Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

In your opinion it does but you're not a tax expert.

"In my opinion" your think tank leans?

OK then, right back at you. You claimed my thinktank was biased. But that's just your opinion and you're not a tax expert.

The fact of the matter is we both provided think tanks. Neither had more authority than the other.

And if I gave your a conservative think tank as a source, you wouldn't accept it either.

You gave one that favours big business. In this conversation, that's functionally identical; yours and mine are two sides of the same discussion.

 

[tstorm823]

The contribution of tax to the treasury is what contributes to society.

Though the wider distribution of shares over a larger group of people, making it less concentrated, is a separate societal benefit.

Alternatively, it would concentrate ownership of businesses to those with the greatest cash flow, drawing both resources away from the less wealthy.

And again, you're not instituting a new tax or generating additional revenue (outside of people dying), you are just changing when, and the associated incentives.

 

[Agema]

Every time you or I buy a product, like any smart phone or just basically any electronics, the components pass through dozens of countries, which will increase CO2 for some of the same countries.

I don't think this is necessarily a huge problem, per se. What might be more a problem is the fact some people think they should have a new iPhone every year, when really they should last several. Or replace their wardrobe every season, when a well-made item of clothing should last years. I strongly suspect this is all a much greater problem.

Even social security is backed up by US Treasury bills based off of US economic growth and US military backing, which uses lots of fossil fuels.

Yes, but it doesn't need to use fossil fuels. It does, because the fossil fuel industry has thoroughly convinced enough people - and sloshed enough money into politicians' pockets - that oil is the American dream. But to replace a lot of fossil fuel use doesn't delete large quantities of wealth and investment. It simply moves it somewhere else.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

And again, you're not instituting a new tax or generating additional revenue (outside of people dying), you are just changing when, and the associated incentives.

If rich people can continuously put off paying taxes by using their assets as collateral for loans, and then using loans to pay off other loans, then yes, having a wealth tax does in fact create additional revenue for the government which would not otherwise be available.

It's trashy for poor people to live beyond their means by buying things with credit cards, and then opening more credit cards to pay off those credit cards. For some reason rich people doing the same thing on a larger scale with stocks is somehow seen as normal and classy.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Perpetual mental collapsar Marjorie Taylor Greene calls for a "national divorce" between red and blue states.

Marjorie Taylor Greene calls for a 'national divorce' between liberal and conservative states

“We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government,” Greene, R-Ga., tweeted.

www.nbcnews.com

I suppose nobody's told her that red states, as a whole, are net money sinks for the national coffers, supported by blue states. If she wants that divorce, there ain't gonna be no alimony.

Also, she wants anyone who moves from a blue state to a red state to maybe not be able to vote for half a decade.

What I think would be something that some red states could propose is: well, okay, if Democrat voters choose to flee these blue states where they cannot tolerate the living conditions, they don't want their children taught these horrible things, and they really change their mind on the types of policies that they support, well once they move to a red state, guess what, maybe you don't get to vote for five years.

 

[Gordon_4]

I don't think this is necessarily a huge problem, per se. What might be more a problem is the fact some people think they should have a new iPhone every year, when really they should last several. Or replace their wardrobe every season, when a well-made item of clothing should last years. I strongly suspect this is all a much greater problem.

Smartphones in general are tricky because once they stop getting security patches they become a liability. Apple trends toward a 6 year support cycle per device after which it is dropped. For what it is worth though, my model 11 I have had since launch in 2019 still works just fine. But I am going to have to replace it by 2026 or else I’ve got a big old cyber hole in my pocket at all times. Or at least a bigger one than they already are.

Clothes I don’t get though. My wife and family have to practically threaten me to go buy new clothing because as long as it doesn’t have a hole in it bigger than my fist, I’ll still wear it. People who cycle in new shit every season baffle the fuck out of me. I mean I got really bothered a coat I had - a letterman style sports jacket - I’d had since eight grade but still fit me into my late 20s got lost cos my dumb arse left it on the roof of my car and drove away with it. My only hope was since it was winter then someone who needed it picked it up. So yeah new clothes every season is fucking weird.

 

[tstorm823]

If rich people can continuously put off paying taxes by using their assets as collateral for loans, and then using loans to pay off other loans, then yes, having a wealth tax does in fact create additional revenue for the government which would not otherwise be available.

It's trashy for poor people to live beyond their means by buying things with credit cards, and then opening more credit cards to pay off those credit cards. For some reason rich people doing the same thing on a larger scale with stocks is somehow seen as normal and classy.

I agree with regulating that practice away.

 

[Silvanus]

Alternatively, it would concentrate ownership of businesses to those with the greatest cash flow, drawing both resources away from the less wealthy.

Those with over 100m in wealth are not the less wealthy. And they are the only ones who would be even theoretically encouraged to sell/ not hoard. If anything, more mobile shares could decrease the individual share cost.

And again, you're not instituting a new tax or generating additional revenue (outside of people dying), you are just changing when, and the associated incentives.

...do you think the idea is for this to replace capital gains, as a one-off at some arbitrary point, & the same rate? What? That's the only scenario in which this paragraph makes sense.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I agree with regulating that practice away.

The problem with regulating that practice away is that the US could only do so with regards to American banks, and there would still be plenty of international banks that would continue giving these loans and using stock as collateral. UK and Swiss banks are well known for being willing to skirt or outright ignore international banking regulations when it suits them.

There's also the problem of what do we do with the loans that those banks have already given to billionaires? When you owe the bank a million dollars the bank owns you. When you owe the bank a billion dollars you own the bank. What about Elon Musk owing $44 billion to banks to buy Twitter? Do we force the repayment of those loans to the banks before regulating away the ability to use stock as collateral? But they don't have "real" money to pay the banks back!

Essentially the extremely wealthy are creating debt bombs, and when they explode there's going to be yet another financial crisis and more bank bailouts paid by tax dollars. Essentially we'll be paying off the debts of the billionaires to the banks while they continue to skate with their horded wealth.