2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Derec]

We used to do it. Look at tax tables before 1970.

Tax tables from before 1970s were still a tax on income, not on wealth.
Your idea of taxing all wealth above $1G at 100% is very different from income taxes before 1970s and also far more radical than even Bernie Sanders' wealth tax proposals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We can detect gravitational waves in the fabric of spacetime, but we are powerless to devise a method to monetize tax revenue from held stock wealth?

Two completely different things, you will have to admit.

I'd say detecting gravitational waves which are about 1/1000 the size of an atom's nucleus probably is harder than updating tax code with the changing manner of obscene wealth.

Note that Toni wants to "monetize" so much tax value from held stock that e.g. Jeff Bezos' net worth drops below one billion dollars.

So, that isn't viable. What is? What sort of metric can be created that taxes stockholder wealth in the tens of billions?

It is admittedly a newer problem, but are you really suggesting it isn't possible?

On the level Toni wants to do it it certainly is. On the level of Bernian wealth tax proposals, it most likely is impossible too, which means that his wealth tax would lead to forced sales as well.

So, is this about proving Toni wrong and scoring points or considering whether it is possible to tax uber-wealth such as insane amounts of stockholder wealth and having a conversation?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you don't know the current and future, potential impact that Kegsbreath has on the elections, then you stuck your head in the sand while living under a rock. (Figuratively).

If he wasn't offered as a deliberate whataboutism to detract from a discussion of Hasan Piker's influence on the elections, you might have a point.

This is not a Piker thread. It's about the mid-term elections. Kegsbreath has more impact to the topic.

 

[Toni]

We can detect gravitational waves in the fabric of spacetime, but we are powerless to devise a method to monetize tax revenue from held stock wealth?

Two completely different things, you will have to admit. Note that Toni wants to "monetize" so much tax value from held stock that e.g. Jeff Bezos' net worth drops below one billion dollars. How do you imagine that being possible without confiscating said stock or forcing him to sell?
This is more akin to squaring the circle than detecting gravitational waves.

It is admittedly a newer problem, but are you really suggesting it isn't possible?

On the level Toni wants to do it it certainly is. On the level of Bernian wealth tax proposals, it most likely is impossible too, which means that his wealth tax would lead to forced sales as well.

I don’t recall suggesting a particular level.

I have zero sympathy for oligarchs being ‘forced to sell’ assets to meet tax obligations. Happens to mere mortals all the time.

Frankly a handful of people in the US hold more wealth than the combined least weary 90% of the US population. Which is a problem for a couple reasons:

1. They pay a disproportionately small income tax, both personal and corporate.

2. They have an outsized influence on everything in our society, from legislation to markets.

3. They are literally above the law. That’s not supposed to happen in the US.

 

[Toni]

We used to do it. Look at tax tables before 1970.

Tax tables from before 1970s were still a tax on income, not on wealth.
Your idea of taxing all wealth above $1G at 100% is very different from income taxes before 1970s and also far more radical than even Bernie Sanders' wealth tax proposals.

I never says 100% tax on anything. I said we could tax more fairly than we do now as we have in the past.

The extremely favorable tax laws have allowed a handful of individuals to accumulate enormous wealth, while many people who work full time or more struggle to cover basic necessities: food, housing, healthcare.

 

[Derec]

That was different. I get what Derec is raising issue with. The problem is people like Bezos and Musk have billions in unrealized wealth. So you can't tax it like income or share sales because they haven't been sold. This is also part of the problem because these sorts of assets can be used to leverage loans for access to cash.

You could tax these loans as income for example. That would not be a tax on wealth.
I also think people overestimate how extensively this tactic is used. After all, billionaires still pay taxes because they sometimes do sell their holdings (triggering capital gains tax) or own stocks that disperse dividends.

So they get to hold onto the asset and pay a trifle in interest,

Is it really a trifle? Note that interest is due every year you hold the loan. So not paying back a loan (which requires taxable money) will over time accrue more interest than just paying capital gains taxes would have. Which is why billionaires do take money out and do pay capital gains taxes. It's just that dishonest politicians and commentators divide the taxes they pay not by the money that was actually used, but by paper increase in wealth, including that which has not been touched.
For example, Bezos takes out a billion dollars out. Top long-term capital gains rate is 20% and if he held this stock since it was virtually worthless, practically all of it is capital gains. That's $200M in taxes that are paid. But Amazon might have had a good year, and Bezos' net worth increased by $20G. So dishonest math would be to divide the $200M not by the billion, but by 20, resulting in an supposed "effective" tax rate of only 1%.
Now, would more tax brackets for very high incomes and capital gains make sense? For example a 30% and 40% brackets above capital gains of $1M and 10M for example? Sure. But that is very different than misleading math or demand for wealth taxes. And it even more different than saying that all wealth above one billion should be confiscated via taxes, as Toni wants.

utilizing their wealth without actually needing to sell and gain access to it which would have made it taxable.

And yet they do sell, and they do pay taxes.

So taxing stock wealth is new and tricky, and needs to be done in a manner that isn't unfair. But the idea that a solution can not be had is quite ridiculous.

Or we can just add some more income tax and capital gains brackets. And make large loan proceeds taxable, although as I said, the "buy, borrow, die" strategy is not as effective as people imagine, since interest accrues every year. Paying 20% capital gains, or even 40% capital gains, is still cheaper than paying even 3% interest over 20 years.

 

[Toni]

If you don't know the current and future, potential impact that Kegsbreath has on the elections, then you stuck your head in the sand while living under a rock. (Figuratively).

If he wasn't offered as a deliberate whataboutism to detract from a discussion of Hasan Piker's influence on the elections, you might have a point.

If most people heard of this Piker dude, you might face a point. Doubtful but possible.

 

[Derec]

I never says 100% tax on anything.

Don't play semantic games with me. This is what you wrote in post #255.

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.

"Eliminating billionaires by taxing them down to size" means confiscating all their wealth >$1G. That is a 100% wealth tax, even if you did not use that exact language.

I said we could tax more fairly than we do now as we have in the past.

No, you didn't. You did not said "more fairly", you said "eliminate" and "down to size".

I am all for more fair taxation. More tax brackets on the upper end. Close loopholes. But even with a 40% top capital gains rate people starting and developing successful businesses will have billions in wealth. It is not possible to prevent that without either capping how big businesses can get (and some businesses, such automotive or aerospace have to be big to take advantage of economies of scale) or forcibly diluting founders' ownership stake.

The extremely favorable tax laws have allowed a handful of individuals to accumulate enormous wealth, while many people who work full time or more struggle to cover basic necessities: food, housing, healthcare.

That does not mean we should swing in the opposite extreme and have a tax regime that is extremely unfavorable to business development.
I think overall, businesses which were developed since the 1970s, from Apple to SpaceX, have been positive to regular people's wellbeing by creating jobs, many of them very well-paying, but also by giving people products and services that have made our lives better.

 

[laughing dog]

It has been obvious to most of us that you visit different parts of the web than most of us. I am uninterested in right wing ‘influencers’ or influencers in general and I weep at the failure of my generation not to teach your generation better.

It's not like I watch influencers' streams either, be they on the right or the left.
But these influencers affect the real world, and mainstream news outlets have covered him and other politfluencers a lot. Do you read New York Times? He has been covered on their pages a lot for example.

In ways do these “influencers” affect the real world? Do you have evidence ? Frequency of mrdi articles would suggest Taylor Swift should be your worry.
[‘

 

[Derec]

If most people heard of this Piker dude, you might face a point. Doubtful but possible.

I think this forum might not be entirely representative, especially concerning younger people (younger Millennials and GenZ especially).

 

[laughing dog]

I never says 100% tax on anything.

Don't play semantic games with me. This is what you wrote in post #255.

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.

"Eliminating billionaires by taxing them down to size" means confiscating all their wealth >$1G. That is a 100% wealth tax, even if you did not use that exact language.

Your analysis depends on an assumption as to what the target size. Neither logically mor linguistically does necessarily mean to $1 billion.

Taxing wealth (a stock) poses operational and policy issues. Personally, I think a stronger inheritance tax along with closing loopholes at higher tax brackets is a good start. Followed by increasing the progressivity of income tax rates.

 

[Elixir]

No amount of money in a bank account can give them control over the reality of angry peasants dragging them out of their bunkers and stuffing them into meat grinders, though.

You obviously have not checked out any billionaires’ bunkers …

“The most elaborate billionaire bunkers are increasingly sophisticated, customized underground complexes featuring AI technology, escape tunnels, self-sufficient infrastructure, and luxury amenities like pools, gyms, and theaters to withstand catastrophic scenarios. Top examples include Mark Zuckerberg’s $270M+ Hawaii compound, Vivos Europa One in Germany, and The Oppidum in the Czech Republic.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Most Elaborate Private and Commercial Bunkers

• Mark Zuckerberg’s Kauai Compound ($300M+): Reported to include a massive 5,000 sq ft underground shelter with its own energy, water, and food systems.
• Vivos Europa One (Germany): Marketed as the ultimate "Doomsday escape," this former Cold War munitions storage facility under a mountain offers private, customizable, luxury suites with amenities like a pool, theater, and pet zoo.
• The Oppidum (Czech Republic): Labeled as the "largest billionaire bunker," this former nuclear shelter spans 323,000 square feet, offering an underground living space combined with a helipad, golf course, and sophisticated defense technology.
• Survival Condo Project (Kansas): A converted, decommissioned nuclear missile silo turned into high-end, self-contained apartment homes with robust security.
• Project Aerie (USA): A luxury bunker complex scheduled to open in 2026, offering, high-tech, reinforced units holding up to 625 people. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Key Features of Modern Billionaire Bunkers

• Self-Sufficiency: Deep water wells, intensive air filtration systems (NBC filters), and renewable power generation.
• Security & Safety: Blast-proof doors, decontamination chambers, surveillance, and sometimes, flammable moats to deter intruders.
• Comforts: Extensive high-end living spaces designed to avoid "cabin fever," including gyms, spas, hydroponic gardens, and storage for art or wine.
• Locations: Often built in remote areas or, in the case of Florida's "Billionaire Bunker" (Indian Creek), a private island community. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]“

 

[Derec]

“The Problem” is that “FAIR” is defined by billionaires. If they have to pay 50-90% of their income above a certain level, it’s unfair by their calculus to let poor people skate at a fraction of that rate. If they have to pay a 5% wealth tax on everything they own, so should poor people.

I think most people, including billionaires, agree that progressive taxation is fair. The disagreement would be about the rates. Is 70% or even 90% top marginal tax rate fair? We can disagree with that while agreeing that 20% top capital gains rate is too low.
Wealth taxes have been tried and abandoned in several countries, e.g. Germany. They would also probably require a constitutional amendment akin to the 16th Amendment that allowed for a federal income tax. Then you also have the problem that if you force for example Bezos to sell 5% of his Amazon stock holdings every year you depress the value of that stock for all stockholders (including regular people with 401ks and IRAs) and erode founders' stake in their companies over time.

It’s way fucked up. When America was Great, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%.

That's for income. The top capital gains tax rate was much lower than that even in the 1960s.

Also, are you saying that America hasn't been great since 1969 when this rate was lowered?

Now it’s a fraction of that rate, and billionaires’ greed is totally unbridled, giving them control over everything INCLUDING THEIR OWN TAX RATES.

Really?

 

[ZiprHead]

So taxing stock wealth is new and tricky, and needs to be done in a manner that isn't unfair.

“The Problem” is that “FAIR” is defined by billionaires. If they have to pay 50-90% of their income above a certain level, it’s unfair by their calculus to let poor people skate at a fraction of that rate. If they have to pay a 5% wealth tax on everything they own, so should poor people.
It’s way fucked up. When America was Great, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%. Now it’s a fraction of that rate, and billionaires’ greed is totally unbridled, giving them control over everything INCLUDING THEIR OWN TAX RATES.

New York real estate titan likens the phrase ‘tax the rich’ to racial slurs

Steve Roth was responding to the announcement by New York’s mayor of tax on second homes worth more than $5m

www.theguardian.com

 

[Derec]

Tensions over pro-Israel lobbying group

This obsession with AIPAC by the far left is what I am talking about. The shift among many Democrats in an islamolefist direction is highly concerning.

Track AIPAC
To see the Democratic candidates opposed to genocide and some who never met a dollar they didn't like.

There is no "genocide" in Gaza. There is Israel defending itself from aggression from Gaza and Hamas and allied terror groups callously using their civilians as a propaganda ploy.

Good god, woman! You beat out every Republican in the state... combined!

"Dropsite News" is a far-left, anti-Israel outlet that borders on being antisemitic.

And about "daily killings" - Israel is targeting Hamas operatives that threaten their soldiers. What's wrong with that? As to enforcing the Gaza peace plan, how about forcing Hamas to disarm and give up power? Because as long as that is not fulfilled, there is no real "peace plan" any more there would be a "peace plan" in Germany with NSDAP in control.

 

[ZiprHead]

We can detect gravitational waves in the fabric of spacetime, but we are powerless to devise a method to monetize tax revenue from held stock wealth?

Two completely different things, you will have to admit. Note that Toni wants to "monetize" so much tax value from held stock that e.g. Jeff Bezos' net worth drops below one billion dollars. How do you imagine that being possible without confiscating said stock or forcing him to sell?

They can take out loans to pay the tax like they already do to buy their third mansion or their mega yacht.

 

[Derec]

Egad! That is a bit much. According to the Pew Study though:

More Republicans and Republican leaners have a favorable than unfavorable view of Israel (58% vs. 41%). Still, the share of Republicans with a negative view has ticked up since last year, driven by those under 50. Today, 57% of Republicans ages 18 to 49 have an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 50% last year. Large majorities of Republicans 50 and older continue to view Israel positively.

It isn't just the Democrats.

I am very leary of having a "negative view" of "Israel" rather than "Israeli policy". The prior sounds awfully dark.

Maybe the two ends of the horseshoe can join together. They can even add "socialist" to "national" in the party name to make it more palatable to the DSA/Piker crowd.

 

[Toni]

I never says 100% tax on anything.

Don't play semantic games with me. This is what you wrote in post #255.

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.

"Eliminating billionaires by taxing them down to size" means confiscating all their wealth >$1G. That is a 100% wealth tax, even if you did not use that exact language.

I said we could tax more fairly than we do now as we have in the past.

No, you didn't. You did not said "more fairly", you said "eliminate" and "down to size".

I am all for more fair taxation. More tax brackets on the upper end. Close loopholes. But even with a 40% top capital gains rate people starting and developing successful businesses will have billions in wealth. It is not possible to prevent that without either capping how big businesses can get (and some businesses, such automotive or aerospace have to be big to take advantage of economies of scale) or forcibly diluting founders' ownership stake.

The extremely favorable tax laws have allowed a handful of individuals to accumulate enormous wealth, while many people who work full time or more struggle to cover basic necessities: food, housing, healthcare.

That does not mean we should swing in the opposite extreme and have a tax regime that is extremely unfavorable to business development.
I think overall, businesses which were developed since the 1970s, from Apple to SpaceX, have been positive to regular people's wellbeing by creating jobs, many of them very well-paying, but also by giving people products and services that have made our lives better.

Just because you inferred something does not mean that I actually wrote or meant what you inferred.

No, I don't think that we should have billionaires. The reason I do not think we should have billionaires is that billionaires become billionaires because we have allowed our tax structure and corporate laws and labor laws and real estate laws to create conditions under which some people can avoid paying their fair share and foist the burden of their extreme privilege onto the other 99.99 percent of us. They avoid all sorts of legal obligations, laws, etc. which is absolutely against what our country was founded on. That's what I object to. I don't much care about billionaires bidding against each other for some tacky mansion or another. I DO care that billionaires move into a neighborhood and take it over, impeding the usual and customary movements, etc. within said neighborhood for their own convenience. I do care that billionaires can buy elections and legislators etc. so that laws favor them vs the rest of us. I don't care how many diamonds or whatever some idiot wants to wear. I don't care who goes to this gala or that. It's meaningless to me. I DO care that the exclusivity of some events where business is conducted are designed to keep all of the deals within a small group of uber wealthy people who then get to claim deductions for their 'charitable' contribution of hosting said events. I do care that billionaires can purchase children and others. I do care that billionaires can purchase law enforcement. I do care that billionaires can avoid prosecution for crimes they commit. I do care that billionaires are treated differently than you or I would be. I do care that people who work more than 40 hrs/week still cannot afford housing and food and that for too many, decent health insurance is a fantasy. Because billionaires earn their money off of the poverty of these people.

I read NYT but no, I don't read all of the NYT and depending on what else is going on in my life (multiple significant issues right now within my family/friend group) I read more or less, depending on the day. I confess that if I read the word 'influencer' I figure it's just a bunch of nonsense that no one with sense would pay any attention to. Kind of like what Hailey Bieber wore whenever she was last photographed. Or anything Kardashian related. I think that influencers gain influence because people pay attention to them although they have nothing of importance to say that isn't being said better and with greater attention to detail and accuracy by someone else. I mean: Charlie Kirk, a mediocre whte college drop out figured out that a lot of people have sufficiently low self esteem that they were happy to listen to some guy tell them that the fact that they are stuck in dead end jobs is not their fault but the fault of women and minorities who finished college and worked their way into better jobs/better pay. Which was bullshit when my dad's bowling buddies used to spout off that shit and is still bullshit. I see no reason to give any of them any attention which actually equals power.

During the 1950's there was a huge expansion of business and much higher corporate tax rates. Quit shilling for Bezos.

 

[Derec]

Now, many more young people know people of Arabic descent t, possibly more than they know people of Jewish descent. WWII seems so far away.

WWII may be far away, but 9/11 is certainly not. And it was Arab Muslims who attacked us then. And Palestinian Arab Muslims were celebrating in the streets.

Jews are not seen as the underdogs the same way they were in the 60’s-70’s. But Arabs are.

Being seen as an "underdog" does not indicate who is in the right. Ukrainians are in the right because they were invaded by Russia, not because they are underdogs. Israel is in the right because they were attacked by Gaza. They are not in the wrong because Gaza is "underdog". Being an "underdog" does not give anyone the right to invade their neighbors and murder and kidnap people by the hundreds. It does not give anybody the right to seek and plan the destruction of their neighbor.

These GenZ idiots falling for antisemitic and islamofascist propaganda would be on the side of Germany and Japan in 1945 because losing WWII suddenly makes them "underdogs". Poor underdog Hitler stuck in that musty bunker of his.

Kids today saw anyone who ‘ looked Arab’ regarded with suspicion after 9/11. What young generation does not love an underdog? Plus of course it is easier to see the Arab side to the Arab Israeli conflicts now compared with 50 years ago.

Arabs and Muslims were regarded with suspicion for a good reason. There should be more suspicion of Islamism today, not less. Look at what's happening in Europe, especially in the UK where the Green Party is increasingly becoming the party of the political Islam.

This is all a very surface analysis of how/why opinion in the US has shifted, deliberately as most people in the IS do not have a very good sense of history, geography or context for world events. Even more true of younger people, who, like their parents before them, like to see things differently and choose their own heroes—helped along by the omniscient media and propaganda machines. They correctly question every position their parents took as we boomers questioned our parents’ positions and they, their parents’.

There is a difference between questioning and automatic gainsaying. We should question what came before us, yes, but honest questioning means accepting "yes" for an answer as well.
Hamas, Hezbollah and IRGC are not heroes and everybody who views them as such is an idiot of the highest caliber.

 

[Toni]

Now, many more young people know people of Arabic descent t, possibly more than they know people of Jewish descent. WWII seems so far away.

WWII may be far away, but 9/11 is certainly not. And it was Arab Muslims who attacked us then. And Palestinian Arab Muslims were celebrating in the streets.

Jews are not seen as the underdogs the same way they were in the 60’s-70’s. But Arabs are.

Being seen as an "underdog" does not indicate who is in the right. Ukrainians are in the right because they were invaded by Russia, not because they are underdogs. Israel is in the right because they were attacked by Gaza. They are not in the wrong because Gaza is "underdog".

These GenZ idiots falling for antisemitic and islamofascist propaganda would be on the side of Germany and Japan in 1945 because losing WWII makes them "underdogs".

Kids today saw anyone who ‘ looked Arab’ regarded with suspicion after 9/11. What young generation does not love an underdog? Plus of course it is easier to see the Arab side to the Arab Israeli conflicts now compared with 50 years ago.

Arabs and Muslims were regarded with suspicion for a good reason. There should be more suspicion of Islamism today, not less. Look at what's happening in Europe, especially in the UK where the Green Party is increasingly becoming the party of the political Islam.

This is all a very surface analysis of how/why opinion in the US has shifted, deliberately as most people in the IS do not have a very good sense of history, geography or context for world events. Even more true of younger people, who, like their parents before them, like to see things differently and choose their own heroes—helped along by the omniscient media and propaganda machines. They correctly question every position their parents took as we boomers questioned our parents’ positions and they, their parents’.

There is a difference between questioning and automatic gainsaying. We should question what came before us, yes, but honest questioning means accepting "yes" for an answer as well.
Hamas, Hezbollah and IRGC are not heroes and everybody who views them as such is an idiot of the highest caliber.

You are correct: Being seen as an underdog does not indicate being right.

There is indeed a difference between questioning and automatically gainsaying. I'm glad that you recognize that. I wish you'd apply it more often.