What, no Joe Manchin thread?

[Dahobbs 17255]

25 minutes ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

I agree, it’s super conservative and not taking into account the entire blend:

- the value that Tesla pays in Corporate taxes (if any)

- the value that Tesla pays in employer taxes as they exist, and grow, as a going concern

- the value Tesla pays in real estate taxes for factories and buildings

- the value Tesla provides in employing Americans— from the super smart knowledge workers down to the not so brilliant folks working the factory lines or shop floor.

- the value in helping to legitimize non-fossil fuel consumption and starting the eVehicle revolution (there would be no Rivian, Lordstown, or even Ford Lightning without Tesla) and what that means for climate health eventually.

So yes, obviously just looking at the $11bn that Elon paid is a tip of the iceberg on the government’s ROI for the subsidy.

I’m not an Elon fan boy, I think he’s gotten lucky and is not a genius, but I can also appreciate his contributions up to and including putting $11bn back to the government in taxes. It’s weird people want to even poopooh that with “yea it’s the most anyones paid in taxes and it’s a lot but….he’s still a multibillionaire so it’s not enough!” 

Very questionable accounting to assign Musk's tax bill or Tesla's overall taxes and value add as a return from the subsidy. And I'm not saying the subsidy's that Tesla has received haven't resulted in a net tax benefit. I'm just saying your numbers are nonsense. 

[Biff Tannen 45228]

Defending billionaires is weird.

[Goofyboy 3013]

Defending billionaires is weird.

Agree. Someone hits $1 billion, that’s it, they win. Everything above $1 billion is invested back into the economy through infrastructure, health care and food for those that need it.

The billionaire keeps his / her billion. They will be fine. Maybe give them two votes in every election as an extra prize.

[Goofyboy 3013]

Defending billionaires is weird.

Agree. Someone hits $1 billion, that’s it, they win. Everything above $1 billion is invested back into the economy through infrastructure, health care and food for those that need it.

The billionaire keeps his / her billion. They will be fine. Maybe give them two votes in every election as an extra prize.

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Very questionable accounting to assign Musk's tax bill or Tesla's overall taxes and value add as a return from the subsidy. And I'm not saying the subsidy's that Tesla has received haven't resulted in a net tax benefit. I'm just saying your numbers are nonsense. 

I only assigned that as a continuation of an argument made upthread that insinuated that the only reason this guy was successful/billionaire was because he was a socialist himself due to his relationship with the gov's tax subsidies. That argument was made to normalize socialism as a good thing and trying to make Tesla look like a product of socialism and a socialist win.

I think there is truth in that by the way because I think there is an argument that can be made that Tesla doesn't hockey stick and burns up before leaving the stratosphere if not for the government help.

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

26 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Defending billionaires is weird.

Attacking billionaires is equally weird. Different side of the same coin, it seems.

That said, I don't think you are attacking billionaires and I'm not actually specifically trying to defend billionaires. 

[Biff Tannen 45228]

1 minute ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

Attacking billionaires is equally weird. Different side of the same coin, it seems.

That said, I don't think you are attacking billionaires and I'm not actually specifically trying to defend billionaires. 

I'm not attacking billionaires necessarily, but I'm sure as shit attacking the system that allows them to not pay their fair share of taxes.  There's another thread for this though.

[Dahobbs 17255]

6 minutes ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

I only assigned that as a continuation of an argument made upthread that insinuated that the only reason this guy was successful/billionaire was because he was a socialist himself due to his relationship with the gov's tax subsidies. That argument was made to normalize socialism as a good thing and trying to make Tesla look like a product of socialism and a socialist win.

I think there is truth in that by the way because I think there is an argument that can be made that Tesla doesn't hockey stick and burns up before leaving the stratosphere if not for the government help.

Where did socialism come up? What are you talking about? The argument is that the rich benefit more from the government than anyone else. You said you wanted to assign a hard money value to things. Well, if you actually do that here, the math is going to inevitably prove that statement correct. In terms of pure dollar value, the rich benefit from and rely on the government more than anyone else. 

That said, I don't think the only reason Musk is successful is because of subsidies. And I haven't seen anyone make that assertion. But he has benefited from them. And, as he himself as said, Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy prior to the Model 3 getting established. The subsidies definitely helped keep it a float. And, generally, I think that is a good thing. Of course, some of things we are labeling subsidies I don't really view as subsidies (e.g., revenue from trading carbon tax credits, which are really a way to correct that market and get it to account for external costs associated with carbon release). 

[Don Johnson 4726]

8 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

He didn't "make" $36.2 billion that day anymore than he lost $50 billion these two days.  You can't tax unrealized gains because they are up some days and down some days and don't have a yearly cash out.

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Don Johnson

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Where did socialism come up? What are you talking about? The argument is that the rich benefit more from the government than anyone else. You said you wanted to assign a hard money value to things. Well, if you actually do that here, the math is going to inevitably prove that statement correct. In terms of pure dollar value, the rich benefit from and rely on the government more than anyone else. 

That said, I don't think the only reason Musk is successful is because of subsidies. And I haven't seen anyone make that assertion. But he has benefited from them. And, as he himself as said, Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy prior to the Model 3 getting established. The subsidies definitely helped keep it a float. And, generally, I think that is a good thing. Of course, some of things we are labeling subsidies I don't really view as subsidies (e.g., revenue from trading carbon tax credits, which are really a way to correct that market and get it to account for external costs associated with carbon release). 

I am actually agreeing with you and saying the same things here. 

Where I feel like we diverge is probably at the tweets and insane ramblings of Willful Horn, where the void filled is never enough when it comes to wealthy and lucky people. "He paid $11bn in taxes, but it's not enough! He's worth so much we should take almost all of it. Especially because the government spurred his business along with $4.5bn in subsidy!"

Two different people read the same case study and get two different interpretations: one sees it as a business case and success story for government subsidies and how awesome they are and should be utilized, someone else sees it as more fuel for the resentment of those "others", those mean old billionaires who aren't paying enough to the government.

[elfenix 34129]

[elfenix 34129]

30 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

You can't tax unrealized gains because they are up some days and down some days and don't have a yearly cash out.

that's a shouldn't, not a can't.

[Willfully Horn 7892]

@Don Johnson Rather than advocating for taxing unrealized gains, I am saying that the tax rate Musk pays is ridiculously low. 
 

The Tesla sell off was triggered by Musk’s comments. I wonder why he made those statements.

[Don Johnson 4726]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

that's a shouldn't, not a can't.

Correct.  You shouldn't.

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

@Don Johnson Rather than advocating for taxing unrealized gains, I am saying that the tax rate Musk pays is ridiculously low. 

You are basing that tax rate off unrealized gains.

[wildcat09 28563]

It's true Musk's success isn't entirely attributable to government subsidies. A lot of it is attributable to being born into a family that owned an emerald mine.

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's true Musk's success isn't entirely attributable to government subsidies. A lot of it is attributable to being born into a family that owned an emerald mine.

Paypal Mafia and knowing all the Silicon Valley OG's, too.

[Willfully Horn 7892]

6 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Correct.  You shouldn't.

You are basing that tax rate off unrealized gains.

Even if I were, that’s a different argument. But, I’m not. I’m basing my position on our nation’s financial ledger.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Grammar

[Biff Tannen 45228]

So anyway, Joe Manchin seems like he sucks.

[Don Johnson 4726]

8 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Even if I were, that’s a different argument. But, I’m not. I’m basing my position on our nation’s financial ledger.

Meaning?  We need it so let's take it?

[Willfully Horn 7892]

2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Meaning?  We need it so let's take it?

Isn’t that the rationale behind all taxation?

[JimmyJames 12267]

Coal miners appear upset with their senator.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/12/21/business/coal-miners-joe-manchin/index.html

Edited December 21, 2021 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12267]

Maybe Joe forgot his constituents don’t read the Wall Street Journal.

[heso 2613]

Can’t imagine running afoul of the coal miners union as a Democrat in West Virginia is a good thing. 

[jimmyjazz 45212]

36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's true Musk's success isn't entirely attributable to government subsidies. A lot of it is attributable to being born into a family that owned an emerald mine.

I suspect Tesla's success is almost exclusively due to carbon offsets; i.e., "subsidies".  Musk makes a great car, but at a price point that isn't consistent with the competition.

[Biff Tannen 45228]

10 minutes ago, heso said:

Can’t imagine running afoul of the coal miners union as a Democrat in West Virginia is a good thing. 

He's also 74 years old, so maybe he is going to retire and doesn't give a shit.

[Dahobbs 17255]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I suspect Tesla's success is almost exclusively due to carbon offsets; i.e., "subsidies".  Musk makes a great car, but at a price point that isn't consistent with the competition.

Incorrect. While the addition revenue from the tax credits has been important at times for liquidity, it is a very small portion of Tesla's overall revenue and, now that the company is established, isn't necessary at all for the company's operations or continued success. And, given Tesla has greater demand than production capability, the market strenuously disagrees with your price point analysis. 

[jimmyjazz 45212]

I think it's a great value; i.e., it's underpriced.

[Dahobbs 17255]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's a great value; i.e., it's underpriced.

Oh, I see. By all accounts I've seen, its gross margin on each car sold is higher than or equal to its competitors, even if you take out tax credits. 

[Incredulity 11198]

It’s truly bizarre watching people who want the government to incentivize behaviors A to Z with hand outs and payments get their ass in a twit when someone plays that game extraordinarily well.

[Dahobbs 17255]

14 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It’s truly bizarre watching people who want the government to incentivize behaviors A to Z with hand outs and payments get their ass in a twit when someone plays that game extraordinarily well.

It's truly bizarre that you think we have to choose between government incentive spending and higher taxes on the wealthy. We can and should have both. They go to together. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 28563]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It’s truly bizarre watching people who want the government to incentivize behaviors A to Z with hand outs and payments get their ass in a twit when someone plays that game extraordinarily well.

It's truly bizarre how stupid you are.

[Incredulity 11198]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

It's truly bizarre how stupid you are.

Try being less of a triggered bitchass.

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It's truly bizarre that you think we have to choose between government incentive spending and higher taxes on the wealthy. We can and should have both. They go to together. 

Yes. I think most people, at least in the last page or so, are more or less on the same page and can get behind what you just said. Where I am confused is do we live in the idiot world that neither side wants to quantify value for people so they can understand the benefits and savings to both society and themselves personally? Or do we live in the idiot world that politicians and strategists haven’t figured out this is a way to create consensus and unity around what are ignorantly divisive programs? Because I 100% believe the math and modeling works for all— the part and parcel— it’s just not being communicated and very few people have the access to the data and the time to create the case.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33723]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's truly bizarre how stupid you are.

it's not bizarre at all. lots of people are stupid. he's not special. well, not in that way

[Incredulity 11198]

13 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it's not bizarre at all. lots of people are stupid. he's not special. well, not in that way

hey, it's tweedle dickface.  Never far from his mates.

[hayden_horn 11311]

can we all knock this personal off topic shit off, please?

yall take this very personally between each other. i don't get it. manchin is the twat here who went back on his word, and is actively working against his constituents.

[hayden_horn 11311]

28 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's truly bizarre how stupid you are.

 

27 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Try being less of a triggered bitchass.

 

19 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it's not bizarre at all. lots of people are stupid. he's not special. well, not in that way

 

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

hey, it's tweedle dickface.  Never far from his mates.

i meant this personal shit. hit the wrong button. it's completely off topic and toxic. and yall say the cloak room is a bad place. you make it so.

[kevwun 15341]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

He's also 74 years old, so maybe he is going to retire and doesn't give a shit.

In a normal occupation.  That's probably middle of the pack age-wise for senators though.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33723]

17 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 

 

 

i meant this personal shit. hit the wrong button. it's completely off topic and toxic. and yall say the cloak room is a bad place. you make it so.

if you have to start calling names you have already lost the argument

[washparkhorn 9920]

60 billion dollar hit to the US economy over the next three quarters according to Goldman Sachs due to Manchin’s games. 

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news/joe-manchin-is-costing-the-us-economy-dollar60-billion-by-tanking-build-back-better-goldman-sachs-says/amp/ar-AAS0206

Economists are already forecasting what a BBB-free economy will look like, and early projections are gloomy. Goldman Sachs economists led by Jan Hatzius now expect US GDP to grow 2% in the first quarter, 3% in the second quarter, and 2.75% in the third quarter, according to estimates published Monday. Those projections are down from 3%, 3.5%, and 3%, respectively.

If the revisions ring true, the difference in growth should add up to roughly $60 billion in economic losses over the next three quarters. Insider calculated the sum by taking the US's annualized GDP growth rate and calculating the differences in Goldman's prior and updated expansion forecasts.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

60 billion dollar hit to the US economy over the next three quarters according to Goldman Sachs due to Manchin’s games. 

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news/joe-manchin-is-costing-the-us-economy-dollar60-billion-by-tanking-build-back-better-goldman-sachs-says/amp/ar-AAS0206

Economists are already forecasting what a BBB-free economy will look like, and early projections are gloomy. Goldman Sachs economists led by Jan Hatzius now expect US GDP to grow 2% in the first quarter, 3% in the second quarter, and 2.75% in the third quarter, according to estimates published Monday. Those projections are down from 3%, 3.5%, and 3%, respectively.

If the revisions ring true, the difference in growth should add up to roughly $60 billion in economic losses over the next three quarters. Insider calculated the sum by taking the US's annualized GDP growth rate and calculating the differences in Goldman's prior and updated expansion forecasts.

Yes, government spending is a component of GDP.  Some shocking analysis here.

[Neonmoon 38126]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

60 billion dollar hit to the US economy over the next three quarters according to Goldman Sachs due to Manchin’s games. 

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news/joe-manchin-is-costing-the-us-economy-dollar60-billion-by-tanking-build-back-better-goldman-sachs-says/amp/ar-AAS0206

Economists are already forecasting what a BBB-free economy will look like, and early projections are gloomy. Goldman Sachs economists led by Jan Hatzius now expect US GDP to grow 2% in the first quarter, 3% in the second quarter, and 2.75% in the third quarter, according to estimates published Monday. Those projections are down from 3%, 3.5%, and 3%, respectively.

If the revisions ring true, the difference in growth should add up to roughly $60 billion in economic losses over the next three quarters. Insider calculated the sum by taking the US's annualized GDP growth rate and calculating the differences in Goldman's prior and updated expansion forecasts.

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche
 

[washparkhorn 9920]

60 billion loss in three quarters is not an insignificant loss to our economy - especially with the problems confronting the US domestically and in foreign policy with a more aggressive China and Russia. 
 

Manchin doesn’t give a damn about economics. He is doing the work his benefactors pay him to do. 

[washparkhorn 9920]

How many children just plunged back into poverty (or deeper into poverty)?

Ten million American children.

Depraved.

 

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

How many children just plunged back into poverty (or deeper into poverty)?

Ten million American children.

Depraved.

 

Really?

[washparkhorn 9920]

For those who think capitalism is a religion, the failure to pass this Bill should piss you off. Lost efficiency gains and lost profit for the private sector. 

The Lazy Boy capitalists of the Republican Party got fat and happy off their PPP Welfare checks from Chairman Trump.  They are all in favor of plunging kids into poverty too.
 

Don’t forget Sinema - and the more for me conservative Democrats in the House. 
 

So much money spent to keep people in poverty.  Using anti-market tropes and utter hypocrisy as tools. What a world. 
 

Christmas sure isn’t what it used to be. 

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

Just read that Musk's effective tax rate was 40%. What more do you people want? 40%, wow.

Quote

 

Musk is paid through stock options, which give him the right to buy Tesla shares at the price on the date of issue (in this case, back in 2012).

These options are set to expire next August, so Musk has started exercising them -- at a tax rate of 40.8%.

Musk will also pay long-term 20% capital gains tax on other stock sales.

 

 

[hobbes2702 12536]

[cactusflinthead 27245]

8 minutes ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

Just read that Musk's effective tax rate was 40%. What more do you people want? 40%, wow.

 

If you just read it then it ought to be easy to cite it.

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

24 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

If you just read it then it ought to be easy to cite it.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/investing/elon-musk-11-billion-dollars-taxes/index.html

Musk received 25.5 million split-adjusted options in 2012, and had 22.9 million of those options vest over subsequent years as Tesla hit certain operational and financial targets. But he didn't have to pay taxes on those options until he used them to buy shares.

Since that block of options is due to expire in August 2022, Musk finally started the process of turning them into shares of stock in early November. And he documented those trades in SEC filings, as company insiders are required to do.

When he exercises the options, the value of the newly purchased shares are taxed as income — a 40.8% rate for someone in Musk's tax bracket.

Edited December 22, 2021 by MonkeyCigarette