2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Toni]

He's got a point. Taylor Swift is, for all practical purposes, a self made billionare in her mid-30's. It would seem the "no billionaires" crowd would have to put a stop to this. Even though she enjoys what she does and most certainly wants to keep making records and touring. Given her fame popularity and work ethic, its a given she would continue to grow her wealth pretty substantially for the near future. Hmmm...what to do? Maybe she should give up her music career and become Travis Kelce's trad wife?

Most billionaires got that way by finding something to do that creates a bit of value for an awful lot of people. Saying "no billionaires" effectively is telling people not to be very good at creating value for others. What's different with Taylor Swift is that she provides the value (entertainment) directly, rather than like Bezos (facilitating dealing with a bunch of companies. Much less friction to buy something from them, they provide a trusted intermediate in dealing with little companies. Not like the one source for something I wanted that was out of stock, your card will be charged now but it will ship when it comes in.)

Amazon provides convenience which is necessary after they drive all the local businesses out.

Swift pays better and treats her employees better and also treats the communities where she performs better.

They are not the same.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Two things I quibble about: 1. The assumption that private schools are better than public ones. That’s not necessarily so and I would argue is rarely so. Of course that’s based upon my limited experience.

Depends.

A private school has the ability to exclude troublesome and underperforming students. This can be a tremendous advantage to the ones that want to learn.

But private is often just a dodge to teach religion. That hurts, not helps.

 

[Bomb#20]

<perfectly legitimate argument snipped>

Question: Why are you schilling yourself for the massively wealthy? Do you think you will be one of them someday?

Question: Why are you shilling for the Bolsheviks? Do you think they will include you in the Politburo someday?

Question 2: Do leftists have any arguments that are not, ultimately, ad hominem?

 

[Elixir]

Why are you shilling for the Bolsheviks?

I’m shilling for the Bolshies because that’s most of us.
(Sorry - I know you didn’t ask me.)

 

[ZiprHead]

True. But that is because you received an asset, not because it increased in value.

Saying an increase in value is not receiving an asset just sounds like a dodge more than an intellectual response.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why are you shilling for the Bolsheviks?

I’m shilling for the Bolshies because that’s most of us.
(Sorry - I know you didn’t ask me.)

(* For the benefit of readers too Russian-impaired to follow, "Bolshevik" means "majority". )

 

[Derec]

Saying an increase in value is not receiving an asset just sounds like a dodge more than an intellectual response.

If your Aston Martin increases in value because James Bond drives it in a new movie, did you "receive" anything?

Same with stock. You receive it when somebody gives it to you as compensation (and in that case, it is taxed as income even under current laws) but if that stock increases in value, you are not receiving anything.

 

[ZiprHead]

Saying an increase in value is not receiving an asset just sounds like a dodge more than an intellectual response.

If your Aston Martin increases in value because James Bond drives it in a new movie, did you "receive" anything?\

Yes, an increase in value.

Same with stock. You receive it when somebody gives it to you as compensation (and in that case, it is taxed as income even under current laws) but if that stock increases in value, you are not receiving anything.

You received an increase in value.

 

[Derec]

Haven't you learned by now, arguments make Derec happy.

I enjoy a good argument as much as the next guy, I guess.

I silently ask that question every time some fool argues against their own interests in defense of the supremacy of wealth over humanity. I think many like Derec get off on imagining that yes, one day they will be rolling in billions and laughing at the doubters.

No, I labor under no illusions that I will become rich, much less have a net worth in the billions.

Nevertheless, I do not think I am arguing against my own self-interest. Note that I am in favor of adding higher income and capital gains tax brackets for the high earners. How is that shilling for the rich, exactly?
But I am against these novel taxes which would do little good, but in my opinion would cause much damage to the stock market. And that would be very much against my self-interest. After all, many non-rich have a stake in the stock market, even if it is just by owning funds like VFIAX and VSTAX in their retirement accounts.

I think people like you, Toni and Zipr subscribe to the AOC mantra that it is better to be "morally right" than "factually correct". They see themselves as morally superior by advocating these harebrained taxation schemes, and some even want to "eliminate billionaires" by "taxing them down to size". But they do not care so much about the actual facts or likely consequences of what they are advocating.

Meanwhile, the shoe is in the other foot and they are the butt of the joke.

I really don't think so.

 

[Derec]

Yes, an increase in value.

Unless you sell it, it's just on paper.

You received an increase in value.

How exactly did you receive it?

And if you insist on taxing unrealized gains, why should a subsequent reduction in value not result in getting a tax refund?

 

[Bomb#20]

The higher the income, the more political power, especially at the billionaire strata. Which, imo, is incompatible with a democratic republic.

Why would you think that?

Because the influence of a person should not depend on their wealth or income, IMO.

I.e., if the theory conflicts with the observations, they must be discarded.

The policies it takes to prevent higher income leading to more political power -- abolition of free speech, for one -- are incompatible with a democratic republic.

I think you are trying to argue just to argue, because there is no necessary reason to think policies to prevent higher income leading to more political power require abolition of free speech.

Well hey, at least you had the sense to snip out the stated reason from my post. While you're at it, why don't you claim electrical conductivity is incompatible with metal? After all, there is no necessary reason to think metallicity requires conducting electricity. If the higher the income, the more political power, really were incompatible with a democratic republic, then every single democratic republic that has ever existed was incompatible with a democratic republic.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, an increase in value.

Unless you sell it, it's just on paper.

You received an increase in value.

How exactly did you receive it?

And if you insist on taxing unrealized gains, why should a subsequent reduction in value not result in getting a tax refund?

Because typical random fluctuations in stock prices are about 25%. If each stock goes up 25% in half the years, and they tax it those years at 24%, they can drain 3% of every stock portfolio per year on average. Which is the whole point. It's a clever way to impose a federal property tax by pretending it's an income tax.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, an increase in value.

Unless you sell it, it's just on paper.

You received an increase in value.

How exactly did you receive it?

You look at the stock ticker and it shows the increase in value. The value increases because the stock is more desireable.

And if you insist on taxing unrealized gains, why should a subsequent reduction in value not result in getting a tax refund?

Why would it?

 

[unapologetic]

You received an increase in value.

Did you 'recieve' the car as an investment, for it's resale value? Most folk get cars to drive em till they wear-out, you expect them to devalue. Should you get a tax return for it's wear n tear.
Every car has 'value' in it's usefulness. It has monatery value only if sold. Till then any increase in value is just a pipe dream. Just someone's opinion, not an increase in actual money.

 

[laughing dog]

The higher the income, the more political power, especially at the billionaire strata. Which, imo, is incompatible with a democratic republic.

Why would you think that?

Because the influence of a person should not depend on their wealth or income, IMO.

I.e., if the theory conflicts with the observations, they must be discarded.

The policies it takes to prevent higher income leading to more political power -- abolition of free speech, for one -- are incompatible with a democratic republic.

I think you are trying to argue just to argue, because there is no necessary reason to think policies to prevent higher income leading to more political power require abolition of free speech.

Well hey, at least you had the sense to snip out the stated reason from my post. While you're at it, why don't you claim electrical conductivity is incompatible with metal? After all, there is no necessary reason to think metallicity requires conducting electricity. If the higher the income, the more political power, really were incompatible with a democratic republic, then every single democratic republic that has ever existed was incompatible with a democratic republic.

I apologize, I forgot I was dealing with the terminally pedantic.

The higher the income, the more political power, especially at the billionaire level and above. Which, IMO is incompatible with the principles of a democratic republic.

 

[Derec]

We tend to give tax breaks to things we want to encourage. We ( or a lot of us) want to encourage people to have children.

That's fair, up to a point. But when a child-free guy making $40k or so pays more in federal income taxes than somebody making 3 or 4 times that just because they have children, than it becomes perverse.
And Dems like Biden and Kamala wanted to make the tax system even more lopsided against the child-free by greatly increasing the child tax credit (which is available even to upper middle class people making $400k).
Note that it seems to never be quite enough. Had B³ Spendapalooza passed and made that tax credit permanent, 2028 Dems would probably still advocate for a further increase.

I think you are naive regarding the influence of billionaires.

Not sure if this is addressed at bilby or me, but I am not naïve in the least. Of course billionaires have a lot of societal and political influence. But I also think that your position about "eliminating billionaires" would do far more harm than good.
I also agree with bilby's point that $1G is an arbitrary number that just happens to be round in decimal notation and loses value due to inflation anyway. People with far less than $1G in net worth also have a lot of influence. I do not think wealth taxes are the right way to go, and I do not generally like Elizabeth Warren for many reasons, but she was right that any plan to tax the rich more should not start with billionaires.
As wealth taxes gain traction, Warren proposes levy on the ultra-rich
Her plan would kick in at $50M net worth.

We tend to give tax breaks to things we want to encourage. We ( or a lot of us) want to encourage people to have children.

Is there an echo in here?

 

[Toni]

Yes, an increase in value.

Unless you sell it, it's just on paper.

You received an increase in value.

How exactly did you receive it?

And if you insist on taxing unrealized gains, why should a subsequent reduction in value not result in getting a tax refund?

Or if you borrow against it. Stock you own becomes an asset you own.

 

[laughing dog]

The GOP rebellion against Trump's slush fund DOJ deal indicates they are running scared about the midterms.

 

[Toni]

We tend to give tax breaks to things we want to encourage. We ( or a lot of us) want to encourage people to have children.

That's fair, up to a point. But when a child-free guy making $40k or so pays more in federal income taxes than somebody making 3 or 4 times that just because they have children, than it becomes perverse.
And Dems like Biden and Kamala wanted to make the tax system even more lopsided against the child-free by greatly increasing the child tax credit (which is available even to upper middle class people making $400k).
Note that it seems to never be quite enough. Had B³ Spendapalooza passed and made that tax credit permanent, 2028 Dems would probably still advocate for a further increase.

I think you are naive regarding the influence of billionaires.

Not sure if this is addressed at bilby or me, but I am not naïve in the least. Of course billionaires have a lot of societal and political influence. But I also think that your position about "eliminating billionaires" would do far more harm than good.
I also agree with bilby's point that $1G is an arbitrary number that just happens to be round in decimal notation and loses value due to inflation anyway. People with far less than $1G in net worth also have a lot of influence. I do not think wealth taxes are the right way to go, and I do not generally like Elizabeth Warren for many reasons, but she was right that any plan to tax the rich more should not start with billionaires.
As wealth taxes gain traction, Warren proposes levy on the ultra-rich
Her plan would kick in at $50M net worth.

We tend to give tax breaks to things we want to encourage. We ( or a lot of us) want to encourage people to have children.

Is there an echo in here?

You asked why we 'reward' people with tax breaks for having children.

 

[WAB]

Why are you schilling yourself for the massively wealthy? Do you think you will be one of them someday?

I silently ask that question every time some fool argues against their own interests in defense of the supremacy of wealth over humanity. I think many like Derec get off on imagining that yes, one day they will be rolling in billions and laughing at the doubters.
Meanwhile, the shoe is in the other foot and they are the butt of the joke.

I think a lot of people think that people become billionaires because they worked hard for it, are successful and deserve it. They are smarter and harder working.

And to a certain extent, that is true, plus a lot of luck. But a lot of very wealthy people became very wealthy by suppressing the wages of the working class, by skewing the tax code to favor their interests, by buying whatever influence they can whereever they can.

I don't know exactly why, but I despise the term 'working class'. Even the filthy rich work, in various capacities, though of course not all. A brain surgeon, a business magnate, a professional athlete, a rock star, a rocket scientist: they all work.

Perhaps non-leisure class, or labor class?

Or how about we send the word 'class' into the dustbin of oblivion? The past is a bucket of ashes.