Links
Portal |  Forum | Core Values | 
MindRomp Forum  

FAQ Janitors Arcade
Go Back   MindRomp Forum > General Discussion > News, Sports & Politics

News, Sports & Politics Hello, good evening, and welcome...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 6th July 2019, 02:39 AM   #449330  /  #26
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeluvia View Post
Obviously the two of you don't actually HAVE any wealth : )


I may not have your fabulous wealth, but I do know that people who do have fabulous wealth are often quite...careful with it.

Such a 'miserly' crowd would surely not get something like 'value' so wrong...
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

*Caution*
Feminism IS the Patriarchy.

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 6th July 2019, 04:27 PM   #449340  /  #27
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeluvia View Post
Obviously the two of you don't actually HAVE any wealth : )


I may not have your fabulous wealth, but I do know that people who do have fabulous wealth are often quite...careful with it.

Such a 'miserly' crowd would surely not get something like 'value' so wrong...



I don't have fabulous wealth. But I have enough that I have to understand the difference between profit and capital gains, and between passive and active income. Because I understand these things, and how they are treated under the tax laws and regulations, I understand what the author in the article means when she talks about Value Extracted and Value Created in financial terms.



I also understand when you have Money, you HAVE to find a place to put it. There are limits to what is insured by Federal Deposit Insurance, and the current returns on Savings Accounts and CD's barely even keeps up with inflation, if at all, so banks aren't a good place for Money. When you invest money smartly, it has a tendency to create More Money, all by itself with no help at all from you. This causes tax consequences, so if you have a lot of Money Creating Money, you can find ways to avoid paying taxes on the Created Money.



Because I also have experience with Limited Partnerships and other types of investments and businesses including rental property, I also understand how the tax and regulatory laws work on those things.


And I say it is fucked up. To my advantage. And it shouldn't be this fucked up. Because if I am getting this much advantage with the little bit I have, I can imagine how much MORE advantage people with more wealth are getting.


I also have experience actually WORKING for Money, instead of just letting Money create more Money. So I can see how lopsided it all really is.
__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 7th July 2019, 12:30 AM   #449354  /  #28
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeluvia View Post
When you invest money smartly, it has a tendency to create More Money, all by itself with no help at all from you.
If that were true, my investment sense would be a valuable as yours.

(it isn't likely to be)
Quote:
And I say it is fucked up. To my advantage. And it shouldn't be this fucked up.
It's too bad the US isn't set up to have 50 competing states free of federal restriction, so they can each find the best way to do things, then allow citizens to vote with their feet...

It's supposed to be, I know, but every one of them ends up with very similar finance stuff going on.

What can you even change? I mean, what law would make the needed 'course correction'?
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

*Caution*
Feminism IS the Patriarchy.

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 7th July 2019, 07:43 AM   #449361  /  #29
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
More regulatory teeth for the Securities and Exchange Commission. Tighter restrictions on mergers to protect real competition. Changes in the tax laws on treatments of capital gains and passive income. Changes in the laws on lending and investing.


This was the first one I remember. Since then, instead of getting better, it just keeps getting worse.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 8th July 2019, 02:31 AM   #449380  /  #30
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
I'm thinking about this stuff, reluctantly.

I'll comment where I do understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeluvia View Post
Tighter restrictions on mergers to protect real competition.
Sounds impossible to 'unloop'. Forbid mergers which create monopolies, and companies will meet up and do price-fixing together, since merging is not an option. Make that illegal, and they'll hire a team of tax lawyers to achieve their goals another way.

Like an arms race.

I think it's because 'money', not because of who holds the money currently.
Quote:
Changes in the tax laws on treatments of capital gains and passive income.
I'm in favour of making it simple. So simple, in fact, that people can understand what is happening.

With people being so fucking stupid, it's a tall order, but I think generally it's bad for people to be in contracts they don't understand.
Quote:
Changes in the laws on lending and investing.
Which? I know when I considered investing, I declined to buy shares, instead helping out the company physically, on the ground. Something about the way responsibilities were linked, or unlinked, made it go against my gut.
Quote:
This was the first one I remember. Since then, instead of getting better, it just keeps getting worse.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
Complexity looks like one of the undesireable effects of commerce and government. Having a strong, disagreeable government with stakeholders smartly fighting for both sides sounds like a good compromise. Damned shame we are mainly encouraged to hate whoever is ideologically opposed to 'our side'.
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

*Caution*
Feminism IS the Patriarchy.

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th July 2019, 02:11 AM   #449397  /  #31
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
You do see the problem, sort of. With money comes power, at least in our systems, and that power can then be used to protect "money" and the way wealth is created, at least for those in power. That is the loop. And it's very old. Power always tries to protect itself, and so does wealth, it's just logical that would happen. But the framers of the constitution here KNEW this, and so did the people that formed YOUR government I am sure.



Even though preventing mergers to protect competition could lead to other abuses, the other abuses are no where near as damaging to the economy, or the government, as allowing them.



It is my contention that where there is no competition, profit should not even be allowed, and the mechanism to make this work this should be complicated tax laws. Complicated tax laws don't scare me. For me, complexity doesn't equate to fairness. In fact, our complexity first started out to make things MORE fair to everyone, by trying to imagine every possible situation.





For example, lets take AT$T and rural internet. For decades, AT$T has been getting government money to run rural internet lines. Now they didn't run fiberoptic, they ran copper wire, and used their existing phone lines, and pretty much ran a scam. Since the people in those areas they service don't have a viable alternative, or didn't, then AT$T should not be able to report a profit from those lines, since in essence, the government paid for them anyway! So AT$T, in order to NOT show a profit, would have to take excess monies and use them for IMPROVEMENTS, instead of paying the entire profit amount back in taxes.

That is what many people don't realize, that the government does a lot to support business especially in areas where things are necessary and not provided, and that support is either tax incentives or direct payments.
__________________


Last edited by Zeluvia; 10th July 2019 at 02:19 AM.
Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th July 2019, 02:26 AM   #449398  /  #32
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
So a complicated tax law, which can then be best manipulated by hiring the best tax lawyers. I wonder who they will work for...the highest ideals? Or the highest price?

I prefer the notion of simple tax laws, and MUCH more transparency when it comes to those writing it. For instance, lots of assholes screamed for YEARS for Trumps tax records, but LOTS of rich politicians get richer while 'serving' the public. Why not simply demand they ALL offer this kind of info?

Why is it so tough to demand real transparency? The government can already crawl through your most personal financial life, so why shouldn't the citizenry have the power to do that to those who serve in government?
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

*Caution*
Feminism IS the Patriarchy.

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th July 2019, 02:26 AM   #449399  /  #33
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
So a complicated tax law, which can then be best manipulated by hiring the best tax lawyers. I wonder who they will work for...the highest ideals? Or the highest price?

I prefer the notion of simple tax laws, and MUCH more transparency when it comes to those writing it. For instance, lots of assholes screamed for YEARS for Trumps tax records, but LOTS of rich politicians get richer while 'serving' the public. Why not simply demand they ALL offer this kind of info?

Why is it so tough to demand real transparency? The government can already crawl through your most personal financial life, so why shouldn't the citizenry have the power to do that to those who serve in government?
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

*Caution*
Feminism IS the Patriarchy.

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th July 2019, 08:52 PM   #449405  /  #34
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunt View Post
So a complicated tax law, which can then be best manipulated by hiring the best tax lawyers. I wonder who they will work for...the highest ideals? Or the highest price?

I prefer the notion of simple tax laws, and MUCH more transparency when it comes to those writing it. For instance, lots of assholes screamed for YEARS for Trumps tax records, but LOTS of rich politicians get richer while 'serving' the public. Why not simply demand they ALL offer this kind of info?

Why is it so tough to demand real transparency? The government can already crawl through your most personal financial life, so why shouldn't the citizenry have the power to do that to those who serve in government?

The complications of tax law increase as the complexity of what you are doing with your money increases. It really is a sliding scale. And it isn't that complicated once you understand the most basic concepts.



Before Reagan, the tax law was lightly weighted against accumulating wealth. It penalized companies that sat on cash reserves. It penalized hoarders with a strong estate tax. It taxed passive income at higher rates than earned income. There were still plenty of ways to avoid and fudge tax, using depreciation, but they had to be Real Capital investments, actual THINGS that you bought, equipment, buildings, machinery. The whole idea of "trickle down" was to give people the opportunities to accumulate more wealth in the hope that they would invest their wealth in the US. This is when the idea that the wealthy were "job creators" started to become our new mantra. We had to let the wealthy accumulate wealth, then they would create jobs, and that would create more incomes for the middle class, who would then pay more taxes on their earned income, making up for the cuts on wealth.


It's been a 50 year experiment, and at first, it worked, but like anything, after time it quit working as well. There have been changes in the job market, investment went overseas instead of here, and the more wealth that was accumulated, the more effect it had on government, the more it protected itself.



It is time to roll it back some.



As to Trump's tax returns, I think we should be able to see them. But it's a game now. I think mostly he would be embarrassed to have us find out that he is not as successful or rich as he likes to think he is.
__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th July 2019, 11:04 PM   #449407  /  #35
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
I agree with the rolling back, but just don't know where.

I've always felt funny about estate taxes. As if someone must forfeit part of their estate to the taxman upon their death. (this is evaded by lots of smart people, ruins some other 'differently-smart' people - so maybe not optimal)

It seems to me that what we should aim for is a good finish. I would like for people to be able to 'finish' paying taxes. On income, I would say stop taxing after retirement. For real estate, let people choose their own tax, and allow purchasing 'by force' if under-valued by a property-owner.

But letting people 'finish' would leave them a big loophole...maybe encourage everyone to pay some voluntary taxes - like having hobbies like lotto, cigarettes or building a family. I think there ARE places where most folks would voluntarily pay, even for taxes.
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

*Caution*
Feminism IS the Patriarchy.

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 11th July 2019, 06:20 AM   #449409  /  #36
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunt View Post
I agree with the rolling back, but just don't know where.

I've always felt funny about estate taxes. As if someone must forfeit part of their estate to the taxman upon their death. (this is evaded by lots of smart people, ruins some other 'differently-smart' people - so maybe not optimal)

It seems to me that what we should aim for is a good finish. I would like for people to be able to 'finish' paying taxes. On income, I would say stop taxing after retirement. For real estate, let people choose their own tax, and allow purchasing 'by force' if under-valued by a property-owner.

But letting people 'finish' would leave them a big loophole...maybe encourage everyone to pay some voluntary taxes - like having hobbies like lotto, cigarettes or building a family. I think there ARE places where most folks would voluntarily pay, even for taxes.

For the most part, the estate tax only hits very large estates. Trust funds can avoid the taxes in some ways.


Your estate can pass to your spouse no taxes, and he/she can also get your exemptions passed to them, which will add to the final exemptions when they die. The estate tax has been going up and it went from just over 5 million in 2017 to 11 million in 2018. That is how much your estate has to be worth before you pay taxes on it. Trump doubled it. Since the 80's the tax has had generous exemptions for farms and operating businesses from being included in the valuation for tax purposes, which is very good, so they don't have to be sold to pay taxes on the estate. This means that the tax is paid mostly on equities, stocks, investments and real property such as houses. Sources of passive income.


The estate tax is weighted against passive income.



This is important, and something I didn't know, and why domestic partnerships and civil unions just aren't good enough when it comes to tax law:


For federal tax purposes, marriages of couples of the same sex are treated the same as marriages of couples of the opposite sex. The term “spouse” includes an individual married to a person of the same sex. However, individuals who have entered into a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or other similar relationship that isn’t considered a marriage under state law aren’t considered married for federal tax purposes.
__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 11th July 2019, 06:29 AM   #449410  /  #37
Zeluvia
Send Cash or Drugs
 
Zeluvia's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Evil Duckess
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunt View Post
I agree with the rolling back, but just don't know where.

I've always felt funny about estate taxes. As if someone must forfeit part of their estate to the taxman upon their death. (this is evaded by lots of smart people, ruins some other 'differently-smart' people - so maybe not optimal)

It seems to me that what we should aim for is a good finish. I would like for people to be able to 'finish' paying taxes. On income, I would say stop taxing after retirement. For real estate, let people choose their own tax, and allow purchasing 'by force' if under-valued by a property-owner.

But letting people 'finish' would leave them a big loophole...maybe encourage everyone to pay some voluntary taxes - like having hobbies like lotto, cigarettes or building a family. I think there ARE places where most folks would voluntarily pay, even for taxes.

Letting people "finish" is a nice idea, but not good economics. By the time you are my age, your income is mostly passive, and you are not making enough to pay taxes at all even with passive income.



The people that really NEED to pay less in taxes are the young, working people, who have to go to school, buy homes, raise families. These are the people most likely to CONSUME things and it is Consumption of things that makes the economy work. And right now, these are the people bearing the brunt of the tax system.



This is the core of the economic debate. On one hand, you have people saying you need accumulated wealth to spur investment to create jobs, and on the other hand you have people saying you need to lower taxes on the middle class to encourage consumption. Both are true. It is a balancing act. It is my contention that they are out of balance on the side of wealth now, evidenced by stagnant wages and growing inequality, and they should be shifted back. The problem is we can't seem to gain any political traction to shift back, because now the wealth is influencing government to protect itself.




For the most part, the estate tax only hits very large estates. Trust funds can avoid the taxes in some ways.


Your estate can pass to your spouse no taxes, and he/she can also get your exemptions passed to them, which will add to the final exemptions when they die. The estate tax has been going up and it went from just over 5 million in 2017 to 11 million in 2018. That is how much your estate has to be worth before you pay taxes on it. Trump doubled it. Since the 80's the tax has had generous exemptions for farms and operating businesses from being included in the valuation for tax purposes, which is very good, so they don't have to be sold to pay taxes on the estate. This means that the tax is paid mostly on equities, stocks, investments and real property such as houses.



The estate tax is weighted against passive income. It is one of the heaviest weights in the tax law against passive income. I don't think most people understand this.



This is important, and something I didn't know, and why domestic partnerships and civil unions just aren't good enough when it comes to tax law:


For federal tax purposes, marriages of couples of the same sex are treated the same as marriages of couples of the opposite sex. The term “spouse” includes an individual married to a person of the same sex. However, individuals who have entered into a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or other similar relationship that isn’t considered a marriage under state law aren’t considered married for federal tax purposes.
__________________

Zeluvia is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  MindRomp Forum > General Discussion > News, Sports & Politics

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011-2018 MindRomp.org