covid politics

[Matador]

We already have a progressive tax schedule, another tired old argument.

I've tried to parse this for 20 minutes and haven't been successful:  what exactly is the relation between the Equal Rights Amendment (guaranteeing equal treatment under the law for women) and progressive taxation and Venezuela?

 

[crazydoc]

Went for q2week grocery shopping today - no TP.  I guess the folks insisting we "go back to normal" are preparing for that second wave that they will be causing.

 

[living sounds]

Conservative principles like individual liberty,  limited federal government,  fiscal responsibility, etc, can be very sound and logical.  Republicans,  on the other hand,  are not.  It's important not to conflate the two.

There's really nothing "conservative" to the deranged Ayn Randian brand of hypocritic hyper-individualist-market fundamentalism of people who have one hand in the cookie jar and use the other hand to push others down a cliff while scolding them (mouth full) for not being able to fly.

The majority of Democrats in the US today are what a conservative party by normal (postwar) standards looks like. Normal (postwar) conservatives are not revolutionaries, extremists or trolls, they are steady, deliberate, boring, looking for balance - rationality mixed with tradition. Like Angela Merkel or George H. W. Bush.

I really wonder why so few people on the right, who follow Trump because he appoints judges they like, while ignoring completely that he couldn't care less WRT to any policy positions and just does it to achieve his own narrow goals, do not appear to be bothered by it. Johnson was kind of like that - and Democrats hated the guy. Republicans today have no comparable sense of decency.

 

[Matador]

There's really nothing "conservative" to the deranged Ayn Randian brand of hypocratic hyper-individualist-market fundamentalism of people who have one hand in the cookie jar and use the other hand to push others down a cliff while scolding them (mouth full) for not being able to fly.

Wie schön! I'll have to remember this one.

The simple answer to your proposition is something something different movies something something.

 

[living sounds]

Wie schön! I'll have to remember this one.

The simple answer to your proposition is something something different movies something something.

The correct word was "hypocritic", corrected it (it was late when I wrote that).

 

[Script]

Went for q2week grocery shopping today - no TP.  I guess the folks insisting we "go back to normal" are preparing for that second wave that they will be causing.

LOL  ;D

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is only very slightly progressive when you factor in all the various taxes paid,  and then only up to a point. Eventually it actually becomes regressive. When you get to 0.1%, .01%, .001% brackets they actually pay less than the middle and upper middle class.  Can an argument be tired and old if it is still valid?

Also the new round of bailouts will cost everyone between $10k-20k each with those at the top getting a disproportionate higher share.  So shouldn't the real backlash be directed at them? The responsible savers are having to subsidize millionaires and billionaires once again.

Maybe later I may do a deep dive on progressive taxation, but coincidentally if we inspect the current complaints going on about states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back and states that pay less this is prima facia evidence of progression in the tax rate.

Low earning states (like MS) pay less taxes because of the lower earnings, states with high earners pay more taxes... QED.

JR 

 

[Script]

Sorry for change of topic, but
(1) I am less interested in exclusively US Covid politics (by now aka 'US elections coming up -- can you feel it darling ?')
(2) today I was wondering how Cvd19 will play out with regard to international travel in mid to long run.

I mean, if the numbers of infections keep developping disparately around the world, travel bans will be prolonged, that is, from countries with high numbers of infections to countries with few numbers and countries that have acted early and largely succeed in suppressing the virus.

Way too early to tell (-- and I must confess that my prognostic powers need a bit of a rest after foreseeing the prolonged state of emergency in Japan  :-X --) but practically that would mean that there will be no more travelling to Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia for many nations, especially many European countries and the entire US -- and that for quite a while...
-------
Read a few days ago that the Swedish population has grown increasingly dissatisfied with their government's initial response, as numbers of infections and deaths go up. Not sure and Swedes on this forum def. know more detail.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Went for q2week grocery shopping today - no TP.  I guess the folks insisting we "go back to normal" are preparing for that second wave that they will be causing.

Today was my first grocery trip wearing a proper N95 mask (thanks Scott), not very comfortable and harder to breath (duh). I can't imagine wearing one 12 hours a day. More respect for the health professionals.

My local wally world had TP piled up by the door last week so perhaps that hoarding binge has run its course here at last.

old items on my shopping list I still could not find; Brown Rice (not the instant processed poop, but real slow cook brown rice, moth eggs and all). I couldn't find baking yeast either.

The paper towels aisle was bare....  (I just ordered some from their website)

The meat pantry was just being loaded, so I did my vegetable shopping while I waited for the beef... I snagged one of the only two chuck roasts he put out. So I'm set for another week (I actually get 8 servings from one roast like this, so my freezer inventory will be +1 for the week).

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sorry for change of topic, but
(1) I am less interested in exclusively US Covid politics (by now aka 'US elections coming up -- can you feel it darling ?')

sadly yes, but partisan enmity has been high for the last few years, hard to imagine it getting worse, but of course it will.

(2) today I was wondering how Cvd19 will play out with regard to international travel in mid to long run.

I just hooked up (via phone) with an old friend who recently changed jobs (laid off).. all his contact info was on his old company phone they kept (I found him via linked in).  Long story shorter he was in China on business when the sh__ hit the fan (not in Wuhan region). Flying home one short hop was in a small 3 seat wide puddle jumper and he was seated next to an oriental man, wearing a mask, who was coughing and sneezing in the gate area.  Luckily a kind stewardess let him move into an empty single seat she was going to use for herself, and she used the jump seat. 

I mean, if the numbers of infections keep developping disparately around the world, travel bans will be prolonged, that is, from countries with high numbers of infections to countries with few numbers and countries that have acted early and largely succeed in suppressing the virus.

It is hard to trust many numbers as being accurate and comparable. The US has changed their models (variables) a few times, and media happily argues about projections for some dismal future.

This could all change with effective vaccines. While these normally take years to test and approve, multiple companies are pedaling as fast as they can, with some companies even partnering with competitors to get vaccines developed faster.

Airlines are spacing flyers further apart while planes are not full, but that unprofitable business model is not sustainable. The market is pushing back against charging extra for spacing. Sorry if I am starting to sound like a broken record but this seems like another ideal application for farUVc. Short wavelength UV light (207-222nm) that doesn't harm humans while cooking microbes. Studies find more contamination on airplane tray tables than airplane flush handles.

I wonder if every passenger opens up the air nozzle full pressure pointed at their face, can the plane's air circulation system maintain much pressure?

Way too early to tell (-- and I must confess that my prognostic powers need a bit of a rest after foreseeing the prolonged state of emergency in Japan  :-X --) but practically that would mean that there will be no more travelling to Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia for many nations, especially many European countries and the entire US -- and that for quite a while...
-------

My friend who is a business development manager for an EMS provider traveled a lot before in his last job, and is itching to get back on the road, so he can engage his customers face to face... His typical dealing is with high level corporate executives and he can't even get them on the phone, let alone video conferencing, these days. 

Read a few days ago that the Swedish population has grown increasingly dissatisfied with their government's initial response, as numbers of infections and deaths go up. Not sure and Swedes on this forum def. know more detail.

It is probably too early to judge them a success or failure, the world is, or should be watching.

JR

 

[Script]

Hm, spacing on planes, yeah, well. Don't know about the rest of the world, but there is almost no air traffic from and to Japan for the time being (goods, yes -- passengers, no).

They had changed from obligatory 14 -day quarantine on landing to denial of permission to enter (unless exceptional circumstances).

 

[john12ax7]

Maybe later I may do a deep dive on progressive taxation, but coincidentally if we inspect the current complaints going on about states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back and states that pay less this is prima facia evidence of progression in the tax rate.

Low earning states (like MS) pay less taxes because of the lower earnings, states with high earners pay more taxes... QED.

JR

More populated states would generally pay more in total,  so it doesn't inherently show anything.

Here you can see that taxes actually go down for the .01% and. 001% at the federal level. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2018/03/01/0-001-percent-one-percent/#5eb91af12cf2

When you look at total taxation , payroll taxes,  gas taxes, sales tax etc  the situation gets even more grim for the average working person.  Some things need to be fixed at the state and local level,  and some at the federal.

Furthermore long term investments are already advantaged due to compounding and capital allocation.  Absolutely no reason to give them a tax break on top of that.

 

[JohnRoberts]

More populated states would generally pay more in total,  so it doesn't inherently show anything.

Ironically perhaps Steve Forbes ran for president on his flat tax campaign (he did not win). 

our tax code is a swiss cheese rats nest of loopholes and exclusions.

Here you can see that taxes actually go down for the .01% and. 001% at the federal level. 

I am too lazy to look up which logical fallacy that is but their rate does not go down because they are uber-wealthy, but the wealthy can afford better tax accountants. This sounds a little like the old Warren Buffet screed where he noted that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did (not more taxes, but at a higher rate against much less income). 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2018/03/01/0-001-percent-one-percent/#5eb91af12cf2

That article appeared to describe how much more the wealthy pay... the distinction about the 0.01% is just more class warfare. 

When you look at total taxation , payroll taxes,  gas taxes, sales tax etc  the situation gets even more grim for the average working person.  Some things need to be fixed at the state and local level,  and some at the federal.

Do you have a proposal other than to tax the wealthy more?

When I walked away from my last decent paying job, and started my current business (BTW what are drummers doing these days, they sure aren't buying tuners?) my tax bracket dropped so low that I converted my regular IRA to a roth and went ahead and paid taxes on them at the very modest rate I enjoyed from that lower tax bracket... Now my roth is completely tax free... So the swamp dwellers can't get it, unless they change the law again...(they keep trying). 

Talking about regressive taxes how about sales taxes, or lottery tickets?

Furthermore long term investments are already advantaged due to compounding and capital allocation. 

Please explain what that means? I have been investing in the stock market since the 70s and can't recognize those advantages.

[edit- made that since the 60's.. I vaguely recall needing my mother's signature to open a stock trading account because I wasn't 21 yet, and then when I got drafted I couldn't exactly call my broker to manage my account and lost what money I had made. In fact I recall the year I was drafted (1970) I lost more money in the stock market than the US Army paid me. Not a lot of money but added insult to injury.  /edit]

Compounding generally refers to re-investing dividends but in a taxable account you pay taxes on the dividend income when you get it (at least I do). Not sure what you mean by "capital allocation",  an accounting term for which pocket you put your cash in. I don't recall a line on the 1040 tax return, or any possible advantage from that. 

Further long term investments get screwed by inflation.... If I bought a $1,000 of IBM stock and inflation increased that stock price to $2,500, I'd have to pay taxes on a $1,500 gain when sold, even if adjusted for inflation the true value went down....

Absolutely no reason to give them a tax break on top of that.

those evil wealthy people.  :

JR

 

[john12ax7]

our tax code is a swiss cheese rats nest of loopholes and exclusions.

It is indeed a mess and should be completely overhauled.

I am too lazy to look up which logical fallacy that is but their rate does not go down because they are uber-wealthy, but the wealthy can afford better tax accountants. This sounds a little like the old Warren Buffet screed where he noted that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did (not more taxes, but at a higher rate against much less income). 
That article appeared to describe how much more the wealthy pay... the distinction about the 0.01% is just more class warfare.

From the article, the 1% paid a 27.1.% rate, while the .001% paid a 23.9% rate.  How are facts logical fallacies or class warfare? Note: I'm not even saying what the tax  rates should be, only that I can't see how a reasonable person can say the above is fair. Uber wealthy rates go down in part because the current system unfairly punishes labor.

And what's wrong with Buffet's comments? Do you think it's fair that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than him?

Do you have a proposal other than to tax the wealthy more?

I'm not actually saying we should or shouldn't tax the wealthy more, only that the current system is unfair.  The proposal is get rid of the whole system, no loopholes, deductions exemptions, etc. Treat all income the same. One page returns with no accountants needed (they might not like that). You made X dollars? Times it by Y. Done.

Y could be an equation or a  flat percentage. Or maybe even 0 and you get the money in other ways The important thing is we examine ALL taxes to make an optimal determination.

Here is an article looking at total taxation. In total it is not as progressive as many think
https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2018/

Talking about regressive taxes how about sales taxes, or lottery tickets?

Yes, reform those as well.

Please explain what that means? I have been investing in the stock market since the 70s and can't recognize those advantages.

Person A starts with $1000, gets X% yearly return, pays Y% tax. Pays tax on gains only at the end.
Person B starts with $1000, gets X% yearly return, pays Y% tax. Pays tax on gains every year.

After many years Person A has more money (tax advantaged compounding), often way more.

Person B would be forced to put in more money each year to keep up.  Person A can also strategically choose when to exit the investment.

Further long term investments get screwed by inflation.... If I bought a $1,000 of IBM stock and inflation increased that stock price to $2,500, I'd have to pay taxes on a $1,500 gain when sold, even if adjusted for inflation the true value went down.

True. But labor and savings get screwed even more.

... those evil wealthy people.  :

Some have gotten there through hard work.  Others by rigging the system to their advantage. Why lump them all together and continue to defend the latter? One could  argue that monetary policy is an even bigger issue than taxation in causing the unfair imbalance and rigged system.

I think we have fully veered away from covid politics into straight on politics

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is indeed a mess and should be completely overhauled.

Good luck, Steve Forbes was soundly rejected when he tried to scrape off multiple deductions and drastically simplify the tax code.

Alexis de Tocqueville (french social scientist and historian) warned in the 1830s that the US democracy was doomed when legislators figure out they can bribe the voters with their own money. I believe he was correct in that warning.

From the article, the 1% paid a 27.1.% rate, while the .001% paid a 23.9% rate.  How are facts logical fallacies or class warfare?

It is fallacious because their tax rate does not drop "because" they earn more money.

Note: I'm not even saying what the tax  rates should be, only that I can't see how a reasonable person can say the above is fair.

Uber wealthy rates go down in part because the current system unfairly punishes labor.

There we go again with fairness again....consider simple supply/demand... labor is cheap and getting cheaper with globalization and automation. Capital is dear (scarce) so earn higher returns (at least it used to, these low interest rates suck for old farts like me.)

And what's wrong with Buffet's comments? Do you think it's fair that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than him?

Fair? I love Warren Buffett, he is pretty much the smartest man in any room he is in. That screed he raised about his secretary's tax rate was pandering to the then democratic administration perhaps to get better treatment from regulators (smart). It clearly distracted everybody away from how he has structured his personal paydays. Warren gets paid exactly one share of his company stock (BRK/A)  each year.  Don't feel sorry for him, that one share trades for $262,500 ea. Of course being uber-rich he has that structured as "at risk" capital return for favorable tax treatment, exactly like those wall street hedge funds we love to hate. I have owned a position in BRK/B the cheap Berkshire stock for years. It only costs around $175 a share.  8)

For another observation about Buffett, if he trusted the government to spend wisely he wouldn't have put his personal billions into private charities (like the Bill Gates charity).

I'm not actually saying we should or shouldn't tax the wealthy more, only that the current system is unfair.

   

The proposal is get rid of the whole system, no loopholes, deductions exemptions, etc. Treat all income the same. One page returns with no accountants needed (they might not like that). You made X dollars? Times it by Y. Done.

Seriously, removing all the deductions will hurt poor families the worst. Removing mortgage deductions will harm home owners (and sellers). Paid off my mortgage decades ago and have never itemized deductions. In fact I never filed a homestead deduction that would reduce my local property taxes because I can see how stretched my town's finances are.

Y could be an equation or a  flat percentage. Or maybe even 0 and you get the money in other ways The important thing is we examine ALL taxes to make an optimal determination.

What you think is optimal? or me...  :

Here is an article looking at total taxation. In total it is not as progressive as many think
https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2018/

They claim to be non-partisan but parrot the same wealth transfer screed....

Yes, reform those as well.

Person A starts with $1000, gets X% yearly return, pays Y% tax. Pays tax on gains only at the end.

Person B starts with $1000, gets X% yearly return, pays Y% tax. Pays tax on gains every year.

After many years Person A has more money (tax advantaged compounding), often way more.

please clarify when are those gains recognized? Under current law only when the investments are sold (while dividends and interest recognized when issued. )

Person B would be forced to put in more money each year to keep up.  Person A can also strategically choose when to exit the investment.

keep up with who.... 

You seem to gloss over that standard IRA account investments are made with pre-tax income, so the retirement contribution gets the benefit of not having to pay taxes, until decades later when funds are withdrawn. The presumption is that tax rates on a retirees income will be lower than during peak earning.

I converted my regular IRA to roth paying taxes on the value at the time, for the benefit of not being taxed later. I trust the government to not raise taxes about as far as I can throw them... Just this year they have spent trillions of dollars that we will ultimately be responsible for, and they aren't finished spending yet. 

True. But labor and savings get screwed even more.

I have lived frugally most of my adult life. I drive a 20+ YO car, and have decided not to replace a trashed knee joint. Low interest rates suck... I have exactly one CD left paying 2.75% but it expires in July and I can't roll it over into anything close. At my age I should own mostly bonds but with those crappy interest rates I just can't make myself.

I haven't considered myself "labor" since I was in my teens, maybe as a boot in the army I was labor, but even then as a pfc I was a clerk working in Battalion level headquarters.

Some have gotten there through hard work.  Others by rigging the system to their advantage. Why lump them all together and continue to defend the latter?

So why lump them all together and demonize them all...

One could  argue that monetary policy is an even bigger issue than taxation in causing the unfair imbalance and rigged system.

you could.... to promote political divisiveness. Monetary policy is not the only train that is off the tracks.

I think we have fully veered away from covid politics into straight on politics

we?  I started a separate thread for pure politics (talking points like this certainly is).

This is just a reminder of today's  hyper partisan environment making it impossible to ignore politics.

JR

 

[john12ax7]

It is fallacious because their tax rate does not drop "because" they earn more money.

No one is arguing that.

There we go again with fairness again....

Yes, lets get rid of the concept of fairness in government and relegate it to that of childhood wonder.  Life is not fair, I agree, but that doesn't mean government shouldn't be. We should DEMAND fairness from all public service, government, police, legal system, etc. Is that unreasonable? The fact that you are resorting to comics means you are losing the argument

consider simple supply/demand... labor is cheap and getting cheaper with globalization and automation. Capital is dear (scarce) so earn higher returns (at least it used to, these low interest rates suck for old farts like me.)

Yes, but let's apply supply and demand to EVERYTHING, you can't do it for labor and then not do it for money. Capital has not been dear (scarce) for a long time. Who has benefited the most from it? There is 30-40 years of data showing the result. It's really not that hard to make tons of money when you have access to boatloads of virtually free risk free capital.

Fair? I love Warren Buffett, he is pretty much the smartest man in any room he is in. That screed he raised about his secretary's tax rate was pandering to the then democratic administration perhaps to get better treatment from regulators (smart). It clearly distracted everybody away from how he has structured his personal paydays. Warren gets paid exactly one share of his company stock (BRK/A)  each year.  Don't feel sorry for him, that one share trades for $262,500 ea. Of course being uber-rich he has that structured as "at risk" capital return for favorable tax treatment, exactly like those wall street hedge funds we love to hate. I have owned a position in BRK/B the cheap Berkshire stock for years. It only costs around $175 a share.  8)

I used to own BRKB back when it was 1/100 of BRKA, I'm guessing it split at some point since then. His salary is peanuts, a token gesture. The real money is the total stock he owns, which incidentally he avoids taxes on by not paying dividends and then acquiring other companies. So he is a bit disingenuous, and will do what's best for him (see recent airline transactions). But that doesn't mean his statements were invalid.

Seriously, removing all the deductions will hurt poor families the worst. Removing mortgage deductions will harm home owners (and sellers). Paid off my mortgage decades ago and have never itemized deductions. In fact I never filed a homestead deduction that would reduce my local property taxes because I can see how stretched my town's finances are.

Deductions come at the expense of those that don't get them. Renters are the ones who are actually hurt by the mortgage deductions. I'm not arguing that taxes on home owners should go up, only that no group should receive preferential treatment. There I go again with my childhood fantasies about fairness.

What you think is optimal? or me...  :

You, me, others can debate that. But if you and I, who are of similar limited government ideologies, can't even agree on how the system is broken. Then what hope can we have for the greater political divide?

please clarify when are those gains recognized? Under current law only when the investments are sold (while dividends and interest recognized when issued. )keep up with who.... 

You seem to gloss over that standard IRA account investments are made with pre-tax income, so the retirement contribution gets the benefit of not having to pay taxes, until decades later when funds are withdrawn. The presumption is that tax rates on a retirees income will be lower than during peak earning.

Not talking about IRAs, but they are a good example of a tax advantaged account. It is beneficial, even at the same tax rates, to pay the tax decades later.

Capital gains has this same edge since gains can be realized at one's optimal choosing, even put off indefinitely (see Buffet). Labor gains are forcibly taxed every year. Therefore labor is at a disadvantage even at the same rate. You don't need a difference in rate on top of that. 

Just this year they have spent trillions of dollars that we will ultimately be responsible for, and they aren't finished spending yet. 

Yes, and very little of the trillions went to those that actually need it. This was the original covid related topic that I veered from. Just more of the same government favoritism. Oops, sorry to bring up fairness again. But wait, don't you constantly rail against the government picking winners and losers, does that mean you actually care about fairness as well?

Low interest rates suck...

Yes they do, so why are we at odds on monetary policy then?

So why lump them all together and demonize them all

I'm not (though I realize some do). There are the reasonable ones who are actual capitalists.

...you could.... to promote political divisiveness. Monetary policy is not the only train that is off the tracks.

I don't see how monetary policy is a partisan issue, as both sides are well on board the easy money gravy train. The only ones who bring it up are outsiders and fringe candidates.

 

[JohnRoberts]

No one is arguing that.

Yes, lets get rid of the concept of fairness in government and relegate it to that of childhood wonder.  Life is not fair, I agree, but that doesn't mean government shouldn't be. We should DEMAND fairness from all public service, government, police, legal system, etc. Is that unreasonable? The fact that you are resorting to comics means you are losing the argument

The comic should be less offensive than me just saying that.

"Fairness" is not an objective metric... Comparing wealth or other outcomes is flawed...

Yes, but let's apply supply and demand to EVERYTHING, you can't do it for labor and then not do it for money. Capital has not been dear (scarce) for a long time.

and I've been warning about this for a long time, but still apples and oranges compared to labor... capitalism is all about putting wealth at risk. There is a whole generation growing up in these distorted easy money times. 

Who has benefited the most from it? There is 30-40 years of data showing the result. It's really not that hard to make tons of money when you have access to boatloads of virtually free risk free capital.

Then why ain't I rich? (I am compared to some at least in Hickory ).

I may be repeating myself but the central bank easing since 2007-8 was to mitigate the housing bubble collapse and promote a wealth effect to keep consumers feeling confident and spending.

I used to own BRKB back when it was 1/100 of BRKA, I'm guessing it split at some point since then.

Guess again, the math is not that hard I posted the price of BRK/A and BRK/B in my post. The ratio is more like 1000x.

His salary is peanuts, a token gesture.

I believe he already has more than enough wealth to satisfy his immediate needs. Indeed he is so wealthy he has to work to figure out how to dispose of it after he dies. He has already determined he doesn't want the government to get it.

It is an all too common theme from wealthy people to support higher income taxes, because they already got theirs. They want higher income taxes on other up and comers so they can't catch up to them. Of course ask the uber-wealthy about their opinions on a wealth tax. 

The real money is the total stock he owns, which incidentally he avoids taxes on by not paying dividends and then acquiring other companies.

are you talking about him personally or Berkshire Hathaway the company?

In fact I am not scared to hold BRK/B with him and Charlie Munger (his business partner) older than dirt, because I would not be surprised to see them start paying dividends after his death. Of course I can not predict the future.

So he is a bit disingenuous, and will do what's best for him (see recent airline transactions). But that doesn't mean his statements were invalid.

huh?  He is sitting on a huge cash pile but not buying companies because he perceives that the market prices are distorted (too high). I am inclined to agree with him, if I was younger I'd buy a bigger house, but I'll pass.....

Deductions come at the expense of those that don't get them. Renters are the ones who are actually hurt by the mortgage deductions.

and what about the home owners helped? There is a positive association with home ownership so the government promoted that. (I never itemized and took a mortgage deduction). I paid off the mortgage I assumed when I purchased this house,  because it was an easy way to get that much return on my cash.

I'm not arguing that taxes on home owners should go up, only that no group should receive preferential treatment. There I go again with my childhood fantasies about fairness.

I am not a fan of government trying to incentivize their idea of good behavior with tax policy, but sadly that is what they do.

You, me, others can debate that. But if you and I, who are of similar limited government ideologies, can't even agree on how the system is broken. Then what hope can we have for the greater political divide?

I am not much of follower, despite what people think...  we agree on enough, take that as a win.

Not talking about IRAs, but they are a good example of a tax advantaged account. It is beneficial, even at the same tax rates, to pay the tax decades later.

I believe it nets out... the benefit is enjoying lower tax rates after peak earning years, so you pay a lower rate on withdrawal.

Capital gains has this same edge since gains can be realized at one's optimal choosing, even put off indefinitely (see Buffet).

if you don't take capital gains they remain at risk and can be lost.... trust me I lost a pile when the dot com bubble burst. (see JR)

Labor gains are forcibly taxed every year. Therefore labor is at a disadvantage even at the same rate. You don't need a difference in rate on top of that. 

Do you mean income?

Yes, and very little of the trillions went to those that actually need it. This was the original covid related topic that I veered from. Just more of the same government favoritism. Oops, sorry to bring up fairness again. But wait, don't you constantly rail against the government picking winners and losers, does that mean you actually care about fairness as well?

Yes they do, so why are we at odds on monetary policy then?

I'm not (though I realize some do). There are the reasonable ones who are actual capitalists.

I don't see how monetary policy is a partisan issue, as both sides are well on board the easy money gravy train. The only ones who bring it up are outsiders and fringe candidates.

you are wearing me out... I need a break...(actually I need another beer).

JR

 

[Gold]

I suspect I have experienced any number over the decades who were not blatant about their sexuality. There was one supply sargeant in the Army who was unusually effeminate, but under "don't ask-don't tell" we didn't ask or care. 

I recently saw an interview with an ex Navy Seal who is trans. She said that there is a higher than average number of trans people in these hyper masculine jobs. Probably why military brass is against the ban. I was surprised that a significant percentage of elite soldiers are trans.

 

[Tubetec]

Sorry but the endless cycle of re-quote and answer is painful to read,
not to mention the waste of storage space 

Seal division gets a lot of dirty work to do , clean up opperations to keep a lid on political f**k up's ,
there life expectancy isnt good after retirement , was one guy who retired with his wife here to west Cork , diver by trade ,went out one day for his usual scuba dive in the bay ,found washed up with a broken sternum ,barely made it into his his 50's .

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/former-us-navy-seal-died-in-solo-dive-20795.html

More than likely the military have had ways of manipulating peoples hormones for years ,
what better way to discredit an ex member of staff who gets out alive but with enough dirt to cave in the whole show , the Chelsea (formerly Brad) Manning case is the obvious one.
Plenty of evidence lying around to show project Mk Ultra, Syd Gotlieb and OSS had an interest in those kinds of Psy-ops methodologies.

 

[john12ax7]

Guess again, the math is not that hard I posted the price of BRK/A and BRK/B in my post. The ratio is more like 1000x.

Huh? Obviously it is 1500x now, did I claim otherwise? Perhaps you don't know the history of BRKB, but it was originally issued at a lower ratio. What I actually said is I used to own it, at a lower ratio (I recall the $2k price range), therefore figured it split at some point (which it did in 2010 now that I looked it up). If you wanted to point out it was originally 30x before that, fine, that would be welcome. But instead you bring up math skills, for the price now, which I never actually commented on  :

So at this point I really can't tell, do you not comprehend what is written, or do you intentionally ignore it in order to lob unrelated insults.

you are wearing me out... I need a break...(actually I need another beer).

Finally something we can agree on.