2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Loren Pechtel]

If I win a car on a game show. I am taxed at its full sticker price as income. As soon as I drive the car off the lot it loses 25% of its value. Do I get a tax refund? No. Neither should the person in your situation.

Try again.

You take the prize, promptly sell it, you tell the IRS the situation and you're taxed on what you got for selling it, not on it's stated market value.

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

The problem is your "solutions" cause numerous headaches. We aren't schilling, we recognize that things are the way they are for a reason, you are focused on eat-the-rich without regard for the damage done. Putin and Xi will be happy.

Your position causes numerous headaches. Everything is the way it is for a reason. Your rationale applies to any position. Hence it is not much an argument.

Once again, a complete non-rebuttal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good to know that Mammon still has his worshippers.

How about trying to actually address the unpleasant reality rather than calling mea sinner?

I don't intend to ever sell, the property value as such means nothing to me. Rather, I'm talking about things which matter to quality of life.

I'm also talking about the quality of life for those who are not billlionaires.

I notice what seems to be a kind of mindset that you seem to have that I do not: You seem to worship the power of authority: of police, of at least some government, of the wealthy because it is power, not because it is right.

You're still not addressing the issue.

I was pointing out the problems your "solutions" cause for those of us in the middle class.

And I don't worship authority. I do, however, recognize that one must be alert for Chesterson fences. You don't like how the Muskrat breaks everything, but you want to do the same thing.

 

[laughing dog]

If I win a car on a game show. I am taxed at its full sticker price as income. As soon as I drive the car off the lot it loses 25% of its value. Do I get a tax refund? No. Neither should the person in your situation.

Try again.

You take the prize, promptly sell it, you tell the IRS the situation and you're taxed on what you got for selling it, not on it's stated market value.

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

The problem is your "solutions" cause numerous headaches. We aren't schilling, we recognize that things are the way they are for a reason, you are focused on eat-the-rich without regard for the damage done. Putin and Xi will be happy.

Your position causes numerous headaches. Everything is the way it is for a reason. Your rationale applies to any position. Hence it is not much an argument.

Once again, a complete non-rebuttal.

I will bring the level of the rebuttal down to what should be your level.
Saying there are numerous headaches without listing them is a vacuous statement that applies to any solution. So it is basically content free.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Income is money or value received by an individual or business in exchange for goods, services, labor, or investments. It is the total consumption and saving opportunity gained within a specified timeframe, and serves as the foundation for measuring economic growth, assigning tax burdens, and evaluating wealth. [1, 2, 3, 4] - Legal Information Institute

It was a political decision to exempt stock gains from income.

It was necessary. Trying to tax gains results in a nightmare.

You're going to force anyone who runs a successful corporation to sell it off to pay the taxes. Major punishment for success.

How does that work?

You make a company that has a bright future but for now it's growing rather than making income.

You just taxed the owner out, you probably just destroyed the company.

And what exactly is the value of the corporation? We can approximate it if it's widely traded, but stock prices in essence are the net present value of the expected total future earnings. That is horrendously sensitive to the discount rate used on figuring the value of future earnings, and thus horrendously sensitive to expected long term interest rates. And this is just a market consensus, not anything you can truly calculate.

When a company isn't widely traded it gets much worse. What is the value? We've seen tax games based on this--put a bunch of shares of fuzzy value into an IRA. The more specific the item and the less like things are traded makes it even fuzzier. I've seen an attorney throw up her hands over even ballparking the value of something.

What is a fuzzy value? The price of the share is the price of the share.

And not everything is that simple. Not all assets are shares of widely traded public corporations.

Consider the case I just mentioned. The asset was a share of a LLP who owned one asset--a chunk of land in the path of anticipated development. What is the value? Extremely variable based on how people evaluate the chance that development actually reaches that point. It's a share, not the whole land--no control over if or when any value would be realized.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I win a car on a game show. I am taxed at its full sticker price as income. As soon as I drive the car off the lot it loses 25% of its value. Do I get a tax refund? No. Neither should the person in your situation.

Try again.

You take the prize, promptly sell it, you tell the IRS the situation and you're taxed on what you got for selling it, not on it's stated market value.

Tell that to the 1099 the game show producers send to the IRS.

As I said, there are forms. In this case I believe it's a 4852. Procedures look a bit different than when I encountered it nearly 20 years ago. (I had a W-2 with a substantial error, the employer was gone and wasn't going to fix it.)

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

The problem is your "solutions" cause numerous headaches. We aren't schilling, we recognize that things are the way they are for a reason, you are focused on eat-the-rich without regard for the damage done. Putin and Xi will be happy.

Great damage has yet to be proven.

AFIAK all countries have come to the same conclusion. Doesn't that suggest there's a reason?? Just because it interferes with eat-the-rich doesn't make it wrong. Eat-the-rich systems, however, have nearly a 100% rate of serious problems.

 

[Derec]

There are many many successful businesses that do not create billionaires.

If a business becomes so successful that they are valued in several billions or more, and founder(s) retain substantial stake in the company, then they usually have a net worth over a billion, as the value of the company is part of their net worth.
Billionaire does not mean taking out a billion dollars out of a company to spend it on yachts and mansions.

In fact, most of them do not create billionaires.

Small businesses valued at <$1G surely don't, and depending on the industry they can still be successful. But for example car companies by necessity need to be large to succeed, unlike say nail salons that can be successful with a single location and valued at far less.

Our corporate tax structure certainly seems to allow a lot of businesses to believe themselves created and to flourish.

"Believe themselves created"?

Do you know what is anti-business creation? Monopolies. Do you know what is anti-business creation and anti-democratic? Media conglomerates that own huge shares of media, including news media.

Why do you think we disagree on these? That is not related with wanting confiscatory taxation on net worth >$1G.

We are seeing right now that billionaires do not like to have their underlings do anything like—criticize their decisions. Think first themselves. Actually present facts to the people.

And what does that have to do with proper levels of taxation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I win a car on a game show. I am taxed at its full sticker price as income. As soon as I drive the car off the lot it loses 25% of its value. Do I get a tax refund? No. Neither should the person in your situation.

Try again.

You take the prize, promptly sell it, you tell the IRS the situation and you're taxed on what you got for selling it, not on it's stated market value.

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

The problem is your "solutions" cause numerous headaches. We aren't schilling, we recognize that things are the way they are for a reason, you are focused on eat-the-rich without regard for the damage done. Putin and Xi will be happy.

I'm pretty certain some in here are saying they want the rich to pay tax, not turn the rich into snacks.

Also, what is your "solution"?

Taxing them out of existence is wanting snacks.

 

[Toni]

There are many many successful businesses that do not create billionaires.

If a business becomes so successful that they are valued in several billions or more, and founder(s) retain substantial stake in the company, then they usually have a net worth over a billion, as the value of the company is part of their net worth.
Billionaire does not mean taking out a billion dollars out of a company to spend it on yachts and mansions.

In fact, most of them do not create billionaires.

Small businesses valued at <$1G surely don't, and depending on the industry they can still be successful. But for example car companies by necessity need to be large to succeed, unlike say nail salons that can be successful with a single location and valued at far less.

Our corporate tax structure certainly seems to allow a lot of businesses to believe themselves created and to flourish.

"Believe themselves created"?

Do you know what is anti-business creation? Monopolies. Do you know what is anti-business creation and anti-democratic? Media conglomerates that own huge shares of media, including news media.

Why do you think we disagree on these? That is not related with wanting confiscatory taxation on net worth >$1G.

We are seeing right now that billionaires do not like to have their underlings do anything like—criticize their decisions. Think first themselves. Actually present facts to the people.

And what does that have to do with proper levels of taxation?

Proper structure of tax policy helps prevent individuals or corporations from becoming so rich and powerful —powerful being the issue here—that they do not need to follow laws.

IMO, there is no legitimate reason for corporations to own/maintain yachts or aircraft or luxury homes for the benefit of a few executives

 

[Toni]

Good to know that Mammon still has his worshippers.

How about trying to actually address the unpleasant reality rather than calling mea sinner?

I don't intend to ever sell, the property value as such means nothing to me. Rather, I'm talking about things which matter to quality of life.

I'm also talking about the quality of life for those who are not billlionaires.

I notice what seems to be a kind of mindset that you seem to have that I do not: You seem to worship the power of authority: of police, of at least some government, of the wealthy because it is power, not because it is right.

You're still not addressing the issue.

I was pointing out the problems your "solutions" cause for those of us in the middle class.

And I don't worship authority. I do, however, recognize that one must be alert for Chesterson fences. You don't like how the Muskrat breaks everything, but you want to do the same thing.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No new billionaires were created because the money was left in corporations but used for personal purposes. Tax evasion. And many other schemes existed to keep it from being income in the first place.

And there's also the issue of scale. The people at the top of the pile get there but major innovations. There was no reason for major innovations as the market was driven by filling out the huge void left by WWII. Money didn't need to innovate. You call it egalitarian, but it was also a period of stagnation. Once the low-hanging fruit (existing tech filling out the market) was gone we went back to innovation.

I don’t think you are making a lot of sense. Post WWII saw a great deal of growth as the world rebuilt after the war. There was definitely a lot of innovation as materials used in wartime were adapted for civilian use and some innovations used during the war stayed around ( margarine).

Some of your sentences don’t make sense? I think you are typing expecting the rest of us to fill in blanks for the missing logic?

You're looking at this too simplistically.

Lots and lots of growth but it was build-out of existing tech. Thus it's not concentrated and you get no ultra-wealthy.

The road to ultra-wealth is to come up with something people will want and you're the sole source for it, or, occasionally, the dominant market player.

 

[Toni]

No new billionaires were created because the money was left in corporations but used for personal purposes. Tax evasion. And many other schemes existed to keep it from being income in the first place.

And there's also the issue of scale. The people at the top of the pile get there but major innovations. There was no reason for major innovations as the market was driven by filling out the huge void left by WWII. Money didn't need to innovate. You call it egalitarian, but it was also a period of stagnation. Once the low-hanging fruit (existing tech filling out the market) was gone we went back to innovation.

I don’t think you are making a lot of sense. Post WWII saw a great deal of growth as the world rebuilt after the war. There was definitely a lot of innovation as materials used in wartime were adapted for civilian use and some innovations used during the war stayed around ( margarine).

Some of your sentences don’t make sense? I think you are typing expecting the rest of us to fill in blanks for the missing logic?

You're looking at this too simplistically.

Lots and lots of growth but it was build-out of existing tech. Thus it's not concentrated and you get no ultra-wealthy.

The road to ultra-wealth is to come up with something people will want and you're the sole source for it, or, occasionally, the dominant market player.

That’s not what Musk did. He did not come up with anything but cash which he was born with. He has had zero original ideas and only riffs off of actual innovation.

What you are dedicating for is monopolies. Those are anti-competitive. You can become very wealthy indeed by controlling a monopoly. But that is something we should not encourage—and should actively prevent.

Just as we should make it very very difficult to become ultra wealthy. And we should ensure that wealth does not insulate the wealthy from consequences.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your point seems to be that it is more important for billionaires to continue to profit enormously from the labor of workers who should be satisfied with wages that do not allow them to simultaneously have decent housing, sufficient decent food and to save for their eventual retirement. Hell, these days billionaires are saying no one should retire, ever, much less enjoy a decent standard of living and the ability to raise and educate children should they so desire to have children.

So that billionaires can maybe not make it to trillionaire status.

You continue to think employers have some duty that doesn't actually exist.

You think that by destroying bad jobs you'll just have good jobs--true, to an extent, but you'll also have unemployment. Lots and lots of unemployment.

 

[Elixir]

Your lips to the progressivism god's ears. People do not exist to benefit corporations, increase their profits or to benefit shareholders. Say it to yourself a hundred times, just to make sure you have it down. Then reason from it! Follow its implications to where they lead.

When we give someone with $1700 in wages another $300 in food stamps, we do it because he is our fellow man and we value him at at least $2000. From this it does not follow that his labor is also worth at least $2000. He himself can be worth more than his labor is worth, because he himself is more than his labor, because people do not exist to benefit corporations, increase their profits or to benefit shareholders!

Your analysis is based on the assumption of a competitive labor market with fully informed economic agents (i.e. that workers are paid their contribution to production). That model is a valuable starting point to looking at labor markets, but the underlying assumptions make it an unrealistic depiction.

You are not refuting him one bit.

And note that "workers are paid their contribution to production" is yet another guise for the labor theory of value. In practice it's a dog-whistle for "more", as the analysis never captures all of what does not come from that worker, and in would never happen in a sane market as an employer who pays the worker the full value of their work gains nothing, why hire them?

A good employer CREATES value or DERIVES value from the work the employee does. If that employee was capable of creating or deriving the same or more value without the employer, they would be self employed and would be making more money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are many many successful businesses that do not create billionaires. In fact, most of them do not create billionaires. Our corporate tax structure certainly seems to allow a lot of businesses to believe themselves created and to flourish.

Do you know what is anti-business creation? Monopolies. Do you know what is anti-business creation and anti-democratic? Media conglomerates that own huge shares of media, including news media. We are seeing right now that billionaires do not like to have their underlings do anything like—criticize their decisions. Think first themselves. Actually present facts to the people.

You know what creates monopolies? Coming up with a better idea.

I do have a problem with the media conglomerates, though.

 

[Elixir]

Sheesh. We sure have a lot of economic genius in the brain trust here, considering that none of us is the billionaire about whose intents and abilities we wax prolix.

 

[Toni]

Your point seems to be that it is more important for billionaires to continue to profit enormously from the labor of workers who should be satisfied with wages that do not allow them to simultaneously have decent housing, sufficient decent food and to save for their eventual retirement. Hell, these days billionaires are saying no one should retire, ever, much less enjoy a decent standard of living and the ability to raise and educate children should they so desire to have children.

So that billionaires can maybe not make it to trillionaire status.

You continue to think employers have some duty that doesn't actually exist.

You think that by destroying bad jobs you'll just have good jobs--true, to an extent, but you'll also have unemployment. Lots and lots of unemployment.

Your reply does not reflect anything I wrote. I’m not advocating to destroy bad jobs. I’m advocating for decent pay for all.

Employers have the same duty as everyone else to act like decent, responsible human beings and to behave with integrity towards everyone, including their employees.

You seem to be advocating for allowing employers to behave according to a different set of rules than everyone else. That is very anti-democratic.

 

[Toni]

There are many many successful businesses that do not create billionaires. In fact, most of them do not create billionaires. Our corporate tax structure certainly seems to allow a lot of businesses to believe themselves created and to flourish.

Do you know what is anti-business creation? Monopolies. Do you know what is anti-business creation and anti-democratic? Media conglomerates that own huge shares of media, including news media. We are seeing right now that billionaires do not like to have their underlings do anything like—criticize their decisions. Think first themselves. Actually present facts to the people.

You know what creates monopolies? Coming up with a better idea.

I do have a problem with the media conglomerates, though.

Bullshit. What creates monopolies is allowing mergers that reduce competition and innovation.

If it is bad for media—and it is very bad indeed—it is bad for other businesses as well.

 

[laughing dog]

Your point seems to be that it is more important for billionaires to continue to profit enormously from the labor of workers who should be satisfied with wages that do not allow them to simultaneously have decent housing, sufficient decent food and to save for their eventual retirement. Hell, these days billionaires are saying no one should retire, ever, much less enjoy a decent standard of living and the ability to raise and educate children should they so desire to have children.

So that billionaires can maybe not make it to trillionaire status.

You continue to think employers have some duty that doesn't actually exist.

You think that by destroying bad jobs you'll just have good jobs--true, to an extent, but you'll also have unemployment. Lots and lots of unemployment.

You keep asserting that without an iota of evidence to support it. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not true.

 

[ZiprHead]

Income is money or value received by an individual or business in exchange for goods, services, labor, or investments. It is the total consumption and saving opportunity gained within a specified timeframe, and serves as the foundation for measuring economic growth, assigning tax burdens, and evaluating wealth. [1, 2, 3, 4] - Legal Information Institute

It was a political decision to exempt stock gains from income.

It was necessary. Trying to tax gains results in a nightmare.

You're going to force anyone who runs a successful corporation to sell it off to pay the taxes. Major punishment for success.

How does that work?

You make a company that has a bright future but for now it's growing rather than making income.

You just taxed the owner out, you probably just destroyed the company.

A company that is growing instead of making income is most probably not paying their executive in shares of stocks.

And what exactly is the value of the corporation? We can approximate it if it's widely traded, but stock prices in essence are the net present value of the expected total future earnings. That is horrendously sensitive to the discount rate used on figuring the value of future earnings, and thus horrendously sensitive to expected long term interest rates. And this is just a market consensus, not anything you can truly calculate.

When a company isn't widely traded it gets much worse. What is the value? We've seen tax games based on this--put a bunch of shares of fuzzy value into an IRA. The more specific the item and the less like things are traded makes it even fuzzier. I've seen an attorney throw up her hands over even ballparking the value of something.

What is a fuzzy value? The price of the share is the price of the share.

And not everything is that simple. Not all assets are shares of widely traded public corporations.

Consider the case I just mentioned. The asset was a share of a LLP who owned one asset--a chunk of land in the path of anticipated development. What is the value? Extremely variable based on how people evaluate the chance that development actually reaches that point. It's a share, not the whole land--no control over if or when any value would be realized.

So who said anything about a chunk of land in this situation? We're talking about extremely wealthy individuals who are paid in stocks specifically to avoid income taxes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Was it Musk's idea to create an electric roadster?

Frankly, a library card and access to the science fiction section is where most of his "ideas" came from.

Ideas are more than just "electric car" or "rocket".

Look at why SpaceX is utterly eating the competition: the Muskrat didn't set out to build the best rocket. He set out to build an inexpensive rocket, sacrificing a lot of performance on less than the best technologies--but despite having to burn a lot more fuel per pound delivered they're vastly ahead on price per pound delivered.