• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump Will Likely Win

Swammerdami said:
Two points regarding this final paragraph:
(1) It was written by Swammi as shown here, not by Derec as the earlier post incorrectly showed.
Click to expand...
You refer to yourself in the third person?
(2) 3.4% is a low net tax rate, because unrealized gains are NOT taxed.
Click to expand...
Because of the second clause, that percentage is not a tax rate at all, much less a "net" tax rate.
However, as previous threads have pointed out, billionaires can often "realize" their unrealized gains by simply borrowing from banks and using the shares as collateral. IOW, Musk can SPEND many billions tax-free, by simply letting his estate, upon his death, give his Tesla stock to the lenders.
Click to expand...
Of course the lenders run the risk of Tesla still being a viable company and Tesla stock still worth something when he dies, which may be four decades from now. Would you take that risk? I wouldn't. Certainly not after the Cybertruck debacle. Tesla did a lot to make electric cars mainstream, and as I said before, Elon Musk did more to fight climate change than a hundred AOCs, but that does not mean that as a company Tesla will be viable long term.
Also, if it was so easy to avoid taxes by getting loans, why are billionaires still paying billions in taxes?
Elon Musk says he'll be paying $11bn in tax this year
That said, I would not be opposed to closing this loophole and making this quasi-realization taxable.
It is better than just taxing all unrealized gains, which are just on paper and may disappear as easily as they appear, since the stock market is volatile. And it is 1000x better than making up quotients and calling them "true tax rate" or "net tax rate" even though the denominator is not taxable and not income either.
 
Derec said:
Shadowy Man said:
If they were being physically assaulted by them then possibly yes. In fact, according to some here, simply being threatened or even feeling scared is enough to justify a police shooting.
Click to expand...
The 2020 rioters attacked and took over multiple police stations throughout the US. They burned down police cars. They engaged in orders of magnitude more violence than MAGA did on 1/6.
Click to expand...
Then I guess it is just as puzzling why they wouldn’t fight back as they should have on Jan 6th.

They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.
 
bilby said:
It's the whole purpose of democracy to make the violent deposing of an unpopular leader unnecessary.
Click to expand...
What if both people running are unpopular with about half the country? That does not give the other one the right to violence just because they lost an election.
It does this by presenting the leader (and the country) with the fact that a majority of the people want him gone; The idea being that if he doesn't go, they could bring violence to bear successfully, because they outnumber his supporters.
Click to expand...
But Colonel Sanders was talking about violence if Trump wins in 2024, not if he refuses to leave in January 2029.
At least that's how I understood him. Colonel Sanders, care to elaborate?
The use of violence to overturn an election wherein the victor was the less popular candidate is perfectly in accord with the fundamental principle of democracy, which has as it's objective the removal of violence as the sole option for replacing an unpopular leader.
Click to expand...
Define "popular"? The nationwide popular vote is not a good metric, as both campaigns are run with the electoral college in mind. The popular vote would look different if the election was run under popular vote rules.
In Australia, you do not have popular vote either. You vote for your MP, and one of their roles is to act as a sort of electoral college and elect the head of government. Does that give sore losers permission to engage in violence, even if they firmly believe that their guy is more popular?
 
Last edited:
Shadowy Man said:
Then I guess it is just as puzzling why they wouldn’t fight back as they should have on Jan 6th.
They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.
Click to expand...
Well, an unarmed woman was killed on 1/6.

And in 2020, Antifa/#BLM rioters murdered a retired police captain and an 8 year old girl among others.
 
Derec said:
Shadowy Man said:
Then I guess it is just as puzzling why they wouldn’t fight back as they should have on Jan 6th.
They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.
Click to expand...
Well, an unarmed woman was killed on 1/6.

And in 2020, Antifa/#BLM rioters murdered a retired police captain and an 8 year old girl among others.
Click to expand...
Ok.

I guess I’m just confused about what the police protocols are then because it would seem like they don’t shoot when it really seems justified and sometimes do shoot when it really isn’t.
 
Derec said:
Shadowy Man said:
Then I guess it is just as puzzling why they wouldn’t fight back as they should have on Jan 6th.
They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.
Click to expand...
Well, an unarmed woman was killed on 1/6.

And in 2020, Antifa/#BLM rioters murdered a retired police captain and an 8 year old girl among others.
Click to expand...

That was just payback for Kyle Rittenhouse’s unpunished rampage of terror and death. Has nothing to do with the lady who was spearheading a group of hundreds of violent thugs in the act of sacking the Capitol to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power, after your apologee lost a free and fair election “in a landslide”. (His words, describing the same electoral margin by which he prevailed in 2016).
 
Elixir said:
That was just payback for Kyle Rittenhouse’s unpunished rampage of terror and death.
Click to expand...
Preemptive payback? The Kenosha riots happened in August and the two #BLM murders I mentioned happened in June.
Also, Ritt did not "rampage", but was defending himself from attack by Antifa felons, one of them a convicted pedophile.
Obviously, self-defense should not be punished.
Has nothing to do with the lady who was spearheading a group of hundreds of violent thugs in the act of sacking the Capitol to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power, after your apologee lost a free and fair election “in a landslide”. (His words, describing the same electoral margin by which he prevailed in 2016).
Click to expand...
I am not defending January 6th. Obviously Trump lost.
However, why do you leftists feel the need to pretend that the Left wasn't incredibly violent in 2020, burning and vandalizing private businesses and government buildings/vehicles alike, occupying territory for weeks or months, and even killing people?
 
Derec said:
I am not defending January 6th. Obviously Trump lost.
However, why do you leftists feel the need to pretend that the Left wasn't incredibly violent in 2020, burning and vandalizing private businesses and government buildings/vehicles alike, occupying territory for weeks or months, and even killing people?
Click to expand...
I am neither a leftist nor pretending the riots in 2020 weren’t violent.
 
Elixir said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The live on borrowing keeps being presented--over the long run the interest exceeds the tax savings. People do it because they feel they can make more in the market than the cost of the money.
Click to expand...
It's a loophole. And a huge one.
Click to expand...

Yup. As Loren points out, it doesn’t even net them that much. Mostly they’re paying the banks instead of the treasury. But that extra point or two they “save” amounts to more in a year for some, than most people will make in their lifetime. And it costs the Treasury (YOU) about ten times that amount; the rest went to the banks.
Click to expand...
And getting extremely low interest rates from those banks.
 
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
When Reagan made a huge cut to the tax rate it didn't result in a big change to tax revenue because the same change removed a whole bunch of those loopholes. Very few people were actually paying the old rates. (Note that the numbers from the time aren't meaningful--most of the issues were things that kept money from showing up as income in the first place.)
Click to expand...
Good thing those loopholes were removed.

If that sounds impossible to achieve, just look at the leaked tax returns of the wealthiest Americans that nonprofit news site ProPublica analyzed in 2021: Over several years, billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg, among others, paid no federal income taxes at all.
Click to expand...
Oops!

www.vox.com

The billionaire’s guide to doing taxes

How the very rich lose money, overvalue art, buy very expensive life insurance, and somehow profit.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
Click to expand...
The live on borrowing keeps being presented--over the long run the interest exceeds the tax savings. People do it because they feel they can make more in the market than the cost of the money.
Click to expand...
It's a loophole. And a huge one.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. They aren't doing it for tax reasons.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
When Reagan made a huge cut to the tax rate it didn't result in a big change to tax revenue because the same change removed a whole bunch of those loopholes. Very few people were actually paying the old rates. (Note that the numbers from the time aren't meaningful--most of the issues were things that kept money from showing up as income in the first place.)
Click to expand...
Good thing those loopholes were removed.

If that sounds impossible to achieve, just look at the leaked tax returns of the wealthiest Americans that nonprofit news site ProPublica analyzed in 2021: Over several years, billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg, among others, paid no federal income taxes at all.
Click to expand...
Oops!

www.vox.com

The billionaire’s guide to doing taxes

How the very rich lose money, overvalue art, buy very expensive life insurance, and somehow profit.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
Click to expand...
The live on borrowing keeps being presented--over the long run the interest exceeds the tax savings. People do it because they feel they can make more in the market than the cost of the money.
Click to expand...
It's a loophole. And a huge one.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. They aren't doing it for tax reasons.
Click to expand...
:picardfacepalm:
 
Elixir said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The live on borrowing keeps being presented--over the long run the interest exceeds the tax savings. People do it because they feel they can make more in the market than the cost of the money.
Click to expand...
It's a loophole. And a huge one.
Click to expand...

Yup. As Loren points out, it doesn’t even net them that much. Mostly they’re paying the banks instead of the treasury. But that extra point or two they “save” amounts to more in a year for some, than most people will make in their lifetime. And it costs the Treasury (YOU) about ten times that amount; the rest went to the banks.
Click to expand...
You missed the other part of what I was saying.

As a tax dodge--no, for a younger person the numbers do not work out. You'll pay more in margin interest than you'll save in taxes. This is being done because they feel they can make more with the money than the interest they are paying the bank. It's not just rich people--this is just a margin account on a large scale.
 
ZiprHead said:
Elixir said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The live on borrowing keeps being presented--over the long run the interest exceeds the tax savings. People do it because they feel they can make more in the market than the cost of the money.
Click to expand...
It's a loophole. And a huge one.
Click to expand...

Yup. As Loren points out, it doesn’t even net them that much. Mostly they’re paying the banks instead of the treasury. But that extra point or two they “save” amounts to more in a year for some, than most people will make in their lifetime. And it costs the Treasury (YOU) about ten times that amount; the rest went to the banks.
Click to expand...
And getting extremely low interest rates from those banks.
Click to expand...
So long as your account stays within limits brokerages are very willing to lend on margin. Since they have the shares sitting there the rates are low. And they'll give better rates when larger sums are involved. This is nothing unusual in the world of investing, not some huge tax conspiracy. Even if you're just a buy-and-hold index fund investor. The exchange traded funds have a little bit better outcome than the financial company funds--but they trade just like any other stock.
 
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The live on borrowing keeps being presented--over the long run the interest exceeds the tax savings. People do it because they feel they can make more in the market than the cost of the money.
Click to expand...
It's a loophole. And a huge one.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. They aren't doing it for tax reasons.
Click to expand...
:picardfacepalm:
Click to expand...
Why would they engage in a transaction that leaves them with less in the end? They aren't going to care if it goes to the IRS or the bank, they care about minimizing how much goes out. Capital gains vs earned income is basically a wash at a 6% market return--but if your shares are of a company doing a lot better than 6% you want your money in stock. That's their goal.
 
Derec said:
bilby said:
It's the whole purpose of democracy to make the violent deposing of an unpopular leader unnecessary.
Click to expand...
What if both people running are unpopular with about half the country? That does not give the other one the right to violence just because they lost an election.
Click to expand...
Everyone always has the right to violence.

The idea is to make it undesirable to exercise that right.
Derec said:
It does this by presenting the leader (and the country) with the fact that a majority of the people want him gone; The idea being that if he doesn't go, they could bring violence to bear successfully, because they outnumber his supporters.
Click to expand...
But Colonel Sanders was talking about violence if Trump wins in 2024, not if he refuses to leave in January 2029.
Click to expand...
That's not actually relevant to my post, which describes the general case.
Derec said:
At least that's how I understood him. Colonel Sanders, care to elaborate?
The use of violence to overturn an election wherein the victor was the less popular candidate is perfectly in accord with the fundamental principle of democracy, which has as it's objective the removal of violence as the sole option for replacing an unpopular leader.
Click to expand...
Define "popular"?
Click to expand...
In this context, the definition should be obvious - "not unpopular enough to incite a successful violent uprising".
Derec said:
The nationwide popular vote is not a good metric, as both campaigns are run with the electoral college in mind. The popular vote would look different if the election was run under popular vote rules.
Click to expand...
America isn't much of a democracy.
Derec said:
In Australia, you do not have popular vote either.
Click to expand...
Nor is Australia.
Derec said:
You vote for your MP, and one of their roles is to act as a sort of electoral college and elect the head of government.
Click to expand...
I am aware.
Derec said:
Does that give sore losers permission to engage in violence, even if they firmly believe that their guy is more popular?
Click to expand...
No. They always have that right, and need not ask permission from anyone.
 
Derec said:
Has nothing to do with the lady who was spearheading a group of hundreds of violent thugs in the act of sacking the Capitol to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power, after your apologee lost a free and fair election “in a landslide”. (His words, describing the same electoral margin by which he prevailed in 2016).
Click to expand...
I am not defending January 6th. Obviously Trump lost.
However, why do you leftists feel the need to pretend that the Left wasn't incredibly violent in 2020, burning and vandalizing private businesses and government buildings/vehicles alike, occupying territory for weeks or months, and even killing people?
Click to expand...
Incredibly violent? There was likely some left-wing political violence, but there was also racially based violence, and in the end there was likely more thuggish, lets burn and steal stuff shit that wasn't done for anything but indulgence. And there were militant right-wingers who burned stuff too, like the courthouse in Nashville. They are all crimes, but this "incredibly violent" thing... no, it wasn't incredibly violent. There was violence, and some isolated areas suffered greatly. But it wasn't common and it had many motives.

It'd been great if the people that committed these crimes were as stupid as the Capital Building invaders were, and posted self-incriminating evidence on the web to make it possible to convict them all of their crimes. But not all criminals are that stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom