socialism

Started by mille125
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
so its failed in sweden.

its failed in denmark.

its failed in norway.

its failed in iceland.

its failed in finland.


oh snap no.


interestingly, those 5 countries have the highest happiness ratings around the world (the US is 24th)

the reason why socialist programs dont work as well in the US? because one side persistently works to defund and eliminate the programs and blacklist them as "communist"
🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

Despite what Bernie Sanders says, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are market-based capitalist economies with high economic freedom and robust welfare systems, and the party that most advocates for those policies are the Social Democrats. Scandinavian countries have few product or business regulations and embrace free trade. Denmark has no minimum wage, for example. They also maintain high personal (lowest rates are 22-37% for the lowest earners) and consumption taxes (25%) in order to pay for their extensive welfare state. And everyone, even the low income workers, pays their fair share.

Unlike the U.S. with a staggered 0% or 10% bottom federal tax bracket, these countries impose substantial municipal or base taxes directly on the first pool of taxable income.

The DSA doesn't talk about Scandinavian countries as their model, and they don't talk about high taxes across the board on everyone to pay for a massive welfare state. What they talk about is redistribution--taking, literally at gunpoint, what they want. They say they'll give it to others, but inevitably all the wealth winds up in their own pockets. SEE: U.S.S.R., Eastern Bloc countries, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China. Those are the DSA model countries.
 
People who says socialism works and point to some Scandinavian countries either
1. Just parrot extreme left ideas
2. Do not read/research
3. Do not understand demographics and population size
4. Just don't care and will do anything to screw the rich.

Truthfully, only the 4th reason has some logic to it and screwing the rich at least follows one logical although misguided path.

As to the worn down slogan, "Have the rich pay their fair share", these people do not understand consequences.

Lets say the DSA can push a wealth tax on anyone over $1B and throw out a nominal amount of 5%. Lets also say there are no terrible consequences and these Billionaires just take out loans to pay the taxes and move on with their life. What a great outcome and outstanding success, no one gets hurt and now the rich just paid their fair share.

Now that it is such a great program, why just tax in one year? Why not do it every year?

Truthfully, NO ONE really needs more than 20 million to live a opulent life. Truthfully, no one really needs to make more than 500K.... actually 300K is plenty. We should place a wealth tax on everyone making 300K or have 20M each year.

Would the anesthesiologists on here be ok with paying their fair share and tax anything over 500K at an extra 10-15%?

The only saving grace is this will NEVER happen because most in congress are multi millionaires, have billionaire friends, or have hopes of being multi millionaires. Nancy would never allow this to happen, you really think she wants to pay her "fair share". Do you really think Nancy paid much more than taxes on her 200K salary?
 
Last edited:
he is not a nazi even though it is reported that he had a copy of Hitlers writings on his nightstand.

he acknowledged that he owned a copy.



he is an oligarch and authoritarian.
The only person that definitely called him a Nazi is Vance.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
People who says socialism works and point to some Scandinavian countries either
1. Just parrot extreme left ideas
2. Do not read/research
3. Do not understand demographics and population size
4. Just don't care and will do anything to screw the rich.

Truthfully, only the 4th reason has some logic to it and screwing the rich at least follows one logical although misguided path.

As to the worn down slogan, "Have the rich pay their fair share", these people do not understand consequences.

Lets say the DSA can push a wealth tax on anyone over $1B and throw out a nominal amount of 5%. Lets also say there are no terrible consequences and these Billionaires just take out loans to pay the taxes and move on with their life. What a great outcome and outstanding success, no one gets hurt and now the rich just paid their fair share.

Now that it is such a great program, why just tax in one year? Why not do it every year?

Truthfully, NO ONE really needs more than 20 million to live a opulent life. Truthfully, no one really needs to make more than 500K.... actually 300K is plenty. We should place a wealth tax on everyone making 300K or have 20M each year.

Would the anesthesiologists on here be ok with paying their fair share and tax anything over 500K at an extra 10-15%?

The only saving grace is this will NEVER happen because most in congress are multi millionaires, have billionaire friends, or have hopes of being multi millionaires. Nancy would never allow this to happen, you really think she wants to pay her "fair share". Do you really think Nancy paid much more than taxes on her 200K salary?
You miss the point. The ultra wealthy are paying near 1% of the income in taxes which is lower than even those poor souls making nothing and paying no tax. But they do pay tax in the form of payroll tax.

Questions for you...........

1) If these ultrawealthy folks had to be 3 or even the huge amount of 5% of earnings would that be unfair to the rich?
2_ You use all of us as examples but are any of us pay 1% taxes on our incomes?
 
People who says socialism works and point to some Scandinavian countries either
1. Just parrot extreme left ideas
2. Do not read/research
3. Do not understand demographics and population size
4. Just don't care and will do anything to screw the rich.

Truthfully, only the 4th reason has some logic to it and screwing the rich at least follows one logical although misguided path.

As to the worn down slogan, "Have the rich pay their fair share", these people do not understand consequences.

Lets say the DSA can push a wealth tax on anyone over $1B and throw out a nominal amount of 5%. Lets also say there are no terrible consequences and these Billionaires just take out loans to pay the taxes and move on with their life. What a great outcome and outstanding success, no one gets hurt and now the rich just paid their fair share.

Now that it is such a great program, why just tax in one year? Why not do it every year?

Truthfully, NO ONE really needs more than 20 million to live a opulent life. Truthfully, no one really needs to make more than 500K.... actually 300K is plenty. We should place a wealth tax on everyone making 300K or have 20M each year.

Would the anesthesiologists on here be ok with paying their fair share and tax anything over 500K at an extra 10-15%?

The only saving grace is this will NEVER happen because most in congress are multi millionaires, have billionaire friends, or have hopes of being multi millionaires. Nancy would never allow this to happen, you really think she wants to pay her "fair share". Do you really think Nancy paid much more than taxes on her 200K salary?
1. Virtue signalling appeals to their need to feel morally superior, without making any personal sacrifice
2. Attacking "wealth inequity" is the socially acceptable expression of envy
3. Because they lack self awareness, they will never grasp 1, 2, or 3.
 
You miss the point. The ultra wealthy are paying near 1% of the income in taxes which is lower than even those poor souls making nothing and paying no tax. But they do pay tax in the form of payroll tax.

Questions for you...........

1) If these ultrawealthy folks had to be 3 or even the huge amount of 5% of earnings would that be unfair to the rich?
2_ You use all of us as examples but are any of us pay 1% taxes on our incomes?
If you retired and stopped making W2 income. Your IRA and Stock portfolio went up 30%, Your RE went up 20%. Your paper net worth has now increased by $1M. You do not sell anything, should you pay 350K or should you pay $0?

Your home interest rate is 7% and 5 yrs later, mortgage rates go down to 3%. You have about $1M in equity and happy to pay the 3% interest so you pull out $1M. Should you pay 350K in taxes on this increased loan?

I think this answers your question. If you say no, then you agree with me. If you say yes, I think you are likely lying to yourself. Either way you are agreeing with me.
 
1. Virtue signalling appeals to their need to feel morally superior, without making any personal sacrifice
2. Attacking "wealth inequity" is the socially acceptable expression of envy
3. Because they lack self awareness, they will never grasp 1, 2, or 3.
I had long discussion with my kids about capitalism vs socialism. I explained that socialism ONLY works in a household because the parents are happy to work/give/sacrifice so everyone has a similar standard of living while only 2 of 5 pulls all of the heavy work load.

In the real world, no one would have this similar love for another person to sacrifice with little in return.

What the left do not understand is if a lawn guy who didn't go to college made as much as an anesthesiologist with 10+ extra years of schooling, there would not be any anesthesiologists. If a nacho eating unemployed guy makes as much as the lawn guy, there would be no lawn guy. Eventually we end up with everyone being nacho eating unemployed guys so who will do the work?

I really do not understand why this is so hard to grasp.
 
If you retired and stopped making W2 income. Your IRA and Stock portfolio went up 30%, Your RE went up 20%. Your paper net worth has now increased by $1M. You do not sell anything, should you pay 350K or should you pay $0?

Your home interest rate is 7% and 5 yrs later, mortgage rates go down to 3%. You have about $1M in equity and happy to pay the 3% interest so you pull out $1M. Should you pay 350K in taxes on this increased loan?

I think this answers your question. If you say no, then you agree with me. If you say yes, I think you are likely lying to yourself. Either way you are agreeing with me.
your example is misleading.

im not sure anyone is advocating for a straight "wealth tax". and if they are, that is ridiculous. if your IRA goes up 30%, you pay taxes on it when you realize the gains. the issue is that the uber rich, never realize those gains. they borrow of the stocks, die, and never get taxed. THAT is the bullsh$t that robs the system and isnt fair.

i dont love that my w-2 gets taxed at such a high rate when elon and jeff and warren and larry and mark and jensen get taxed at such a low rate. id be ok with them paying just capital gains taxes (even though its a lower rate) if they actually ever paid it. but they wont. and thats the loophole.

closing the step up basis loophole would indeed significantly increase tax revenue, but not bankrupt the system nor stifle growth.
 
your examples are examples of pure socialism.

As I am not a member of the DSA, I can only guess but I don't believe that they are advocating wealth distribution to the point of pure socialism or communism, but to the point that there are not significant portions of the population that are impoverished.

With regards to your examples, yes someone who has gained passively should pay some degree of taxes. At the very least, they should not be ble to take out a loan that they do not expect to ever repay on those earnings.


FWIW my impression of your second example is taking money out as a loan that the person taking money out from home. It has to be repaid so should not be taxed.
 
your example is misleading.

im not sure anyone is advocating for a straight "wealth tax". and if they are, that is ridiculous. if your IRA goes up 30%, you pay taxes on it when you realize the gains. the issue is that the uber rich, never realize those gains. they borrow of the stocks, die, and never get taxed. THAT is the bullsh$t that robs the system and isnt fair.

i dont love that my w-2 gets taxed at such a high rate when elon and jeff and warren and larry and mark and jensen get taxed at such a low rate. id be ok with them paying just capital gains taxes (even though its a lower rate) if they actually ever paid it. but they wont. and thats the loophole.

closing the step up basis loophole would indeed significantly increase tax revenue, but not bankrupt the system nor stifle growth.
I don't see where this is misleading. If you read this thread and the title, there are people having no prob with a wealth tax. Our biggest state is trying to push through a one time 5% wealth tax. Rhode island has proposed a 1% annual tax on over 25M, Minnesota 1% annual on 10M.

Please explain me the difference between
1. Warren Buffet - Berk stock goes up 20% and his NW up by 10Bil in 2025. He has no earned income and pays almost nothing in taxes. He lives off taking loans against his stocks.
2. SSDoc - His home value goes up by 20% and his NW up by 200K. He is retired and refinances his $2M paid off home for a lower rate and pulls out $1.5M. He lives off this home loan or HELOC. Should you pay $500K in taxes on the $1.5M.

Now let's assume we pass a 5% yearly unrealized gain tax which really is just a wealth tax disguised. If Elon created SpaceX from nothing and unrealized gain of the company is $200B. He pays 10B in taxes but he borrows against the loan because he does not/not allowed to sell shares. China now just created ChinaX and SpaceX stock goes bankrupt. Now Elon NW is zero and he has a 10B loan.

Again, I always say left socialist ideology either wants to just screw the rich, don't understand/read, or just like to parrot a cute talking point.
 
your examples are examples of pure socialism.

As I am not a member of the DSA, I can only guess but I don't believe that they are advocating wealth distribution to the point of pure socialism or communism, but to the point that there are not significant portions of the population that are impoverished.

With regards to your examples, yes someone who has gained passively should pay some degree of taxes. At the very least, they should not be ble to take out a loan that they do not expect to ever repay on those earnings.


FWIW my impression of your second example is taking money out as a loan that the person taking money out from home. It has to be repaid so should not be taxed.
If we can use a magic wand and make everyone pay on passive stock/wealth appreciation. Would Dr. DuctTape be OK paying 300K b/c his stocks went up $1M this year?

As to loans, Elon has to eventually pay just the same as Dr. DuctTape eventually has to pay. Elon will pay by selling stocks and paying the taxes on it. Dr. Dructape will eventually pay when he sells his home and pay taxes on a lower cost basis. But Dr. Ductape can push this taxing event back in perpetuity with good estate planning.

I just want those who advocate taxing unrealized gains that they would be good with getting taxed on their unrealized gains. I doubt any anesthesiologist would be happy to do this.
 
Last edited:
If we can use a magic wand and make everyone pay on passive stock/wealth appreciation. Would Dr. DuctTape be OK paying 300K b/c his stocks went up $1M this year?

As to loans, Elon has to eventually pay just the same as Dr. DuctTape eventually has to pay. Elon will pay by selling stocks and paying the taxes on it. Dr. Dructape will eventually pay when he sells his home and pay taxes on a lower cost basis. But Dr. Ductape can push this taxing event back in perpetuity with good estate planning.

I just want those who advocate taxing unrealized gains that they would be good with getting taxed on their unrealized gains. I doubt any anesthesiologist would be happy to do this.
you are missing the "death" part of this.

the unrealized gains at the time of death go to current market value. they should go back to the value of the original purchase

Step-Up in Basis: Inherited stocks receive a "step-up" in cost basis, meaning the tax value resets to the market price on the date of death


Elon and jeff arent spending the 200 billion dollars they have. and when they die, the capital gains will never apply to their heirs b/c of the step up in basis
 
you are missing the "death" part of this.

the unrealized gains at the time of death go to current market value. they should go back to the value of the original purchase

Step-Up in Basis: Inherited stocks receive a "step-up" in cost basis, meaning the tax value resets to the market price on the date of death


Elon and jeff arent spending the 200 billion dollars they have. and when they die, the capital gains will never apply to their heirs b/c of the step up in basis
But we all are allowed the same step up basis. Are you good with giving up the step up basis and all other tax avoidance avenues that the uber rich has?

The step up basis also goes up to your estate tax. If you bought NVDA for $100K and now worth 100M, when you die it gets taxed over the estate tax limit which is a hefty %.

I really think this discussion is circular and I just want the left/SDA to admit that they would be good with having the same rules set on the Billionaires. If you are ok with losing all of the tax structure benefits that they have, then atleast be honest/consistent.

I am well off, not UBER billionaire rich, but I also use many of the tax benefits that they use to a much much smaller scale. I prefer to pay less taxes and donate more to charity where I can direct its purpose rather than giving it to the IRS to spend on bombs, coke for kids, and steaks for the poor.

I give 50K+ a year to charity and that is my choice. If the IRS want to tax me 100K more a year on my "wealth" or take away some of my deductions, then that 50K+ will be much less and wasted. This is the crux where the wealthy gives more than every other income group and want the choice on who/where to give.

Do you think that Michael dell would be giving away billions to healthcare, Universities, Trump accounts if he had a 20Bil wealth appreciation tax bill around the corner?



Here is a quick chatgpt explanation. How they avoid such a large tax bill is part estate structure BUT he will still have a LARGE Tax bill. So let's not ne naive to say that he will never pay any taxes when he dies similar to the rules you have to follow if you have over the estate limit. So Musk would be paying his "fair" share and most likely MUCH MUCH more than Dr. SSdoc who will pay zero estate tax if he is not over 30M.

Should we just get rid of the estate tax all together so SSdoc will pay his fair share b/c it doesn't look like SSdoc will pay much taxes when he passes away.



Yes. Under current U.S. law, the federal estate tax applies only to the value of the estate above the exemption amount, not to the entire estate. The top federal estate tax rate is 40%. For 2026, the federal exemption is $15 million per person (or about $30 million for a married couple with proper planning and portability).


For example, suppose someone dies with:


  • Estate value: $200 billion
  • Exemption: $15 million

The taxable estate would be approximately:


  • $200 billion − $15 million = $199.985 billion

At a simplified 40% rate, that could imply an estate tax approaching $80 billion, before considering deductions, charitable gifts, debts, marital deductions, and estate-planning techniques


What would he probably pay?​


Estate tax experts have suggested that for someone with a fortune like Musk's:


  • $0 is highly unlikely unless virtually all of the wealth had already been transferred or pledged to charity years in advance.
  • $10–30 billion is conceivable if extraordinary planning had already shifted a large portion of future appreciation out of the estate.
  • $40–80+ billion is plausible if a substantial portion of the wealth remained personally owned at death.

So if Elon Musk died tomorrow with a $200 billion estate, my expectation would be that the estate tax would likely be measured in the tens of billions of dollars, not zero.
 
Last edited:
If you retired and stopped making W2 income. Your IRA and Stock portfolio went up 30%, Your RE went up 20%. Your paper net worth has now increased by $1M. You do not sell anything, should you pay 350K or should you pay $0?

Your home interest rate is 7% and 5 yrs later, mortgage rates go down to 3%. You have about $1M in equity and happy to pay the 3% interest so you pull out $1M. Should you pay 350K in taxes on this increased loan?

I think this answers your question. If you say no, then you agree with me. If you say yes, I think you are likely lying to yourself. Either way you are agreeing with me.
Should I and 99.9% of Americans pay 35 percent or even any tax rate on that growth...no

Should billionaires with 500 million dollar portfolios who paid an effective tax rate of 1 percent all of their lives pay something? Yes

I am not even saying 35 percent. 5 to 10 is more than fair given the 99 percent of them bill the system and sustain wealth thru public subsidies, tax shelters, bailouts, corporate welfare etc.


I dont understand why you are ok with the Trumps and Elin Musk of the world paying 1 percent. Why is that ok and how on earth is it fair?
 
If we can use a magic wand and make everyone pay on passive stock/wealth appreciation. Would Dr. DuctTape be OK paying 300K b/c his stocks went up $1M this year?

As to loans, Elon has to eventually pay just the same as Dr. DuctTape eventually has to pay. Elon will pay by selling stocks and paying the taxes on it. Dr. Dructape will eventually pay when he sells his home and pay taxes on a lower cost basis. But Dr. Ductape can push this taxing event back in perpetuity with good estate planning.

I just want those who advocate taxing unrealized gains that they would be good with getting taxed on their unrealized gains. I doubt any anesthesiologist would be happy to do this.

I am ok with either killing the tax shelters or taxing the ultra wealthy unrealized gains.

They shouldn't pay 1 percent. I don't know why you can't agree on that.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
That is what you miss.

Ducttape and the rest of us pay our fair share of taxes.

Those cats don't. It's not illegal but it also is not morally fair.
 
Do you think that Michael dell would be giving away billions to healthcare, Universities, Trump accounts if he had a 20Bil wealth appreciation tax bill around the corner?



Here is a quick chatgpt explanation. How they avoid such a large tax bill is part estate structure BUT he will still have a LARGE Tax bill. So let's not ne naive to say that he will never pay any taxes when he dies similar to the rules you have to follow if you have over the estate limit. So Musk would be paying his "fair" share and most likely MUCH MUCH more than Dr. SSdoc who will pay zero estate tax if he is not over 30M.

Should we just get rid of the estate tax all together so SSdoc will pay his fair share b/c it doesn't look like SSdoc will pay much taxes when he passes away.



Yes. Under current U.S. law, the federal estate tax applies only to the value of the estate above the exemption amount, not to the entire estate. The top federal estate tax rate is 40%. For 2026, the federal exemption is $15 million per person (or about $30 million for a married couple with proper planning and portability).


For example, suppose someone dies with:


  • Estate value: $200 billion
  • Exemption: $15 million

The taxable estate would be approximately:


  • $200 billion − $15 million = $199.985 billion

At a simplified 40% rate, that could imply an estate tax approaching $80 billion, before considering deductions, charitable gifts, debts, marital deductions, and estate-planning techniques


What would he probably pay?​


Estate tax experts have suggested that for someone with a fortune like Musk's:


  • $0 is highly unlikely unless virtually all of the wealth had already been transferred or pledged to charity years in advance.
  • $10–30 billion is conceivable if extraordinary planning had already shifted a large portion of future appreciation out of the estate.
  • $40–80+ billion is plausible if a substantial portion of the wealth remained personally owned at death.

So if Elon Musk died tomorrow with a $200 billion estate, my expectation would be that the estate tax would likely be measured in the tens of billions of dollars, not zero.
So like you said with good planning as all the ultra wealthy have Elon will effectively pay 10% or less tax on his wealth. And his children will have their cost basis reset. His wealth is from capital gains, a big portion of mine is from income which is taxed at 35%. I do think overall tax rate from income and capital gains paid by Elon Musk should be equal percentage or higher than mine.

I don't like the idea of a wealth tax, but closing a bunch of tax loopholes is probably impossible.
 
Should I and 99.9% of Americans pay 35 percent or even any tax rate on that growth...no

Should billionaires with 500 million dollar portfolios who paid an effective tax rate of 1 percent all of their lives pay something? Yes

I am not even saying 35 percent. 5 to 10 is more than fair given the 99 percent of them bill the system and sustain wealth thru public subsidies, tax shelters, bailouts, corporate welfare etc.


I dont understand why you are ok with the Trumps and Elin Musk of the world paying 1 percent. Why is that ok and how on earth is it fair?
What you don't understand is you want to tax the uber rich more (which is great) but want to protect your current status which viewed from the "poor" demographic groups is not fair.

They want doctors to pay their fair share too and why even have an estate tax limit? I mean, if a doc has $20M, giving 12M to their Heirs is plenty. Are you good with paying your fair share b/c the underrepresented group sure thinks making 600K and having $20M NW at retirement is obscene.

When you are able to see that you are not paying your fair share, then I can at least agree that your ideas are consistent.
 
So like you said with good planning as all the ultra wealthy have Elon will effectively pay 10% or less tax on his wealth. And his children will have their cost basis reset. His wealth is from capital gains, a big portion of mine is from income which is taxed at 35%. I do think overall tax rate from income and capital gains paid by Elon Musk should be equal percentage or higher than mine.

I don't like the idea of a wealth tax, but closing a bunch of tax loopholes is probably impossible.
I like consistency and if you are good with closing loopholes, then you should be ok with not having loopholes either. So if Buffet has to pay the 40% estate tax given no further loopholes, then Dr. Bubaghanush should be fine with getting rid of the estate tax and paying the 40% also. Are you good with paying your fair share?
 
I like consistency and if you are good with closing loopholes, then you should be ok with not having loopholes either. So if Buffet has to pay the 40% estate tax given no further loopholes, then Dr. Bubaghanush should be fine with getting rid of the estate tax and paying the 40% also. Are you good with paying your fair share?
Have you ever looked at Bernie Sanders' tax plan and compared it to his income? Coincidentally, those he wanted to tax seemed to always start just above his tax rate. Only those people richer than him are the ones considered too rich. He just happens to be right at the acceptable income level. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
 
Here's some interesting food for thought:


An honest survey would likely be consistent here, that is, if people are honest.
 
I like consistency and if you are good with closing loopholes, then you should be ok with not having loopholes either. So if Buffet has to pay the 40% estate tax given no further loopholes, then Dr. Bubaghanush should be fine with getting rid of the estate tax and paying the 40% also. Are you good with paying your fair share?
Yes
 
Then I have respect for your position but I doubt many Left anesthesiologists/docs would agree and an even smaller amount would be good with actually voting for it. I still have my doubts that you would be OK getting rid of the estate tax allowance, Step up basis, etc.

I have little faith in our gov and how they spend MY Hard earned money. I am happy to get rid of the estate tax allowance BUT I get to choose which charity gets all of my taxes.

I do not want my estate taxes to go to steaks/coke to Jane sitting in front of the TV watching Friends all day.
 
Have you ever looked at Bernie Sanders' tax plan and compared it to his income? Coincidentally, those he wanted to tax seemed to always start just above his tax rate. Only those people richer than him are the ones considered too rich. He just happens to be right at the acceptable income level. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
The dems are typically fiscal hypocrites. Nancy and the gang talks a big talk but do you ever see her take actions on taxing the rich more or closing loopholes? Has she ever pushed any legislation to avoid stock picking insider trading? I mean, they are worth well over 200M and it is not b/c they are some trading savant.
 
The dems are typically fiscal hypocrites. Nancy and the gang talks a big talk but do you ever see her take actions on taxing the rich more or closing loopholes? Has she ever pushed any legislation to avoid stock picking insider trading? I mean, they are worth well over 200M and it is not b/c they are some trading savant.
Only fiscal?

 
Then I have respect for your position but I doubt many Left anesthesiologists/docs would agree and an even smaller amount would be good with actually voting for it. I still have my doubts that you would be OK getting rid of the estate tax allowance, Step up basis, etc.

I have little faith in our gov and how they spend MY Hard earned money. I am happy to get rid of the estate tax allowance BUT I get to choose which charity gets all of my taxes.

I do not want my estate taxes to go to steaks/coke to Jane sitting in front of the TV watching Friends all day.
Are you a landlord by any chance? Have you ever dealt with Section 8 tenants?
 
That is what you miss.

Ducttape and the rest of us pay our fair share of taxes.

Those cats don't. It's not illegal but it also is not morally fair.
Who gets to say what your fair share is? What if the Bernie bros and AOC think you need to pay 70%. Are you going to have a problem with who you helped elect?
 
The dems are typically fiscal hypocrites. Nancy and the gang talks a big talk but do you ever see her take actions on taxing the rich more or closing loopholes? Has she ever pushed any legislation to avoid stock picking insider trading? I mean, they are worth well over 200M and it is not b/c they are some trading savant.
What you are describing is not unique to Democrats, but a part of political office.

Take a look at how much Trump made on crypto scams, or his children made on their privileged deals. Nancy Pelosi doesn't come close. In fact Trump & friends are literally selling insider information (1st look at his Truth Social tweets) to trading firms.
 
your example is misleading.

im not sure anyone is advocating for a straight "wealth tax". and if they are, that is ridiculous. if your IRA goes up 30%, you pay taxes on it when you realize the gains. the issue is that the uber rich, never realize those gains. they borrow of the stocks, die, and never get taxed. THAT is the bullsh$t that robs the system and isnt fair.

i dont love that my w-2 gets taxed at such a high rate when elon and jeff and warren and larry and mark and jensen get taxed at such a low rate. id be ok with them paying just capital gains taxes (even though its a lower rate) if they actually ever paid it. but they wont. and thats the loophole.

closing the step up basis loophole would indeed significantly increase tax revenue, but not bankrupt the system nor stifle growth.
You must not be following the news much. A wealth tax is becoming a very popular idea amongst your party. Time to start paying attention
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Then I have respect for your position but I doubt many Left anesthesiologists/docs would agree and an even smaller amount would be good with actually voting for it. I still have my doubts that you would be OK getting rid of the estate tax allowance, Step up basis, etc.

I have little faith in our gov and how they spend MY Hard earned money. I am happy to get rid of the estate tax allowance BUT I get to choose which charity gets all of my taxes.

I do not want my estate taxes to go to steaks/coke to Jane sitting in front of the TV watching Friends all day.
Charities are more efficient, we are increasing our giving as income and assets increase. The government certainly has a lot of waste. But they are the only entity capable of providing any kind of societal-wide safety net.


You are somewhat correct with your doubts. If you were to ask me personally if the uber rich should pay a higher percentage of taxes, I would have said yes. However, I also think everyone paying an equal percentage to have a decent safety net is reasonable and support it (including the bottom half @clubdeac !).
 
Charities are more efficient, we are increasing our giving as income and assets increase. The government certainly has a lot of waste. But they are the only entity capable of providing any kind of societal-wide safety net.


You are somewhat correct with your doubts. If you were to ask me personally if the uber rich should pay a higher percentage of taxes, I would have said yes. However, I also think everyone paying an equal percentage to have a decent safety net is reasonable and support it (including the bottom half @clubdeac !).
This is what I don't understand. Your saying California is incapable of doing this. What's the population and GDP of California compared to Denmark, Sweden, etc?
 
This is what I don't understand. Your saying California is incapable of doing this. What's the population and GDP of California compared to Denmark, Sweden, etc?
No state will do this. The talking points is to just get votes.

Cali controls every level of government and if they really want to implement all of the safety net, they could. But they know better, know it will fail, and they will not get voted back in. They promise to get the votes, deliver superficial wins to show they are implementing policy, but at the end of the day the know only capitalism works.

Short of not wanting to do it, what is stopping Cali dems from ramming through all the socialist policies and "fair" tax policies?
 
This is what I don't understand. Your saying California is incapable of doing this. What's the population and GDP of California compared to Denmark, Sweden, etc?
What do you think will happen if one state has universal healthcare and paid higher education, better unemployment and family leave benefits? And at the same time institutes a 50% tax on all brackets?

It can't work at the state level, it must be federal.
 
What do you think will happen if one state has universal healthcare and paid higher education, better unemployment and family leave benefits? And at the same time institutes a 50% tax on all brackets?

It can't work at the state level, it must be federal.
I would like for you to answer your own question please.

A state like this would be attractive to you, would it not?
 
I would like for you to answer your own question please.

A state like this would be attractive to you, would it not?
A wealthy country with closed borders is not the same as a wealthy US state with open borders to 49 states.

Happy to live in this country like that. Single state won't work.
 
Last edited:
A wealthy country with closed borders is not the same as a wealthy US state with open borders to 49 states.

Happy to live in this country like that. Single state won't work.
There are no border controls in the Schengen Zone.

Countries in this zone are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland.

They make it work.
 
Last edited:
There are no border controls in the Schengen Zone.

Countries in this zone are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland.

They make it work.
Those countries have universal healthcare. They require strict residency or employment requirements to access their system, sometimes up to a year.

California can't do this. Sick, uninsured, and low-income families can move there tomorrow and become state residents with benefit access. California can't dictate its own fiscal policy. It has no say on how the majority of its taxes are used (federal) and pays more than it gets back.

Even so, California has few uninsured and much better parental leave than Southern states.
 
I had long discussion with my kids about capitalism vs socialism. I explained that socialism ONLY works in a household because the parents are happy to work/give/sacrifice so everyone has a similar standard of living while only 2 of 5 pulls all of the heavy work load.

In the real world, no one would have this similar love for another person to sacrifice with little in return.

What the left do not understand is if a lawn guy who didn't go to college made as much as an anesthesiologist with 10+ extra years of schooling, there would not be any anesthesiologists. If a nacho eating unemployed guy makes as much as the lawn guy, there would be no lawn guy. Eventually we end up with everyone being nacho eating unemployed guys so who will do the work?

I really do not understand why this is so hard to grasp.
A lot of the right wing/Trump supporters/Trump apologists on this site are doing what right wing media is doing with the term socialism which is using it as a scare tactic mostly for the large populations of the uninformed who follow them. I dont think you are doing that so that is the only reason I am going to respond.

You mention a discussion on capitalism vs socialism. The main difference is that in true capitalism private people own all land and industries and keep profits. Pure socialism involves the govt or coummunity owning all major resources and businesses.

As you can see neither of these work in a pure form and no country on Earth does true socialism or true capitalism. You need to have some mix of both and every country does. We can all debate how much of each is ideal but no serious person is advocating for a pure socialist or pure capitalist nation.

Next you are conflating tax policy with this and somehow discussing that a lawn guy should make the same as us. I dont think anyone is saying that and I dont know how you arrive there. I do think that everyone should have equal opportunity to go to college if they want but that is a different topic. If you read all of my posts the only thing that I am saying is that the ultra wealthy are not paying their fair share of the income and benefits that they earn many of which are taking advantage of public benefits, corporate welfare, bailouts, etc. I am in favor of any measure that level this off to where the ultra wealthy can make 100 times what I do and pay the same or less total tax than I do. Is this all hard to grasp?

Should Jeff Bezos be able to claim and receive the child tax credit that is intended for low income working families (he did this about 10 years ago)?
 
You must not be following the news much. A wealth tax is becoming a very popular idea amongst your party. Time to start paying attention
no state has enacted a wealth tax, to date. there are a few states with a surtax on income over 1 mil/year. for the record, i think both of these ideas are bad ones. even newsom opposes the wealth tax
 
Those countries have universal healthcare. They require strict residency or employment requirements to access their system, sometimes up to a year.

California can't do this. Sick, uninsured, and low-income families can move there tomorrow and become state residents with benefit access. California can't dictate its own fiscal policy. It has no say on how the majority of its taxes are used (federal) and pays more than it gets back.

Even so, California has few uninsured and much better parental leave than Southern states.
It would be relatively easy for California to work with a motivated federal gov to enact restrictions on who can access their system. Federal laws like EMTALA, Medicare/Medicaid/VA funding - all should be on the table.

Imo, this is a much easier lift and also far less risky than trying to accomplish your proposed alternative - universal healthcare across the entire country.

I feel like this is the pathway that could unite libertarians like me, and socialists like ducttape, to experiment with healthcare as a right.
 
If we can use a magic wand and make everyone pay on passive stock/wealth appreciation. Would Dr. DuctTape be OK paying 300K b/c his stocks went up $1M this year?

As to loans, Elon has to eventually pay just the same as Dr. DuctTape eventually has to pay. Elon will pay by selling stocks and paying the taxes on it. Dr. Dructape will eventually pay when he sells his home and pay taxes on a lower cost basis. But Dr. Ductape can push this taxing event back in perpetuity with good estate planning.

I just want those who advocate taxing unrealized gains that they would be good with getting taxed on their unrealized gains. I doubt any anesthesiologist would be happy to do this.
no.

but i expect that 1. when someone takes out the money they made off of their investment, they pay their fair share of taxes on that investment and 2. that billionaires dont borrow money on their gains and then avoid paying taxes for their entire lives as they roll over those loans to other loans.

Elon never needs to sell stocks. he takes out loans on the supposed gains he has and will make, then if those loans ever become due, he takes out new loans, rolls the old ones in to the new loans and never pays taxes on any of them, as the loans wont expire until he dies. these loans also are at extremely low rates that only billionaires are given.

then, his estate is taxed at the low rates, not at current rates, leading to increased generational wealth.


you and i, on the other hand, as soon as we take money from 401k or other retirement vessels, have to pay standard taxes on that money. and no bank is giving me a very low-interest rate loan for my investments. we are paying taxes on unrealized gains and cant avoid them.


===

fwiw, very few people are advocating pure socialism. almost everyone in america is advocating for a capitalistic vuew of socialism involving social safety nets to prevent everyone from falling into the abyss, while allowing some that are able to reach significant wealth.
 
i expect that 1. when someone takes out the money they made off of their investment, they pay their fair share of taxes on that investment
2. that billionaires dont borrow money on their gains and then avoid paying taxes for their entire lives as they roll over those loans to other loans.

Elon never needs to sell stocks. he takes out loans on the supposed gains he has and will make, then if those loans ever become due, he takes out new loans, rolls the old ones in to the new loans and never pays taxes on any of them, as the loans wont expire until he dies. these loans also are at extremely low rates that only billionaires are given.

then, his estate is taxed at the low rates, not at current rates, leading to increased generational wealth.


you and i, on the other hand, as soon as we take money from 401k or other retirement vessels, have to pay standard taxes on that money. and no bank is giving me a very low-interest rate loan for my investments. we are paying taxes on unrealized gains and cant avoid them.
This is all magnitude.

Those in the bottom 1/3-/12 do not have the advantages Dr. DuctTape has because they do not have stocks nor own homes. They do not have IRAs that can grow for 50+ years growth deferred. They are not able to do a ROTH/conversion IRA and only paid taxes on the initial 100K now worth 5M. They are not able to own businesses where they do CBPs, Augusta Rules, and countless other deductions.

Looking at Point #1 - Buffet never sell his shares so how has he made money on his investment? Just as Dr. DuctTape could never sell his shares and thus never pay on his investment. Many docs do this. I plan to never sell my shares if I do not need the money and just send it to my Trust.

Looking at Point #2 - Buffet is able to borrow on his assets just like many well off doctors. He takes out on business appreciation and Dr. DuctTape takes out on his home equity who can roll the old ones into new loans in perpetuity. At time of death, he could just leave the home to his heirs via estate planning.

Eventually someone will pay Dr. DuctTapes loans just as someone will pay Buffett's loans. Buffett/his heirs likely will just donate a large sum of money during his life to offset taxes when he closes the loans.

From they bottom 1/2 view, Dr. DuctTape and Buffett are doing the same and not paying their share of taxes. In reality, they are the same other than magnitude.

To your point of interest rates - Buffet has a low rate around Prime because it is essentially a riskless loan. Berk is not going anywhere and the loan he takes is a slither of his overall wealth. Dr. DuctTape has a higher rate because his assets are riskier but in line with the risks and his high credit score, maybe Prime +1 or 2. The lower 1/2 in the US will either not get a loan or will pay Prime + 2 or 3.

Again, similar rules and just magnitude. To the bottom 1/3, you (and I) are no better than Buffet. It is hypocritical to demand Buffett pay his fair share when Dr. DuctTape would not want to pay his fair share when looking through the lens of the bottom 1/3. So Unfair the advantages Dr. DuctTape have and not available to Medicaid Jane.

Similar to Buffet giving away Billons to defer taxes, Dr. DuctTape gives away a slither compared to Buffett. Dr. DuctTape sure hasn't given his "fair" share to charity and keeping the vast majority to his kids. The horror.
 
Last edited:
no.

but i expect that 1. when someone takes out the money they made off of their investment, they pay their fair share of taxes on that investment and 2. that billionaires dont borrow money on their gains and then avoid paying taxes for their entire lives as they roll over those loans to other loans.

Elon never needs to sell stocks. he takes out loans on the supposed gains he has and will make, then if those loans ever become due, he takes out new loans, rolls the old ones in to the new loans and never pays taxes on any of them, as the loans wont expire until he dies. these loans also are at extremely low rates that only billionaires are given.

then, his estate is taxed at the low rates, not at current rates, leading to increased generational wealth.


you and i, on the other hand, as soon as we take money from 401k or other retirement vessels, have to pay standard taxes on that money. and no bank is giving me a very low-interest rate loan for my investments. we are paying taxes on unrealized gains and cant avoid them.


===

fwiw, very few people are advocating pure socialism. almost everyone in america is advocating for a capitalistic vuew of socialism involving social safety nets to prevent everyone from falling into the abyss, while allowing some that are able to reach significant wealth.
A person who leverages their wealth to borrow more money from banks hurts no one. It helps the economy by engaging more money.

Your interest in trying to prohibit it really lays bare where your head is.
 
no state has enacted a wealth tax, to date. there are a few states with a surtax on income over 1 mil/year. for the record, i think both of these ideas are bad ones. even newsom opposes the wealth tax
Will happen first in Cali, especially after all the moderate dems lose power to the radical fringe DSAs. Just happened in Michigan. Coming to a city near you 👏

 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Will happen first in Cali, especially after all the moderate dems lose power to the radical fringe DSAs. Just happened in Michigan. Coming to a city near you 👏


Most expensive senate primary ever. El Sayed was outspent 9:1 and still won. Haley Stevens had 32 million in pro-israel lobby spending for her.

And he still won. Must have a message that resonates.

Stevens endorsed him after losing, but AIPAC is geared up to dump money against him in the general election.
 
I am actually excited to see these progressive/DSA candidates win. Let them win, keep their promises, and see how it turns out. If the city/state improves, then they should win more. If they fail, then good to see experiment fail. If they do not keep their promises, then they are just the typical politicians with a cute slogan.
 
Most expensive senate primary ever. El Sayed was outspent 9:1 and still won. Haley Stevens had 32 million in pro-israel lobby spending for her.

And he still won. Must have a message that resonates.

Stevens endorsed him after losing, but AIPAC is geared up to dump money against him in the general election.
This demonstrates once again how money does NOT win elections.

Hillary outspent Trump. Kamala outspent Trump. Stevens outspent El Sayed. Etc.

Money obviously can put anyone on a ballot and get some name recognition but it doesn't win elections.
 
This is all magnitude.

Those in the bottom 1/3-/12 do not have the advantages Dr. DuctTape has because they do not have stocks nor own homes. They do not have IRAs that can grow for 50+ years growth deferred. They are not able to do a ROTH/conversion IRA and only paid taxes on the initial 100K now worth 5M. They are not able to own businesses where they do CBPs, Augusta Rules, and countless other deductions.

Looking at Point #1 - Buffet never sell his shares so how has he made money on his investment? Just as Dr. DuctTape could never sell his shares and thus never pay on his investment. Many docs do this. I plan to never sell my shares if I do not need the money and just send it to my Trust.

Looking at Point #2 - Buffet is able to borrow on his assets just like many well off doctors. He takes out on business appreciation and Dr. DuctTape takes out on his home equity who can roll the old ones into new loans in perpetuity. At time of death, he could just leave the home to his heirs via estate planning.

Eventually someone will pay Dr. DuctTapes loans just as someone will pay Buffett's loans. Buffett/his heirs likely will just donate a large sum of money during his life to offset taxes when he closes the loans.

From they bottom 1/2 view, Dr. DuctTape and Buffett are doing the same and not paying their share of taxes. In reality, they are the same other than magnitude.

To your point of interest rates - Buffet has a low rate around Prime because it is essentially a riskless loan. Berk is not going anywhere and the loan he takes is a slither of his overall wealth. Dr. DuctTape has a higher rate because his assets are riskier but in line with the risks and his high credit score, maybe Prime +1 or 2. The lower 1/2 in the US will either not get a loan or will pay Prime + 2 or 3.

Again, similar rules and just magnitude. To the bottom 1/3, you (and I) are no better than Buffet. It is hypocritical to demand Buffett pay his fair share when Dr. DuctTape would not want to pay his fair share when looking through the lens of the bottom 1/3. So Unfair the advantages Dr. DuctTape have and not available to Medicaid Jane.

Similar to Buffet giving away Billons to defer taxes, Dr. DuctTape gives away a slither compared to Buffett. Dr. DuctTape sure hasn't given his "fair" share to charity and keeping the vast majority to his kids. The horror.
With respect, there is no way in the world that Dr. Ductape (using him in this scenario representing most of us on this forum) and Buffet are the same. Buffet takes next to zero in salary. Dr. Ductape likely is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary all subject to a very high tax rate. How can you even suggest that this is the same?
 
Most expensive senate primary ever. El Sayed was outspent 9:1 and still won. Haley Stevens had 32 million in pro-israel lobby spending for her.

And he still won. Must have a message that resonates.

Stevens endorsed him after losing, but AIPAC is geared up to dump money against him in the general election.
Here’s the scary part

1786101925821.png