This guy reminds me of me. When I was a kid I thought I was a great programmer. Then one day I looked at the code for the C Standard Library and realized that 99% of every program I had ever created was not written by me.
Although, prior to this revelation, I never publicly bragged about being the best. So I guess he and I are different in some ways.
And when the market value goes down ? What then?
Nothing. Changes in market value have no impact on the calculation.
And when I sell things, to pay these taxes, it will cause the market value to drop, very potentially below the threshold that I supposedly met to pay said taxes. So then do I still pay the taxes? If not, then who is compensating me for the loss in value? Can I write that loss off?
None of these things have any effect on the calculations. Re-read the procedure. It is very clear. If it would be helpful to sell assets first in order to reduce the tax burden then that can be done. Don't worry---billionaires know how to handle situations like this.
You seem to have no clue how capital markets actually function, and believe this myth that someone has whatever net worth Forbes magazine decides they do.
Don't make up stuff. Forbes plays no role in the procedure.
As per usual, it is a lot easier to talk about wealth taxes than implement them. The idea of taxing unrealized capital gains is frought with major, major issues - both logisical as well as philosophical - because you're literally talking about taxing something someone does not have yet. Its akin to a tax time machine. Imagine when you are born, someone came up to you and said "based on our analysis, you are likely to earn $50M during your lifetime - so we will assess you with that tax bill, and you need to start paying it now" - that is not very far off from what happens when you try to tax an unrealized capital gain.
Evaluation based on what? Something is not actually worth anything until it is sold. Before then, it is all hypothetical. Also what happens when the evaluation decreases? Do they get a gigantic refund? Also if you start doing this then people will just move their wealth to a different vehicle. What about art? What about commodities? You are vastly over simplifying the problem area here, just as the politicians do.
Here is one way to do it.
Step 1. On December 31, you estimate the market value of all your assets.
Step 2. Subtract $1 billion from that.
Step 3. Multiply the remainder by 0.02.
Step 4. This is what you owe in taxes. If you don't have enough cash on hand then you will have to sell something.
Each tax year is independent of all other tax years. There is no carry-forward. Just repeat the same procedure each year.
This answers all your questions.
Don't like the Supreme Court ruling? Pressure Congress to do their jobs well and not write ambiguous laws. Problem solved.
Sure, but the details are important. Let's look at a hypothetical case. Suppose we need a law to protect watersheds from a certain chemical pollutant, let's call it X-123. In order to write this law we will need to elect an expert on watersheds and X-123 to Congress so that they can write the law in a way that is unambiguous and addresses the issues.
Let's examine why this is not feasible. Firstly, a single expert on watersheds and X-123 may not exist. These are complex topics which may require multiple experts to fully understand the issues. Secondly, after this law is written the experts are no longer needed. Congress would need very short turnover times otherwise it will take forever get laws written. Thirdly, our knowledge of watersheds and X-123 is expanding so the laws would need to be re-written every time there was a scientific publication on these topics. Finally, although this is not a problem per se, it defies common sense for Congress to vote on a law that is so complex that only experts can understand it. What would even be the point of having a vote?
Considering the above it is clear that we need experts to craft the regulations, which are not subject to a vote, and the experts need to work together so they can pool their knowledge, and this is an ongoing effort, and they need to be answerable to voters. In short, we need regulatory agencies staffed by experts who are appointed by voters. And, the regulations they create need to be enforced with the same level of attention applied to laws.
This Supreme Court ruling dismantles a key part of legislature without offering an alternative. It is a bad ruling.
The population of 15-64 year-olds is about half what it was in 1985, they're back at the levels of 1920.
This graph has a problem. But first, realize that the last data point seems to be 2010 with a population equivalent to the level of 1970, not 1920. The rest of the graph is a prediction that the population in 2060 will be at the level of 1920. We'll see.
The problem with this graph is that the data is shaded up to 2015, implying the real data extends to 2015 despite the data source being a 2012 study on Japan's population from 1920 to 2010. It seems like the person who prepared this graph didn't check it for correctness. As such, I would look at the original data rather than trust this graph.
The ideology of the Three Percenters is anti-goverment and pro-violence. The movement attracts members which are neo-Nazi, neo-Confederates, and pro-white supremacy. On January 6, 2021, members of the group turned their ideology into action. They led an organized attack on the U.S. Capitol building with the goal of halting a democratic election. This was a violent, anti-government, anti-democracy act.
The parent essay by MacMann ignores these facts. It draws a false equivalence between a group actively recruiting members to continue its attacks upon government and democracy, to ordinary people posting flyers. This false equivalence supports the goals of the Three Percenters because it proposes that their extraordinary acts are ordinary. This is untrue. The Three Percenters are an extraordinary danger to society. They have proven this with their actions. That the essay ignores this is inexplicable considering the obvious hints in the summary.
Ultimately MacMann's essay is trying to change people's minds into accepting something that is unacceptable: allowing organizations in America to openly recruit an army for the purpose of overthrowing democracy and the American government. We should not accept this.
I'm not seeing how banning interior security cameras is going to prevent people from trying to hide cameras inside the house that were already breaking the existing rule.
Correct. But, let's look at it from the perspective of a guest. The old policy requires a two-step process to claim there is a violation: (1) the guest(s) must judge whether or not a camera is a violation; and (2) the guest(s) must write up the claim in sufficient detail so that Airbnb can understand the situation well enough to act upon it.
Step 1 requires judgement, and step 2 requires evidence collection and writing effort. If there are multiple guests then there is an increased burden since a consensus must be reached.
The new policy reduces the effort needed to lodge a complaint and reduces the effort to review complaints. While there may be little impact on compliance initially, there is good reason to believe that compliance will increase over time if Airbnb receives and acts on relatively more complaints.
It is not acceptable to attack an electrical substation to stop a social event from occurring.
I feel it is necessary to say this after reading the parent comment by phlinn since this is a discussion about an attack on an electrical substation and not a discussion about the merits of a drag queen show. phlinn's off-topic comment correlates disapproval of drag queen shows (phlinn's comment) with an attack on a substation (the topic of discussion). This correlation would not exist without phlinn's comment because no reasonable person would imagine any connection between a drag queen show and an electrical powerstation. phlinn's comment is a form of stochastic terrorism, which creates a non-explicit connection between two unrelated events with the intent of using fear of one event to stop the other event. phlinn's message is a call to violence and should not be modded up.
Fiat currency works, has strong ties to real value (in fact basically all of the world economy), can be transferred nearly instantaneously and nearly for free, is accepted basically everywhere and typically also has a quasi-anonymous form known as "cash". Next dumb question?
For a private citizen the only practical way to move large amounts of money internationally is by an international wire transfer, which costs $40 USD and can take up to 5 days to complete.
A Bitcoin transaction (in 2021) can take up to 20 minutes to complete and costs $3.4 USD.
Bitcoin is 12x cheaper and 360x faster than an international wire transfer.
19% of Americans are in the world's 1%, for those interested in facts and not the deliberate lies of a known troll.
The cited article states "More than 19 million Americans are in the 1 percent worldwide," defined as "the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts." This is based on a 2018 study.
The US population in 2018 was 320 million. 19 / 320 = 0.059375. I can't figure out how you got 19%.
"The most productive" means Tesla shits out more cars than any other factory, that's all. It's not hard when there's zero quality control.
I have emphasized with bold text the claim that Tesla is doing things poorly. In response,
They also have a large backlog of orders and among the highest gross margins in the industry, if not the highest (I looked up a handful and Tesla was way above all of the ones I looked at). And very high consumer satisfaction. So it's pretty hard to argue that they're doing it wrong.
I put the rebuttal of quality issues in bold text. It is intentional that there is no bold text—it is not a technical glitch. The responder failed to address the question of whether or not Tesla has any quality control. Yet, the respondent believes it fair to triumphantly claim that it is hard to argue Tesla is doing anything wrong. The moderators agreed with this! This is terrible moderation.
Trump is guilty of putting Americans in harm's way and not acting to protect Americans from harm, which makes him unfit to be President. This is worth talking about because it has not been resolved and will be relevant if Trump runs for office again. The disinfectant incident is useful because among the many cases where Trump put Americans into harm the disinfectant incident is an easy to understand story, which can be read in a few minutes. If you have not read it, please read it now.
From this story you can see two forms of Trump's guilt. First, by not informing Americans that it is dangerous to drink disinfectant to fight COVID he abandoned Americans to harm. It is a dereliction of his duty as President to protect Americans. His inaction makes him guilty. Secondly, it is clear that Trump himself placed Americans in harm. A mistake alone does not make someone guilty---we are human. But, when the mistake was pointed out to Trump he refused to take responsibility for his mistake. That is what makes him guilty. It is no mistake that Trump placed Americans in harm's way.
This case and other cases where Trump put Americans into harm's way (COVID and January 6, to name two) create a pattern of behavior which allows us to make a confident statement on the impact of placing him in a position of power over people. Trump will hurt people. If you are considering giving Trump power you have an obligation to humanity to consider this.
A high-impact way to protect people from Trump's harm is to find him legally guilty for one (or more) of the many times he harmed Americans and prevent him from holding office. But, only the legal community can do that. Another way to protect people from Trump's harm is to educate those who misunderstand Trump and who would place Trump into a position of power. The bleach incident is a way to educate them, and anybody can do it.
HOST SYSTEM RESPONDING, PROBABLY UP...
