2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Harry Bosch]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!

IMO, the best retirement vehicle for workers is an HSA. HSAs are super Roths in that they lower taxable income; and all gains are never taxed. I would say that depending on the 401k plan, the next best is a 401k that comes with a match. The last time I was a wage slave, my company doubled matched every dollar that I put in my 401k. But Roths are very good also. Totally agree with you. I'm studying rolling over some of my IRAs each year into a roth, and paying taxes for the longer term benefit.

 

[Toni]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!

IMO, the best retirement vehicle for workers is an HSA. HSAs are super Roths in that they lower taxable income; and all gains are never taxed. I would say that depending on the 401k plan, the next best is a 401k that comes with a match. The last time I was a wage slave, my company doublied matched every dollar that I put in my 401k. But Roths are very good also. Totally agree with you. I'm studying rolling over some of my IRAs each year into a roth, and paying taxes for the longer term benefit.

HSA = Health Savings Account? If so, they can only be used for health expenses, not living expenses. I agree that a health savings account is a great asset to have. The older you get the more valuable.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!

IMO, the best retirement vehicle for workers is an HSA. HSAs are super Roths in that they lower taxable income; and all gains are never taxed. I would say that depending on the 401k plan, the next best is a 401k that comes with a match. The last time I was a wage slave, my company doublied matched every dollar that I put in my 401k. But Roths are very good also. Totally agree with you. I'm studying rolling over some of my IRAs each year into a roth, and paying taxes for the longer term benefit.

HSA = Health Savings Account? If so, they can only be used for health expenses, not living expenses. I agree that a health savings account is a great asset to have. The older you get the more valuable.

When I was working for a company, I maxed my HSA but paid all medical expenses for health care out of pocket. Saved the HSA. At age 65, that HSA cash can be used for any living expense that you deem necessary. No limitations. It's a great deal. The only problem with HSA is that finding a good long term mutual fund with good long-term returns isn't easy. Other than they are gold...

 

[Toni]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!

IMO, the best retirement vehicle for workers is an HSA. HSAs are super Roths in that they lower taxable income; and all gains are never taxed. I would say that depending on the 401k plan, the next best is a 401k that comes with a match. The last time I was a wage slave, my company doublied matched every dollar that I put in my 401k. But Roths are very good also. Totally agree with you. I'm studying rolling over some of my IRAs each year into a roth, and paying taxes for the longer term benefit.

HSA = Health Savings Account? If so, they can only be used for health expenses, not living expenses. I agree that a health savings account is a great asset to have. The older you get the more valuable.

When I was working for a company, I maxed my HSA but paid all medical expenses for health care out of pocket. Saved the HSA. At age 65, that HSA cash can be used for any living expense that you deem necessary. No limitations. It's a great deal. The only problem with HSA is that finding a good long term mutual fund with good long-term returns isn't easy. Other than they are gold...

Our HSA is through my husband's former employer. It has many more restrictions on its use than any living expense the recipient deems necessary. I wonder if it is a state by state case, as governed by state law.

When I was at my last job, we did not get an HSA per say, but we got an allowance every year for health related expenses, including dental and eye and vision. It could accumulate up to three years worth of contributions. We only touched that account for things our insurance did not cover: eye glasses primarily. There was a decent balance at the end of my employment and we used most of it up on eyewear, prescription eye glasses.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!

IMO, the best retirement vehicle for workers is an HSA. HSAs are super Roths in that they lower taxable income; and all gains are never taxed. I would say that depending on the 401k plan, the next best is a 401k that comes with a match. The last time I was a wage slave, my company doublied matched every dollar that I put in my 401k. But Roths are very good also. Totally agree with you. I'm studying rolling over some of my IRAs each year into a roth, and paying taxes for the longer term benefit.

HSA = Health Savings Account? If so, they can only be used for health expenses, not living expenses. I agree that a health savings account is a great asset to have. The older you get the more valuable.

When I was working for a company, I maxed my HSA but paid all medical expenses for health care out of pocket. Saved the HSA. At age 65, that HSA cash can be used for any living expense that you deem necessary. No limitations. It's a great deal. The only problem with HSA is that finding a good long term mutual fund with good long-term returns isn't easy. Other than they are gold...

Our HSA is through my husband's former employer. It has many more restrictions on its use than any living expense the recipient deems necessary. I wonder if it is a state by state case, as governed by state law.

When I was at my last job, we did not get an HSA per say, but we got an allowance every year for health related expenses, including dental and eye and vision. It could accumulate up to three years worth of contributions. We only touched that account for things our insurance did not cover: eye glasses primarily. There was a decent balance at the end of my employment and we used most of it up on eyewear, prescription eye glasses.

I apologize. I gave out incorrect information. You can use HSA for any non-medical expense after the age of 65, but the HSA that you use for non-medical would be reported as taxable income. It's just that you don't have to pay a penalty. Before age 65, only use for medical or you'll pay a penalty and increase taxes. Below are the exact rules from IRS:

Qualified Medical Expenses​

You can continue to use your HSA funds tax-free for qualified medical expenses, including doctor visits, prescriptions, dental and vision care, medical equipment, and certain Medicare premiums such as Part B, Part D, and Medicare Advantage plans. However, HSA funds cannot be used for Medigap premiums. This allows your HSA to remain a powerful tool for covering healthcare costs in retirement without incurring taxes on these withdrawals truemed.com+2.

Non-Medical Expenses​

Once you turn 65, you may also use your HSA for any non-medical expenses—for example, travel, hobbies, or other personal purchases—without facing the 20% early withdrawal penalty that applies before age 65. These withdrawals are treated like distributions from a traditional IRA or 401(k), meaning you will owe ordinary income tax on the amount withdrawn InsuredAndMore.com+3.

After age 65, you can use your HSA for any expense without penalty, but non-medical withdrawals are subject to ordinary income tax.​

Qualified Medical Expenses​

You can continue to use your HSA funds tax-free for qualified medical expenses, including doctor visits, prescriptions, dental and vision care, medical equipment, and certain Medicare premiums such as Part B, Part D, and Medicare Advantage plans. However, HSA funds cannot be used for Medigap premiums. This allows your HSA to remain a powerful tool for covering healthcare costs in retirement without incurring taxes on these withdrawals truemed.com+2.

Non-Medical Expenses​

Once you turn 65, you may also use your HSA for any non-medical expenses—for example, travel, hobbies, or other personal purchases—without facing the 20% early withdrawal penalty that applies before age 65. These withdrawals are treated like distributions from a traditional IRA or 401(k), meaning you will owe ordinary income tax on the amount withdrawn

​

 

[Derec]

Did you not notice how protesters used fires as barriers?

Some of them did. Other protesters set things on fire because they were angry.

This case being used as an example of protesters = looters pretty much shows I'm right.

No, it doesn't. Looters, at least most of them, as well as arsonists and general rioters, are are subset of #BLM protesters who were more angry and more willing to break the law. The examples I provided - Colinford Mattis, Urooj Rahman, Shamar Betts, and Desmond David Pitts are all supporters of Black Lives Matter, not people apart from that movement.

 

[thebeave]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!

IMO, the best retirement vehicle for workers is an HSA. HSAs are super Roths in that they lower taxable income; and all gains are never taxed. I would say that depending on the 401k plan, the next best is a 401k that comes with a match. The last time I was a wage slave, my company doubled matched every dollar that I put in my 401k. But Roths are very good also. Totally agree with you. I'm studying rolling over some of my IRAs each year into a roth, and paying taxes for the longer term benefit.

The story on my Roth IRA is fairly interesting. Like you, when I was a wage slave, I had a 401k and my employer would match my contribution 50%. Very nice. I quit being a wage slave about the same year that the Roth IRAs came to be (1997, I think?). They had a one time deal where you could rollover into a Roth and pay the taxes evenly distributed over a four year period. So, I did that with my 401k. At the same time, I still had a 20% Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)* for when I bought my townhouse. Couple that with the lower income I was making for the next few years (I lived a life of leisure mostly for a few years after being the wage slave), I worked it out so I paid no Federal taxes at all for those 4 years (a little bit in CA state taxes though). Bottom line, I never paid a single dime of taxes on that Roth IRA, and it has grown a lot since it started in 1997. The planets were aligned for me back then! The only thing that sucks is that I made a few bad investment choices. Shoulda just kept the thing in an index fund from the get-go.

* a program for first time homebuyers that allows you to deduct 80% of the mortgage interest from your taxes, and take 20% of that interest as a direct tax credit. No limit on how big the credit can be.

 

[Derec]

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

A stock option is not taxed until it is exercised. Once you actually receive the benefit, it is a taxable event.

I'm talking about both.

You are conflating them, even though they are very different.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

It is paid when the option is exercised, i.e. when the recipient receives the stock.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!

IMO, the best retirement vehicle for workers is an HSA. HSAs are super Roths in that they lower taxable income; and all gains are never taxed. I would say that depending on the 401k plan, the next best is a 401k that comes with a match. The last time I was a wage slave, my company doubled matched every dollar that I put in my 401k. But Roths are very good also. Totally agree with you. I'm studying rolling over some of my IRAs each year into a roth, and paying taxes for the longer term benefit.

The story on my Roth IRA is fairly interesting. Like you, when I was a wage slave, I had a 401k and my employer would match my contribution 50%. Very nice. I quit being a wage slave about the same year that the Roth IRAs came to be (1997, I think?). They had a one time deal where you could rollover into a Roth and pay the taxes evenly distributed over a four year period. So, I did that with my 401k. At the same time, I still had a 20% Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)* for when I bought my townhouse. Couple that with the lower income I was making for the next few years (I lived a life of leisure mostly for a few years after being the wage slave), I worked it out so I paid no Federal taxes at all for those 4 years (a little bit in CA state taxes though). Bottom line, I never paid a single dime of taxes on that Roth IRA, and it has grown a lot since it started in 1997. The planets were aligned for me back then! The only thing that sucks is that I made a few bad investment choices. Shoulda just kept the thing in an index fund from the get-go.

* a program for first time homebuyers that allows you to deduct 80% of the mortgage interest from your taxes, and take 20% of that interest as a direct tax credit. No limit on how big the credit can be.

You should be in great shape! Yes, I've kept all our retirement money in Vanguard index funds. Mostly S&P. I've never sold. I'm just now moving to a 50-50 split, equities to bonds. But we've weathered many downs. You don't lose until you sell. But of course, we haven't had as many super highs either. But I agree with your earlier assessment, Roth's are the bomb. Every younger worker should maximize them.

 

[Derec]

It's good that you were on topic, but I read about the man you are criticizing and it sounds as if he's a pretty good person.

I do not think any disciple of the Blind Sheikh can be described as a "good person". The Blind Sheikh was a terrorist leader, not just a generic "bad person" like, say Hasan Piker, with whom Hamawy campaigned and also had an interview.
In that interview, he said he opposed Israel's Iron Dome system because he wants Hamas to have an easier time killing Jews. Not in those words, but that is the effect of Israel not being "insulated" from attacks by Hamas or Hezbollah.

What is completely ignored by the Hamas caucus of the Democratic Party is that Hamas started this war. Israel did not attack Gaza on 10/7/2023. It was Hamas which attacked Israel.

He associated with the bad guy back in 1991 and that guy is now dead after serving a life sentence for his crimes.

Does not negate his involvement. Is somebody like this really somebody we should want in Congress?
Imagine a similar scenario. That a Republican candidate for Congress in Oklahoma was involved with Timothy McVeigh in the early 1990s. Accompanied him on trips to meet with other far-right and Christian nationalist groups, and helped him translate materials. And then was called to testify on his behalf at his trial. Would somebody like that be acceptable, no matter than Timothy McVeigh is dead? Then why should Hamawy be?

Why do some of us worry so much about something a person did decades ago, despite no evidence that they've committed any crimes themselves?

It shows that he subscribes to an Islamist, anti-Western ideology. It also shows very poor judgment. Again, would you be so dismissive if the terrorist was a Christian nationalist one like Timothy McVeigh and not an Islamist one like Omar Abdel-Rahman?

I am not afraid of people who identify as Muslims as long as they aren't pushing their beliefs into government. What scares me are the White Christian Nationalists who are working hard to turn our country into a Christian theocracy.

Only white Christian nationalists? Why bring race into it at all? I think ideologies like Islamism and also black nationalism are equally vile and should not be given a pass.

Mandami seems to be struggling in the early months of his role as mayor of NYC, but it has nothing to do with his religion.

Mamdani snubbing the Israel Day parade while gleefully participating in Pakistan Day is very much because of his religion.

I seriously doubt if Adam Hamawy wins his election that his past relationship with one bad guy in 1991 is going to have any impact on Congress.

That remains to be seen. There are others campaigning with Hasan Piker. Chris Rabb for example may not be Muslim himself, but he is still a Piker-backed far-left anti-Israel ideologue. Abdul El-Sayed also may win the primary for MI Senate, although that general election is competitive, unlike congressional races in PA-3 and NJ-12.

Which brings me to reiterate that the way primaries are run in most of the country is bonkers. Hamawy is polling at 19%, which means that if he wins, it will be with far less than majority of the vote, and perhaps with even less than 25%. There needs to be some reform of the system, with either traditional or instant runoff voting. The South is often denigrated for our voting practices, but I think requiring a majority is good and democratic. Having a Representative who only carried a small minority of the vote in his party is not.

So, don't worry Derec. Trump and company are the real problem in the US and it could take decades to decrease the horrible impact he and his cult have had on our country.

There can be more than one problem. Just because Trump et al are bad does not mean it's a good thing that Dems are sliding toward islamo-leftism (the alliance between far left and Islamist politics originally described in France as "Islamo-gauchisme"). And no, the horrible impact Trumpism has had on our country will not be mitigated, much less reversed, that way.

Now, can more of you get on topic, instead of arguing about billionaires? I sure would like some of those who are running for Congress to talk about prison reform. Our prisons are disgusting, inhumane places for the most part. I've read many articles about the way prisoners are treated. Is anyone running even bringing up that topic?

Are any candidates talking about that in any sensible way? There should be prison reform without embracing idiotic things like prison abolition and decarceration for dangerous criminals.
Maybe we should start by removing crimes from the books that do not make any sense. Legalizing marijuana and consensual sex work would go a long way removing needless arrests and prosecutions.
But I do not think things like theft, robbery, etc. should be decriminalized.

 

[thebeave]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

But you don't get to use the money without paying the tax.

Ever hear of the phrase "a tax deferred is a tax not paid"?

Retired people with RMD's coming due sure wish this were true!

Eh... taxes on RMDs are for suckers. Roth IRA all the way for me!

IMO, the best retirement vehicle for workers is an HSA. HSAs are super Roths in that they lower taxable income; and all gains are never taxed. I would say that depending on the 401k plan, the next best is a 401k that comes with a match. The last time I was a wage slave, my company doubled matched every dollar that I put in my 401k. But Roths are very good also. Totally agree with you. I'm studying rolling over some of my IRAs each year into a roth, and paying taxes for the longer term benefit.

The story on my Roth IRA is fairly interesting. Like you, when I was a wage slave, I had a 401k and my employer would match my contribution 50%. Very nice. I quit being a wage slave about the same year that the Roth IRAs came to be (1997, I think?). They had a one time deal where you could rollover into a Roth and pay the taxes evenly distributed over a four year period. So, I did that with my 401k. At the same time, I still had a 20% Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)* for when I bought my townhouse. Couple that with the lower income I was making for the next few years (I lived a life of leisure mostly for a few years after being the wage slave), I worked it out so I paid no Federal taxes at all for those 4 years (a little bit in CA state taxes though). Bottom line, I never paid a single dime of taxes on that Roth IRA, and it has grown a lot since it started in 1997. The planets were aligned for me back then! The only thing that sucks is that I made a few bad investment choices. Shoulda just kept the thing in an index fund from the get-go.

* a program for first time homebuyers that allows you to deduct 80% of the mortgage interest from your taxes, and take 20% of that interest as a direct tax credit. No limit on how big the credit can be.

You should be in great shape! Yes, I've kept all our retirement money in Vanguard index funds. Mostly S&P. I've never sold. I'm just now moving to a 50-50 split, equities to bonds. But we've weathered many downs. You don't lose until you sell. But of course, we haven't had as many super highs either. But I agree with your earlier assessment, Roth's are the bomb. Every younger worker should maximize them.

Yeah, I'm not too worried. Sounds like you're doing OK too. I'm all in index funds (S&P 500 and QQQs) and cash at the moment. Playing it kinda safe as I move into retirement (signed up for Medicare 3 days ago!). The massive federal debt and the world situation has me a little worried. Maybe time to buy some gold bars and bury them in the backyard too!

 

[ZiprHead]

And you still have no idea what's going on.

Nobody said they are being paid shares of stock.

That is the very essence of the argument being made, that the ceo class is being paid in stocks rather than 1040 taxable income. You are not this dense.

If that's your argument, go home.

Nobody's saying they are being paid in shares. That's entirely a figment of your misunderstanding.

And being paid in shares is a taxable event. The strategy you say they are using doesn't work.

What is actually happening is that they have shares from when they created the corporation.

According to google, less that 5% of ceos on the Fortune 500 list were company founders. They are employees who get the privilege to set their own wages and benefits.

 

[Derec]

From Hamawy's testimony on behalf of the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman:

Hamawy knew he was a jihadist, and he still associated with him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Google points to an X post citing stock sales of $15.7B in 2020-21 and $13.6B in 2023. The post appears to assume the entire amount was taxed as long-term gain.

Plenty of money to fund his yacht and other hobbies. So, no need to to borrow anything as part of "buy, borrow, die". Why do you then assume he did?

Because that’s how billionaires minimize taxes.

So they are guilty without proof.

No. This is a well known strategy that wealthy people do not try to hide. They hire expensive accountants and Stoney’s in order to help them minimize their tax burden.

I don’t fault them for seeking to minimize their tax liability. Most people do the same.

I am refusing to pretend that they don’t do this, that they do not directly or indecently lobby legislators and local governments ts to minimize their tax burden. Or that society does not pick up the tab.

But then I don’t worship ultra wealthy .

It's a sane strategy if you want more than comes in from other sources. That doesn't mean they don't get enough from other sources to want it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you still have no idea what's going on.

Nobody said they are being paid shares of stock.

That is the very essence of the argument being made, that the ceo class is being paid in stocks rather than 1040 taxable income. You are not this dense.

If that's your argument, go home.

Nobody's saying they are being paid in shares. That's entirely a figment of your misunderstanding.

And being paid in shares is a taxable event. The strategy you say they are using doesn't work.

What is actually happening is that they have shares from when they created the corporation.

According to google, less that 5% of ceos on the Fortune 500 list were company founders. They are employees who get the privilege to set their own wages and benefits.

We are talking about the ultra-rich.

 

[bilby]

It's good that you were on topic, but I read about the man you are criticizing and it sounds as if he's a pretty good person.

I do not think any disciple of the Blind Sheikh can be described as a "good person".

Which is all well and good, but which glosses over your use of the word "disciple".

Do you have any reason to believe that he not only knew and associated with the man, but was also a convinced adherent of his teachings who assisted in spreading his doctrines?

Because that's what you are claiming when you describe him as a "disciple", rather than (for example) an "associate" or even "friend".

It is possible to be a friend or associate of a bad person without sharing his beliefs. Indeed, this very post is an example of just that.

 

[bilby]

Maybe time to buy some gold bars and bury them in the backyard too!

Plummeting gold price impacts Australian dollar as Iran war pushes it into bear market

The price of gold has fallen 20 per cent from its record high of $US5,597 in late January.

 

[Bomb#20]

As for how it compares to a billionaire's use, we'd have to take it item by item. They use Medicaid, emergency rooms for non-emergency medical problems, social services, food stamps, EITC, and public parks and sidewalks as homes more than a billionaire would. Medicare, could be the same. Roads, less. Public schools and police protection, that's going to depend on how you measure it and I'd expect estimates to vary wildly. And of course there are plenty of other things impoverished people use less or not at all that I didn't include because it was a list of counterexamples to your claim. But the question in dispute wasn't whether they consume less than a billionaire, but whether the billionaire's use is disproportionately greater compared to the ratio of their tax bills. You've produced no facts to back up your claim about that.

And how do you even measure?

Do you count the police time dealing with criminal activity directed at the billionaire as due to the billionaire or due to the criminals?

Due to the criminal doesn't mean the billionaire isn't using it. When I said poor people use police protection it wasn't because criminals are poor -- it's because criminals target poor people. So which potential crime victims are benefitting from the police protection? In a sense it's mostly the poor, who are more likely to be robbed. But the robbers arrested for robbing poor people would have gotten better at stealing if they weren't locked up, and moved up to targeting rich people, at which point the rich people would lose a lot more than the poor people. Locking up a criminal protects people at all economic levels regardless of who the actual crime victim was.

And what counts as using a road? Do panhandlers accepting money from a car use the road?

Sure, but that's a lot less use and a lot less wear-and-tear than drivers.

Medicare and public school--why do you think the answer would be anything other than "less"? They're more likely to go to private options.

The best-equipped hospital systems serve the public. Why would a billionaire use his private concierge doctor for something life-threatening if the top surgeon is at UCSF? (His physical-therapist, sure, he'll have one on staff, but that's not where the big outlays go.) If he's over 65 and goes to UCSF then Medicare will pay for him same as anyone else.

As for public schools, sure, no doubt he sends his kids to private school, but that's small change compared to his hundred thousand employees who can only do the work he hires them for because public schools taught them reading, writing and arithmetic.

 

[bilby]

the robbers arrested for robbing poor people would have gotten better at stealing if they weren't locked up,

This seems unlikely; Many criminals learn their trade in prison.

Locking up a criminal protects people at all economic levels regardless of who the actual crime victim was.

This is also highly debatable. The value of prison as a means to lower crime seems dubious at best; It's one of those Eighteenth Century utopian experiments, like the United States of America, that works far better in theory than it does in practice.

 

[Bomb#20]

the robbers arrested for robbing poor people would have gotten better at stealing if they weren't locked up,

This seems unlikely; Many criminals learn their trade in prison.

Locking up a criminal protects people at all economic levels regardless of who the actual crime victim was.

This is also highly debatable. The value of prison as a means to lower crime seems dubious at best; It's one of those Eighteenth Century utopian experiments, like the United States of America, that works far better in theory than it does in practice.

Oh well, in that case, I guess we'd better just send them to Australia.