damnedfurry comments on It's a balance

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

That “theoretical value” is used as collateral to borrow money for billionaires expenses.

And unless the loan is defaulted on, it never stops being theoretical.

Why is it theoretical only for taxes purpose, but very real when you talk to a bank?.

Loaded question, it's not any less theoretical in the latter case.

Also, it's entirely possible for some scandal to plummet the value of a stock overnight, such that the value that was used as collateral is now not worth nearly that much. But it is the lender's prerogative to decide to take that risk, it's no one's business other than the lender and the borrower, both private entities.

Is that your opinion on properties taxes?

Yes, property taxes should not be a thing.

Hypocrisy detection failed, lol.

And at this scale, it’s not “stuff you own”. You may have an issue assessing what a billion is. Do you know the difference between a million and a billion? It’s roughly a billion…

You may have an issue understanding the simple phrase "stuff you own", since you're here apparently arguing that beyond a certain valuation, assets are no longer assets.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

Also, it’s entirely possible for some scandal to plummet the value of a stock overnight, such that the value that was used as collateral is now not worth nearly that much. But it is the lender’s prerogative to decide to take that risk, it’s no one’s business other than the lender and the borrower, both private entities.

1.Sure, I will take your risk assessment over these banks anytime (not). 2.If the value is so unstable it can plummet over night, then it was grossly overestimated initially, back to my previous point.

Yes, property taxes should not be a thing.

Neither should roads, schools, garbage collection, police, firefighters, etc, I guess.

Hypocrisy detection failed, lol.

You know, it was either hypocrisy or weird cult of the billonaires, as I fail to see why you so much want to protect them from paying any tax…

You may have an issue understanding the simple phrase “stuff you own”, since you’re here apparently arguing that beyond a certain valuation, assets are no longer assets.

It's not "stuff" in the sense no one will come after a house, a car, a yacht, etc. It's not money they need to survive. You could still tax by hundreds of billions the ultra-rich class at the country level (I assume US here) and neither their lifestyle nor their long term prospective lifestyle would be impacted the slightest. That's the scale we're talking about.

Or alternatively, we can keep saying it's complicated and/or doesn't make sense, and you can enjoy record breaking wealths of a few that will make headlines while the life expectation, education level, overall population health keeps going down and poverty keeps going up… until one day, it catches you!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

1.Sure, I will take your risk assessment over these banks anytime (not). 2.If the value is so unstable it can plummet over night, then it was grossly overestimated initially, back to my previous point.

Again, none of your business, because you're not the lender.

Neither should roads, schools, garbage collection, police, firefighters, etc, I guess.

Idiotic straw man which I will be ignoring.

I fail to see why you so much want to protect them from paying any tax…

This is you projecting your unwillingness to support anything that doesn't personally benefit you.

The principle of taxing people based on the value of what they already own is nonsensical, no matter how much or how little that value is. Objecting to both wealth taxes and property taxes just means I'm not a hypocrite.

You could still tax by hundreds of billions the ultra-rich class at the country level (I assume US here) and neither their lifestyle nor their long term prospective lifestyle would be impacted the slightest.

Taxing based on 'you could do without it', especially when the definition of that excess is completely arbitrarily defined, is a horrendous precedent to set. Vibe taxation. Every wealth tax aimed at the 'ultra-rich' in other countries in the past has either been repealed outright, or was broadened so that it, surprise surprise, is no longer aimed only at the ultra-rich, and falls into the lap of of the middle class, once again.

Or alternatively, we can keep saying it’s complicated and/or doesn’t make sense

Based on the failures already witnessed elsewhere in the world, yes. It objectively doesn't make sense.

you can enjoy record breaking wealths of a few that will make headlines

Inflation is a thing, so those records will always be broken eventually. It only "makes headlines" to appeal to dullards who don't understand things like that. The same type of people who freak out over sensationalist "medical headlines" that are never as drastic as the clickbait article makes them out to be. The same type of people think the violent crime rate is constantly rising because they stare at 24-hour news networks who are incentivized to get your attention, not be accurate, while the actual rate has dropped steadily for decades and decades.

while the life expectation education level, overall population health keeps going down and poverty keeps going up…

Liar on all counts:

US Life expectancy is at it highest ever in 2025
Educational attainment is steadily trending upward
Poverty is trending downward

until one day, it catches you!

Hopefully, one day, the facts will catch you.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Again, none of your business, because you’re not the lender.

Let's take a practical example: please find a decent DDR5 offer. No way it could have gone up because virtual money bought it all, couldn't it?

Idiotic straw man which I will be ignoring.

If you don't understand the relation between taxes and their use, yeah: better ignore it, for your sake…

The principle of taxing people based on the value of what they already own is nonsensical, no matter how much or how little that value is. Objecting to both wealth taxes and property taxes just means I’m not a hypocrite.

Keep repeating it's "nonsensical" doesn't make it nonsensical.

Taxing based on ‘you could do without it’, especially when the definition of that excess is completely arbitrarily defined, is a horrendous precedent to set. Vibe taxation. Every wealth tax aimed at the ‘ultra-rich’ in other countries in the past has either been repealed outright, or was broadened so that it, surprise surprise, is no longer aimed only at the ultra-rich, and falls into the lap of of the middle class, once again.

Wrong. France had a wealth tax for decades. It was repealed by current President Macron, who was propped by… a billionaire. A proposal for a ultra-wealth tax (proposal was above 100M$ of wealth) was proposed by an economist in France, and he got support from a bench of Nobel Prize of Economy recipients (among a large support from economy experts).

Inflation is a thing, so those records will always be broken eventually. It only “makes headlines” to appeal to dullards who don’t understand things like that.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1246

From 2020 to 2025 Q1 to Q1, from 12T$ to 22T$, that's the equivalent 12.9% per year. "inflation", sure…

Based on the failures already witnessed elsewhere in the world, yes. It objectively doesn’t make sense.

It didn't fail. Billionaires managed to get rid of it. They use their virtual non-real money to acquire as much news medias they could, so that they could prop their guy all the way up.

US Life expectancy is at it highest ever in 2025

Indeed, my bad! It's a world class winning https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/increases-us-life-expectancy-forecasted-stall-2050-poorer-health

Educational attainment is steadily trending upward

https://www.future-ed.org/what-the-new-pisa-results-really-say-about-u-s-schools/

Poverty is trending downward

https://www.cbo.gov/interactive/2025-reconciliation-act

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

Keep repeating it’s “nonsensical” doesn’t make it nonsensical.

It's not my repetition that makes it nonsensical, it's the fact that assets are purchased with already-taxed money. Having to pay the government for the 'privilege' of continuing to own what you've purchased, in perpetuity, is nonsensical, full stop.

Wrong. France had a wealth tax for decades.

And this was the result (emphasis added):

Capital flight since the ISF wealth tax’s creation in 1988 amounts to ca. €200 billion; The ISF causes an annual fiscal shortfall of €7 billion, or about twice what it yields

And it's very telling that linking to speculation about some arbitrary future date is your response to being called out on your lies re the trends of life expectancy, educational attainment, and poverty. Your inability to own up to any of your falsehoods makes you pointless to continue engaging with. The statistics are crystal clear—your assertions are demonstrably bunk.

This reply serves only to directly contradict the most obvious additional falsehoods, for others who may read this exchange, before I move on.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 point 9 months ago

It's not my repetition that makes it nonsensical, it's the fact that assets are purchased with already-taxed money. Having to pay the government for the 'privilege' of continuing to own what you've purchased, in perpetuity, is nonsensical, full stop.

Tell me you don't have a damn clue how very large wealth works without telling me you don't have a damn clue how very large wealth works.

Capital flight since the ISF wealth tax’s creation in 1988 amounts to ca. €200 billion; The ISF causes an annual fiscal shortfall of €7 billion, or about twice what it yields

Unfortunately for you, he never could never prove the relation between taxes and wealthy people leaving, making this an interesting paper, but not a consensus, even today.
In addition, this has mitigations: bind the tax to the citizenship (what the US is already doing for income), and/or apply a 5 years term before you have "escaped" the tax. Again, both considered manageable by economists.

Your inability to own up to any of your falsehoods makes you pointless to continue engaging with. The statistics are crystal clear—your assertions are demonstrably bunk.

Not sure if you in denial or bad faith. Doesn't matter.

This reply serves only to directly contradict the most obvious additional falsehoods, for others who may read this exchange, before I move on.

Well, since it starts with you explaining you had no idea what you talked about the whole time, yes, it's preferable.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent