ERICOPOLY

I am in no way shape or form a Trump supporter but I believe the attitude expressed above is the most salient reason that gave rise to Trump and Trump-ism. The sort of attitude prevalent among American I guess I'll call them "elites" for lack of a better word whose sort of attitude is "let the smart people figure it out for the masses and we'll tell you what we've decided." The institutions of the elites in the United States - the government, academia, the media that seemingly only represents this elite worldview - seem to continuously expand their reach with the aim to dictate how people are supposed to think, their attitudes, how their resources should be spent, how much of their paycheck people are allowed to keep, etc. You can see it in people in the media's attitude about Trump, "How dare you even think about voting for him?" [i didn't vote for him, but that elitist attitude is grating.] So it is not surprising that a backlash to elitism took hold. In the 1980s, the music scene was dominated by Bon Jovi, Poison - hair bands - men with hairsprayed heads and skin tights pants. So in the early 1990s, grunge took hold. Quite literally the opposite. Rather than skintight leather tights, Kurt Cobain rocked shirts with holes in them. The elitist attitude that has taken hold in so many American institutions gave rise to Trump, just the way that hair bands gave rise to grunge. Incidentally, the original post was meant tongue in cheek...thus the "jackass"reference. But it was also meant to question why American's have chosen to self-flagellate themselves for the next four years. Cheers! The Republicans originally called the Democratic candidate (Andrew Jackson) a "jackass". That's why the Democratic party's mascot is the Jackass. I think back then the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives -- so it was the liberals calling the conservatives jackasses, both then and now. I've seen a couple of articles written comparing this election to that of Andrew Jackson's. Trump is portrayed as the new Jackson. So I kind of liked the historical significance of Sanjeev's "jackass" label.

The drug dealers in jail are probably no more violent than the people who step up to take their place (the large underground economy needs suppliers, and when you lock one up another one fills the "job opening"). Violence is a requisite for the job due to the lack of support from the courts. You'll never lock up the last drug dealer -- it's whack-a-mole. Need a more intelligent approach.

Stop looking at anectodal events, the big picture is different: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low Environment and education are the priorities, if you don't have them, you don't have anything. Well, there are many factors contributing to this result. Just because the homicide rate is lower does not mean Obama should release the drug dealers so they can kill more. The logic is like, well the overall homicide rate is much lower now, so it is ok to release a few drug dealers to kill people. That does not sound logical to me. On the other hand, tax payers spend money to help these guys find jobs. Then there is the not enough resource for education for normal people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate Maybe there will be errors, but incarceration is really high in the US vs the rest of the world. You should at least ask yourself sometimes why the US are so strange from many point point of view even being a rich and educated country. Trump will probably fix all of this, with his really great expertise in all field. There is a huge black market economy in the US. The courts will not enforce the contracts because of the underlying illegal activity. Therefore, the businessmen are required to enforce the contracts themselves. We call that "street violence". It's basically no more complicated than that.

It's kind of like this. I will say that cats make great pets. I will say that goats make great pets. Later on, we'll be talking about food and I'll say that I've had goat in a curry in Santa Barbara. I will say that goat meat is the most commonly eaten meat in the world and that I have no remorse for eating a goat. Then, a bunch of people will think it is important to ask me if I would eat cats, because after all, they make great pets too. The point being, I don't eat goats because they make great pets. What people tend to do on this board is look for any word association between different statements that you've made, then the tie your two separate statements together to form a new meaning, and then insinuate that you said it or that you therefore believe that too.

Okay but, would dividend taxes at 60% be not considered high? After all, you can leverage stocks 3-5x just like you can with real estate, and you can still make a return in stocks even if it's negative carry. So like, when the dividend taxes are debated, how come topics like negative carry are not really ever discussed if that is seriously the rational for having high tax rates on rental real estate? How would a regular / poor guy leverage stocks 3-5x as easy as a property? TIMELINE: 1) I claimed that a regular /poor guys likes real estate because it's tangible and they can "kick the tires". So I've already explained why they favor real estate instead of something like stocks. (so it's strange you would come to me of all people with your question) 2) Later, somebody suggests that a higher tax rate makes perfect sense on a highly leveraged real estate investment because the total return can still be acceptable even if the cash yield is eroded by the property tax. 3) So I then point out that the acceptable total return argument could be used as a reason to change the tax rate on a stock market investment where you can also get great returns from leverage even if a high tax rate eats up the cash yield from the dividend 4) You then ask me how a regular/poor guy leverages stocks I have never made the claim that they do, and you know that.

Let me put it so you and Ericopoly will understand what I said better. I really don't care how successful he is and whether people want to ask him questions in "Ask Eric". Stay on topic of the thread that you are posting in. Stop posting irrelevant crap about you pet tax whines. You have polluted multiple threads with it. Start a tax related thread and we can discuss taxes all you want. I basically said the same thing a few months earlier to the other guy (cant remember name) who used to fill other topics with libertarian crap. The other thread is finally back on topic. You simply have the wrong guy. The topic of taxes was already introduced on the thread. It was stated by someone else that we were in a period of low taxes. I merely pointed out that it depends. Why don't you go after the first guy who posted on taxes if you don't want taxes ever mentioned? Then the guys who polluted the thread by continually misrepresenting my viewpoint turned it into a real shit-show that reminds me of my old emotionally abusive girlfriend. July last year... probably the last time there was a big annoying tax discussion where I was involved... that was RB that time too that dragged it out with me. Look it up. The guy just cannot stand it if somebody with money thinks the inheritance tax is unfair -- and he used the same kind of abusive tactics in that argument. This time I was talking about a different tax issue, and the EXACT SAME GUY POPS UP AGAIN!! I'm not even arguing about the same tax, but like clockwork he shows up to play his games. Like I said, I have a weakness for getting pulled in by the abusers. I just can't stop engaging them soon enough, and that's what causes the thread to get jammed. That's normally the problem with these threads no matter what the topic. Other people have the same problem (not just me). Even if it stays on topic as you wish, these abuser types will show up and still manage to ruin it. So instead of trying to tell people what topic they can post on, why don't you instead take the people to task who are acting like my old girlfriend. That approach would fix it for me, and for everyone else who suffers from the same kind of crap.

Not bad eh? I finally reduced it all into a concise post.

A great article here: https://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/how-emotionally-abusive-women-control-you-the-fear-of-loss-and-the-need-for-approval/

Those types of girlfriends aren't arguing to win a point. They are just emotionally abusing you. They are constantly rephrasing your words with negative insinuation. Then you feel ashamed because your rephrased words are not things you'd want to be caught dead saying, so you try to clarify what you really meant to get them to see that they merely misunderstood you. Then they deliberately misquote you again (in an unflattering way). And again... And again... They are just controlling you. They are preying upon your desire for acceptance. Finally you realize that it is just an abusive personality that you are dealing with. A "bitch" is not a woman. A "bitch" is a term for somebody that utilizes your weaknesses for approval to control you. For example, a guy like RB and the other tool. They are people who are just manipulating you. They are sick... hence the term "sick bitches". A sick person doesn't understand they are sick, which is why they can't behave in a grown-up manner and have a conversation that is debated on it's merits. Their hallmark is to take what you say and throw it back to you in a modified manner that has different meaning. They'll paraphrase your words into an unintended meaning and then harshly criticize that meaning. You correct them so that they have the opportunity to apologize for the misunderstanding, and then they attack you for "shifting your position". All they want to do is engage in sick relationships. I mean, they are really just SICK.

I don't say that they are high or regressive. They are just the rates that I posted. I did say, however, that if I were to propose we adopt that same tax structure here in the US that people would be accusing me of that very same thing. Like, for example, you already said that Australia is fair because they have a progressive tax structure. Okay, so if we get a progressive tax structure just like them, and we also get rid of the inheritance tax and gift tax just like them... and we replace our property tax rates with their "council tax" rates... Then will you agree that our society will be fair like theirs? And yes, provide their health care and everything else so that people are getting something back. See, what I am getting at is that you and I can both see that their society is pretty happy, yet they don't have to rob people of money they've already saved and paid tax on (inheritance and gift taxes). Those taxes aren't essential to have a fair society, all you need is good basic services and a progressive tax rate like theirs. Correct or not correct? Oh yeah... right... Those people making 40,000 a year and actually paying for their health care are SO FORTUNATE to be the ones on the hook for their own health care. But I do think it's an example of when EVERYONE pays a significant tax rate, they all actually pay attention to the government elections and how money is spent in the government. It's probably benefiting their democracy to have everyone with skin in the game. Of course, if you say that in America you get slayed, so I'll let the people who enjoy throwing stones go ahead and do that now. In the US, a lot of people making 40,000 a year get sick, go to emergency room, get treated, and never pay a dime. Okay, I'm sorry for them, that sucks, and emergency care is no panacea. But... that's what a LOT of people do. Some of those people may or may not want the high tax rate -- or maybe they would in exchange for the service. But usually the way things work in this country is that when we propose higher services we raise taxes on the rich and leave the poor completely alone in the tax bracket -- your call, but feel free to propose that we raise taxes on people making $40,000 and I'll sit back and watch that other guy abuse you all night. Hey, if I were to try to be deceptive, I wouldn't have given you a link to the information that you are feeding back to me. Are you forgetting that I posted that link? Alright, so WHY did I start ticking off the brackets beginning at 37,000? Because the most interesting thing to me about their brackets is that our HIGHEST income tax bracket in America is roughly what their people bump into when they reach a mere $37,000 income. Like, that's where they pick up where we left off!

Correct, I brought up an example. By definition an example is not representative of big general conclusions so I don't need to be instructed as such -- could save everyone a lot of time if you could start by assuming I don't need to be told that the sky is blue, the river is wet, et.... I chose that specific example because I don't want to speak of other examples where I don't have specific knowledge. The reason why I do this, is because I think there must be a way to more accurately tax people on their real economic gains. I mean surely, you want to be fair to people -- ideally I'd want to figure out the correct tax structure and have everyone pay the tax that they should pay under that "correct" system. So by pointing out examples how tax rates are lumpy for different people and how they aren't actually what they believe them to be, then anyone who is interested in achieving better consistency might be drawn into a conversation about how a more consistent tax scheme can be achieved through tinkering with the way we do things. There are plenty of examples about other areas where tax rates are much lower than people commonly believe (like the example I gave you of people converting their "income" into capital gains in Australia to lower their tax rates). I mean, you don't want that kind of crap to go on, do you? Right, well likewise once we decide what rate "rich" people should pay, we want them to pay it. We don't want to accidentally design a system where the tax rate is far in excess (for some assets) than what we intended. You can set a rate that you think is high, but it's best if the rate is actually at that level and not surprisingly much higher. I am saying it is 60% and it is high. I really am leaving it up for debate if it is "too" high. Okay? Like if I said 15% was a low tax rate. It's low. It is low. Not "too" low. And not low "enough". Just, "low" and nothing else added to it.

I don't think it scales the way our property tax does -- but I've never seen the calculation. I just remember my father talking about "rates" as just like a few thousand dollars a year on a $2m home in Sydney that my grandmother lived in. So I was telling him that Australia has no property tax and he said "well they have rates" -- I said, okay but on an annual basis that feels more like a utility bill by comparison. I mean, people easily spend that much on a cell phone annually.

The accusation that I am making self serving arguments is the most pathetic and weakest claim against me. The MAJORITY of my wealth is in my Roth IRA. Like... if I were a self-serving man... THE VERY LAST THING I WOULD WANT IS A SALES TAX!!!! That is the ONLY tax (other than a property tax) that I can't hide from. So any kind of suggestion that I'm suggesting to swap one regressive tax for another in order to be SELF SERVING is an obvious attempt just to piss me off by a sick and deranged individual (who is probably stalking me because that's what sick bitches do). I could ask for a sky-high income tax (won't affect me much at all, just like Buffett). I could ask for a sky-high capital gains tax (won't affect me much at all, just like Buffett). I could ask for a sky-high dividend tax (won't affect me much at all, just like Buffett). I mean, those are taxes I could ask to be raised but they don't affect my Roth IRA at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a load of bullshit and crap this guy is insinuation. Get a therapist dude!!! I actually in my heart believe that a SALES TAX is about the only way that you can get me to pay more taxes at this point in the game. So... you accuse me of serving myself???? You are such a TOOL!

Sorry, I'm being drawn in by my old girlfriend again. My therapist said that I need to avoid people like that.

It's right there in post #66: "So some taxes are in a bubble -- so fucking shoot me for pointing to the unfairness of that" Let's be honest: You just want to pay less taxes and don't care about much else. I was foolish for thinking you actually cared about the facts or the issues involved in tax policy, and doubly foolish for thinking that we could have a useful discussion. Shame on me. I'm done. Somebody else brought the bubble into the equation. I pointed out that having taxes go higher merely because of a BUBBLE is unfair. Like if you buy a home and you think you can afford it, then housing prices double and the property tax starts to eat into your family budget. That's unfair because the property tax is linked to euphoria, not economic reality. I said that I never said a 60% tax rate is unfair -- but I did call it high.

Correct. I believe the main reason why we have so many deferred tax vehicles (where people hold their bonds) is largely because the only other option is broken. Correct, to be replace with a tax that more aligns the payment of the taxes with the means (so you don't get these mismatches where poor people cannot reduce their tax liability via thrift Correct. Taxes on what, that's the question. In California we have a sales tax but there are exemptions for basic necessities and things like electricity rates are subsidized.... basically, there are ways to ensure that the sales tax isn't making diapers a luxury only for the rich. Most really poor people can only afford basic necessities, so it's not anywhere near as regressive as you may fear.

I dated a girl like this once. Tries to control every conversation with guilt and shame. Doesn't matter what you said, they won't listen. They will try to make what you said into something that you should feel guilty and ashamed of. And they try, and they try, and they try to get at you and silence you with guilt and shame. It is not healthy.

I'm glad you now realize that you've shifted to arguing for something that has nothing to do with the purported unfairness you originally highlighted and have now, wisely, abandoned. Say what? I've never shifted away from my point that 60% tax rate is high. Unless you are totally deranged and know you are making shit up just to piss me off, please spend the time to go back and find where I've used the word "fair", or "unfair". "Unfair" is not a synonym for "High". Get it straight. I suggested that property taxes were originally thought up perhaps as a nudge to get people to put land to a productive use. But then I second guessed that in the same paragraph (which you ignored), because why the hell would anyone be comfortable holding a lot of assets with no yield if they can make a yield by developing them. Now you are probably going to start your next passive aggressive bullshiit post. At least I identify you outright as somebody who continually puts words in my mouth. Why can't you just argue with what I'm saying? Why do you have to put spin and innuendo on it? Are you depressed, did a rich person fire you from your job or something?

Thing is, hardly anyone who claims to care about the very poor call for a wealth tax. I haven't heard Buffett call for a wealth tax. So he must not be standing up for them either? Buffett earns income from two sources: 1) His $100,000 salary 2) Roughly 1% of his net worth is in a trading account where it is earning capital gains, interest income and dividends. So like, he's a smart guy. He knows that raising the tax rate even to 100% just isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to him. It only raises the tax rate on 1% of his net worth! He knows this of course, but he doesn't go around advocating for a wealth tax, which is really the only way to shake loose his money. Sure he is pledging to give it all way. He can still do that with what's left and yet ease the tax burden on his poor secretary by advocating for a wealth tax. But maybe, just maybe, he thinks a wealth tax is not a good thing to have. I just honestly really don't know. But don't make insinuations that a wealth tax is something that people must advocate for in order to have a conscience. Getting pretty tired of this. I say that 60% is high for a particular asset. I stand by that point.

It doesn't vary based on the value of your home. It's not what we call a property tax. I think in Australia it's referred to as "rates" (I've already mentioned it in this thread so yes, I'm aware). I understand they are more progressive, but... Hah, hah hah hah hah. Like, if I (the resident fat cat banker guy) were to propose that we adopt their tax rates for more "fairness", I'd never hear the end of it from the resident Occupy Wall Street tools. In Australia, the tax rate is 32.5% for people making over $37,000 37% for people making over $80,000 45% for people making over $180,000 https://www.google.com/#q=australian+tax+rates And the kicker... you can write off expenses from real estate investing against your regular income. Without limits! So if you don't want to be taxed on your high income, you utilize a tactic called "negative gearing", where your rents are less than your expenses. You deduct your excess real estate expenses from your overall income (like the one from your fat cat banker salary). So you translate your high income into deferred capital gains, which you then sell later for a tax rate far below what somebody making over $37,000 is paying.

I'm curious what percentage of people living in million dollar homes are actually wealthy. They might have put 20% down, which is $200,000. But these are families. And they pay the $800,000 mortgage with their incomes. They have fancy cars that they lease. They have high-tier income tax rates. Their kids go to fancy private schools. And they have high student loan payments (medical school/law school). And they pay off their student loans with after-tax dollars despite the fact that every business is allowed to depreciate their capital assets against their revenue. But unlike my concept of what wealth means (independence), they're absoutely fucked if they stop working. They would soon lose their house, have their cars repo'd, their kids would be uprooted... So these are the rich bastards we're all jealous of?

I suspect that would shift a substantial amount of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and the poor. I think that's a relevant consideration when discussing the fairness of a tax system. Really? What's the cost of an economy plane ticket versus the cost that Warren Buffett spends on travel. Yet Warren Buffett's house isn't all that expensive. Some wealthy are extravagant spenders. Some aren't. Some people living in expensive houses aren't wealthy (commonly defined as assets held separate from the primary home). It is common for middle-class people 80 years old in New York to have houses they bought 50 years ago that have appreciated vastly in excess of inflation. So why is it that you won't stick up for these people? Because you are afraid that a few millionaires might slip through and that just eats you up inside? Australia has something called "rates" which is static and does not vary with the property value. It is an occupancy tax that doesn't change if you choose to double the size of your home or if home values soar. That pays for some of the local services. For how to figure out the rest of it, why don't you spend the time to study how the Australians are managing their local government expenses? They've not getting it from property taxes, yet the society had fire departments, garbage services, schools, police, etc... I stopped short of advocating an outright ban because one of the (potentially) intelligent reasons for having a property tax is to keep people from just buying up all the land and hoarding it like gold. There is a certain level at which a property tax encourages people to put their land to productive use. But then again, I don't know if that argument is correct or not -- whether the property has no cash yield or negative cash yield, I would still be motivated to develop it and maximize it's productive use. Like, a 3% yield is better than a 0% yield just as a 2% yield is better than a -1% yield.

So... what would I suggest... Swap one regressive tax for another. Ditch property taxes completely for the primary residence, and replace the revenue with sales taxes. The elderly disabled person can economize on his expenses to bring his tax bill down (and he is already doing that if he is running out of money). Cures his worries about taxes running him into the ground (you can't spend less to get out from under a property tax).

That's true of any investment. People should consider the after-tax yield of a stock before they buy it. That doesn't mean the tax rate isn't high if the tax rate on stocks is 60%. Yes, they should consider it. They should. Whether or not they consider it doesn't change the reality of what the tax rate is. I get the feeling that instead of acknowledging that the rate can be high, it's easier for some people to say "well you shouldn't buy the asset". Fair advice, however it doesn't change the fact that the tax is high. I'm merely stating that 60% looks very high to me, on that particular asset. I didn't say "and it looks like a good investment". And I didn't say "and it's the only investment to choose from". Or any of that nonsense. I just merely stated that it looks very high. I'm concerned about many thousands of things. But I can't list absolutely everything -- I tend to keep a discussion focused and use an example to illustrate one point at a time. It's about maintaining signal to noise ratio. Right... I was not being intelligent by adding something that amounts to "rich people are whiners" or "if you don't like it then you shouldn't invest". That kind of stuff is so much more intelligent than a person stating a fact about the amount of taxes can vary significantly for different people based on the particular assets that they hold -- which was an example made to demonstrate that some people are paying way in excess of what we common think of as "an environment of low tax rates".

My attitude towards taxation is shaped by Australia. I have a dual citizenship between Australia and the US. The Australian society feels more fair overall. Yet they have no gift tax and no inheritance tax. Your primary residence is exempt from property tax (so you don't lose your home if you run low on savings). The US system makes elderly folks insecure because most elderly don't have a lot of cash to survive a situation where property taxes rise sharply and thus property taxes could quickly double on them and make their savings look inadequate. They have a dividend franking system (no double tax on dividends). They have a capital gains tax that is 1/2 of their income tax rate. So it looks like the system is designed for THE RICH ASSHOLES, but it's a fairer society. Riddle me that.