wealthy (700 billionaires) borrow against their wealth without adverse tax consequences.

WSJ story on the issue:

Rising stocks and rock-bottom interest rates have delivered a big perk to rich Americans: cheap loans that they can use to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their tax bills.

Banks say their wealthy clients are borrowing more than ever before, often using loans backed by their portfolios of stocks and bonds. Morgan Stanley wealth-management clients have $68.1 billion worth of securities-based and other nonmortgage loans outstanding, more than double five years earlier. Bank of America Corp. said it has $62.4 billion in securities-based loans, dwarfing its book of home-equity lines of credit.

The loans have special benefits beyond the flexible repayment terms and low interest rates on offer. They allow borrowers who need cash to avoid selling in a hot market. Startup founders can monetize their stakes without losing control of their companies. The very rich often use these loans as part of a “buy, borrow, die” strategy to avoid capital-gains taxes.

Many wealthy people are also borrowing against their portfolios. When Tom Anderson started at Merrill Lynch & Co. in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in 2002, many of his fellow advisers had just one or two securities-based loans in their book of business. Over the years, he encouraged more clients to borrow and noticed peers doing the same. Now it is common for advisers at big firms to have dozens of these loans outstanding, he said. Merrill Lynch is now a part of Bank of America. “You could buy a boat, you could go to Disney World, you could buy a company,” said Mr. Anderson, who now consults with banks on how to manage the risks associated with these loans. “The tax benefits are stunning.”

For borrowers, the calculation is clear: If an asset appreciates faster than the interest rate on the loan, they come out ahead. And under current law, investors and their heirs don’t pay income taxes unless their shares are sold. The assets may be subject to estate taxes, but heirs pay capital-gains taxes only when they sell and only on gains since the prior owner’s death. The more they can borrow, the longer they can hold appreciating assets. And the longer they hold, the bigger the tax savings.

“Ordinary people don’t think about debt the way billionaires think about debt,” said Edward McCaffery, a University of Southern California law professor who says he coined the buy-borrow-die phrase. “Once you’re already rich, it’s simple, it’s easy. It’s just buy, borrow, die. These are planks of the law that have been in place for 100 years.”

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2021/07/buy-borrow-die-how-rich-americans-live-off-their-paper-wealth.html

Again - this is all moot. The 700 billionaires killed the legislation through the Congress Critters they own. 

Same as it ever was. The owners like to own the county they own.
 

Sheep like DC lap up the slop and use stupid Econ 101 to justify it.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It is what it is. 

No it’s not. There are rational countries out there who make rational decisions. I guess our problem here is people like you exist.

[Satoshi 129]

Solid contributions, as always. 

[Incredulity 11679]

3 hours ago, tantric superman said:

 

 

That's the issue for me.  Let's get to 70s progressive rates first, and then worry about a wealth tax.

That sounds great... the 70s were so great economically it make loads of sense to try it again.  
 

 

[jimmyjazz 46001]

The point I rarely see addressed when discussing the uber-rich and how they manage money . . . their risk is minimal.  They can be more aggressive with small fractions of their wealth when conditions warrant, because a complete failure won't materially affect their lifestyle one bit.  If a guy worth $10B pushes $2B into the market, then how is he really harmed if the market drops 30%?  Then add in these loans, etc.  It's a game rigged for the rich.

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

24 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

That sounds great... the 70s were so great economically it make loads of sense to try it again.  
 

 

We can do tax rates from the 50’s and 60’s then.

[SydneyCarton 48134]

2 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Anyway wtf are you even arguing with me about, I know you're an educated person, maybe I misunderstood.  My position is, if you have income, tax it as income.  I don't give a fuck it if is income off investments, whorehouses or you, Don Johnson blowing your black counterpart.  Pay up motherfucker.

Dude I like you as a poster, but it really seems like you don’t understand what income is here. 

[TwiceHorn 31513]

7 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

We have, what, five Trillion dollar companies now that Tesla is one as of Monday? 

We can't have Trillion dollar companies without creating billionaires. You disincentivize the ability to become a billionaire and you limit the business and GDP/growth/business will suffer. 

If the argument is "we don't actually need to be constantly innovating and creating and advancing through new products, services and experiences and there is a threshold where doing so actually is a net negative (i.e. creating billionaires, etc.)" then I can see the argument to cap people's potential and earnings with something like Longhorn_fans proposal. You will get a Soviet style society of bureaucrats with all the mediocre stylings that society affords. Brain drain will happen and everyone with the ability to do and make and create who want to earn will diaspora to whichever country is smart enough to cater to these folks. Then you are left with a bunch of people who look around at the stagnation and wonder "what happened to all that free stuff I was supposed to be getting solely by virtue of being born over the right geographic dirt?" 

The thing is though that via the stock market, valuation of companies, like Tesla, and Amazon, and many many more on a lesser scale are overvalued relative to their contribution.  And because the companies don't own much of their own stock, it doesn't help them all that much in their own operations.

But it helps the major shareholders a lot.  And they have vehicles by which to liquidate and realize a lot of that value, in cash, today, without paying a nickel of tax on it.

We don't need to incentivize the already rich to get richer or keep plowing.  The plebes in their corporations and other, even lower aspirational plebes still have plenty of profit motive.

I'm pretty sure we can skewer the fuck out of the $500MM plus crowd without making a dent in the economy.

[Incredulity 11679]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

We can do tax rates from the 50’s and 60’s then.

Effective or Marginal?

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the first $X shouldn't be taxed, but that's at the other end of the spectrum.

Fuck. That. Shit.  I’m sorry for all the people who don’t try to give a fuck about being productive, but they are Americans and they use public too.  They need to be taxed just like me, you, or Bezos.  Fair taxation would solve issues for people on both sides of the aisle. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Effective or Marginal?

Marginal.  We gone take all your shit.

[Incredulity 11679]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Marginal.  We gone take all your shit.

You are the one always bragging on your wealth.  Guess you're one of them altruists, or maybe you're full of shit.

 

Interesting.

[Don Johnson 4754]

30 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Dude I like you as a poster, but it really seems like you don’t understand what income is here. 

I just let it go but really hard to discuss a wealth tax with someone who clearly doesn’t even know the difference between income and net worth. 

[Incredulity 11679]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

I just let it go but really hard to discuss a wealth tax with someone who clearly doesn’t even know the difference between income and net worth. 

CSB Alert.

 

I was at a townhall with a State Senator once who didn't know the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting.  I am sure its not a complete outlier, but it bottled my mind.

[SydneyCarton 48134]

11 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I just let it go but really hard to discuss a wealth tax with someone who clearly doesn’t even know the difference between income and net worth. 

Yeah. Ive got a buddy who’s been collecting comics and toys since he was a kid. He’s got a room full of them. I’m guessing it’s all worth 1-200k at this point. Good for him. Now suggest he has to pay taxes on unrealized gains every year for those toys. Or get them appraised yearly so he can realize any net losses. This isn’t feasible at a micro level, or a macro one. 
 

the 2.5% concept is interesting, but realizing it is also difficult. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Sydney’s right, his weirdo friend tanks the whole plan. 

[Satoshi 129]

9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah. Ive got a buddy who’s been collecting comics and toys since he was a kid. He’s got a room full of them. I’m guessing it’s all worth 1-200k at this point. Good for him. Now suggest he has to pay taxes on unrealized gains every year for those toys. Or get them appraised yearly so he can realize any net losses. This isn’t feasible at a micro level, or a macro one. 
 

the 2.5% concept is interesting, but realizing it is also difficult. 

Never would’ve guessed CTJ was a comic collector 

[SydneyCarton 48134]

2 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Never would’ve guessed CTJ was a comic collector 

You love making that joke. Good for you I guess. 

[workswithseed 2109]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

You are the one always bragging on your wealth.  Guess you're one of them altruists, or maybe you're full of shit.

 

Interesting.

 

[washparkhorn 9939]

48 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Now suggest he has to pay taxes on unrealized gains every year for those toys. Or get them appraised yearly so he can realize any net losses. This isn’t feasible at a micro level, or a macro one. 

The plan included a slow phase-in for the 700 billionaires.  Don't you fret.

From what I have read in simple terms - if one of the 700 used the asset as collateral for a loan, then the asset has been converted into income. With the armies working for the 700, they can handle it (and they know what the assets are worth in present dollars).

Closing the buy-borrow-die loophole for 700 billionaires is warranted. That should be separate legislation; as evidenced by this thread,  we live in a land of confusion when it comes to the ultra-wealthy (the 700 billionaires) and tax policy. The ultra-wealthy are not the enemy (well, some are (see panama papers) and some are idiots). But they all need guardrails for us to have a working representative democracy. It's not just tax policy at issue here. They need to be part of the solution.

The "billionaires, please pay some taxes" proposal is dead. They have armies working for them who are quite good at what they do. Same as it ever was. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by washparkhorn

[jimmyjazz 46001]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Fuck. That. Shit.  I’m sorry for all the people who don’t try to give a fuck about being productive, but they are Americans and they use public too.  They need to be taxed just like me, you, or Bezos.  Fair taxation would solve issues for people on both sides of the aisle. 

Yeah, no.

[elfenix 34331]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

The point I rarely see addressed when discussing the uber-rich and how they manage money . . . their risk is minimal.  They can be more aggressive with small fractions of their wealth when conditions warrant, because a complete failure won't materially affect their lifestyle one bit.  If a guy worth $10B pushes $2B into the market, then how is he really harmed if the market drops 30%?  Then add in these loans, etc.  It's a game rigged for the rich.

the system is set up to create billionaires and then reward those billionaires with even more billions but when you ask them to pay for that system that creates them in the first place ThAt'S dIvIsIvE!  uNfAiR!

[Goofyboy 3293]

the system is set up to create billionaires and then reward those billionaires with even more billions but when you ask them to pay for that system that creates them in the first place ThAt'S dIvIsIvE!  uNfAiR!

And the billionaires have somehow convinced people living pay check to pay check to defend them.

[Biff Tannen 45695]

11 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

And the billionaires have somehow convinced people living pay check to pay check to defend them.

This is pretty astounding. I don’t know if it’s the poors thinking they might someday be billionaires so don’t tax me in the future, or if it’s just their general stupidity. 

[jimmyjazz 46001]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is pretty astounding. I don’t know if it’s the poors thinking they might someday be billionaires so don’t tax me in the future, or if it’s just their general stupidity. 

My vote.

[Goofyboy 3293]

My vote.

Seconded.

[Blotto 23560]

I always come back to these two charts. After WWII, with the US economy booming, income gains were shared rather equally no matter your economic  percentile. The rich were still rich and getting richer, they were still better off than the middle class, who was in turn better off than the poor. This wasn’t socialism, it was America. Then the Reagan republicans came along with their trickle down bullshit, and wealth inequality skyrockets.

as your income increases, your wealth increases and the compounding effect of that year after year exacerbates the disparity. For the families in the bottom 50%, they struggle to get by, pay their medical bills, mortgage, child care , etc...at the end of the year there's not a lot (if any) left over to save. Stuck in neutral. For top 10% totally different story. They build wealth.

Heres the results over just a 15 year time frame:

Yr 0  - the bottom 50% have 2.1% of the total pie (which is pathetic in its own right), the top 1% have 27.8%

Yr 15 - the bottom 50% now have 1.9% of the total pie the top 1% have 32.4%

The bottom 50%'s relative share has shrunk by just under 10%, while the top 1%'s share has grown by 16.5%....in just 15 years. This shit will not fix itself. If it hasn't trickled down by now, it aint gonna trickle down. The continued concentration of wealth amongst the top echelon can only continue for so long, until shit gets really f'n ugly. This country will implode. Its heading that direction. There is only one way to fix it. 

I can appreciate some of the problematic aspects of the wealth tax, but we gotta do something. Taxing the wealthy at north of 60% for income tax isn’t anti American, that’s what we did for 35 fucking years after WWII when the country was booming. The most frustrating part is you have poor slapdicks carrying the water of the GOP and their tax cuts for the wealthy, I guess out of some misguided fantasy that they too might become the next Bezos, Musk, etc... Meanwhile they post  gofundme bullshit on message boards begging to pay off debt before they get married. We're a goddamn Idiocracy, and our current “Ouch, my balls “ is today’s political theatre. The 1% don't give a fuck who's in power, as long as they keep their riches. Fuck everyone else, its never enough.  

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Blotto

[fattyflattie 4638]

44 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, no.

Why not?  You can’t just be a fucking drag on society. This is why even remotely wealthy class won’t ever be taxed.  Work and create so the dregs can free ride. Fuck that. 

[Satoshi 129]

15 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I always come back to these two charts. After WWII, with the US economy booming, income gains were shared rather equally no matter your economic  percentile. The rich were still rich and getting richer, they were still better off than the middle class, who was in turn better off than the poor. This wasn’t socialism, it was America. Then the Reagan republicans came along with their trickle down bullshit, and wealth inequality skyrockets.

as your income increases, your wealth increases and the compounding effect of that year after year exacerbates the disparity. For the families in the bottom 50%, they struggle to get by, pay their medical bills, mortgage, child care , etc...at the end of the year there's not a lot (if any) left over to save. Stuck in neutral. For top 10% totally different story. They build wealth.

Heres the results over just a 15 year time frame:

Yr 0  - the bottom 50% have 2.1% of the total pie (which is pathetic in its own right), the top 1% have 27.8%

Yr 15 - the bottom 50% now have 1.9% of the total pie the top 1% have 32.4%

The bottom 50%'s relative share has shrunk by just under 10%, while the top 1%'s share has grown by 16.5%....in just 15 years. This shit will not fix itself. If it hasn't trickled down by now, it aint gonna trickle down. The continued concentration of wealth amongst the top echelon can only continue for so long, until shit gets really f'n ugly. This country will implode. Its heading that direction. There is only one way to fix it. 

I can appreciate some of the problematic aspects of the wealth tax, but we gotta do something. Taxing the wealthy at north of 60% for income tax isn’t anti American, that’s what we did for 35 fucking years after WWII when the country was booming. The most frustrating part is you have poor slapdicks carrying the water of the GOP and their tax cuts for the wealthy, I guess out of some misguided fantasy that they too might become the next Bezos, Musk, etc... Meanwhile they post  gofundme bullshit on message boards begging to pay off debt before they get married. We're a goddamn Idiocracy, and our current “Ouch, my balls “ is today’s political theatre. The 1% don't give a fuck who's in power, as long as they keep their riches. Fuck everyone else, its never enough.  

 

You’re missing the plot. The divergence starts before Reagan shows up. And your 3rd chart basically follows the time since the GFC. The Federal Reserve and zirp is the number one driver of inequality. 

[Blotto 23560]

3 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

The divergence starts before Reagan shows up

If you have different data, please share I can always learn. But on my charts the significant divergence coincides exactly with Reagan taking office. Trickle down is bullshit. It stays in their fucking pockets. 

 

8 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

The Federal Reserve and zirp is the number one driver of inequality

zirp started in 2008. Please explain 1980 thru 2008, when rates spent a fair amount of time between 5% & 15%. I don't doubt zirp compounds the problem, but the point of divergence happens far before zirp. 

17 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

And your 3rd chart basically follows the time since the GFC

It was an easy chart to find that also provided dollar figures. are you suggesting that you dont think the same trend would exist between 1980 and 2005?

[Js1 85449]

57 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is pretty astounding. I don’t know if it’s the poors thinking they might someday be billionaires so don’t tax me in the future, or if it’s just their general stupidity. 

They’ve been tricked to believe they’re one big break from being a billionaire - it’s the American dream, you too can come from nothing!!

So it’s both 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

 

I thought DonkeyDick was banned? What the hell happened?

[AeroHorn 754]

I think it is tribal. A certain poor class, mostly white and hard-up immigrants, identify with the rich as being one of their own, either racially or for allowing to escape their poor countries to the US, respectively. Hence, a zealous guarding of "their" wealth from the moochers and no-gooders who want to steal "their" wealth through taxes.

Edited October 29, 2021 by AeroHorn

[Blotto 23560]

53 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

And your 3rd chart basically follows the time since the GFC.

OK here's data from the 15 yrs prior to the GFC

 

So in the 15 years prior to the GFC (pre zirp), while the percentage of total wealth held by the bottom 50% did actually increase by 1%, the percentage of total wealth held by the top 1% increased by 4%. Weeeeeeeeeeeee!

Edited October 29, 2021 by Blotto