📈Is the correction over? What cards look attractive with an upside potential?📈

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

So taxes should be applied to hurt people? Is it a problem that LeBron James is accumulating wealth at a faster rate than the rest of the US?

Tax him hard for all I care for. He makes his fortune off of the poor people buying all his swag and the NBA using his likeness to make money off everyone that supports his wealth. Trickle up economics. Give more money to the poor and they will make LeBron more money. Glad you care that poor LeBron only has a net worth of $1.2 billion. Maybe he should pay the same taxes as me since we are both one person.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

It’s not sympathy to billionaires. It’s sympathy to capitalism and what is fair.

Since you think it, tell me exactly how you’d institute a tax on net worth. I mainly want to know what assets are included, how you account for possible future depreciation, and how you avoid taxation of the same assets in perpetuity.

Still waiting for you to answer this.

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Tax him hard for all I care for. He makes his fortune off of the poor people buying all his swag and the NBA using his likeness to make money off everyone that supports his wealth. Trickle up economics. Give more money to the poor and they will make LeBron more money. Glad you care that poor LeBron only has a net worth of $1.2 billion. Maybe he should pay the same taxes as me since we are both one person.

What does tax him hard mean? What percent? What tax bracket changes do you propose?

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Still waiting for you to answer this.


What does tax him hard mean? What percent? What tax bracket changes do you propose?

I think the tax bracket is fine right now. Most athletes probably pay close to the percentage that is listed. The issue is the tax loopholes and the legal shenanigans that wealthy people and corporations can use to reduce tax liability. I can list a few if you want that should make people upset, but are completely legal.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

If the top 30% of wealth is held by 1% of people that 1% of people should shoulder 30% of the tax burden. Seems reasonable to me.

Welcome to flat-tax advocacy then?

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

So what impact does LOWERING their taxes do for the rest of us exactly? Besides giving the government "less to piss away"? You'll notice Im generally saying "stop cutting their taxes" and not "keep raising their taxes", I'm mostly baffled why we keep pretending dropping their taxes is anything other than politicians helping to enrich their rich friends.

"Enrich" as in give money away that doesn't really belong to them?

But giving away is not the same as not taking away. Who generated the income/wealth in the first place?
(Oh yeah, there's the societally-essential infrastructure, and quality of upbringings, and all that, that determines how good one is at generating wealth. So how much of that infrastucture and good fortune/opportunity should the most wealthy pay for in the end? If we're doing a fair calculation of the support they got vs. what value they added over that. Let's hear the numbers. 50 percent effective tax rate? Half seems just about right, huh? One for the fortunate wealthy person, one for the state. That's fairness. Lower their taxes from that and you're "enriching them.")

Student loan forgiveness is buying votes but lowering the taxes of corporations and the wealthiest is...what exactly?

If buying votes is the thing, then lowering taxes on .1% of the population isn't going to add more than about .1% of voters for you.

Student loan forgiveness on the other hand, is a subsidy going to those who took out uncollateralized loans (why they can't be discharged in bankruptcy - those were the terms they agreed to) to pay for college degrees that don't generate an adequate return because Higher Ed has ended up being not so great a value that way. Those student loans have gone in effect to creating academic administrative bloat and it appears a lot of those administrators are distinctly non-centrist/non-rightist political activists. This is what one party would like all the taxpayers to subsidize - economically unproductive if not destructive political activism. I could go on as I'm sure you know

Politicians giving themselves and other business owners PPP loan forgiveness is... what exactly?

during a pandemic you mean

Originally Posted by dunkindutchmen

I don't want to wade into this mess, but this is just blatant propaganda.

People, theoretically, have control over the state -- we can get into reasons why that ownership is so dysfunctional and fragmented -- but they at least have a means to steer the ship. With billionaires, there is no mechanism for control. They are 100% maximized for wealth extraction and accumulation.

So that's what the wealthiest do, they extract wealth (clown emoji)

I submit that Rand/Galt get it pretty much exactly right on such points (and many others).

If bastardizing the language is what you have to do to advance a political position, then count me out thanks

Look at what private equity is doing right now across the US. They legitimately go in, piece out business, sell off the real estate, force the business to take on a host of new expenses, loading them with debt, and then leave the carcass.

It's terrible I know, capital chasing the best returns

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Everyone keeps on quoting the top 1%. The biggest problem is the 0.1% in this country. However we are taxing this group doesn't hurt them at all. They have continued to acquire more wealth at a faster rate than the rest of the US.

And they "acquire" this wealth by plundering wealth others created, like private equity? They extract the wealth from the real creators? Is that your final answer sir

(also make sure to note that income/wealth more or less passively accrues to the rich, especially those retired bondholders basically sucking off the system. Am I missing any essential newspeak here?)

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

I think the tax bracket is fine right now. Most athletes probably pay close to the percentage that is listed. The issue is the tax loopholes and the legal shenanigans that wealthy people and corporations can use to reduce tax liability. I can list a few if you want that should make people upset, but are completely legal.

When you opinions don’t make any sense, it’s hard to keep them from being contradictory.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

When you opinions don’t make any sense, it’s hard to keep them from being contradictory.

My opinion is simple. Remove tax loopholes for the rich so they pay what their effective tax rate should be. If these tax loopholes can't be stopped, have a wealth tax. 18 billionaires received the same stimulus checks many people here received.

How does this not make sense?

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

My opinion is simple. Remove tax loopholes for the rich so they pay what their effective tax rate should be. If these tax loopholes can't be stopped, have a wealth tax. 18 billionaires received the same stimulus checks many people here received.

How does this not make sense?

I assume you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between taxable income and net worth.

If you could close three tax “loopholes”, which would they be?

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

I assume you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between taxable income and net worth.

If you could close three tax “loopholes”, which would they be?

Most of these loopholes deal with borrowing against their assets and using this cash to finance their lifestyle without paying tax on the majority of it. I hope you are intelligent to know how this makes taxable income low while the net worth is high.

Edit: One of these asset loopholes are PPLI's, which are private placement life insurance policies that are tailored to the wealthy. Basically a legal tax shelter masquerading as life insurance.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Most of these loopholes deal with borrowing against their assets and using this cash to finance their lifestyle without paying tax on the majority of it. I hope you are intelligent to know how this makes taxable income low while the net worth is high.

Then you’re not wanting to close a loophole. You’re wanting to redefine what income is. Or change the federal tax code to include non-income in determining tax.

This is my favorite dopey socialist regurgitated plan. Do you want to start taxing all loans? Or just those taken by individuals worth X dollars? If I take out a $750k HELOC, how much tax do you want me to pay on that? Should we tax credit limits too? Credit cards are nothing more than loans at high interest rates that are intended to be a short term borrowing mechanism, but end up being long term for most.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Then you’re not wanting to close a loophole. You’re wanting to redefine what income is. Or change the federal tax code to include non-income in determining tax.

This is my favorite dopey socialist regurgitated plan. Do you want to start taxing all loans? Or just those taken by individuals worth X dollars? If I take out a $750k HELOC, how much tax do you want me to pay on that? Should we tax credit limits too? Credit cards are nothing more than loans at high interest rates that are intended to be a short term borrowing mechanism, but end up being long term for most.

At this point income may have to be redefined. Assets aren't taxed and capital gains are a joke for taxation. Even if long term capital gains are increased to match the federal tax income tiers, it won't make a difference. The wealthy will just do the same thing. Acquire assets, live on loans, and die giving the next generation virtually untaxed wealth. It is the way our system is set up. "Buy, borrow, die!"

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Most of these loopholes deal with borrowing against their assets and using this cash to finance their lifestyle without paying tax on the majority of it. I hope you are intelligent to know how this makes taxable income low while the net worth is high.

Edit: One of these asset loopholes are PPLI's, which are private placement life insurance policies that are tailored to the wealthy. Basically a legal tax shelter masquerading as life insurance.

It is true, the institutions are so corrupt and untrustable nowadays that the powerful and connected gaming the tax system is to be expected

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

At this point income may have to be redefined. Assets aren't taxed and capital gains are a joke for taxation. Even if long term capital gains are increased to match the federal tax income tiers, it won't make a difference. The wealthy will just do the same thing. Acquire assets, live on loans, and die giving the next generation virtually untaxed wealth. It is the way our system is set up. "Buy, borrow, die!"

You don’t ever answer anything I ask. Don’t think you’ve thought this through much.

[jcardstore]

Based on some of the objectively dumb opinions in this thread its no wonder why CA is running a bigger deficit than most countries

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

You don’t ever answer anything I ask. Don’t think you’ve thought this through much.

You want me to solve the issue billionaires are hiding money? My statement is the 0.1% pay less of a percentage of taxes on their net income than I do. I don't need to say anything else for my opinion. The extreme wealthy need to be taxed more to match what their net worth is because they play by a different set of rules. Yes, a loan you take it should be different than a little an a billionaire takes out against their assets.

[anusinha]

Sounds like someone is advocating for a consumption VAT/GST style tax.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

You want me to solve the issue billionaires are hiding money? My statement is the 0.1% pay less of a percentage of taxes on their net income than I do. I don't need to say anything else for my opinion. The extreme wealthy need to be taxed more to match what their net worth is because they play by a different set of rules. Yes, a loan you take it should be different than a little an a billionaire takes out against their assets.

You have to draw a line somewhere. I’m in the highest tax bracket already. So do you want to create even more tax brackets? I’m just interested in what your ideas are. You just don’t care to really dive into it.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Based on some of the objectively dumb opinions in this thread its no wonder why CA is running a bigger deficit than most countries

California is fifth largest "country" in the world and could be third within a few years with its growth passing Germany and Japan. We are doing ok here in California even with doing idiotic things like the high speed rail that may connect Fresno to Bakersfield by 2080. Thanks for worrying about us though.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

You have to draw a line somewhere. I’m in the highest tax bracket already. So do you want to create even more tax brackets? I’m just interested in what your ideas are. You just don’t care to really dive into it.

The additional tax brackets would be unfair in my opinion and hurt people like you more who are paying more than your fair share percentage wise. I am not concerned with the 1%, but the 0.1% whose wealth is growing faster than any percentage demographic. It may be the 0.01% that need to be targeted.

I guess something like the ultra-millionaire tax act would be something I might be on-board with. I think once you reach a certain wealth threshold, say $100 million, that you can fully embrace the tax advantages that you can exploit. That value of $100 million may be have to be adjusted and have percentage tiers as well based on net worth. It may be once you hit this point that you are only taxed on net wealth and don't pay regular taxes.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

The additional tax brackets would be unfair in my opinion and hurt people like you more who are paying more than your fair share percentage wise. I am not concerned with the 1%, but the 0.1% whose wealth is growing faster than any percentage demographic. It may be the 0.01% that need to be targeted.

I guess something like the ultra-millionaire tax act would be something I might be on-board with. I think once you reach a certain wealth threshold, say $100 million, that you can fully embrace the tax advantages that you can exploit. That value of $100 million may be have to be adjusted and have percentage tiers as well based on net worth. It may be once you hit this point that you are only taxed on net wealth and don't pay regular taxes.

Surely you realize how it is practically implausible to properly calculate net wealth at that kind of scale on an annual basis. Who is the arbiter of value? Real estate is quite complex. Just look at the problems with the valuation of Mar-a-Lago. Art, collectible cars, privately held companies, etc. All the same. Then how do you account for asset depreciation that you’ve already paid taxes on?

[discodanman45]

Getting off-topic of the off-topic, I think the pre-1990 basketball is in a real good spot right now. 1986 Fleer has seemed to stabilized. Certain cards like George Gervin rookies pumped by Gary V have seemed to hit a bottom and are trending back up. I am looking to buy a few things right now because I don't see prices getting lower for cards I am looking at.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Surely you realize how it is practically implausible to properly calculate net wealth at that kind of scale on an annual basis. Who is the arbiter of value? Real estate is quite complex. Just look at the problems with the valuation of Mar-a-Lago. Art, collectible cars, privately held companies, etc. All the same. Then how do you account for asset depreciation that you’ve already paid taxes on?

It would be an absolute nightmare and impractical. Every way that I can think of to tax people like Musk or Buffett they could find an easy way out. Set up a non-profit charitable organization and hire your kids to do nothing.

To answer your question, it doesn't matter. Our form of capitalism is broken at the top. Trickle-down doesn't work and giving people free money doesn't work as well. We saw that with people investing in PSA 10 Base 1996 Topps Kobe's for $8000.

As a capitalist I would like to know your opinion on how we deal with the ultra-wealthy. Do you think it is fine as it is?

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

It would be an absolute nightmare and impractical. Every way that I can think of to tax people like Musk or Buffett they could find an easy way out. Set up a non-profit charitable organization and hire your kids to do nothing.

To answer your question, it doesn't matter. Our form of capitalism is broken at the top. Trickle-down doesn't work and giving people free money doesn't work as well. We saw that with people investing in PSA 10 Base 1996 Topps Kobe's for $8000.

As a capitalist I would like to know your opinion on how we deal with the ultra-wealthy. Do you think it is fine as it is?

It’s not fine as it is. Too much taxation that leads to government waste, and regulation that prohibits growth. Capitalism is the best construct the world has ever come up with. We need greater promotion of capitalism, not less. All you’re doing is arguing for socialism.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

It’s not fine as it is. Too much taxation that leads to government waste, and regulation that prohibits growth. Capitalism is the best construct the world has ever come up with. We need greater promotion of capitalism, not less. All you’re doing is arguing for socialism.

You didn't answer my question. You complained about me not giving you a direct answer. What about the ultra-wealthy? Are they taxed appropriately?

Capitalism unchecked has shown to increase wealth gaps in economies to staggering amounts. If you are fine with this inequality, just say so.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

You didn't answer my question. You complained about me not giving you a direct answer. What about the ultra-wealthy? Are they taxed appropriately?

Capitalism unchecked has shown to increase wealth gaps in economies. If you are fine with this inequality, just say so.

Capitalism has raised the living standards of everyone on earth exponentially. The alternate is far worse for everyone.

It would benefit you to learn some history

[kluke84]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

You didn't answer my question. You complained about me not giving you a direct answer. What about the ultra-wealthy? Are they taxed appropriately?

Capitalism unchecked has shown to increase wealth gaps in economies to staggering amounts. If you are fine with this inequality, just say so.

The more you tax and regulate, the more the 'ultra wealthy' (see: job creators) will reduce costs and offshore production. Almost no manufacturing happens stateside anymore and it would only make the issue worse.