Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
I gave you the hypothetical in a previous post, for kamala proposal. You proposed a different thing, taxing loans,you didn't write a cutoff for that
Fair. I did say for a income/wealth cutoff, but didn't specify. I threw the taxing loans thing from the hip just because its a known loophole. My intuition is that you'd be looking at individuals worth even more than 100mm
Serious question - is "illegal" used in Italian to mean "highly undesirable" or "against the rules" (as opposed to "forbidden by law"), or do you just love using that word? A better word in English to get the effect you are shooting for is "criminal", FYI.
Serious question - is "illegal" used in Italian to mean "highly undesirable" or "against the rules" (as opposed to "forbidden by law"), or do you just love using that word? A better word in English to get the effect you are shooting for is "criminal", FYI.
forbidden by law but it includes regulation / misdemeanors
Otherwise i would write "it's criminal".
Like driving over the limit is "illegal", am i using it wrong?
Ofc in that specific case i was mocking the idea that purportedly, some countries would like to make it a crime to disagree with any leftist narrative. It was used ironically in this case
Fair. I did say for a income/wealth cutoff, but didn't specify. I threw the taxing loans thing from the hip just because its a known loophole. My intuition is that you'd be looking at individuals worth even more than 100mm
I don't think borrowing against appreciating assets is in any sense a loophole. At some point you have to sell.
Btw for the Kamala thing, do you realize how insane it is if your asset depreciates and never comes back? like you own a stock that goes up then crashing down and fails? do you get a refund?
forbidden by law but it includes regulation / misdemeanors
Otherwise i would write "it's criminal".
Like driving over the limit is "illegal", am i using it wrong?
Ofc in that specific case i was mocking the idea that purportedly, some countries would like to make it a crime to disagree with any leftist narrative. It was used ironically in this case
Yes, I got how you were using it. Wrt to your question - driving over the limit is "illegal", but e.g. posting against the rules on 2+2 is not. "Criminal" is used much more broadly when speaking figuratively.
I don't think borrowing against appreciating assets is in any sense a loophole. At some point you have to sell.
Btw for the Kamala thing, do you realize how insane it is if your asset depreciates and never comes back? like you own a stock that goes up then crashing down and fails? do you get a refund?
Yeah, I don't agree with taxing unrealized gains, and I don't think anyone with half a brain does either. Its pandering to the eat the rich crowd. Zero % chance of being implemented on a broad scale.
I do think there is a discussion about very specific circumstances.
Borrowing against appreciating assets is a loophole because they Buy, Borrow, Die. Never sell
Based liberals are all in agreement we will do everything in our power to kill this idea once we gain control of congress.
Yeah, I don't agree with taxing unrealized gains, and I don't think anyone with half a brain does either. Its pandering to the eat the rich crowd. Zero % chance of being implemented on a broad scale.
I do think there is a discussion about very specific circumstances.
Borrowing against appreciating assets is a loophole because they Buy, Borrow, Die. Never sell
So the loophole is the cost basis reset at death (and btw it doesn't apply to 29y founders really).
I have been talking about the cost basis reset bullshit since the first post on the topic
Fair. I did say for a income/wealth cutoff, but didn't specify. I threw the taxing loans thing from the hip just because its a known loophole. My intuition is that you'd be looking at individuals worth even more than 100mm
Yeah, I don't agree with taxing unrealized gains, and I don't think anyone with half a brain does either. Its pandering to the eat the rich crowd. Zero % chance of being implemented on a broad scale.
I do think there is a discussion about very specific circumstances.
Borrowing against appreciating assets is a loophole because they Buy, Borrow, Die. Never sell
FWIW the problem to me about loan and putting collateral for the rich, helping them to pay no tax isn’t the real problem .
The problem they still can do it without any problem is there’s the fed and government keep bailing them out every time ….
For multiple reason like to big to fail , preventing a recession , etc .
Has long they know the market has mommy and daddy (government and central banks ) behind them to prevent them to bankrupt , they will continue .
That is why corporations keep doing insane buyback programs at all time high stock value which makes no sense ….
They know it won’t crash too much because thx fed ….
What pisses me off is that some right wing that keep claiming it’s a free market and they are rich because they are smart while in actually the game is rigged in their favour ….
Personally i don’t mind it too much the way it works presently but at least stop complaining about tax being tooo high. Bailing out as a cost for the entire population so the rich should actually have to pay higher tax to benefit from the fed/government bail out but they don’t want too …
That is what it’s insane …
Montreal you have no clue, "too big to fail" companies got saved, but the stockholders got wiped out
?
It's 25% of UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS for everyone with more than 100m.
You start the year at 200m net worth (a nice house car and stuff , and 195m in stocks in your company).
End of year your stock is worth 500m, because a round of financing of your company valued it as such.
In almost no country in the world you pay anything on those virtual 300m. You pay on the 2-3m you take in as salary.
In Kamala world they sequester 25% of those 300m whic
Imma let you finish, but this isn't communism or anything resembling it.
Student loans is easy: stop lending to trash programs and low quality students. Start filtering by quality of the student and of the topic he wants to study (in terms of wages after graduation).
Like any private lender would do.
There is no broken system for incomes though
This is batshit insane
Are you against forgiveness to those in public service? Because they (we) don't make much money yet they (we) make society tick because the business models aren't for profit.
Or are you against having a society?
"bat **** insane" to only loan to good prospects, that's where we are at in educational discourse.
The idea of not throwing good money after bad is "insane" to the horror.
Public jobs (lol at "service") have competitive salaries if they fill positions (by definition), the "not for profit" has nothing to do with salaries.
A job isn't picked only for the salary.
Job security and special pension arrangements are part of the package.
Public jobs aren't special though, every job makes "the country tick", there is mo moral superiority of public jobs.
Rather, given the public can keep useless jobs around because it has no profit motive, it's often the opposite case.
I am against a lot of the things the state currently do yes, that includes loaning money to not so smart people to be a college tourist for 4-5 years, where incidentally they get groomed by Marxists and indoctrinated, while faking learning about insane bullshit that is detrimental to the individual and to society at large.
"bat **** insane" to only loan to good prospects, that's where we are at in educational discourse.
The idea of not throwing good money after bad is "insane" to the horror.
It's pretty fascistic to have a counsel decide what is and isn't a good career path to loan money to students.
Public jobs (lol at "service") have competitive salaries if they fill positions (by definition), the "not for profit" has nothing to do with salaries.
A job isn't picked only for the salary.
Job security and special pension arrangements are part of the package.
Public jobs aren't special though, every job makes "the country tick", there is mo moral superiority of public jobs.
The public sector is reliant on perks to keep the positions filled and the programs running.
Rather, given the public can keep useless jobs around because it has no profit motive, it's often the opposite case.
I am against a lot of the things the state currently do yes, that includes loaning money to not so smart people to be a college tourist for 4-5 years, where incidentally they get groomed by Marxists and indoctrinated, while faking learning about insane bullshit that is detrimental to the individual and to society at large.
Groomed by Marxists and indoctrinated is such horseshit. I've been in higher ed for close to 15 years at various institutions -- teaching political science, nonetheless -- and this isn't the case at all. I'm curious to hear of what university you attended, what your experience was, and what they did to you, because your hostility toward higher ed is glaringly pathological.
The goal of education isn't indoctrination. It's inquiry. Just because information is antithetical to your subjective belief structure doesn't make the information fallacious. It just means that you're wrong.
It's fascist to loan responsibly. Jfc the derangement.
As for the rest we are in Kamala thread.
She wants to forgive debt to people who wasted taxpayers money, and was willing to do it unconstitutionally as she doesn't care about the rule of law, and I disagree.
Discuss the rest in the appropriate thread I won't get banned for being OT anymore.
It's fascist to loan responsibly. Jfc the derangement.
As for the rest we are in Kamala thread.
She wants to forgive debt to people who wasted taxpayers money, and was willing to do it unconstitutionally as she doesn't care about the rule of law, and I disagree.
Discuss the rest in the appropriate thread I won't get banned for being OT anymore.
Define "responsibly" without sounding like a Soviet.
I, honestly, dgaf about student loan forgiveness. But having career councils judge what's a career worth funding is awfully Stalinist of you.
"bat **** insane" to only loan to good prospects, that's where we are at in educational discourse.
The idea of not throwing good money after bad is "insane" to the horror.
Public jobs (lol at "service") have competitive salaries if they fill positions (by definition), the "not for profit" has nothing to do with salaries.
A job isn't picked only for the salary.
Job security and special pension arrangements are part of the package.
Public jobs ar
again no idea what u are talking about when we talk about stock market and billionaires and how the game is rigged for top corporations and the rich.
u seem obviously not even knowing about the simple fed put which obviously increases the misallocation of capital.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gre...
Essentially, the Greenspan put is a type of a Fed put. The term "Fed put," a play on the option term "put," is the market belief that the Fed would step in and implement policies to limit the stock market's decline beyond a certain threshold. During Greenspan's tenure, it was widely believed that a stock market decline of over 20%, which typically denotes a bear market, would prompt the Fed to lower the fed funds rate. This was seen as insurance and allayed the fears of investors that a protracted, and costly, market decline would occur.
A consequence of Greenspan's policies was that investors were more prone to excessive risk-taking in stock markets, leading to market bubbles, which, at times, resulted in more market volatility. Experienced investors, needing to buy protection from the actions of short-sellers, speculators, and so on, resorted to the time-tested trading strategy of buying put options to protect their portfolios from excessive market declines precipitated by the inevitable bursting of these market bubbles.
to believe billionaires and rich people cannot misallocation capital is the most hilarious thing ever and just prove how you are driven by ideology.
but entering in the concept of public service being worthless, well the way i see it it just provide basic needs that anyone should have access like healthcare and education.
For you we know it is evil to trying to provide equal opportunities and helping are neighbors but i dont.
And u keep blaming the government for crazy loans etc but its probbaly due exactly because of the lack of support in public education since students needs to borrow in the first place.
Here in Canada its incredibly cheap compare to the USA to become a doctor for example but hey, canadian communist is bad i know...
ps: if you cant even link the misalloction of capital is the extreme when you see market at all time, gdp going down from historical trend since the last 25 years , debt increasing massively while corporations have so much money they doing massive buybacks at all time high (!) creating massive inequality in society as a consequence of all this, well we do not have much more to talk about...
pps: if public services was so great, why it misses massives amount of workers ?
and why would you expect the best when everyone like yourself complain they have great conditions ? (which obv they dont but thats beside the point)
Define "responsibly" without sounding like a Soviet.
I, honestly, dgaf about student loan forgiveness. But having career councils judge what's a career worth funding is awfully Stalinist of you.
Soviet? loan in a way that the expected return on the loan would be positive lol. Or neutral given you don't need to run a profit on it.
I would have the private sector do it ofc with no role of the federal or local government, as usual it's something the private sector would do better.
It's like you have a public bank and you finance ALL PROJECTS, that is batshit insane.
Models will be created to estimate future earnings and credit risk given both the candidate measurable qualities and the field chosen and the state of the economy and so on. Like in all lending in the private sector.
But just putting a high SAT cutoff and only lending for career subjects (stem + law + economics + med school ) would be decent enough to start.
I wouldn't want public employees to choose anything, but if you force the government to be part of it you are forcing the public employees being part of it.
OR, the government can co-sign the loan and PARTIALLY guarantee it so private lenders still have due diligence to run . And being in competition among them, if no one is going to lend you it means you or your major choices suck so you shouldn't be lent to
I'm curious about what Luciom thinks about art.
How do you evaluate
Models will be created to estimate future earnings and credit risk given both the candidate measurable qualities and the field chosen and the state of the economy and so on.
art , and art place in society?
Culture?
Entertainement?
Everytime I hear you talk I picture some 1984 world with a fantasy about 1950's america that you learnt from movies as a kid.
I'm curious about what Luciom thinks about art.
How do you evaluate art , and art place in society?
Culture?
Entertainement?
Everytime I hear you talk I picture some 1984 world with a fantasy about 1950's america that you learnt from movies as a kid.
How does a bank decide to lend to artistic, cultural , entertainement venues? it's not like we have to invent the wheel.
We certainly don't need to subsidize random people to become artists though, there is more than enough art being produced anyway, and only a minuscule portion of it is of any value. It's not like we lack people willing to paint sculpt and so on for free on their spare time.
Unclear why you think subsidizing more of them wasting crucial formative years instead of learning how to do something objectively useful for other human beings (ie that can earn you money, meaning it satisfies actual needs of actual human beings).
Moreover art is cumulative, so at any given point in time you need LESS new art. If no new art was ever produced again in the history of humanity we would have enough accumulated art already to satisfy hundreds of lifetimes anyway. It's not like we need more of that , not enough to subsidize it certainly.
Then judging by the quality of modern art, i really don't think we need any of that to be subsidized.
Now you can subsidize keeping the art that exists in good shape, like exempting artistical buildings from property taxes and whatnot. Certainly not a 19y old who "wants to be an artist" lol
If you have a hobby you are free to puruse it on your own dime, the hell has the state to do with it
How does a bank decide to lend to artistic, cultural , entertainement venues? it's not like we have to invent the wheel.
We certainly don't need to subsidize random people to become artists though, there is more than enough art being produced anyway, and only a minuscule portion of it is of any value. It's not like we lack people willing to paint sculpt and so on for free on their spare time.
Unclear why you think subsidizing more of them was
"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun."
I jest, I think I pretty much agree with this. Or maybe I'm a fascist too.
