Elon Musk and Twitter

Can I fund my entire lifestyle by borrowing against the value of my 401K and never cashing it out while it grows and grows and then pass it on to my kids who can continue to do the same for all of eternity? Get outta here with this nonsense.

Rocinante wrote:Can I fund my entire lifestyle by borrowing against the value of my 401K and never cashing it out while it grows and grows and then pass it on to my kids who can continue to do the same for all of eternity? Get outta here with this nonsense.

Nonsense? You're talking about taxing non realized gains. That's, to borrow a term from Elon, himself, ludicrous.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Can I fund my entire lifestyle by borrowing against the value of my 401K and never cashing it out while it grows and grows and then pass it on to my kids who can continue to do the same for all of eternity? Get outta here with this nonsense.

Nonsense?  You're talking about taxing non realized gains.  That's, to borrow a term from Elon, himself, ludicrous.  

If that were true then banks would be unwilling to loan him money based on those "unrealized" gains.  It is well documented that banks do loan money on those "unrealized" gains and that is a common tax avoidance scam that the wealthy employ.

The logic of Mr. Musk's protesting a wealth tax is undercut by his actions.

Rocinante wrote:Can I fund my entire lifestyle by borrowing against the value of my 401K and never cashing it out while it grows and grows and then pass it on to my kids who can continue to do the same for all of eternity? Get outta here with this nonsense.

QFmotherfuckingT

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Can I fund my entire lifestyle by borrowing against the value of my 401K and never cashing it out while it grows and grows and then pass it on to my kids who can continue to do the same for all of eternity? Get outta here with this nonsense.

Nonsense? You're talking about taxing non realized gains. That's, to borrow a term from Elon, himself, ludicrous.

Buy, Borrow, Die is real, and you seem smart enough to know that. Are you okay with the scheme, as a general proposition? Do you think it is a positive feature of a healthy society?

Cameron wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Nonsense? You're talking about taxing non realized gains. That's, to borrow a term from Elon, himself, ludicrous.

Buy, Borrow, Die is real, and you seem smart enough to know that. Are you okay with the scheme, as a general proposition? Do you think it is a positive feature of a healthy society?

I'd rather that than have a wealth tax. That is a slippery slope that I want no part of. That's just inviting government bullshit into your life. The only people who could possibly support a wealth tax are those too poor to have any wealth.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Buy, Borrow, Die is real, and you seem smart enough to know that. Are you okay with the scheme, as a general proposition? Do you think it is a positive feature of a healthy society?

I'd rather that than have a wealth tax. That is a slippery slope that I want no part of. That's just inviting government bullshit into your life. The only people who could possibly support a wealth tax are those too poor to have any wealth.

Please give your reasons why?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Buy, Borrow, Die is real, and you seem smart enough to know that. Are you okay with the scheme, as a general proposition? Do you think it is a positive feature of a healthy society?

I'd rather that than have a wealth tax.  That is a slippery slope that I want no part of.  That's just inviting government bullshit into your life.  The only people who could possibly support a wealth tax are those too poor to have any wealth.

If that is almost everybody in the wealthiest nation on earth and you support a (democratic) republic (if you can keep it!) you've made a hell of an argument for a wealth tax you revolutionary you!



I'm editing to add that I am not wealthy but will likely not outlive my retirement funds. When it goes to my heirs if they have to pay income tax on it that seems fair to me. They got their advantages out of me as my kids. They don't have to keep everything they didn't subsequently earn too.

Rick Saunders wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I'd rather that than have a wealth tax.  That is a slippery slope that I want no part of.  That's just inviting government bullshit into your life.  The only people who could possibly support a wealth tax are those too poor to have any wealth.

If that is almost everybody in the wealthiest nation on earth and you support a (democratic) republic (if you can keep it!) you've made a hell of an argument for a wealth tax you revolutionary you!



I'm editing to add that I am not wealthy but will likely not outlive my retirement funds. When it goes to my heirs if they have to pay income tax on it that seems fair to me. They got their advantages out of me as my kids. They don't have to keep everything they didn't subsequently earn too.

We already have an inheritance tax. Why would you want to double tax your heirs?

kingstonlake wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I'd rather that than have a wealth tax. That is a slippery slope that I want no part of. That's just inviting government bullshit into your life. The only people who could possibly support a wealth tax are those too poor to have any wealth.

Please give your reasons why?

I already did. It's a slippery slope that invites government fuckery. No thanks.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Rick Saunders wrote:

If that is almost everybody in the wealthiest nation on earth and you support a (democratic) republic (if you can keep it!) you've made a hell of an argument for a wealth tax you revolutionary you!



I'm editing to add that I am not wealthy but will likely not outlive my retirement funds.  When it goes to my heirs if they have to pay income tax on it that seems fair to me.  They got their advantages out of me as my kids.  They don't have to keep everything they didn't subsequently earn too.

We already have an inheritance tax.  Why would you want to double tax your heirs?

Inheritance Tax, by which you really mean Estate Tax, doesn't tax capital gains from the original purchase for investment securities. They are taxed based on the value when inherited as the purchased price.

It should be noted that gains in a 401k are taxed as regular income when withdrawn.  Pretty sure that the wealthy missed a trick there, as they surely are pissed about that for those who put options to buy stocks in their 401k and then, like Mitt Romney, ended up with hundreds of millions in gains which if withdrawn will be taxed as regular income.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

We already have an inheritance tax. Why would you want to double tax your heirs?

Inheritance tax doesn't tax capital.gains frpm thel oihginal.purchase.

Well if you're really upset about that, I'm sure you could figure out a way to give extra money to the government when you die.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Buy, Borrow, Die is real, and you seem smart enough to know that. Are you okay with the scheme, as a general proposition? Do you think it is a positive feature of a healthy society?

I'd rather that than have a wealth tax. That is a slippery slope that I want no part of. That's just inviting government bullshit into your life. The only people who could possibly support a wealth tax are those too poor to have any wealth.

I didn't ask you about a wealth tax, as I'm confident I know where you stand on that matter already. Please answer the questions I asked you rather than the question you asked yourself.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Buy, Borrow, Die is real, and you seem smart enough to know that. Are you okay with the scheme, as a general proposition? Do you think it is a positive feature of a healthy society?

I'd rather that than have a wealth tax. That is a slippery slope that I want no part of. That's just inviting government bullshit into your life. The only people who could possibly support a wealth tax are those too poor to have any wealth.

Property taxes are wealth taxes.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Rick Saunders wrote:

If that is almost everybody in the wealthiest nation on earth and you support a (democratic) republic (if you can keep it!) you've made a hell of an argument for a wealth tax you revolutionary you!



I'm editing to add that I am not wealthy but will likely not outlive my retirement funds. When it goes to my heirs if they have to pay income tax on it that seems fair to me. They got their advantages out of me as my kids. They don't have to keep everything they didn't subsequently earn too.

We already have an inheritance tax. Why would you want to double tax your heirs?

Very few if any jurisdictions have an "Inheritance" tax. The United States and most States have Estate taxes. As noted, in the US tax code unrealized gains on investment securities are not taxed, even when the stock is sold by those who inherit the securities.

This is a huge tax break.

Also the taxes on capital gains are alread amost half of the highest incomr tax rate, another huge break for wealthy people if they decide to sell stock instead of just borrowing against it and paying no tax at all.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:
Inheritance tax doesn't tax capital.gains frpm thel oihginal.purchase.

Well if you're really upset about that, I'm sure you could figure out a way to give extra money to the government when you die.

Oh please, this comment has no place in a serious discussion.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Well if you're really upset about that, I'm sure you could figure out a way to give extra money to the government when you die.

Oh please, this comment has no place in a serious discussion.

Leftists all for higher taxes, just on other people.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh please, this comment has no place in a serious discussion.

Leftists all for higher taxes, just on other people.    

Republicans support higher taxes on the super-rich, according to a Fox News survey

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh please, this comment has no place in a serious discussion.

Leftists all for higher taxes, just on other people.

A voluntary contrabution is not a tax.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh please, this comment has no place in a serious discussion.

Leftists all for higher taxes, just on other people.

Funny since the 2022 Republician Platform is to raise taxes and reduce services for the 99%

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

Leftists all for higher taxes, just on other people.

Funny since the 2022 Republician Platform is to raise taxes and reduce services for the 99%

It only proves that both parties are the same and want more control and power (money) from Americans.

So I've yet to see an non-emotional argument for a wealth tax. "Billionaires shouldn't exist," "They can afford it," and "It's not fair!" Oh, sure, a few of you proposed spending the governments' gains on some pet projects. But by and large this feels driven by jealousy and emotion.

All of you who complain that billionaires aren't paying their fair share are kind of glossing over the fact that the United States' completed fucked tax regulations are what allow these guys and gals to do just that. The IRS and the tax industry are a total machine supported by the government akin to the war industrial complex. There exist "loop holes" that allow the wealthiest to take advantage of them because that's what our tax code is. It's too big, and too complex, with too many special cases. And your answer to solving this is to implement another, even more complex tax. And you think that's gonna solve wealth inequality in America?!?

Oh, but Frozen Douche, it won't affect you. Why do you care? Well, let me remind you that income tax as we know it came to being in 1913. That first year, less than 1% of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1% of net income. Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk, bitches.

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Funny since the 2022 Republician Platform is to raise taxes and reduce services for the 99%

It only proves that both parties are the same and want more control and power (money) from Americans.

The Republicians want to crown Trump "King" and eliminate fair elections while the Democratics are still comitted to free and fair elections.

Trapper Gus wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

It only proves that both parties are the same and want more control and power (money) from Americans.

The Republicians want to crown Trump "King" and eliminate fair elections while the Democratics are still comitted to free and fair elections.

Do you think these generalizations are useful or helpful? Do you think you're being biting or clever when you hit that Send button? You sound like a child.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The Republicians want to crown Trump "King" and eliminate fair elections while the Democratics are still comitted to free and fair elections.

Do you think these generalizations are useful or helpful? Do you think you're being biting or clever when you hit that Send button? You sound like a child.

This is you not denying that Republicans want to eliminate fair elections. Showing your true colors.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:So I've yet to see an non-emotional argument for a wealth tax. "Billionaires shouldn't exist," "They can afford it," and "It's not fair!" Oh, sure, a few of you proposed spending the governments' gains on some pet projects. But by and large this feels driven by jealousy and emotion.

All of you who complain that billionaires aren't paying their fair share are kind of glossing over the fact that the United States' completed fucked tax regulations are what allow these guys and gals to do just that. The IRS and the tax industry are a total machine supported by the government akin to the war industrial complex. There exist "loop holes" that allow the wealthiest to take advantage of them because that's what our tax code is. It's too big, and too complex, with too many special cases. And your answer to solving this is to implement another, even more complex tax. And you think that's gonna solve wealth inequality in America?!?

Oh, but Frozen Douche, it won't affect you. Why do you care? Well, let me remind you that income tax as we know it came to being in 1913. That first year, less than 1% of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1% of net income. Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk, bitches.

I have consistantly argued from the point of reducing the power of the wealthy and from point of creating the highest functioning economy, both of which require the rebalancing of wealth distrabution.

So you are ignoring serious discussion so you can ride a ill thought out hobby horse. IMO.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Do you think these generalizations are useful or helpful? Do you think you're being biting or clever when you hit that Send button? You sound like a child.

This is you not denying that Republicans want to eliminate fair elections. Showing your true colors.

This is you joining your friend with 8 year old levels of intelligence.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The Republicians want to crown Trump "King" and eliminate fair elections while the Democratics are still comitted to free and fair elections.

Do you think these generalizations are useful or helpful? Do you think you're being biting or clever when you hit that Send button? You sound like a child.

Do you really want another detailed report on what the Repuicians have been working towards for the last 40 years?

Generally when I do that you mock it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:So I've yet to see an non-emotional argument for a wealth tax. "Billionaires shouldn't exist," "They can afford it," and "It's not fair!" Oh, sure, a few of you proposed spending the governments' gains on some pet projects. But by and large this feels driven by jealousy and emotion.

All of you who complain that billionaires aren't paying their fair share are kind of glossing over the fact that the United States' completed fucked tax regulations are what allow these guys and gals to do just that. The IRS and the tax industry are a total machine supported by the government akin to the war industrial complex. There exist "loop holes" that allow the wealthiest to take advantage of them because that's what our tax code is. It's too big, and too complex, with too many special cases. And your answer to solving this is to implement another, even more complex tax. And you think that's gonna solve wealth inequality in America?!?

Oh, but Frozen Douche, it won't affect you. Why do you care? Well, let me remind you that income tax as we know it came to being in 1913. That first year, less than 1% of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1% of net income. Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk, bitches.

I have consistantly argued from the point of reducing the power of the wealthy and from point of creating the highest functioning economy, both of which require the rebalancing of wealth distrabution.

So you are ignoring serious discussion so you can ride a ill thought out hobby horse. IMO.

I agree that too much economic inequality can transform a democracy into a plutocracy. And that's something we should work to prevent. But OTOH, we allegedly have free voting in this country. Work on shoring up our election reforms and ensuring that voting is free and fair. If the idiots want to vote for rich people, maybe they get what they deserve?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Do you think these generalizations are useful or helpful? Do you think you're being biting or clever when you hit that Send button? You sound like a child.

Do you really want another detailed report on what the Repuicians have been working towards for the last 40 years?

Generally when I do that you mock it.

I mock it because you tend to ignore the last 40 years of Democrat shenanigans. NumbersDude is 100% correct. There's little to no difference between the two parties.

You tell me how a house leader making $200K a year has a net worth of $100M. I'm sure she's just a shrewd saving and clips coupons, right?

Corruption knows no party lines.

Double post ... sorry

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I have consistantly argued from the point of reducing the power of the wealthy and from point of creating the highest functioning economy, both of which require the rebalancing of wealth distrabution.

So you are ignoring serious discussion so you can ride a ill thought out hobby horse. IMO.

I agree that too much economic inequality can transform a democracy into a plutocracy.  And that's something we should work to prevent.   But OTOH, we allegedly have free voting in this country. Work on shoring up our election reforms and ensuring that voting is free and fair.    If the idiots want to vote for rich people, maybe they get what they deserve?

That hope probably sailed away when JFK proposed and LBJ enacted the first tax cuts for higher incomes and was blown out of the water by Reagan's Tax cuts and changes to the laws regarding Stock Buy backs, which were illegal with good reason before Reagan, and Anti-Trust regulations.

Biden, driven by the Progressives in Congress, has been the first President to try to undo just a small part of the laws on regulation which have already turned the Repuician Party into the Tories.

The people are electing more politicians who see the real problems and have workable solutions, but not yet the votes in Congress, solutions, btw, which you keep mocking.  Rome wasn't built in a day.  It took the Republicians 40 years to almost achive their goal, without a shock it will take years for the Progressives in the Democratic Party to undo the damage.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I agree that too much economic inequality can transform a democracy into a plutocracy. And that's something we should work to prevent. But OTOH, we allegedly have free voting in this country. Work on shoring up our election reforms and ensuring that voting is free and fair. If the idiots want to vote for rich people, maybe they get what they deserve?

That hope probably sailed away when JFK proposed and LBJ enacted the first tax cuts for higher incomes and was blown out of the water by Reagan's Tax cuts and changes to the laws regarding Stock Buy backs, which were illegal with good reason before Reagan, and Anti-Trust regulations.

Biden, driven by the Progressives in Congress, has been the first President to try to undo just a small part of the laws on regulation which have already turned the Repuician Party into the Tories.

The people are electing more politicians who see the real problems and have workable solutions, but not yet the votes in Congress, solutions, btw, which you keep.mocking. Rome wasn't built in a day. It took the Republicians 40 years to almost achive their goal, without a shock it will take years for the Progressives in the Democratic Party to undo.the damage.

The world needs believers. Good for you.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

That hope probably sailed away when JFK proposed and LBJ enacted the first tax cuts for higher incomes and was blown out of the water by Reagan's Tax cuts and changes to the laws regarding Stock Buy backs, which were illegal with good reason before Reagan, and Anti-Trust regulations.

Biden, driven by the Progressives in Congress, has been the first President to try to undo just a small part of the laws on regulation which have already turned the Repuician Party into the Tories.

The people are electing more politicians who see the real problems and have workable solutions, but not yet the votes in Congress, solutions, btw, which you keep.mocking. Rome wasn't built in a day. It took the Republicians 40 years to almost achive their goal, without a shock it will take years for the Progressives in the Democratic Party to undo.the damage.

The world needs believers. Good for you.

I can only hope that despite your lack of faith that you always vote for Democratic canidates, only because it is very clear there are major differences between the Parties.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

The world needs believers. Good for you.

I can only hope that despite your lack of faith that you always vote for Democratic canidates, only because it is very clear there are major differences between the Parties.

I will always vote for the most moderate candidate, regardless of party. 2028's AOC vs. Donald Trump Jr. race will probably just cause me to go full Unibomber.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I can only hope that despite your lack of faith that you always vote for Democratic canidates, only because it is very clear there are major differences between the Parties.

I will always vote for the most moderate candidate, regardless of party. 2028's AOC vs. Donald Trump Jr. race will probably just cause me to go full Unibomber.

You complain that the Democratic Party is the same as the Republician Party and there say you will keep voting to insure that is reality?

The "moderates" in the Democratic Party blocked President Biden and the Progressives from making progress on the issues you are bitching about. The Republicians, right now, moderate or not, are a lost cause, voting in a block to screw the country every time.

If you want change you have to put your vote where your mouth is.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I will always vote for the most moderate candidate, regardless of party. 2028's AOC vs. Donald Trump Jr. race will probably just cause me to go full Unibomber.

You complain that the Democratic Party is the same as the Republician Party and there say you will keep voting to insure that is reality?

The "moderates" in the Democratic Party blocked President Biden and the Progressives from making progress on the issues you are bitching about. The Republicians, right now, moderate or not, are a lost cause, voting in a block to screw the country every time.

If you want change you have to put your vote where your mouth is.

Sorry. Didn't mean to insult your gal. It was just an example. I'm sure the Dems could come up with someone worse.

When it comes to government, I'm a "Less is more" kind of guy. Always have been, always will be.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You complain that the Democratic Party is the same as the Republician Party and there say you will keep voting to insure that is reality?

The "moderates" in the Democratic Party blocked President Biden and the Progressives from making progress on the issues you are bitching about. The Republicians, right now, moderate or not, are a lost cause, voting in a block to screw the country every time.

If you want change you have to put your vote where your mouth is.

Sorry. Didn't mean to insult your gal. It was just an example. I'm sure the Dems could come up with someone worse.

When it comes to government, I'm a "Less is more" kind of guy. Always have been, always will be.

I didn't notice the AOC v Trump comment until your second post. This isn't TOB where digs like that were all some posters did, and thus I ignore meaningless drival of that nature here.

Right sized government for the situation to continue the words of the United States Creed, aka the opening of the Declaration and the Preamble of the Constitution.

Less is more as a creed is probably nihilistic.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:So I've yet to see an non-emotional argument for a wealth tax. "Billionaires shouldn't exist," "They can afford it," and "It's not fair!" Oh, sure, a few of you proposed spending the governments' gains on some pet projects. But by and large this feels driven by jealousy and emotion.

All of you who complain that billionaires aren't paying their fair share are kind of glossing over the fact that the United States' completed fucked tax regulations are what allow these guys and gals to do just that. The IRS and the tax industry are a total machine supported by the government akin to the war industrial complex. There exist "loop holes" that allow the wealthiest to take advantage of them because that's what our tax code is. It's too big, and too complex, with too many special cases. And your answer to solving this is to implement another, even more complex tax. And you think that's gonna solve wealth inequality in America?!?

Oh, but Frozen Douche, it won't affect you. Why do you care? Well, let me remind you that income tax as we know it came to being in 1913. That first year, less than 1% of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1% of net income. Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk, bitches.

If the tax code and the government have built in loopholes to benefit the wealthy, they have done so at the behest of the wealthy (who would rather spend a million lobbying for lower taxes than just pay that million in taxes, but I digress). Rich fuckers own and operate our government. You appear to be arguing that any plan to tax them to the point of not having enough wealth to continually accomplish this aim is somehow wrongheaded. For my part, I don't really see how any other solution is possible.

Cameron wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:So I've yet to see an non-emotional argument for a wealth tax. "Billionaires shouldn't exist," "They can afford it," and "It's not fair!" Oh, sure, a few of you proposed spending the governments' gains on some pet projects. But by and large this feels driven by jealousy and emotion.

All of you who complain that billionaires aren't paying their fair share are kind of glossing over the fact that the United States' completed fucked tax regulations are what allow these guys and gals to do just that. The IRS and the tax industry are a total machine supported by the government akin to the war industrial complex. There exist "loop holes" that allow the wealthiest to take advantage of them because that's what our tax code is. It's too big, and too complex, with too many special cases. And your answer to solving this is to implement another, even more complex tax. And you think that's gonna solve wealth inequality in America?!?

Oh, but Frozen Douche, it won't affect you. Why do you care? Well, let me remind you that income tax as we know it came to being in 1913. That first year, less than 1% of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1% of net income. Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk, bitches.

If the tax code and the government have built in loopholes to benefit the wealthy, they have done so at the behest of the wealthy (who would rather spend a million lobbying for lower taxes than just pay that million in taxes, but I digress). Rich fuckers own and operate our government. You appear to be arguing that any plan to tax them to the point of not having enough wealth to continually accomplish this aim is somehow wrongheaded. For my part, I don't really see how any other solution is possible.

Lets not get started on all the loopholes in the Estate Tax Code which insure much of the weathy's money is passed on to their hiers.