Vaccine

watfly said:
I'm guess I'm just slow, because I've no clue what either of you are talking about. I'm not offended by being called a fence sitter, just curious how I earned that title. I suspect we just choose different battles to fight, or at least the enthusiasm with we which we fight them.
Click to expand...
No, not slow at all. Lazy, yes You remind me of a few pals I have. Were all waiting for you to get up on the deck where you belong. Sleeping down in the Captains Corner is over for you...lol.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
The constantly aggrieved are simply that, assholes looking for yet another excuse to whine and cry. They don’t do personal responsibility, they play the blame game.
Click to expand...

Speaking of that, just today the wife of the Herman Cain Award winner that I knew is blaming the doctors and hospital for his death. Never mind that they attended the Ken Copeland Ministries anti-vax/mask convention just a few days before the deceased came down with Covid-19. For those others who are similarly fascinated by the complete and utter stupidity of people like him, and the b.s. they believe, here is the video of the exact event he attended just a few days before he started to feel crummy. 2021 Southwest Believers’ Convention: Flashpoint LIVE (5:30 p.m. CT) | Kenneth Copeland Ministries (kcm.org). It is so funny watching this knowing there are people in the audience who are lapping it all up but will soon die because they listened to it.

From all the post-mortem comments in his FB fee, he was clearly a swell guy, despite repeatedly mocking people for wearing masks and getting vaccinated, despite his racist and homophobic comments, and although he posted on FB how funny it was to get on a plane knowing he had Covid-19 at the time. Such a selfless and god-fearing fellow. So tragic that doctors murdered him.

By the way, the lion also believed in natural immunity, although it turned out he really believed in natural selection but just didn't know it.
 
MacDre said:
No. I think all kids should receive enrichment and an accelerated curriculum. Those that can’t keep up should be given additional support. Everyone is a winner and maximizes their potential. Simple.
Click to expand...
You clearly have never tried teaching Algebra to a kid who can’t multiply.

You end up rewriting the entire math book trying to hide from anything which requires numbers bigger than 25, and pass the kid with a C.

Then, when the poor kid hits Chemistry and Physics, he runs into Planck’s constant and Avogadro’s number. He can’t handle it, because the math he knows only works on small positive integers.

Congrats, I guess. One more kid bumped out of STEM because we don’t have the patience to help him where he is.
 
dad4 said:
How can your spend X million dollars without realizing capital gains?

There are lawyers who earn a million dollars a year answering that very question. The answer gets a lot more complicated than “borrow against it”.

As met61 likes to say, we’re being played.
Click to expand...

dad4 said:
If I earn a billion dollars by writing a great book series, I pay income tax on all of it.

But, if I earn a billion dollars by founding a great company, I don’t pay a penny.

I’m not seeing the fairness in this system.
Click to expand...
We appear to have an agreement that the post @espola put forward incorrectly equates unrealized capital gains with income. I believe it's a bad idea to tax unrealized gains and several have posted arguments against such a tax.

My eyes glass over when hearing the word "fair" associated with an argument. Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer to aspire to consistency. The key is what "unrealized" means. To me, if gains are unrealized, they have not been considered in any other financial transaction. For a loan or those things "a lot more complicated" that @dad4 mentions, unrealized gains can't be part of the equation. Sadly, I am unfamiliar with use cases that consider unrealized capital gains to acquire real dollars that can be put in a bank account. I'd be interested in hearing s few and seeing if my "solution" applies.

Also, this is not about the vaccine but I'd say we have gotten to the point where the vaccine horse has been beaten beyond recognition and this thread is more about the same cast of characters "solving" world problems that may or may not exist (and identifying unflattering traits in others - always an important objective). We could move this to a different thread if enough people think it's appropriate.
 
espola said:
I thought you were a lawyer.
Click to expand...

No. She went to law school but apparently never actually practiced law. Is anyone really surprised that an equestrian champion who is apparently living off a trust fund and an ex-husband is engaging in scare tactics to misrepresent that this will hurt wage earners, when her real goal is to continue gouging them so that she doesn't have to pay taxes on her mountain of money that she did nothing to earn?
 
GoldenGate said:
No. She went to law school but apparently never actually practiced law. Is anyone really surprised that an equestrian champion who is apparently living off a trust fund and an ex-husband is engaging in scare tactics to misrepresent that this will hurt wage earners, when her real goal is to continue gouging them so that she doesn't have to pay taxes on her mountain of money that she did nothing to earn?
Click to expand...

I learn more about the legend of Grace every day.
 
Grace T, I have to leave. I think I know what your response will be regarding Little Devil and Papi Espola. What a pair. I cant wait to read your rebuttle :)
 
Desert Hound said:
In that article you have this for instance.

Let’s say you do not sell the asset this year. In this case, you still have a capital gain of $3 million, but the capital gain is “unrealized.” The tax code does not count capital gains as income until they are realized, meaning you sell the asset. But it is income in the sense that it allows you to spend $3 million, just as if you earned $3 million doing a job.

For those not paying attention or who simply do not understand...NO you cannot spend the 3 million until you realize the gain. At that point it is taxed. There is no loophole one is avoiding by not realizing a gain.

In terms of inheritance? We already have rather high rates of taxation on inheritance when the event occurs. Further if one thinks through the chain of events....income was taxed when earned, taxes had been paid on realized gains, taxes paid on purchases, etc. and then the gov comes back for another rather large bite at inheritance.

This is more misdirection to get the people who have little understanding of how things work to buy into the proposal.

Family farms are plainly not the target of his reform. The target is people like Elon Musk, whose net worth increased by $14 billion over five years, almost entirely in the form of unrealized capital gains that have not been taxed. If Musk simply holds onto his assets until he dies and passes them to his heirs, his billions of unrealized gains escape the income tax forever, thanks to the stepped-up basis rule.

Most of us work at a job, earn an income from that job, and pay income taxes on that income every year. This is not how it works for someone like Elon Musk. He generates huge amounts of capital gains, and each year he simply decides how much income he will realize. He does not realize most of this income each year, and therefore does not pay income taxes on it. Ensuring that Musk’s income is taxed at least once is the least we can do to make our tax code fair, and that is what Biden proposes.

The above implies he doesn't pay taxes or as many say NOT HIS FAIR SHARE. His money is not sitting in a bank idle. His money is actively invested in a myriad of projects, etc. Funding that helps other biz grow, hire people, creating a LARGER tax base, etc. That is actually rather productive and a net benefit to society.

You hear people say...so and so buys a fleet of Ferraris or has x amount of mansions. Why isn't he or she instead helping the poor? Again they misunderstand the nature of economics. If said person buys a fleet of Ferraris that keeps people at work. That helps that biz and their workers. It also benefits suppliers to Ferrari, etc. That also generates taxes etc. In other words what many think is wasteful spending is actually used to buy products that put others to work. That is a far more efficient use of funds vs gov taking those funds and distributing them based on political priorities.

Many/most people do not understand the above.

Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea that would have very bad "unintended" consequences.
Click to expand...
Doesn't help that Musk companies have been heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.
 
Grace T. said:
This isn't really true either. If you write a great book series, unless you also own a publishing company, a lot of the revenue will go to the book publisher. Part of the income you'll get is as an advance and that advance will be taxed in the year that it is earned. The rest of it is payable as royalties on an as earned basis in the year which it is earned (not all up front because it's such a great book series that it's gone up in value and you pay for it all up front even though you may not see the royalty income years into the future). Further, those royalties are not treated as salary since they are a rights payment, not a fee for "work", so you, unlike the shlub editor working at the publishing company, don't have to pay certain federal and state deductions on such income. Furthermore (assuming you hold onto the copyright of the work) the value of your copyright may rise given the success of the book series, but the book publisher (and not you) see the increase in that value because you negotiated a poor royalty structure on your payments.

Bad analogy because a book owner (besides the naked copyright) doesn't really control the whole value of the book.
Click to expand...

A better analogy would have been a painter. But the painting also illustrates the problem with unrealized income. Let's assume I paint 3 paintings. One is the new Mona Lisa...everyone raves about it...I donated it though to the espola home for ophans in year 1, though, so it's no longer mine and therefore I haven't realized any value to it, but because of that painting, my fame spreads far and wide and everyone wants to own a Gracey. The value of my two other paintings goes up (even though they may or may not be as good as my first one hit wonder). I want to retire from the law, so I decide to sell painting two in year 2. It's value is locked in at year two, and I am taxed on the entirety of that income, less the painting costs deductions year over year (my first painting having been enough to no longer qualify my painting as a hobby but a profession). I decide to hold the 3rd painting in year 2 thinking it's value will probably increase after my death to leave to the kids....so I haven't realized the benefit of that painting....I don't even know what that painting will sell for in the future...but the IRS wants to come and tax me for holding painting 3 (even though I haven't sold it) because painting 1 did so well it increased its value (hopefully I haven't gambled away the money from painting 2, or I'm going to be forced to sell the painting 3 anyways to cover the tax on painting 3).

In year 3 I visit espola's home for orphans and get so upset with one of the kids that I slap them. Everyone is shocked and outraged and I get canceled. No one wants to own a Gracey....the value of the paintings plummets to less than the cost it made to make the painting. Painting 1 I don't own so it doesn't matter when espola's home for orphans tosses it in the fire. Painting 2 is sold and income has been taxed, so it's the problem of whoever it got sold to. Painting 3, which I've held, has collapsed in value....IRS going to write me a check for the difference since I've already paid the tax? I've retired so giving me a deduction that particular year doesn't really help. And what was the value of painting 3...the opinion of some appraiser...what if I had not slapped the ophan in year 3 and decided not to sell the painting until year 4, when the market turned down...did the auditor get the value in year 3 right? There's some Soviet style central planning right there with auditors telling you how much a painting should be worth rather than the actual market, which fluctuates day to day, telling you what the price is.
 
Grace T. said:
So you don't believe that some people are just naturally better at mathematics and that everyone is and should do algebra in the 7th grade?

Do you believe the same about soccer....everyone should be playing MLS/ENCL level ball and those that can't keep up should be given additional support?
Click to expand...
A kid that’s gifted in math may struggle socially or may not be good with language. The old school singular focus gifted programs that only requires kids work on areas that they like or good at created too many gifted underachievers that quit when things get challenging.

I think it’s better to focus on educating happy and well rounded kids and let cream rise.

I wouldn’t include MLS academies but I do think all soccer players deserve a supportive environment to learn basic fundamentals up until around 13 years old.
 
Grace T. said:
A better analogy would have been a painter. But the painting also illustrates the problem with unrealized income. Let's assume I paint 3 paintings. One is the new Mona Lisa...everyone raves about it...I donated it though to the espola home for ophans in year 1, though, so it's no longer mine and therefore I haven't realized any value to it, but because of that painting, my fame spreads far and wide and everyone wants to own a Gracey. The value of my two other paintings goes up (even though they may or may not be as good as my first one hit wonder). I want to retire from the law, so I decide to sell painting two in year 2. It's value is locked in at year two, and I am taxed on the entirety of that income, less the painting costs deductions year over year (my first painting having been enough to no longer qualify my painting as a hobby but a profession). I decide to hold the 3rd painting in year 2 thinking it's value will probably increase after my death to leave to the kids....so I haven't realized the benefit of that painting....I don't even know what that painting will sell for in the future...but the IRS wants to come and tax me for holding painting 3 (even though I haven't sold it) because painting 1 did so well it increased its value (hopefully I haven't gambled away the money from painting 2, or I'm going to be forced to sell the painting 3 anyways to cover the tax on painting 3).

In year 3 I visit espola's home for orphans and get so upset with one of the kids that I slap them. Everyone is shocked and outraged and I get canceled. No one wants to own a Gracey....the value of the paintings plummets to less than the cost it made to make the painting. Painting 1 I don't own so it doesn't matter when espola's home for orphans tosses it in the fire. Painting 2 is sold and income has been taxed, so it's the problem of whoever it got sold to. Painting 3, which I've held, has collapsed in value....IRS going to write me a check for the difference since I've already paid the tax? I've retired so giving me a deduction that particular year doesn't really help. And what was the value of painting 3...the opinion of some appraiser...what if I had not slapped the ophan in year 3 and decided not to sell the painting until year 4, when the market turned down...did the auditor get the value in year 3 right? There's some Soviet style central planning right there with auditors telling you how much a painting should be worth rather than the actual market, which fluctuates day to day, telling you what the price is.
Click to expand...

Coocoo.
 
MacDre said:
A kid that’s gifted in math may struggle socially or may not be good with language. The old school singular focus gifted programs that only requires kids work on areas that they like or good at created too many gifted underachievers that quit when things get challenging.

I think it’s better to focus on educating happy and well rounded kids and let cream rise.

I wouldn’t include MLS academies but I do think all soccer players deserve a supportive environment to learn basic fundamentals up until around 13 years old.
Click to expand...


Well...I give you kuddos at least for being consistent....no club/elite ball until age 13. Future Pulisic plays with the fat kid that can barely kick. You are a man of principle, I will say that.

"gifted underachievers that quit when things get challenging"....that's an argument that the gifted child wasn't challenged enough....more tiers not less.

"gifted in math may struggle socially"....they can be put into a gifted math class....no reason to take them out socially from the school and because they are gifted in math doesn't mean they should be in honors English
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top