President Biden says that 3,500,000,000,000 equals 0.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there are rare exceptions. people
who get richer by stealing or by exploiting customers’ desperation, didn’t create their wealth fairly IMO.

Most wealthy people don’t that category. Duh. So the argument works in almost every single case. i support laws which prevent price gouging in healthcare.

My CEO is close to being a billionaire. I don’t spend a second thinking about it, his extreme wealth doesn’t effect me, nor does it interest me. you’re obsessed with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So they are rare, except in healthcare, you know your CEO is close to a billionaire without thinking about it for a second.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions, like yours that only liberals are concerned about changes in markets and logistics that affect how our society works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So they are rare, except in healthcare, you know your CEO is close to a billionaire without thinking about it for a second.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions, like yours that only liberals are concerned about changes in markets and logistics that affect how our society works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re the one making inane assumptions. you’re assuming that one persons acquisition of wealth is responsible for someone else’s lack of wealth. liberals want people to believe that so they feel victimized. But it’s not true.

Again, if you or anyone else wants what someone else has, do what they did to get it. do precisely what they did to get it. we are limited only by our abilities and our work ethic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’re the one making inane assumptions. you’re assuming that one persons acquisition of wealth is responsible for someone else’s lack of wealth. liberals want people to believe that so they feel victimized. But it’s not true.

Again, if you or anyone else wants what someone else has, do what they did to get it. do precisely what they did to get it. we are limited only by our abilities and our work ethic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim that’s not what I said Amazon and Bezos are totally dependent on the infrastructure that society creates to make the business work.
They need healthy educated people to work for them, transportation to deliver and receive goods and all the rest of the public services to be able to conduct business.
They should carry their share.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Of course if you are kinda rich and stupid, you would do things like TFG to avoid taxes.

Allen Weisselberg's indictment accuses him of erasing portions of entries in a ledger called 'Donald J. Trump's Detail General Ledger' during the 2016 campaign.

If there was a ledger for him, it blows up the notion that Trump didn’t know about it.

Court documents and interviews indicate that the Manhattan District Attorney is accumulating evidence of pervasive tax fraud.

[Pete F.]

You’re saying I’m desperate?

There’s an entire market segment in this country that gets paid to help people avoid taxes and plenty of lobbyists that get paid and write the legislation to minimize them.
It’s not anywhere near the majority of Americans doing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re saying I’m desperate?

There’s an entire market segment in this country that gets paid to help people avoid taxes and plenty of lobbyists that get paid and write the legislation to minimize them.
It’s not anywhere near the majority of Americans doing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, you’re desperately, and very unsuccessfully, trying to appear like something other than an ignoramus.

I’m not saying our tax structure is perfect, but i’m saying only a complete lunatic thinks it’s a good idea to tax unrealized gains. what if someone has a baseball card collection, the IRS is going to come in every single year and determine the value? same with jewelry, art collections, car collections?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes, you’re desperately, and very unsuccessfully, trying to appear like something other than an ignoramus.

I’m not saying our tax structure is perfect, but i’m saying only a complete lunatic thinks it’s a good idea to tax unrealized gains. what if someone has a baseball card collection, the IRS is going to come in every single year and determine the value? same with jewelry, art collections, car collections?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You always try and reduce things to stupidity, like most people blindly following directions.

Other people who you would apparently consider ignoramuses like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen.

Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You always try and reduce things to stupidity, like most people blindly following directions.

Other people who you would apparently consider ignoramuses like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen.

Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met.

"Uou always try and reduce things to stupidity"

Wrong, I'm one of the few here who often agrees with either side. But the idea of taxing unrealized gains is beyond stupid.

"Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen."

Which is why I explicitly said our current tax structure isn't perfect, I have no doubt it can be improved. But taxing unrealized gains is absurd. Equally wrong to say that stock options are untaxed. You don't have a great foundation of knowledge on this issue.

And those billionaires you listed are free to give the IRS as much as they want. Yet none of them ever pay more than the law requires. So it sounds like empty talk to me.

"Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met"

Right, they are unrealized until the item is sold for more than you paid for it. Gains are unrealized until you have the money. The value of big assets fluctuates, sometimes wildly. It's not anywhere near feasible to levy a tax based on the value of a held asset. The only practical way to do it is to tax gains when they are realized. Anything else would be impossible.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Uou always try and reduce things to stupidity"

Wrong, I'm one of the few here who often agrees with either side. But the idea of taxing unrealized gains is beyond stupid.

"Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen."

Which is why I explicitly said our current tax structure isn't perfect, I have no doubt it can be improved. But taxing unrealized gains is absurd. Equally wrong to say that stock options are untaxed. You don't have a great foundation of knowledge on this issue.

And those billionaires you listed are free to give the IRS as much as they want. Yet none of them ever pay more than the law requires. So it sounds like empty talk to me.

"Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met"

Right, they are unrealized until the item is sold for more than you paid for it. Gains are unrealized until you have the money. The value of big assets fluctuates, sometimes wildly. It's not anywhere near feasible to levy a tax based on the value of a held asset. The only practical way to do it is to tax gains when they are realized. Anything else would be impossible.

Nothing is impossible, though that attitude may be why you are kept in a cubicle.

You do understand that we have no problem taxing people on a valuation basis for what is most families biggest capitol asset, their homes.

The current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized.

There are a number of ways to change this, none impossible or beyond understanding (look at the current tax code for something that is beyond comprehension)

1. Eliminate step-up in basis at death

2. Tax capital gains at death

3. Tax capital gains on an accrual basis

4. Retrospective taxation

[Pete F.]

In 2018, the top 1% of households obtained 69% of realized long-term capital gains; the top 20% received 90% of the gains.

Although taxation on realization provides advantages with respect to liquidity and valuation, it also creates several problems. The underlying problem is that the current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized.
Also the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages, if the asset was held for at least a year before selling. Realized capital gains face a top statutory marginal income tax rate of 20 percent plus a supplemental net investment income tax rate of 3.8 percent, for a combined total of 23.8 percent. Wages face a top marginal tax rate of 37 percent, plus a Medicare tax rate of 2.9 percent and a supplemental tax of 0.9 percent, for a combined rate of 40.8 percent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

I have a question on school choice . Let’s say you have 2 households they pay the same property taxes both house hold incomes are the same . And both stay in the and town till the kid finish high. School Yet 1 house hold sends 1 child to public school and the other has 5 but wants them all to go to private school. Via school choices

So how much is in a school choice voucher worth

I saw this On average, 8% of revenues are federal, 47% from the state, and 45% locally sourced. Since 2008, states have reduced their school funding from taxes by 12%, the most pronounced drop on record.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I have a question on school choice . Let’s say you have 2 households they pay the same property taxes both house hold incomes are the same . And both stay in the and town till the kid finish high. School Yet 1 house hold sends 1 child to public school and the other has 5 but wants them all to go to private school. Via school choices

So how much is in a school choice voucher worth

I saw this On average, 8% of revenues are federal, 47% from the state, and 45% locally sourced. Since 2008, states have reduced their school funding from taxes by 12%, the most pronounced drop on record.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe most voucher plans include a household cap. But I’ve yet to see clear proof they actually have a significant benefit. Seems like they just shift the funding burden to the states.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Seems like they just shift the funding burden to the states.

That's where it constitutionally belongs, as well with the curriculum responsibilities.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe most voucher plans include a household cap. But I’ve yet to see clear proof they actually have a significant benefit. Seems like they just shift the funding burden to the states.

not sure how you’d prove it, because you can’t know how private school kids would have done had they stayed in public school.

by what logic would it not work? most poor people want school choice, so are you saying you don’t trust poor black parents to be able to decide what’s best for their kids?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I have a question on school choice . Let’s say you have 2 households they pay the same property taxes both house hold incomes are the same . And both stay in the and town till the kid finish high. School Yet 1 house hold sends 1 child to public school and the other has 5 but wants them all to go to private school. Via school choices

So how much is in a school choice voucher worth

I saw this On average, 8% of revenues are federal, 47% from the state, and 45% locally sourced. Since 2008, states have reduced their school funding from taxes by 12%, the most pronounced drop on record.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s a great question, i don’t have a precise answer, i’d say something like this. my suburb spends $15k per student. if a parent wants to choose a private school, maybe the town gives a voucher representing a portion of what they’d spend anyway on that kid, maybe up to $5k, maybe less.

the parents who opt for private school are happy that they made a better choice for their kid. the public school keeps the other $10k they were going to spend in my kid, ow they have more to
spend on the remaining kids. And class sizes decrease.

That’s a major over simplification I know. but it could work and be win-win for everyone except teachers unions, which is the only reason why democrats oppose it. despite referring to themselves as pro choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You think $5000 is going to enable a poor family to send their kid to private school in any rural area or suburban area?
Would transportation be free?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You think $5000 is going to enable a poor family to send their kid to private school in any rural area or suburban area?
Would transportation be free?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well let’s see. i live in a suburban area, and the catholic K-8 school in my town has full tuition of $5,500 a year. so yes, i think such a voucher would help.

In CT, transportation is free for kids who live in the same town as the private school.

even if transportation were included, it’s still a win for the town. they can now spend more money per pupil, and there are now smaller class sizes, which is unanimously agreed to help improve the quality of education.

Plus common sense suggests that if public schools are faced with competition, they’d step up their game.

The only downside is to the teachers unions. Which is all that matters to the Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Maybe the kids from East Hartford could just go to their choice of schools in West Hartford.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Maybe the kids from East Hartford could just go to their choice of schools in West Hartford.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

very different situation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Here is the problem: at least 85% of the problem we have in inner-city, high-poverty urban schools has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the quality of education, the qualifications of the teachers, or classroom management skills. Nearly ALL of the problems stem from two things: a total lack of effective consequences that the kids find worth avoiding, and laws that keep incorrigible kids in the classroom. PERIOD—that’s it. If we took care of both of these problems, then the VAST majority of our “failing schools” problem would cease to exist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is the problem: at least 85% of the problem we have in inner-city, high-poverty urban schools has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the quality of education, the qualifications of the teachers, or classroom management skills. Nearly ALL of the problems stem from two things: a total lack of effective consequences that the kids find worth avoiding, and laws that keep incorrigible kids in the classroom. PERIOD—that’s it. If we took care of both of these problems, then the VAST majority of our “failing schools” problem would cease to exist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fine, i agree with much of that. although i’d say the single biggest problem is crappy parenting ( which causes the behavior you mentioned).

you tell me, which political
side would tend to go along with your proposal, and which would fight it. the liberals run the cities, and they run the state of CT, they could fix that today if they wanted.

but my kids are now in private school because of one reason - the public schools are poorly run. unions often implement education policies that are completely at odds with what’s best for kids, and you don’t have union interference in private schools. one reason why they’re better.

Pete, when i taught in an economically challenged suburb of new haven, we had problems with fights between classes. so the principal asked all the teachers to use the 5 minute break between periods to look in the hallways to keep an eye out for trouble. A reasonable request, right?

That same day, the union told
us to absolutely refuse to do that, because that 5 minutes was a contractually negotiated “break”, and that if the school
wanted us to “work” during those 5 minutes, they’d have to pay us first.

That is one thing eroding the quality of education that you left out. The
unions are awful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

fine, i agree with much of that. although i’d say the single biggest problem is crappy parenting ( which causes the behavior you mentioned).

you tell me, which political
side would tend to go along with your proposal, and which would fight it. the liberals run the cities, and they run the state of CT, they could fix that today if they wanted.

but my kids are now in private school because of one reason - the public schools are poorly run. unions often implement education policies that are completely at odds with what’s best for kids, and you don’t have union interference in private schools. one reason why they’re better.

Pete, when i taught in an economically challenged suburb of new haven, we had problems with fights between classes. so the principal asked all the teachers to use the 5 minute break between periods to look in the hallways to keep an eye out for trouble. A reasonable request, right?

That same day, the union told
us to absolutely refuse to do that, because that 5 minutes was a contractually negotiated “break”, and that if the school
wanted us to “work” during those 5 minutes, they’d have to pay us first.

That is one thing eroding the quality of education that you left out. The
unions are awful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction.

Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work.

That’s the difference between manager and master.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction.

Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work.

That’s the difference between manager and master.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no, the difference3 is between non union ( hold me accountable for what I do), and union (give me a raise and benefits regardless of whether I work hard or slack.

Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day.

Unlike you, I also know how to discuss things without getting ignored from people as rational as Bryan and not get banned from starting threads. I've never believed that the total measure of a man is how high he is on the company org chart. You obviously feel differently. That mindset shows in the angry, pathetic, warped nature of your posts. And you inability to ever admit that anyone to the right of Pol Pot has ever been right about anything on this forum.

I'm going to retire with a nest egg that will allow my wife and I to live on the interest, and leave every cent of principal for our kids. That's my goal. Having done what we need to do to achieve that, why would I want to work any longer hours than I have to? It's a flaw to take my kids off the school bus? id rather play catch with my kids until dark than work. Id rather coach little league than miss half the games. Read into that whatever you want.

Shock you're a union guy. We're all shocked.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction.

Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work.

That’s the difference between manager and master.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no, the difference3 is between non union ( hold me accountable for what I do), and union (give me a raise and benefits regardless of whether I work hard or slack.

Are all workers lazy if they are union members? Some of the most skilled guys I've met have been in union shops.

Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day.

8 guys, so you were kinda like a foreman?

Unlike you, I also know how to discuss things without getting ignored from people as rational as Bryan and not get banned from starting threads. I've never believed that the total measure of a man is how high he is on the company org chart. You obviously feel differently. That mindset shows in the angry, pathetic, warped nature of your posts. And you inability to ever admit that anyone to the right of Pol Pot has ever been right about anything on this forum.

I'm going to retire with a nest egg that will allow my wife and I to live on the interest, and leave every cent of principal for our kids. That's my goal. Having done what we need to do to achieve that, why would I want to work any longer hours than I have to? It's a flaw to take my kids off the school bus? id rather play catch with my kids until dark than work. Id rather coach little league than miss half the games. Read into that whatever you want.

Shock you're a union guy. We're all shocked.

Sorry, never a union member.
But have worked with some great union guys.
Unions aren't that scary.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction.

Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work.

That’s the difference between manager and master.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction. "

And I've been in a teachers union. Since we're talking about education, which is more relevant?

"you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work."

Not in any teachers union. Not how it works.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction. "

And I've been in a teachers union. Since we're talking about education, which is more relevant?

"you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work."

Not in any teachers union. Not how it works.

I've been on a school board, that is how teacher contracts work.

A principal is an administrator and can't arbitrarily change work rules. That's not how it works.

[Pete F.]

Because West Hartford is 80% white?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Because West Hartford is 80% white?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course you went to racism.

No, because many people work their butts off to be able to move from Hartford to West Hartford specifically for the schools, and they deserve that.

Not many people like forced busing.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Of course you went to racism.

No, because many people work their butts off to be able to move from Hartford to West Hartford specifically for the schools, and they deserve that.

Not many people like forced busing.

They deserve to not have black kids?

Aren’t we talking about voluntary school choice?

Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself.

Excludes marginally employed people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They deserve to not have black kids?

Aren’t we talking about voluntary school choice?

Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself.

Excludes marginally employed people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They have earned the right for their kids to go to good schools. If you're talking about busing a few good kids from Hartford to West Hartford, fine, I like that. Busing can go both ways, meaning I wouldn't support the idea of taking kids from West Hartford and shipping them to Hartford.

And there are white people living in Hartford, and minorities in West Hartford. This is news to you?

"Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself."

Most blue states are adamantly opposed. Because teachers unions don't want the competition.

How did your union construction guys like it when jobs were awarded to non-union shops? Did you shake the other guys hand and offer a sincere congratulations? I don't think so.