Ive only been to Florida twice and I was miserable. Tried playing golf in like early April when I went to visit an old friend and was drenched in sweat by the second hole. Miserable swamp state. Give me the 4 seasons lol - burgh4life87
Haha, it took me a few years to acclimate for sure. I didn't like in in the first year or 2, but you eventually get used to it but yeah I don't miss winter at all. I'd rather have spring and summer for a year than the 4 seasons and just travel when I want to snowboard. Hahah.
"The ultra rich in US essentially live on a different planet than us regular folks. We need income to buy the things we need to live (food, shelter, etc). But the super wealthy don't need any income, they can just borrow money to facilitate their lavish lifestyle while their actual wealth is tied up in non-taxable stock options."
Essentially, this is how they get away with paying a tax rate of .08%. I know Munk just donated like 150 million or something. But if he were paying his taxes (like the rest of us) he'd have paid over 5 BILLION.
Haha, it took me a few years to acclimate for sure. I didn't like in in the first year or 2, but you eventually get used to it but yeah I don't miss winter at all. I'd rather have spring and summer for a year than the 4 seasons and just travel when I want to snowboard. Hahah. - j.boyd919
I could never do it. I love winter. Biking at Frick park with a bit of snow on the ground is like one of my favorite things.
Not sure if its true or not but I was was reading that everyone in the house and senate are fully vaxxed haha.
This reminded me of a meme I saw the other day that said "If the vaxxes were actually unsafe they would of gave them to poor people first, not politicians and billionaires". - MattStrat
Stumbled in here from over on the Rangers blogs, man you guys have way more fun.
Rand Paul isn't vaxxed and he's a doctor. So that should say something right there.
Also plenty of democratic politicians while running for office said they weren't going to take the vaccine if it was rolled out before the election. So a lot of the mis-information and fear comes from their flip flop on an issue, because to them at the time it was more important to play politics, instead of be honest with the American people. They all knew Trump wasn't developing it, that pharma companies were and yet they still said they wouldn't take it.
And where's the evidence to vax children? Less than 500 deaths under the age of 18 since pandemic started but we need to force it into kids? Seems like the only thing driving that is $$$$$$
"The ultra rich in US essentially live on a different planet than us regular folks. We need income to buy the things we need to live (food, shelter, etc). But the super wealthy don't need any income, they can just borrow money to facilitate their lavish lifestyle while their actual wealth is tied up in non-taxable stock options."
Essentially, this is how they get away with paying a tax rate of .08%. I know Munk just donated like 150 million or something. But if he were paying his taxes (like the rest of us) he'd have paid over 5 BILLION. - P.klem
That’s not how unrealized capital gains works.
Tanky takes on economics is always incredibly entertaining.
Location: ...serial abuser...and misuser...of the ellipsis , NF Joined: 12.12.2014
Oct 4 @ 1:16 PM ET
Stumbled in here from over on the Rangers blogs, man you guys have way more fun.
Rand Paul isn't vaxxed and he's a doctor. So that should say something right there.
Also plenty of democratic politicians while running for office said they weren't going to take the vaccine if it was rolled out before the election. So a lot of the mis-information and fear comes from their flip flop on an issue, because to them at the time it was more important to play politics, instead of be honest with the American people. They all knew Trump wasn't developing it, that pharma companies were and yet they still said they wouldn't take it.
And where's the evidence to vax children? Less than 500 deaths under the age of 18 since pandemic started but we need to force it into kids? Seems like the only thing driving that is $$$$$$ - newenglandpuck
Yeah, you've touched on things I've said throughout the blog. Must not of read it all.
Is it possible Paul is playing politics at all? that's an honest question. What about Marshall, Cassidy and Barrasso? all physicians in the senate, are they vaccinated?
Tanky takes on economics is always incredibly entertaining. - Victoro311
Definitely not a tanky... Please explain how Jeff Bezos got away with paying a true tax rate of 0.98% between 2014 and 2018 despite his wealth growing by nearly 100 BILLION dollars durig that period?
Location: "China was as proactive as possible" - Rinosaur, SC Joined: 02.01.2012
Oct 4 @ 1:37 PM ET
Definitely not a tanky... Please explain how Jeff Bezos got away with paying a true tax rate of 0.98% between 2014 and 2018 despite his wealth growing by nearly 100 BILLION dollars durig that period? - P.klem
Definitely not a tanky... Please explain how Jeff Bezos got away with paying a true tax rate of 0.98% between 2014 and 2018 despite his wealth growing by nearly 100 BILLION dollars durig that period? - P.klem
Because he didn't gain 100000000000 dollars of income lol
"The ultra rich in US essentially live on a different planet than us regular folks. We need income to buy the things we need to live (food, shelter, etc). But the super wealthy don't need any income, they can just borrow money to facilitate their lavish lifestyle while their actual wealth is tied up in non-taxable stock options."
Essentially, this is how they get away with paying a tax rate of .08%. I know Munk just donated like 150 million or something. But if he were paying his taxes (like the rest of us) he'd have paid over 5 BILLION. - P.klem
You do realize that you live on a completely different planet than most of africa and asia and south america. and are probably more wealthy than the common people of somalia by the same difference as jeff bezos to you...
Definitely not a tanky... Please explain how Jeff Bezos got away with paying a true tax rate of 0.98% between 2014 and 2018 despite his wealth growing by nearly 100 BILLION dollars durig that period? - P.klem
Because the vast majority of his net worth is unrealized. What you need to understand is that a person's net worth is the valuation of all assets held by a person, and that the vast majority of assets that aren't cash or property have values that are insanely volatile and/or fungible. There are multiple reasons why levying taxes on unrealized capital gains is a bad idea, but I'll focus on two.
1) The volatility and fungibility of the valuation of assets makes them extremely hard to pin down. Due to fluctuation, the US Gov would have to issue just as many rebates as they collect in revenue, which would make an already over-complicated and inefficient tax system even more so, and even more difficult to enforce. Reports detailing the amount of tax revenue lost on a year-to-year basis due to the IRS not having the resources to enforce the tax code is pretty staggering. The introduction of rebates on previously over-taxed assets will 100% be taken advantage of.
2) Major shareholders in these large multi-nationals don't have the liquid assets to support the amount of taxation they would incur off of their non liquid assets. Let's assume Bezos has $2 billion in fluid cash, and his majority holding in Amazon is worth about $300 billion. There is absolutely zero way to pay that tax. He could sell his public holdings in Amazon, but then the guy that bought those holdings would have to pay the tax, and he wouldn't have the cash to do so and so on and so on. If your goal is to dismantle multi nationals out of spite, then this is a good way to do it. If your goal is to increase the competitiveness of the market by making it more difficult to establish juggernaut multi-nationals in the first place while ensuring that the economy stays healthy and not shocked by the sudden collapse of Amazon, Google, or Disney, this is not the rout you want to take.
Yes the uber rich do get out of paying a decent amount of taxes, but throwing out figures like "Bezos only pays 0.98% of what he owes", which is what metrics like true tax rate try to communicate it's absurdly misleading. The vast majority of net worth is tied up in un-tamable unrealized gains, and they're not just un-taxable because our system protects them, they're un-taxable because in practice it'd be a disaster. We can talk about how realized capital gains from asset sales are taxed at a more favorable rate than actual wage income and wether or not that's bad, we can talk about whether or not Amazon is an actual trust that merits busting, and if it is, which policies are enabling trust formation and need to be reassessed. But taxes on capital gains should be dismissed outright as a very stupid idea.
Location: ...serial abuser...and misuser...of the ellipsis , NF Joined: 12.12.2014
Oct 4 @ 2:02 PM ET
Because the vast majority of his net worth is unrealized. What you need to understand is that a person's net worth is the valuation of all assets held by a person, and that the vast majority of assets that aren't cash or property have values that are insanely volatile and/or fungible. There are multiple reasons why levying taxes on unrealized capital gains is a bad idea, but I'll focus on two.
1) The volatility and fungibility of the valuation of assets makes them extremely hard to pin down. Due to fluctuation, the US Gov would have to issue just as many rebates as they collect in revenue, which would make an already over-complicated and inefficient tax system even more so, and even more difficult to enforce. Reports detailing the amount of tax revenue lost on a year-to-year basis due to the IRS not having the resources to enforce the tax code is pretty staggering. The introduction of rebates on previously over-taxed assets will 100% be taken advantage of.
2) Major shareholders in these large multi-nationals don't have the liquid assets to support the amount of taxation they would incur off of their non liquid assets. Let's assume Bezos has $2 billion in fluid cash, and his majority holding in Amazon is worth about $300 billion. There is absolutely zero way to pay that tax. He could sell his public holdings in Amazon, but then the guy that bought those holdings would have to pay the tax, and he wouldn't have the cash to do so and so on and so on. If your goal is to dismantle multi nationals out of spite, then this is a good way to do it. If your goal is to increase the competitiveness of the market by making it more difficult to establish juggernaut multi-nationals in the first place while ensuring that the economy stays healthy and not shocked by the sudden collapse of Amazon, Google, or Disney, this is not the rout you want to take.
Yes the uber rich do get out of paying a decent amount of taxes, but throwing out figures like "Bezos only pays 0.98% of what he owes", which is what metrics like true tax rate try to communicate it's absurdly misleading. The vast majority of net worth is tied up in un-tamable unrealized gains, and they're not just un-taxable because our system protects them, they're un-taxable because in practice it'd be a disaster. We can talk about how realized capital gains from asset sales are taxed at a more favorable rate than actual wage income and wether or not that's bad, we can talk about whether or not Amazon is an actual trust that merits busting, and if it is, which policies are enabling trust formation and need to be reassessed. But taxes on capital gains should be dismissed outright as a very stupid idea. - Victoro311
Capital gains are taxed at 50% up this way. Not saying that's a good thing, just saying haha
Because the vast majority of his net worth is unrealized. What you need to understand is that a person's net worth is the valuation of all assets held by a person, and that the vast majority of assets that aren't cash or property have values that are insanely volatile and/or fungible. There are multiple reasons why levying taxes on unrealized capital gains is a bad idea, but I'll focus on two.
1) The volatility and fungibility of the valuation of assets makes them extremely hard to pin down. Due to fluctuation, the US Gov would have to issue just as many rebates as they collect in revenue, which would make an already over-complicated and inefficient tax system even more so, and even more difficult to enforce. Reports detailing the amount of tax revenue lost on a year-to-year basis due to the IRS not having the resources to enforce the tax code is pretty staggering. The introduction of rebates on previously over-taxed assets will 100% be taken advantage of.
2) Major shareholders in these large multi-nationals don't have the liquid assets to support the amount of taxation they would incur off of their non liquid assets. Let's assume Bezos has $2 billion in fluid cash, and his majority holding in Amazon is worth about $300 billion. There is absolutely zero way to pay that tax. He could sell his public holdings in Amazon, but then the guy that bought those holdings would have to pay the tax, and he wouldn't have the cash to do so and so on and so on. If your goal is to dismantle multi nationals out of spite, then this is a good way to do it. If your goal is to increase the competitiveness of the market by making it more difficult to establish juggernaut multi-nationals in the first place while ensuring that the economy stays healthy and not shocked by the sudden collapse of Amazon, Google, or Disney, this is not the rout you want to take.
Yes the uber rich do get out of paying a decent amount of taxes, but throwing out figures like "Bezos only pays 0.98% of what he owes", which is what metrics like true tax rate try to communicate it's absurdly misleading. The vast majority of net worth is tied up in un-tamable unrealized gains, and they're not just un-taxable because our system protects them, they're un-taxable because in practice it'd be a disaster. We can talk about how realized capital gains from asset sales are taxed at a more favorable rate than actual wage income and wether or not that's bad, we can talk about whether or not Amazon is an actual trust that merits busting, and if it is, which policies are enabling trust formation and need to be reassessed. But taxes on capital gains should be dismissed outright as a very stupid idea. - Victoro311
Because the vast majority of his net worth is unrealized. What you need to understand is that a person's net worth is the valuation of all assets held by a person, and that the vast majority of assets that aren't cash or property have values that are insanely volatile and/or fungible. There are multiple reasons why levying taxes on unrealized capital gains is a bad idea, but I'll focus on two.
1) The volatility and fungibility of the valuation of assets makes them extremely hard to pin down. Due to fluctuation, the US Gov would have to issue just as many rebates as they collect in revenue, which would make an already over-complicated and inefficient tax system even more so, and even more difficult to enforce. Reports detailing the amount of tax revenue lost on a year-to-year basis due to the IRS not having the resources to enforce the tax code is pretty staggering. The introduction of rebates on previously over-taxed assets will 100% be taken advantage of.
2) Major shareholders in these large multi-nationals don't have the liquid assets to support the amount of taxation they would incur off of their non liquid assets. Let's assume Bezos has $2 billion in fluid cash, and his majority holding in Amazon is worth about $300 billion. There is absolutely zero way to pay that tax. He could sell his public holdings in Amazon, but then the guy that bought those holdings would have to pay the tax, and he wouldn't have the cash to do so and so on and so on. If your goal is to dismantle multi nationals out of spite, then this is a good way to do it. If your goal is to increase the competitiveness of the market by making it more difficult to establish juggernaut multi-nationals in the first place while ensuring that the economy stays healthy and not shocked by the sudden collapse of Amazon, Google, or Disney, this is not the rout you want to take.
Yes the uber rich do get out of paying a decent amount of taxes, but throwing out figures like "Bezos only pays 0.98% of what he owes", which is what metrics like true tax rate try to communicate it's absurdly misleading. The vast majority of net worth is tied up in un-tamable unrealized gains, and they're not just un-taxable because our system protects them, they're un-taxable because in practice it'd be a disaster. We can talk about how realized capital gains from asset sales are taxed at a more favorable rate than actual wage income and wether or not that's bad, we can talk about whether or not Amazon is an actual trust that merits busting, and if it is, which policies are enabling trust formation and need to be reassessed. But taxes on capital gains should be dismissed outright as a very stupid idea. - Victoro311
So you didn't see the propublica report. Bezos has tangible assets. He has billions of dollars worth of real estate and just purchased a .5 billion dollar yacht. You're cool with him paying virtually 0 taxes? Whenever he needs cash, he just takes out a loan and pays the bank 3% interest rather than a 37% tax he would get on income. I know it's a loophole and it's legal. That's the point. It's legal because the wealthy drive ALL political parties. Republican and Democrat alike only push policies to appease the oligarchs.
Location: "China was as proactive as possible" - Rinosaur, SC Joined: 02.01.2012
Oct 4 @ 2:07 PM ET
So you didn't see the propublica report. Bezos has tangible assets. He has billions of dollars worth of real estate and just purchased a .5 billion dollar yacht. You're cool with him paying virtually 0 taxes? Whenever he needs cash, he just takes out a loan and pays the bank 3% interest rather than a 37% tax he would get on income. I know it's a loophole and it's legal. That's the point. It's legal because the wealthy drive ALL political parties. Republican and Democrat alike only push policies to appease the oligarchs. - P.klem
I know, they do suck... But should the rich get to drive on the roads that our taxes paid for? They aren't contributing.
Should the rich get to be protected by our military that our taxes pay for? Should the rich get to receive more stock options because of corporate tax breaks which they bribe the politicians that you pay for with your tax dollars?
