Help the billionaires

[bdgan]

Please lose the Ponzi scheme slur.

You know the main difference between a Ponzi scheme and things that also depend on delayed payout? Ponzi schemes intend to defraud.

Social security doesn't intend to defraud. 401K plans don't. Insurance coverage doesn't. Savings accounts don't....

All of those depend on other people paying in at a later date, and will fail if that doesn't happen. But they aren't set up to fail.

I don't care about the intention. I care about results.

I support a forced retirement system because a lot of people wouldn't do it if given the option. Then they'd come running with their hands out when they retire broke.

What should have happened is that a forced retirement system should have gone into place and those participants would receive the benefits when they retire. The problem is that the government started paying benefits to people who never or minimally paid into the system. Then they kept adding benefits like spousal and disability with no way to pay for it. Just spend the current people's money and rely on new participants to cover for the next group. What could go wrong?

Wikipedia: A Ponzi scheme is a type of financial fraud where the operator promises high returns with little or no risk, but there is no real investment generating profits. Instead, the scheme relies on funds from new investors to pay earlier investors, creating the illusion of a successful investment. Does this sound familiar?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The key word here is “realized”. Buy borrow die and pay next to nothing in taxes.

Exactly. Gemini tells me that Musk rarely reports meaningful income. One of the few times in years was when he cashed a lot of stock to buy Twitter. Usually he borrows against his mega assets to live on, and rarely pays much tax.

 

[Rastafarian]

Then he wouldn't have the cash.

FWIW Tesla, Meta, Alphabet, etc are no qualified small businesses

Ok cool. An answer to a question I never asked.

 

[FLaw47]

you do know that with your 401k, which is growing through capital gains dividends and interest, will be taxed at ordinary income rates when you take it out as RMD....so the government will get their money, just not today.

Its the same for the billionaires...they're not avoiding taxes altogether. When/if they sell stock/restricted stock/options, whatever they pay taxes on that money and when they die they'll pay a hefty death tax....

There's stepped up basis on death, which avoids a LOT of taxes.

 

[Rastafarian]

Nobody thinks universal health care is free.

Sorry to keep correcting statements like this, but it's hard to have the good discussions if people's main objections are made up.

Bdgan is in the Ned category of posting a response that has nothing to do with what you said.

 

[Rastafarian]

There's stepped up basis on death, which avoids a LOT of taxes.

Buy borrow die. But bdgan Ned and Fatpiggy will just tell you this is the system and anyone can use it.

 

[bdgan]

Nobody thinks universal health care is free.

Sorry to keep correcting statements like this, but it's hard to have the good discussions if people's main objections are made up.

I didn't make an objection. I simply stated that other countries do certain things we don't do to keep cost down. There are some negatives to doing those things.

 

[FLaw47]

Buy borrow die. But bdgan Ned and Fatpiggy will just tell you this is the system and anyone can use it.

It's true in the "rich people and poor people are equally prohibited from sleeping on benches" way.

 

[Huey Grey 2]

Easy. If you have 150 billion dollars in unrealized capital gains like Elon musk. You have 50 million or 100 million dollars to buy whatever you want. The focus on the wealth of the very wealthy is basically a distraction because the vast majority of it is in unrealized taxable gains which are extremely difficult to tax and which theoretically in some instances could go down to zero. If it hasn't been sold, it isn't a profit.

Musk bought Twitter on accident for nearly $50 billion. He had zero problem coming up with those funds. The idea that billionaires don't have spendable money is largely a myth. They can be taxed we just don't want to do it.

 

[Huey Grey 2]

I didn't make an objection. I simply stated that other countries do certain things we don't do to keep cost down. There are some negatives to doing those things.

We have what? Some 40 million Americans without health are? I understand they ration healthcare, but we have 40 million with no healthcare. That's not rationing. That's complete withholding. Our system is two tiered just like a lot of other systems in our country. Personally I'm done making excuses for this K shaped bs.

 

[baltimorened]

Oh Ned. You and your simple little mind. Ever heard of a super pac?

how did Leon Musk contribute over $200 million to pedo protector’s campaign?

I understand all about super PACs..I did this for a living a while ago...but you were using the terms as if you were talking about an individual candidate - maybe my interpretation. A super PAC cannot coordinate with individual candidates.

That's not a fair analysis.

European countries keep cost low by limiting medical liability, limiting availability of end of life care, and limiting provider pay. They don't achieve the lower cost simply because the government is more efficient.

Different countries have different ways of paying for it. Are you OK if sales tax goes to 20% and the effective rate of your federal income tax goes from 18% to 30%?

I'm not criticizing Canadian and European healthcare. There are some positives and also some negatives. I just challenge the notion that we could get better care for 35% less just because the government is more efficient.

maybe it's just me but it seems as if costs and waiting times have increased since implementation of the ACA...two things which were supposed to decrease

 

[baltimorened]

They literally spend more on political campaigns than they do taxes and yet you have dumbasses on this board saying everything is fine. Nothing to see here.

I don't think the "dumbasses" as saying everything is fine..our debt is now greater than our GDP. The dumbasses are trying to tell you that taxing wealth is likely not the answer. And, I know at least one that has asked for you to come up with a way to get at the billionaires (without upsetting the entire system)

 

[baltimorened]

Close loopholes. Tax loans against equity.

seems as if I heard that from one of the "dumbasses" in an earlier post

 

[Huey Grey 2]

I don't think the "dumbasses" as saying everything is fine..our debt is now greater than our GDP. The dumbasses are trying to tell you that taxing wealth is likely not the answer. And, I know at least one that has asked for you to come up with a way to get at the billionaires (without upsetting the entire system)

Why isn't taxing billionaires at least part of the solution?

 

[baltimorened]

There's stepped up basis on death, which avoids a LOT of taxes.

absolutely true, but that's not RMD. But I understand your point....

 

[Rahskie]

Some people would argue that you shouldn't get SS benefits because you've saved enough and don't need them.

Yep, while discounting the hard work, long hours, sacrifices and smart investing. I think that is what gets me the most. I am not some rich person taking advantage of the poor. Taxes HURT every paycheck.

I also want to have enough to send my daughter to college out of state. I am budgeting 250K to do that ($62,500 a year for 4 years) to do that (I live in GA, went to Clemson and that is about what it would cost for her to go to Clemson). That means I have to save $1,157 a month, every month for 18 years to reach that number.

Do I want her to go out of state.....hell no. Do I want to pay that much for college....hell no. But I am willing to make the sacrifices in my life to give her the opportunity if she so chooses. If you add in car at 16 (she is 15), wedding (hopefully), on my insurance till 26 etc, etc, I need a ton of money just for her.

Many would claim I am rich because I have enough money to just support her needs as a father. I am sick of the rich talk because, it is not just billionaires. The class warfare puts me on the wrong side of the equation and yes, that means I would be targeted with increased capital gains or unrealized gains taxes that would impact my ability to support her. Ughhhhh!!!!

 

[baltimorened]

Buy borrow die. But bdgan Ned and Fatpiggy will just tell you this is the system and anyone can use it.

don't know about piggy, but is there something incorrect about what I said..can't everyone use it???

 

[baltimorened]

It's true in the "rich people and poor people are equally prohibited from sleeping on benches" way.

well how about rich people and poor people get one vote

 

[baltimorened]

We have what? Some 40 million Americans without health are? I understand they ration healthcare, but we have 40 million with no healthcare. That's not rationing. That's complete withholding. Our system is two tiered just like a lot of other systems in our country. Personally I'm done making excuses for this K shaped bs.

I believe the number now is about 23 million.

But here's the thing, the ACA as passed was supposed to cover all 41 million uninsured, save the average family $2500 year, reduce the deficit, not cost the federal government a dime and improve care.

So far, none of those things have happened or are likely to happen anytime in the near future. And, I'm not blaming Obama or the sheepish politicians who just jumped in line to vote for it. The ACA concept died the day the individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. WHat I do blame is the inaction to fix the program or come up with a better one in the last 15 years. And that's on the members of both parties.

The answer is not to throw more money at the problem through subsidies IMO. One of the original concepts was to create a high risk pool...maybe that would work, I don't know...there's some of the unisured that don't want to pay or can't afford to pay for healthcare and a lot of the young folks don't think they need it just yet.

The ACA had some good points, and in my opinion, might be the foundation for a newer system. But so far our politicians seem to be more interested in anything other than substantive programs

 

[Pharcyded]

I love when lefties call IRS data right wing propaganda.

And how much of the wealth does the top 1% own? When you answer that, you will start to see the problem.

 

[baltimorened]

Why isn't taxing billionaires at least part of the solution?

I'm sure it is and I'm pretty sure that raising taxes on the rest of us is as well. A problem that we've had in the discussion is that since billionaires don't take salaries (general statement) there's no income to tax. So, without breaking the entire system to get at an estimated 400-800 people, how do you get around that problem.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Flat tax proposals often include a generous standard deduction, so in your example, the person earning $50K may only pay the 15% tax on $20K of it. Or, a paltry $3K for all of the benefits that America provides. It’s an amazing deal. The gratefulness should flow and the appreciation for the people paying the lion’s share of taxes should be outwardly expressed.

 

[Pharcyded]

I'd love this conversation. Billionaires operate under a completely different tax structure than the rest of us. And that structure leads to them paying super low rates. So why can't we fix this?

Because neither party seems genuinely interested in fixing this issue. One place to start would be repealing the Citizens United decision so that a majority of elected officials are no longer effectively bought and paid for. Perhaps then our leaders could operate with a plan that benefits all Americans and helps build a stronger country.

Right now, the trajectory feels increasingly similar to a Russian-style oligarchy, if we aren’t already there.

 

[Pharcyded]

you really should look up the amount of money the billionaires are allowed to give to candidates for their elections. You could give just as much, and buy yourself a congressman who will do the things you want....hint...it $3,500 per election...So think about it, based on your statement you can invest $3500 in a congressman and get whatever you want from the government. Your congressman would "have to do things" for you.

Does that seem logical?

You can't be serious? Perhaps you don't understand what Citizens United did to our political system.

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC ruled (5-4) that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and associations. This landmark decision enabled unlimited spending on elections, leading to the rise of Super PACs and "dark money," while still allowing disclaimer and disclosure requirements. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key Outcomes of the Ruling:

• Unrestricted Independent Expenditures: Struck down federal bans (previously held under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) on corporations and unions using their treasury funds to create ads or "electioneering communications" that expressly advocate for or against candidates.
• • "Money is Speech": The ruling held that political speech is protected by the First Amendment regardless of whether the speaker is an individual or a corporation.
  • Independent vs. Direct Contributions: While independent expenditures were allowed to be unlimited, the decision did not affect the ban on corporations or unions making direct contributions to candidate campaigns.
  • Upheld Disclosure Rules: The Court upheld legal requirements that forced corporations to disclose donors for these independent ads, though critics argue this has not prevented "dark money" from influencing elections.
  • Impact: The decision caused a massive influx of corporate and special interest money into elections, increasing the influence of wealthy donors and weakening traditional campaign finance limitations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

 

[Huey Grey 2]

I believe the number now is about 23 million.

But here's the thing, the ACA as passed was supposed to cover all 41 million uninsured, save the average family $2500 year, reduce the deficit, not cost the federal government a dime and improve care.

So far, none of those things have happened or are likely to happen anytime in the near future. And, I'm not blaming Obama or the sheepish politicians who just jumped in line to vote for it. The ACA concept died the day the individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. WHat I do blame is the inaction to fix the program or come up with a better one in the last 15 years. And that's on the members of both parties.

The answer is not to throw more money at the problem through subsidies IMO. One of the original concepts was to create a high risk pool...maybe that would work, I don't know...there's some of the unisured that don't want to pay or can't afford to pay for healthcare and a lot of the young folks don't think they need it just yet.

The ACA had some good points, and in my opinion, might be the foundation for a newer system. But so far our politicians seem to be more interested in anything other than substantive programs

To be fair, the ACA was just a starting place. Rs had decades to add and subtract, fix and improve it. They did nothing but ***** and moan. It's hard to have healthcare in America when one party wants people left out in the cold because it makes for a good attack ad.

 

[Huey Grey 2]

I'm sure it is and I'm pretty sure that raising taxes on the rest of us is as well. A problem that we've had in the discussion is that since billionaires don't take salaries (general statement) there's no income to tax. So, without breaking the entire system to get at an estimated 400-800 people, how do you get around that problem.

Why can't we, though? What's so integral with the current tax code that makes it impossible to tax billionaires more without nuking the entire tax code?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Go back and read my posts and find where I have said this is exclusively a pedo protector problem? It’s been going on for decades and isn’t a dem or republican thing.

It's a money thing. And it's gotten dramatically - and perhaps irrevocably - worse since Citizens United.

 

[FLaw47]

I didn't make an objection. I simply stated that other countries do certain things we don't do to keep cost down. There are some negatives to doing those things.

well how about rich people and poor people get one vote

Is this some reference to money in politics?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Bdgan is in the Ned category of posting a response that has nothing to do with what you said.

I'm new here and am trying to give everyone the benefit of doubt.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

you really should look up the amount of money the billionaires are allowed to give to candidates for their elections. You could give just as much, and buy yourself a congressman who will do the things you want....hint...it $3,500 per election...So think about it, based on your statement you can invest $3500 in a congressman and get whatever you want from the government. Your congressman would "have to do things" for you.

Does that seem logical?

In a world of super pacs heavily controlled by the ultra wealthy this is quite disingenuous.

By the way, I’m independent and equally concerned about liberal and conservative ultra wealthy folks.

 

[Tenacious E_rivals41982]

Please lose the Ponzi scheme slur.

You know the main difference between a Ponzi scheme and things that also depend on delayed payout? Ponzi schemes intend to defraud.

Social security doesn't intend to defraud. 401K plans don't. Insurance coverage doesn't. Savings accounts don't....

All of those depend on other people paying in at a later date, and will fail if that doesn't happen. But they aren't set up to fail.

Que? A 401k is simply a vessel for your tax deferred compensation. Your balance is your balance. It doesn’t depend on anyone paying in at a later date.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

You act like Trump created the billionaires. That they barely existed under Obama or Biden which is false. You also act like billionaires don't pay taxes which is also false. Also that the wealth gap is just a USA thing.

Serious questions.
Do you think you should pay a 25% tax on your 401-K balance?
Would you prefer that the biggest corporations like Tesla, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, etc didn't exist (or they existed offshore)?
Do you think a $30 minimum wage would have no impact on inflation?

I know, it's not your job to ask ridiculous questions. It's only your job to complain about Trump.

You boys just can't help but tell on yourselves can you?

 

[baltimorened]

You can't be serious? Perhaps you don't understand what Citizens United did to our political system.

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC ruled (5-4) that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and associations. This landmark decision enabled unlimited spending on elections, leading to the rise of Super PACs and "dark money," while still allowing disclaimer and disclosure requirements. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key Outcomes of the Ruling:

• Unrestricted Independent Expenditures: Struck down federal bans (previously held under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) on corporations and unions using their treasury funds to create ads or "electioneering communications" that expressly advocate for or against candidates.
• • "Money is Speech": The ruling held that political speech is protected by the First Amendment regardless of whether the speaker is an individual or a corporation.
  • Independent vs. Direct Contributions: While independent expenditures were allowed to be unlimited, the decision did not affect the ban on corporations or unions making direct contributions to candidate campaigns.
  • Upheld Disclosure Rules: The Court upheld legal requirements that forced corporations to disclose donors for these independent ads, though critics argue this has not prevented "dark money" from influencing elections.
  • Impact: The decision caused a massive influx of corporate and special interest money into elections, increasing the influence of wealthy donors and weakening traditional campaign finance limitations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

we were talking contributions to individual member campaigns..

 

[Jerome Silberman]

we were talking contributions to individual member campaigns..

Do you always refer to yourself in the plural?

 

[DailyBuck7]

Musk bought Twitter on accident for nearly $50 billion. He had zero problem coming up with those funds. The idea that billionaires don't have spendable money is largely a myth. They can be taxed we just don't want to do it.

I didn't say he didn't have spendable more money if he wants it for an investment or otherwise. The question is whether it's good government policy to force business people to sell their assets when the government thinks it's a good idea rather than the business person. Also, I'm not sure whether he paid cash for Twitter or whether he bought it with some of his stocks.

That's not a fair analysis.

European countries keep cost low by limiting medical liability, limiting availability of end of life care, and limiting provider pay. They don't achieve the lower cost simply because the government is more efficient.

Different countries have different ways of paying for it. Are you OK if sales tax goes to 20% and the effective rate of your federal income tax goes from 18% to 30%?

I'm not criticizing Canadian and European healthcare. There are some positives and also some negatives. I just challenge the notion that we could get better care for 35% less just because the government is more efficient.

You should be criticizing Canadian and English healthcare. They are both awful and people quite often have to wait several months to see a specialist even after there's a preliminary diagnosis of something like cancer. Both are terrible systems and even the British admit that their system is failing.

 

[FLaw47]

I didn't say he didn't have spendable more money if he wants it for an investment or otherwise. The question is whether it's good government policy to force business people to sell their assets when the government thinks it's a good idea rather than the business person. Also, I'm not sure whether he paid cash for Twitter or whether he bought it with some of his stocks.

You should be criticizing Canadian and English healthcare. They are both awful and people quite often have to wait several months to see a specialist even after there's a preliminary diagnosis of something like cancer. Both are terrible systems and even the British admit that their system is failing.

I don't want either of those systems but it sounds like you're describing the USA as well.

 

[DailyBuck7]

They literally spend more on political campaigns than they do taxes and yet you have dumbasses on this board saying everything is fine. Nothing to see here.

Cite your statistics and include employee social security taxes, property taxes, unemployment payments, workers compensation payments and retirement fund payments. Make sure to include state and city taxes and payments.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Cite your statistics and include employee social security taxes, property taxes, unemployment payments, workers compensation payments and retirement fund payments. Make sure to include state and city taxes and payments.

 

[DailyBuck7]

I don't want either of those systems but it sounds like you're describing the USA as well.

At least in terms of waiting time, which is extremely important, they are much worse.

 

[FLaw47]

At least in terms of waiting time, which is extremely important, they are much worse.

Waiting times in the states for specialists are quite bad too. You tried seeing a dermatologist recently?

I'd wager you've actually never seen any data on wait times and are just repeating things you've heard a bunch of times.

Edit: For clarity I know the wait times are worse there. I just think some people act like they're great here and they aren't.