However, why is their money not paying taxes like all other workers? Withholding for SS, medicare, unemployment, income (state and federal), etc.? Can the money unionize? Go on strike against the billionaires and seek better working conditions? Make it's own investments? Vote? Etc. All independent of the asshole it works for? Just curious. Or is the money simply a slave? — James Riley

It's quite logical to pay taxes when either you get dividends or you cash out your investments.

If you own one stock you bought for 1 dollar and later someone is ready to 100 dollars for it, you will have that 100 dollars and make the 99 dollar profit only when you sell the stock...to that someone. Not when you are just holding on to it as then nothing has changed as you don't have income. And if it comes out that the whole company behind the stock was a ponzi scheme and in the end the actual prize is 1 cent or nothing, how would you think about paying taxes of a few dollars when it was valued 100 dollars?

It's actually quite similar to the farmer that barely makes a living and hardly makes an income after expenses equivalent to working at McDonalds, but if he would sell everything, the farm, the fields and the livestock he would be a millionaire. Oh but the farmer is so filthy rich because he has all that land! (Many of my neighbors in the countryside where we have a summer cottage have stopped farming and never wanted their children to carry on farming the estate for this reason.)

It's quite logical to pay taxes when either you get dividends or you cash out your investments. If you own one stock you bought for 1 dollar and later someone is ready to 100 dollars for it, you will have that 100 dollars only when you sell the stock. Not when you are just holding on to it as then nothing has changed, you don't have income. And if it comes out that the whole company behind the stock was a ponzi scheme and in the end the actual prize is 1 cent, how would you think about paying taxes of a few dollars when it was valued 100 dollars?

It's actually quite similar to the farmer that barely makes a living and hardly makes an income after expenses equivalent to working at McDonalds, but if he would sell everything, the farm, the fields and the livestock he would be a millionaire. — ssu

When you can roll it over in a 1301 exchange, or leave it to your heirs (who didn't do shit to earn it) or take advantage of expensing every thing you do, from food to housing to the cat that catches the mice, then you essentially expense all of it, live like a king and don't pay shit. That's not logical. Even Roth contributions are capped for normal people. And if you try to withdraw, you get fucked way more than a millionaire selling some stock. Some of these people actually pursue losses and still live like kings. And if they move it over seas, it can be placed beyond the IRS. Some countries lure them and their money like a U.S. city giving Amazon a tax-free ride if they locate in town. The world is their oyster. I could go on.

When he sells his stocks (which, on a cursory glance, he just did) he will be subject to taxes you or I could never pay in many lifetimes. They don’t mention that. — NOS4A2

What a joke. Capital gains tax is less than income and payroll taxes for ordinary Americans, when looking at percentage of income, not absolute number -- which is pointless to use. You have Warren Buffet saying the same thing for God's sake.

Someone selling $400K in stock pay $50k in taxes. Someone with an income of $400K pays $110K in taxes. It's rigged for the rich, as usual. But by all means keep fighting the good fight for those poor billionaires.

Some countries lure them and their money like a U.S. city giving Amazon a tax-free ride if they locate in town. The world is their oyster. I could go on. — James Riley

Not just other countries, you have the tax havens inside the US. Huge industry to hide the income.

Well, some call it tax planning. If it's legal, many people say it's just being smart and you are simply stupid if you don't take into account what is legal to do. To hell with it, I say. To hell with the deductions, all those bizarre ways you can decrease your taxes and with the complexity of taxation.

My view is that paying taxes and the tax system ought to be as simple, as transparent as possible so every bozo would understand it. Even better when it's automatic, that you only need to check that things are correct. And that avoiding taxes or doing anything else is simply a criminal issue.

I think one of the best improvements that happened here was that the tax official has to himself or herself to tax the person in the most convenient way for the taxpayer or otherwise the tax official is in difficulties. Earlier it was only up to the taxpayer to demand change to his or her taxation if their was a mistake or if the taxes hadn't been calculated in the best way possible for him or her. Hence a tax official could be sloppy as it didn't matter for him or her.

"Buy, borrow, die."

This is what the rich do to avoid taxes. They avoid income taxes because they don't have "income," they mostly have stock. They borrow money off of this stock -- and because it's borrowing, they pay no taxes on that either, they pay (a usually very low) interest rate on the money.

If you own $100 billion in stocks, you can go to Goldman Sachs and borrow $20 billion with the stock as collateral. That $20 billion isn't taxed. Meanwhile your stocks keep growing in value, and you hold on to them. When you croak, you hand them off to your kids. If your kids go to sell, they pay ____ in capital gains. Anyone want to venture a guess?

That's right: 0%. Stepped-up basis.

All a wonderful system for the rich.

Yep. True wealth creation comes from using leverage.

And not only for the rich. Same way the middle class becomes a middle class.

People have gotten prosperous in many countries with buying their home and then their children inheriting something from their parents. One of the reasons why poor countries stay poor is that the ordinary people cannot get a loan, banks don't loan to them and hence they cannot buy a house or a flat and are forced to live on a rental flat for all their life. You don't leave anything for your children when you have paid rent all your life and everything goes into simply feeding the family.

Or to say it otherwise, people are sentenced into povetry when they don't have the ability to take loans for buying a home or starting a business, and/or the loans aren't affordable to be paid back by normal income.

Yep. True wealth creation comes from using leverage. — ssu

Right -- remember what Trump said once, that he's the "king of debt." Borrowing, debt, bankruptcy, bailouts. I admire the way the wealthy have rigged the system into becoming a no-lose casino, all right in front of our eyes.

Or to say it otherwise, people are sentenced into povetry when they don't have the ability to take loans for buying a house or starting a business, and/or the loans aren't affordable to be paid back by normal income. — ssu

Yeah, the credit system we have is also designed to favor the wealthy. Less risk, better interest rates. Bad credit score, unstable income, high debt-to-income ratio, etc., and you won't get a loan -- or not a loan at a decent rate anyway, since you're a risky bet. Which makes it more likely that you'll default, as the interest will usually crush you.

It's true that for many people, their biggest debt (and biggest asset) are their homes. We all saw what happened in 2008 with the banks subprime lending. Its approaching bubble territory again -- as are stocks and bonds. When they burst, as they will, the Fed will step in and save the banks...again. Too big to fail, after all. Don't want another depression (which is true) -- but don't bother passing any laws or taking over the companies.

You’re the one supporting state confiscation of wealth, not me.

All wealth is socially generated and what wealth any single person has is a function of what society collectively decides is appropriate.

As if wealth can be accumulated to this degree without a state. The state giveth, the state can taketh.

Well, some call it tax planning. If it's legal, many people say it's just being smart and you are simply stupid if you don't take into account what is legal to do. — ssu

I agree. I just think the laws that make that legal were not passed by government. They were passed by people who were lobbied and bought by people who have the money to pay for it.

My view is that paying taxes and the tax system ought to be as simple, as transparent as possible so every bozo would understand it. — ssu

:100: Eliminate the loopholes. As to the rate, I hold my counsel and reserve that decision to people who have not been bought. Then I woke up.

As if wealth can be accumulated to this degree without a state. The state giveth, the state can taketh. — Xtrix

I sometimes wonder what society would be like if the no regulation, no tax, no government crowd got what they want. Probably some dystopia controlled by mega corporations that are effectively a government by another name, except even more blatantly run by and for the rich and powerful and without even the semblance of a democracy.

That's how things were in the 19th Century. There was an ostensibly democratic government, but it was understood that all major decisions needed approval from prominent business owners.

The social degradation that resulted was identified by Hayak and Friedman as the cause of the breakdown of liberalism, giving rise to collectivism in the form of Nazis on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other. To reboot liberalism, they believed laissez-faire would have to be ditched

:rofl:

Why is that funny?

The principle of laissez-faire was never realized in the first place, I’m afraid, especially in economic affairs. One of the first pieces of legislation in the United States was the Tariff Act. It couldn’t do otherwise; absent begging, every State requires the economic exploitation of the people to exist. It wasn’t long until we had land-grants and subsidies, with monopolists clamoring to get a piece of it. As invariably happens, the more regulation the more regulatory capture. The point becomes not to abolish state intervention but to use it.

As far as I can tell, never once has industry wanted laissez-faire, anyways. At best they wanted protectionism, at worst they wanted hand-outs and monopoly, but in each case they ran to the State for all of it.

The usual canards like “laissez-faire” or “rugged individualism”, at least insofar as critics and proponents use them to describe some aspect of American reality or history, are mostly nonsense. No policy of either have ever existed. And of course the US is “capitalist”. So long as capital is capital, there is no system that has existed or will ever exist that is not.

Anyways, that was a round-about-way of saying maybe abandoning laissez-faire isn’t the best idea—it hasn’t been tried yet.

One of the first pieces of legislation in the United States was the Tariff Act. — NOS4A2

Start here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

As far as I can tell, never once has industry wanted laissez-faire, anyways. At best they wanted protectionism, at worst they wanted hand-outs and monopoly, but in each case they ran to the State for all of it. — NOS4A2

:100: They took over the state some time ago, and here we are.

Anyways, that was a round-about-way of saying maybe abandoning laissez-faire isn’t the best idea—it hasn’t been tried yet. — NOS4A2

It was clearly the ideal for liberals in the 19th Century, whether it was ever made real or not.

After two world wars and a depression, liberals realized they couldn't proceed with complete apathy about the well being of the people who make up society. So they decided intervention was necessary, but they still embraced the principle that intervention of any of kind is the road to slavery. Huge amounts of ambiguity followed.

BiDeN wILl Be BetTeR fOr ThE eNvIRoNmEnT.

We WiLl PuSh BiDeN tO tHe LeFt!

AcTiViSm!!

Fucking clowns.

God Bless President Biden. We live in a very dark age and I think Biden is doing the best that can be done. The crumbling of an empire, which Biden happens to be overseeing a significant part of, is always a terrible thing for your average Joe (pun intended) to live through.

Hold tight and praise God.

Yes, we know taking three seconds to vote against Trump was too hard a choice for you.

Biden is indeed better than Trump on the environment, and the pushing of environmental activists — like the Sunrise Movement — will continue, despite predictable setbacks.

The civil rights movement had many setbacks as well— a shame you weren’t around to tell them to give up. I’m sure they could have used the enlightenment of an Internet philosophy forum poster.

I wonder what Zizek would say. :chin:

Hey I'm just the messenger maybe save some of your energy for attacking the bloke who is killing the planet. Y'know - the one who you constantly run apologetics for.

Y'know - the one who you constantly run apologetics for. — StreetlightX

:rofl:

Imagine still being confused about how to vote.

The civil rights movement had many setbacks as well— a shame you weren’t around to tell them to give up. I’m sure they could have used the enlightenment of an Internet philosophy forum poster. — Xtrix

:100:

Imagine still being confused about how to vote. — Xtrix

Voting is like a needle: It's either scary or it's inconvenient. Some people try to make it scarier and less convenient. Others try to make it less scary and more convenient.

Voting is like a needle: It's either scary or it's inconvenient. — James Riley

It’s a trivial decision that takes a few seconds. The important work of activism, educating, organizing, unionizing, protesting, creating programs, etc., continues. Trump was the worst of two choices, especially on the environment. Biden has already been pushed leftward, thanks to Sunrise and others— not nearly enough and so far without major legislation — and the work goes on.

Those who can’t differentiate between parties simply want to sound intelligent, when in reality it’s intellectual laziness.

Those who can’t differentiate between parties simply want to sound intelligent, when in reality it’s intellectual laziness. — Xtrix

:100: I think you nailed it with the civil rights analogy. "Okay all you folks, head on home, now. Nothing to see here." I think some want MLK's arc to take a 90 degree turn, and right now. Either that, or they are on the other side. I'm thinking there may not be much difference.

Ah yes, the civil rights movement who famously *checks notes* institued the crime bill to throw hundreds and thousands of black citizens into jail. The civil rights movement, who eulogized those who filibustered civil rights acts. Wait, sorry, wrong notes, confused that with Joe Biden. You can see how it's confusing I mean they're basically the same thing, definitely comparable, not at all a stupid comparison. That said maybe Joe Biden will lead the next long, hot summer of '67 and actually accomplish anything at all or maybe he will... oh yes that's right my mistake again - initiate wealth transfers to the rich and preside over the largest offshore drilling auction ever, while approving drilling platforms at record pace. Ah, MLK would be so proud :cry:

Man when Trump gets back into power because Biden is holding the door open for him I can't wait to push him to the left. This can absolutely be done and does not in any way sound as utterly fucking stupid as the idea of pushing Biden to the left. I mean the latter must be so terrified of *checks notes* people voting for him regardless of how much he damage he causes. Which is definitely a perfectly viable strategy and not at all completely enabling of said damage. Such a threat that hangs over the poor guy no wonder he has done so much for the left like rename streets after BLM and stuff.

not at all a stupid comparison — StreetlightX

It is indeed a stupid comparison- but you’re the only one making it.

people voting for him regardless of how much he damage he causes. — StreetlightX

Trump was more damaging, so the easy choice is to vote against Trump. Doesn’t mean Biden isn’t damaging. You’ve demonstrated you’re not capable of making this distinction — fine. Then don’t vote at all, or vote third party — whatever you like.

For those capable of thinking beyond Zizek soundbites, it’s an easy decision. Also for those not buying into the establishment propaganda that voting is our sole way of changing anything because “activism is stupid.”

you’re the only one making it. — Xtrix

You brought it up, brother. Just as you can't seem to stop talking about Zizek (are you OK? Did Zizek hurt you?). Or Trump ("Goebbels is better than Hitler, so I'll throw my lot in with Goebbels"). Or the false idea that I equate Biden and Trump (Biden plays a quite different role from Trump: Biden works to kill the left, and is effective at it). Gosh it's like nothing you say has any basis in reality and is entirely projection. All the better to ignore the salient point that you sanction the enabling of the death of the planet. I too, would need alot of projection if I were to do that I guess.

Goebbels is better than Hitler, so I'll throw my lot in with Goebbels" — StreetlightX

If those were the only choices, and there was even a chance that Goebbels would be less damaging than Hitler, or that there would be even a slightly better chance of stopping atrocities with him in power, then yes of course. If they’re equally awful and there’s no discernible difference, then there’s no pointing voting either way.

But voting is hardly the only thing to consider. It’s actually a fairly trivial choice. Do it and get back to that stupid activism. But what do I know? I’m no Zizek.

entirely projection. — StreetlightX

Almost like the claim that I compared Joe Biden to the civil rights movement. :chin: