Breakdown In Civil Order

[Emily Lake]

If banks consider it value so can the government. It's a huge tax dodge for mostly rich people. Why do you think CEO compensation has changed from actual dollars to stock options?

I get where you're coming from. But there's a side of this that I suspect you're not really thinking through.

Do you have a retirement account? Do you think it makes sense for the government to tax that retirement account on it's market value every year?

The sort of assets you're talking about get taxed when they are realized. It's not like they are completely exempt from taxes, it's just deferred. If you have non-liquid assets worth $100,000 right now, they're not taxed as long as they aren't actually money. As soon as you cash it in and it becomes money, it gets taxed.

That said, I'm quite happy to change the way in which realized gains get taxed. And I'd be quite happy if stock options were barred from being an element of compensation for employees and executives.

 

[Rhea]

Even tobacco has smugglers. Because of the high taxes in some states. But I doubt anyone is being killed over it.

Eric Garner would like a word…

 

[Rhea]

It's sarcasm being used to highlight the perceived absurdity of prioritizing social control over addressing issues critical to civil order. You seemed to hand waive it away as irrelevant prompting the reply you just received.

Political views about the supreme court, taxes, and whether capitalism is evil seem pretty far removed from what constitutes reasonable drug laws in my opinion.

And yet the topic is “Breakdown in Civil Order”

 

[Rhea]

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

And yes, I am aware of the unrealized capital gains issue. If you receive wealth you should be taxed on the wealth you receive.

The thing is unrealized capital gains is not receiving wealth. You didn't receive anything. The value of what you already had went up.

Let's look at this house. In the decade after we bought it it doubled in value. Should we have had to pay tax on that value? And then the housing collapse came along and knocked it back to what we had originally paid. Capital loss? Since then it has peaked somewhere around the same amount as before the prior collapse, it's dropped a bit since.

Should we have been taxed on all the increases, and taken losses in the bad years? And should we have had to have an appraisal every year to figure out the gains/losses? Stock is more liquid but none of the single-company guys could sell their stock for anything like what it's "worth". Trying to do so would crash the price.

If you are borrowing againmst the value of the house, you are ralizing the value.
If you use the stocks as collateral, you are realizing the value.

The current laws do not tax you for realizing the value of your wealth, but in my opion, they should. When you get money that you didn;t have yesterday, you have income.

If you recieved nothing then why do banks allow you to use "nothing" as collateral for loans.

Because it has value. But that value isn't realized until the asset is liquidated. Banks may allow some types of illiquid wealth as collateral, because the bank then has a claim against that asset. If you default on the loan, they can claim value from those assets and either directly take control of them (repossessing a vehicle or foreclosing on a home for example) or they can require that you liquidate the asset in order to repay the loan - even if such liquidation ends up costing you value.

So it acts exactly as if it is realized. You get money for your asset.

Do you have a retirement account? Do you think it makes sense for the government to tax that retirement account on it's market value every year?

If you are borrowing against that value, then yes.

 

[Politesse]

Ah yes, more cherry picked crime stories that only the British tabloids know anything about.

 

[Gospel]

It's sarcasm being used to highlight the perceived absurdity of prioritizing social control over addressing issues critical to civil order. You seemed to hand waive it away as irrelevant prompting the reply you just received.

Political views about the supreme court, taxes, and whether capitalism is evil seem pretty far removed from what constitutes reasonable drug laws in my opinion.

Supreme court rulings directly impact civil order.

Edit: So does Tax codes & capitalism.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Violent crime dropped by more than 15% in the United States during the first three months of 2024, according to statistics released Monday by the FBI.

The new numbers show violent crime from January to March dropped 15.2% compared to the same period in 2023, while murders fell 26.4% and reported rapes decreased by 25.7%. Aggravated assaults decreased during that period when compared to last year by 12.5%, according to the data, while robberies fell 17.8%.

The numbers released Monday were gathered from 13,719 of the just over 19,000 law enforcement agencies from across the country, according to the bureau.

Meanwhile, property crime went down 15.1% in the first three months of this year. Burglaries dropped 16.7%, while motor vehicle theft decreased by 17.3%. The declines in violent and property crimes were seen in every region of the US.

In a statement Monday, Attorney General Merrick Garland stressed the new data “makes clear that last year’s historic decline in violent crime is continuing.”

Daily Mail Not

 

[scombrid]

The endless thread is about the breakdown in civil order. Some breakdowns rank above others and I find it interesting who prioritizes what. Christianists on the Supreme Court are strangely not a problem for people that call themselves libertarian. But then people seem to think that street level stuff is a huge threat.

It's sarcasm being used to highlight the perceived absurdity of prioritizing social control over addressing issues critical to civil order. You seemed to hand waive it away as irrelevant prompting the reply you just received.

Political views about the supreme court, taxes, and whether capitalism is evil seem pretty far removed from what constitutes reasonable drug laws in my opinion.

 

[scombrid]

It's sarcasm being used to highlight the perceived absurdity of prioritizing social control over addressing issues critical to civil order. You seemed to hand waive it away as irrelevant prompting the reply you just received.

Political views about the supreme court, taxes, and whether capitalism is evil seem pretty far removed from what constitutes reasonable drug laws in my opinion.

View attachment 46386

Supreme court rulings directly impact civil order.

Edit: So does Tax codes & capitalism.

This is my point. Systemic stuff is far more impactful in the big picture than playing whackamole with shoplifters and druggies. Yes, crime is crime and property crime and violence on the low level should not be ignored. But it should also be lower on the priority list than systemic issues that have huge consequences for the broader public.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's sarcasm being used to highlight the perceived absurdity of prioritizing social control over addressing issues critical to civil order. You seemed to hand waive it away as irrelevant prompting the reply you just received.

Political views about the supreme court, taxes, and whether capitalism is evil seem pretty far removed from what constitutes reasonable drug laws in my opinion.

View attachment 46386

Supreme court rulings directly impact civil order.

Edit: So does Tax codes & capitalism.

This is my point. Systemic stuff is far more impactful in the big picture than playing whackamole with shoplifters and druggies. Yes, crime is crime and property crime and violence on the low level should not be ignored. But it should also be lower on the priority list than systemic issues that have huge consequences for the broader public.

The system can survive the “little stuff” if it can retain its fundamental integrity. Once the rule of law as it’s applied by the justice system and courts breaks down then society is really in trouble.

 

[Gospel]

One thing's for certain, cisgender men pretending to be transgender women to sneak into female-only spaces and cause trouble is a myth. Nah, scratch that— It hasn't even been around long enough to be considered a traditional story. It's just plain ol' bullshit.

 

[Derec]

One thing's for certain, cisgender men pretending to be transgender women to sneak into female-only spaces and cause trouble is a myth. Nah, scratch that— It hasn't even been around long enough to be considered a traditional story. It's just plain ol' bullshit.

On the other hand, men pretending to be women has a long history. Monty Python, Queen's "I want to break free", Nuns on the Run, Sorority Boys, White Chicks, Tyler Perry's entire oeuvre ...
But also more serious stuff:

Israel’s Wars & Operations: Operation Spring of Youth (April 9, 1973)

In February 1973, Ehud Barak - commander of Sayeret Matkal - obtained photographs and precise intelligence information about the whereabouts of three PLO arch-terrorists in Beirut and he immediately went to work planning and brainstorming ideas about how to take out these men. The Israeli intelligence reports not only knew the exact locations of the terrorists but also had obtained the exact architectural plans of the buildings they lived within.
Barak's plan involved entereing Beirut from the sea on Zodiac boats - rubber inflatables with outboard engines - and then making their way to the designated targest while disguised as tourists. According to the Mossad's intelligence, from the beach the attacking units "needed to get to the targets, about ten kilometers inside the city." There would be three units sent to attack, one each for the three individual apartments, plus a guard unit to stand outside to defend against Lebanese police or PLO backup.
[...]
The Sayeret Matkal units decided to go in not only disguised as tourists, but dressed as women as well. Barak and Amiram Levine, who would stand guard outside the apartments during the raids, were among the Israeli commandos who did so.

Ehud Barak would later, of course, become the Prime Minister of Israel (1999-2001), the last Labour politician to do so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suspect most of the landlords have no rens mea, though.

A rens mea?

Latin, a guilty mind. I suspect most did not realize it was price fixing. They just saw a company offering guidance on setting rent for maximum profit and didn't realize it worked by getting everyone to charge too much.

Most crimes require an intent to commit a wrongful act. Someone who has no idea they consumed alcohol will get off on a DUI. (usually alcohol-naive teens who didn't know the punch was spiked, but it could also apply to someone roofied or the like.) Likewise, the UPS guy isn't guilty of possession for delivering a box of drugs.

I'll note this is the correct way to handle it.

That said, someone only gets to use that excuse ONCE. If they repeat the offending act after that, mens rea is the default assumption.

Someone can't be roofied twice?

I could even picture it happening more than once with alcohol. They're not going to make the mistake with the punch again, but slipping alcohol into other stuff could still happen. Rapists sometimes deliberately get a woman drunk with stronger alcohol than she realizes. She could look at what she believed she consumed and how much time it's been and think she's ok.

Somebody who consumes alcohol to the point of intoxication will probably know what it feels like, but someone who doesn't could be fooled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

And yes, I am aware of the unrealized capital gains issue. If you receive wealth you should be taxed on the wealth you receive.

The thing is unrealized capital gains is not receiving wealth. You didn't receive anything. The value of what you already had went up.

If you recieved nothing then why do banks allow you to use "nothing" as collateral for loans.

Stock options are wealth. Banks recognize it as such yet the government doesn't. That can be changed.

Let's look at this house. In the decade after we bought it it doubled in value. Should we have had to pay tax on that value? And then the housing collapse came along and knocked it back to what we had originally paid. Capital loss? Since then it has peaked somewhere around the same amount as before the prior collapse, it's dropped a bit since.

Should we have been taxed on all the increases, and taken losses in the bad years? And should we have had to have an appraisal every year to figure out the gains/losses? Stock is more liquid but none of the single-company guys could sell their stock for anything like what it's "worth". Trying to do so would crash the price.

Homes are a far differant sort of wealth. You cannot sell a home almost instananeously with a few keystrokes on a computer.

Which doesn't change things one bit. The house is a lot less liquid but it's the same thing at work--nothing has changed hands. And by some yardsticks the house is more liquid. I can sell it for it's market price. Could Musk (current #1) sell his shares for $251B? Nothing like it.

I could likewise use that increased value to go get a home equity loan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fortune 500 Corporations Used Stock Option Loophole to Avoid $64.6 Billion in Taxes Over the Past Five Years

Yes, there's a big problem with options. Tax dodges and they encourage risky behavior. I have not seen any good reason they should exist at all.

But that's a different issue than taxing unrealized gains.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One thing's for certain, cisgender men pretending to be transgender women to sneak into female-only spaces and cause trouble is a myth. Nah, scratch that— It hasn't even been around long enough to be considered a traditional story. It's just plain ol' bullshit.

On the other hand, men pretending to be women has a long history. Monty Python, Queen's "I want to break free", Nuns on the Run, Sorority Boys, White Chicks, Tyler Perry's entire oeuvre ...

Exactly. Whatever the bathroom laws the reality is men in drag can sneak in. A bathroom provides a temporary refuge for a woman being bothered by a man, but the real answer is to do something about the person being a bother.

 

[ZiprHead]

Fortune 500 Corporations Used Stock Option Loophole to Avoid $64.6 Billion in Taxes Over the Past Five Years

Yes, there's a big problem with options. Tax dodges and they encourage risky behavior. I have not seen any good reason they should exist at all.

But that's a different issue than taxing unrealized gains.

No, it's not.

 

[thebeave]

One thing's for certain, cisgender men pretending to be transgender women to sneak into female-only spaces and cause trouble is a myth. Nah, scratch that— It hasn't even been around long enough to be considered a traditional story. It's just plain ol' bullshit.

I think you underestimate the depraved depths that some men will go to get a look at some female skin. I recall a few years ago that a man put on a wet suit and hid in the "vault" (yes, that's what they call it!) of a campground port-a-potty to watch the women sitting down on the can. If someone will go through that much trouble, I don't find it hard to believe that some pervo will pretend to be a transwoman to check some women out in a bathroom or gym locker room.

 

[bilby]

One thing's for certain, cisgender men pretending to be transgender women to sneak into female-only spaces and cause trouble is a myth. Nah, scratch that— It hasn't even been around long enough to be considered a traditional story. It's just plain ol' bullshit.

I think you underestimate the depraved depths that some men will go to get a look at some female skin. I recall a few years ago that a man put on a wet suit and hid in the "vault" (yes, that's what they call it!) of a campground port-a-potty to watch the women sitting down on the can. If someone will go through that much trouble, I don't find it hard to believe that some pervo will pretend to be a transwoman to check some women out in a bathroom or gym locker room.

If the objective is to completely eliminate the tiny number of people who are that desparate, then the only way to achieve that objective is not to have public bathroom facilities at all.

Attacking transwomen is not only unnecessary, it is also insufficient.

 

[Jarhyn]

I suspect most of the landlords have no rens mea, though.

A rens mea?

Latin, a guilty mind. I suspect most did not realize it was price fixing. They just saw a company offering guidance on setting rent for maximum profit and didn't realize it worked by getting everyone to charge too much.

Most crimes require an intent to commit a wrongful act. Someone who has no idea they consumed alcohol will get off on a DUI. (usually alcohol-naive teens who didn't know the punch was spiked, but it could also apply to someone roofied or the like.) Likewise, the UPS guy isn't guilty of possession for delivering a box of drugs.

I'll note this is the correct way to handle it.

That said, someone only gets to use that excuse ONCE. If they repeat the offending act after that, mens rea is the default assumption.

Someone can't be roofied twice?

I could even picture it happening more than once with alcohol. They're not going to make the mistake with the punch again, but slipping alcohol into other stuff could still happen. Rapists sometimes deliberately get a woman drunk with stronger alcohol than she realizes. She could look at what she believed she consumed and how much time it's been and think she's ok.

Somebody who consumes alcohol to the point of intoxication will probably know what it feels like, but someone who doesn't could be fooled.

It's really hard to produce even a first act absent mens rea for spiking drinks.

It's a basic and early lesson that most people get about adulthood and access to drugs in general that implies that any absence of understanding such acts as poisoning others requires an act of criminal mind somewhere; and even if it doesn't, the failure of a person wherein they poison others blithely simply is not acceptable regardless of state of mind.

Unless you're trying to somehow apply this where it doesn't belong in the context of being the victim? This has nothing to do with being the victim, and everything to do with acts of making people victims.

Someone is allowed to be as drunk as they please as many times as they please and it will still always be an unreasonable act to have sex with them under those circumstances unless they said, "let's get drunk knowing what kind of drunks we are because I am already agreeing to drunk sex with you as a sober person", or something similar.

The consent for the whole scene, drugs and all, has to happen before the scene.