One problem which taxing unrealized capital gains or capital gains generally of billionaires, is that the IRS doesn't have capable people to interpret these sophisticated and large transactions. To give an example from my own experience. About 3 years ago, I had a comparatively small capital gain from the sale of a rental property. I put the capital gain in the wrong box (however, the tax was exactly the same even when the income was reported in the wrong box). What the geniuses in the IRS didwas to move my income to the right box and still leave the income in the old box. That's doubling the tax on my capital gain. This very simple issue took three letters and 18 months to correct with the dummies who work for the irs. It is 100% predictable that if they were given the authority to tax large and sophisticated capital gains that they would totally screw it up.
Help the billionaires
- Thread starter Rastafarian
- Start date
To those of you who object to billionaires borrowing money on their unrealized capital gains, I would point out that the interest they pay to the lender is taxable income to the lender which probably would make the taxes collected through some sort of system trying to tax billionaires for borrowing against their unrealized capital gains, a rough wash.
The dirty truth is that pur system falls somewhere in the middle of the pack in the waiting for a specialist line, with ample fast tracks for the wealthy, and has universal systems both ahead and behind it in the rankings.
So...it's a meaningless canard with no real way to make a fair judgment. One thing that is clear though, is that everyone's family will someday need the services and few are ever very 'happy' to pay for it.
Because you and piggy don’t have a big enough net worth to have a bank loan against your equity like Zuck Bezos musk etc. nor do you have millions of shares in a company that were granted to you at $0.01 and now are worth hundreds of dollars each, getting marked to market with no tax.
so you admit that you misfiled your taxes and then put down the people auditing millions of tax records because they made a mistake on yours? Especially when pedo protector cut 25% of the staff.
Last edited:
Your money is gone. If other people aren't investing in the future, where does your payout come from? Your 401k may seem less obviously the same but in that sense it is. But even if you disagree on that one example, surely you recognize the difference between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security. My point was to knock the other poster off the absurd claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme.
Jesus that was one circuitous way to make a point. In any event, no one is going to stop investing in the market. It makes the world turn.
A universal truth that seems to have stumped a lot of people that got swept up by, the objectively bad actor, Ronald Reagan's charming personality.
My dermatologist texts me to remind me to book an annual appointment. IIRC last time I waited about 6 weeks but that was for a routine scan, not an emergency. It's similar with my primary care doctor. If I call to book my annual physical the next available date might be a few months out. But if I have an urgent need they'll try to get me in that day.
I think we can pretty much walk in for blood tests and xrays. Sonograms might be a week. CT scans and MRIs a bit longer but they'll get me in quickly if it's urgent.
Canada's publicly funded healthcare system is lauded for its universality and accessibility. However, it's no secret that certain medical procedures, including MRI scans, often come with lengthy wait times. While prioritization is given to urgent cases, non-emergency situations can result in months-long waits—often exceeding 100 days. This is particularly concerning for individuals experiencing pain or those worried about potential cancers or other serious conditions.
Unlike some other provinces, Ontario does not allow private MRI clinics. This means that patients cannot pay to skip the line and must wait for their turn based on medical priority. For those who cannot afford to wait, the only viable option is to seek MRI services outside of Canada.
Canadians Booking MRI Scans in America - Canmax Medical Imaging
I'm just pointing out that the argument that gets bandied about so often is flawed. Besides, you'll never hear me champion Canada or the UK's system (and I find it curious that these are the only two that universal Healthcare opponents ever cite). I think the French or German systems are a better match for our country.
I paid the correct amount of taxes originally. IRS wrongfully doubled my capital gains taxes. I realized my technical mistake after one pass. IRS wrongfully tried to double my taxes 3 times. Something a high school sophomore should recognize in 2 minutes. It took 3 documentary submissions for the dummies to see their mistake. So, yes I blame the IRS and your defense of their stupidity and stupidity in general is typical of Lefties.
Last edited:
Why is that? Particularly with respect to Germany their economy is cratering because of very high energy prices caused by climate change extremists. Whatever Germany has now almost certainly won't be around in 7 or 10 years. Although I haven't followed France very much at all, the French have never been known for economic efficiency, and I would expect that they have a very inefficient and non-productive economy.
But not smart enough to correct it properly and not smart enough to calculate my taxes properly. [which is what I did] That's a ringing endorsement for their ability to handle complex issues arising out of large unrealized capital gains.
I'm not sure why those things should really affect your opinions of their Healthcare. Anyways, they're both highly regulated multi payer models. Summary stolen from gemini:
France: The "Centralized Hybrid"
The French system is highly centralized and known for its "reimbursement" style. It consistently ranks as one of the best in the world for patient satisfaction.
How it works: Everyone is covered by L’Assurance Maladie (part of the Social Security system). When you visit a doctor, you usually pay upfront, swipe your Carte Vitale (smart card), and the government automatically refunds a portion to your bank account.
Coverage: The state typically covers 70% of a GP visit, 80% of hospital stays, and up to 100% for chronic illnesses (like diabetes or cancer) or maternity care.
The "Mutuelle": Because the state doesn't cover everything, 95% of French residents have a private, top-up insurance policy called a mutuelle. Most employers are legally required to provide and subsidize this for their employees.
Current Trend (2026): To address budget deficits, the government has recently doubled certain "fixed contributions" (small fees for prescriptions and doctor visits), though the annual cap for these remains low (around €100).
Germany: The "Dual Multi-Payer"
Germany has the oldest national social health insurance system in the world. It is more decentralized than France and offers a unique choice between public and private tracks.
The "Sickness Funds": Instead of one state agency, Germany has over 100 non-profit Krankenkassen (sickness funds). About 90% of the population is in the "Statutory" (Public) system.
Public vs. Private: * Statutory (GKV): Mandatory for employees earning below a certain threshold (€77,400 in 2026). The premium is a flat percentage of your income (roughly 14.6%), split 50/50 with your employer.
Private (PKV): If you earn above the threshold or are self-employed, you can "opt-out" of the public system and buy private insurance. Private insurance often offers faster access to specialists and private rooms in hospitals, but premiums are based on your health/age rather than income.
Family Coverage: One of Germany's biggest perks is that in the public system, non-earning spouses and children are covered for free under one person’s policy. In the private system, you pay a separate premium for every family member.
Direct Billing: Unlike France, you rarely pay upfront in Germany. You simply show your insurance card at the desk, and the doctor bills the insurance fund directly.
I'm actually fully supportive of co-pays. I think free at the point of service is bad policy.
I'm just a new guy from the middle of nowhere, but my guess is because the strawman is light and easy to place.
As will many conservative populist issues these days, the firm opinion seems to have to come first. Once that's established then it's time to look for antidotes that support the opinion, or just throw out a bunch of non sequiturs.
On the surface, neither seems that objectionable. I doubt that the left would accede to the major role for private insurers if reform of the current system was being seriously considered. Here is ChatGpt on France: "
A major issue is that France has very high public spending by international standards — roughly 57% of GDP in 2025. That is among the highest in the developed world.
Critics argue that:
- growth has been too weak to support the welfare state,
- borrowing costs are rising,
- and France risks a future debt crisis if deficits are not reduced.
Supporters argue that:
- France avoided severe unemployment,
- maintained strong social protections,
- and weathered multiple crises better than some European peers.
Overall, the last five years can be summarized as:
- large sustained deficits,
- rising public debt,
- slow but positive growth after COVID,
- and increasing concern from economists and EU institutions about fiscal sustainability.
So, you are saying the affordability of an expensive system is a strawman type of argument. ugh
See the problem is you're implying that healthcare spending is all of their spending but we know that's not true. If a solution has to be part of a flawless greater whole before we'll consider it, we won't be able to learn anything from anyone.
I mean, this is definitely a straw man.
It's the equivalent of me saying "controlling the border is something we shouldn't do because we're running a deficit."
I in no way am saying it is all of their spending. Wrong inference by you. I am saying it is a substantial part of their spending and that probably in the not too distant future, they will have to choose between things like education and police spending vs. health care spending. I will add that I practiced workers compensation law for nearly 20 years and have seen the health care system from the inside. Additionally, I was neutral on the private health care system vs. Obamacare. Both are bad systems and the only choice is between the least worst. The fundamental problem is that we don't have informed consumers who can intelligently monitor and limit wasteful healthcare spending. Without informed consumers, doctors and health care systems have mostly free reign to provide and charge for unnecessary treatments.
Maybe you'd be more comfortable if I had called you out for using the motte and bailey fallacy to support these beliefs?
Either way your opinion doesn't make much sense, and seems to rely on a lot of faith in dubious ideas like American Exceptionalism.
I even acknowledged that you clearly knew it wasn't all of the spending but without you giving any context for how much of the spending it is, we can't do anything useful with your information. I circle back to my "we can't patrol the border, we have a deficit" bad faith argument.
I emphatically disagree with you about informed consumers. I do not think it's reasonable AT ALL to expect people to be knowledgeable about the services their doctors recommend. I'm not sure if you knew this, but MDs get like 8 years of specialized training on this stuff and your average Healthcare consumer has like 1.5 years of college and an inability to understand basic statistics. When a patient goes to the doctor they should be able to trust the recommendations they're given and, if the incentives we have for doctors encourage them to give bad recommendations, we should revisit those incentives.
You guys are just making things up and showing your adherence to cliches and stereotypes. I strongly oppose the Iranian war and American intervention generally. Also, a country that would elect a corpse (Biden) and someone as immature as Trump is not exceptional. Additionally a country with a failing educational system like the US is not exceptional.
You live in a fantasy world. I could hire a doctor to say the moon is made out of green cheese. Rochelle Wolensky of the CDC was an incredible and blatant liar. Member doctors of the FDA routinely sell themselves to the pharmacy companies after their term expires. Doctors lied about the origins of the covid virus. Doctors are no different than other human beings and given the opportunity to cheat and unfairly profit, a not insubstantial number of them will do so.
Last edited:
And it's even more of a fantasy world to expect our idiot population to magically be informed about the ins and outs of modern medicine, so I'll go ahead and stick to my guns on this one.
You'll recall, of course, that I specifically said we could change incentives. I don't think I've ever claimed that we should sit idly by here. But it's a lot easier to change 6% of the population than 100% of the population (especially when we've seen the disastrous results of normal people "doing their own research").
I don't expect 100% of the people to be informed. In fact, I say they are not and cannot be. If something like 10-20% of the people were informed enough to make intelligent decisions that would help a lot. We have tried all sorts of incentives to educate children in failing communities and none of them have worked. The govt system with its arbitrary nature and many inefficiencies encourages dr. rebellion and gaming of the system. Their are no practical incentives that I have seen that have made a dent in this problem. In fact, a significant part of the Somali cheating going on is aided and abetted by doctors who write reports saying that people need home health care from their relatives.
You said:
You described this as the fundamental problem.
Maybe you overstated or I overextrapolated but that's why I reacted the way I did.
If I were to say that we don't have 10-20% of knowledgeable consumers that is consistent with saying we don't have consumers who are knowledgeable. (or maybe enough consumers who are knowledgeable) Either way I understand where you are coming from. And, on my end, I have had my say on this issue and nothing to add to my many posts here.
^^^ WOB* **
* edited to note for our hosts that a WOB is an acronym for Want Of Bees instead of wannabes, and our nomenclature for a malapropism.
** further edited to make clear it has nothing to do with the merit of his argument.
Last edited:
good one, but when there's a discussion htere's usually more than one person involved. The "we" you referenced was myself and the previous poster.
I'm independent also.
Your post was accurate...to a point
Yes, entities other than billionaires control or fund super PACs, though the ultra-wealthy provide the bulk of the funding. Super PACs are also heavily funded by millionaires, corporations, labor unions, and "dark money" nonprofit groups (501(c)(4)s), which allow donors to remain anonymous. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Dark Money Groups (501(c)(4)s): These organizations can raise unlimited funds without disclosing donors and transfer them to super PACs. In 2024, one super PAC received a single $205 million transfer from an affiliated non-profit.
- Corporations & Unions: Although less common than individual mega-donors, corporations and unions can contribute to super PACs, accounting for millions in spending, even if they sometimes shy away from public association with controversial campaigns.
- "Decamillionaires": Individuals with tens of millions—not necessarily billions—often use super PACs to influence elections and advance personal interests.
- Political Strategists/Operators: Many large super PACs are run by top staff of party leaders and are managed by professional political operatives aligned with specific candidates, rather than just the donor themselves
Sure, but only turds attempt to speak for a group, right?
And let's be honest here, you and you alone started talking strictly about individual campaign donations without ever acknowledging that clearly everyone else was talking PACs being the work around.
Careful now, you don't want to come across as disingenuous so early in what could be a long and fruitful relationship.
well, it's entire possible that I misinterpreted what the OP was saying. But I did this stuff for a living and when ever anyone talks about "buying" a Congress man or senator, I know that it's not true.
Same with people who bring up billionaires who control representatives via super PACs...Billionaires do contribute to or control some, but for every super PAC there is another super PAC on the other side of the issue...look it up, there are plenty of groups that contribute to super PACs
So, in my mind, having first hand experience i know that statements about billionaires "telling them what to do" is a gross generalization of reality.