He just will not change

[homersapien 11,426]

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Well it’s always the one everyone likes.  It’s just not a panacea and has limits on how much it’d really help.  Ultimately it’s about raising the capital gains tax. Btw I don’t villianize the wealthy, I deeply admire many of them  - most are builders who took major risks, a lot of hard work, and created companies that employ many and powers the progress that makes this country work. When people say they need to pay “their fair share”,  I’m curious what that really means 

I don't villianize them. They are just taking advantage of what the laws allow, (thanks to their $$ influence.)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/taxes/2023/02/21/how-do-rich-people-avoid-taxes/11308215002/

https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidance-techniques-irs-files

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-tricks-loopholes-only-rich-210001853.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119412217/how-the-ultrawealthy-devise-ways-to-not-pay-their-share-of-taxes

etc......

[auburnatl1 5,006]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't villianize them. They are just taking advantage of what the laws allow, (thanks to their $$ influence.)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/taxes/2023/02/21/how-do-rich-people-avoid-taxes/11308215002/

https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidance-techniques-irs-files

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-tricks-loopholes-only-rich-210001853.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119412217/how-the-ultrawealthy-devise-ways-to-not-pay-their-share-of-taxes

etc......

You could also argue the top 1% pay almost half the taxes. Imo the solution is rethinking, overhauling, and simplifying the tax code.  It literally should fit on 3 pages and should require no external assistance. It’s ridiculous that the tax preparation industry is about $10b (H&R block alone is $3 billion).  That way you’re happy that the rich lose their “loopholes”, the middle class is happy because they saved money and time not needing turbo tax, and the economy is happy that tens of thousands of tax accounts can be redirected to doing something that actually produces something.

Win-win-win.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

13 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Limited to their perspective. A prosecutor has more info than an individual witness.

I watched segments of their testimony. Career guys that do this for a living right? Exemplary credentials stating the normal process wasn't followed. Period. Why wasn't it?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

IRS agents.  The 1023 was not something within the scope of their investigation. Hunter Biden's tax obligations were.  The reason the FBI has a policy against releasing those type forms is that they often contain useless fabricated allegations.  The FBI, from what we know from House Republicans, has been unable to corroborate  the information contained in that particular form. 

It appears that they were removed from that particular investigation by David Weiss.  That usually happens when an investigator is at odds over what charges to bring, even though it is never their decision to make.  Other IRS agents may testify that they were removed from the case due to suspected leaks of information.  Whatever the reason, the investigation was concluded.  If Weiss testifies that he was not influenced in his decision making, I'm not sure what could show otherwise.

See response to Tex. Applicable here as well.

[AU9377 5,024]

4 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Well it’s always the one everyone likes.  It’s just not a panacea and has limits on how much it’d really help.  Ultimately it’s about raising the capital gains tax. Btw I don’t villianize the wealthy, I deeply admire many of them  - most are builders who took major risks, a lot of hard work, and created companies that employ many and powers the progress that makes this country work. When people say they need to pay “their fair share”,  I’m curious what that really means 

I also admire many that have been able to build wealth.  The older I get, the more I realize that the vast majority of those with wealth inherited either the actual wealth or the means to build that wealth.  That doesn't mean that they didn't work hard, but hard work doesn't guarantee wealth.  Connections, good fortune and opportunities that present themselves due to the network of people around someone often build as much wealth as any other single factor.  Of course, there is also a difference between having money and having wealth in that discussion.

I do get a good laugh when I work with some of the older, usually female, real estate agents that talk about how they worked so hard to get where they are.  That usually means that they were in the right place at the right time and were able to cash in on market booms and the real estate bubble.  Even so, to hear them talk about it, it is due to their "expertise." 

[CoffeeTiger 5,159]

48 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I also admire many that have been able to build wealth.  The older I get, the more I realize that the vast majority of those with wealth inherited either the actual wealth or the means to build that wealth.  That doesn't mean that they didn't work hard, but hard work doesn't guarantee wealth.  Connections, good fortune and opportunities that present themselves due to the network of people around someone often build as much wealth as any other single factor.  Of course, there is also a difference between having money and having wealth in that discussion.

I do get a good laugh when I work with some of the older, usually female, real estate agents that talk about how they worked so hard to get where they are.  That usually means that they were in the right place at the right time and were able to cash in on market booms and the real estate bubble.  Even so, to hear them talk about it, it is due to their "expertise." 

This is exactly right. Luck and connections has as much to do with individual success as anything. It's a myth created by the upper classes that they all earned their wealth and lifestyle with hard work and intelligence that the average person doesn't have or isn't willing to do. 

Being born into the right family into the right Zip code/neighborhood in America is the biggest determination on how likely you are to earn wealth or enjoy an upper-class lifestyle later on in life....how hard you work is only a small datapoint in a much larger pie. 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[auburnatl1 5,006]

16 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I also admire many that have been able to build wealth.  The older I get, the more I realize that the vast majority of those with wealth inherited either the actual wealth or the means to build that wealth.  That doesn't mean that they didn't work hard, but hard work doesn't guarantee wealth.  Connections, good fortune and opportunities that present themselves due to the network of people around someone often build as much wealth as any other single factor.  Of course, there is also a difference between having money and having wealth in that discussion.

I do get a good laugh when I work with some of the older, usually female, real estate agents that talk about how they worked so hard to get where they are.  That usually means that they were in the right place at the right time and were able to cash in on market booms and the real estate bubble.  Even so, to hear them talk about it, it is due to their "expertise." 

In little league there is always the short stop / right fielder problem. The athlete often plays short stop and the right fielder is often the less athletic and often plays only half the game. Without rules he might not play at all, so weve enacted rules to make it more equitable to those not as gifted (which obviously isn’t their fault).  But if you wanted to be the best team possible you’d have to play your 9 most talented.  Which would hurt a lot of kids feelings - so we try to do a balance

I believe many of the wealthy aren’t just privileged or lucky - that’s a tired narrative - they’re usually our best “athletes”. It’s what capitalism does.   I work in private equity and most startup executives I work with I would not want to play in chess. We as a country compete globally and we desperately need them. They “produce” and create millions of jobs.

Fair has many contexts that suck and don’t seem right - but if you go too far on fair or pulverize those damn selfish athletes, there may be consequences that suck even more.

[arein0 974]

12 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

In little league there is always the short stop / right fielder problem. The athlete often plays short stop and the right fielder is often the less athletic and often plays only half the game. Without rules he might not play at all, so weve enacted rules to make it more equitable to those not as gifted (which obviously isn’t their fault).  But if you wanted to be the best team possible you’d have to play your 9 most talented.  Which would hurt a lot of kids feelings - so we try to do a balance

Have a conversation with the kid and their parents and let them know that they arent there yet skill wise. Send them homework so they can quickly catch up. You have to develop all of your players to where there isn't that big of a drop off. You are only as good as your weakest player.

[auburnatl1 5,006]

Just now, arein0 said:

Have a conversation with the kid and their parents and let them know that they arent there yet skill wise. Send them homework so they can quickly catch up. You have to develop all of your players to where there isn't that big of a drop off. You are only as good as your weakest player.

I understand and you of course have a very important point. I have 2 sons  - one a jock, one not. It was a nightmare in many ways. But “coaching up” only works to a point. Theres a reason people go nuts on the recruiting forum when we land a 5*.

[arein0 974]

19 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I understand and you of course have a very important point. I have 2 sons  - one a jock, one not. It was a nightmare in many ways. But “coaching up” only works to a point. Theres a reason people go nuts on the recruiting forum when we land a 5*.

Of course, but at the younger little league level, it's much easier to develop the weaker players to be serviceable because everyone is around the same skill/athletic level. I kind of view youth sports as a snowball, the more you play and better coaching you have the larger your snowball gets. People can catch up to your snowball in various ways, training at home, more focused at practice, etc.

Once you get to high school and above, that's where players really start separating based on any combination of genes, hard work/athleticism, sport IQ, or skill.

[auburnatl1 5,006]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

Of course, but at the younger little league level, it's much easier to develop the weaker players to be serviceable because everyone is around the same skill/athletic level. I kind of view youth sports as a snowball, the more you play and better coaching you have the larger your snowball gets. People can catch up to your snowball in various ways, training at home, more focused at practice, etc.

Once you get to high school and above, that's where players really start separating based on any combination of genes, hard work/athleticism, sport IQ, or skill.

Totally get it. I probably shouldn’t have used little league as a metaphor.

[LPTiger 5,173]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

This is exactly right. Luck and connections has as much to do with individual success as anything. It's a myth created by the upper classes that they all earned their wealth and lifestyle with hard work and intelligence that the average person doesn't have or isn't willing to do. 

Being born into the right family into the right Zip code/neighborhood in America is the biggest determination on how likely you are to earn wealth or enjoy an upper-class lifestyle later on in life....how hard you work is only a small datapoint in a much larger pie. 

 

 

In my career I came in contact with many wealthy people.   Some were first generation wealthy and some were from old money.   In the old money camp, some of relatives had grown the family company by leaps and bounds (See ACT Transportation as an example -- it recently sold for $1B -- grown by leaps and bounds by AU grad Reid Dove), some of the companies had stagnated and some were running them into the ground.    The ones that were flourishing were always run by really smart people who worked really long hours.   The ones that stagnated or declined were ones where there was no clear successor and the one chosen didn't have either the ability or desire or both.   The first generation wealthy people were all very similar to the old money ones that grew their companies.   They were really bright and they worked really hard.  Can being born into the right family be a benefit -- of course, it can.    But, based on my personal experiences, I wholly reject the idea that it is "the biggest determination" of how likely you are to become wealthy.   As our Creed says "I believe in work, hard work."   I also believe Hard work will almost always be rewarded.   Some folks just don't understand how much work is required for it to be considered hard work.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I also admire many that have been able to build wealth.  The older I get, the more I realize that the vast majority of those with wealth inherited either the actual wealth or the means to build that wealth.  That doesn't mean that they didn't work hard, but hard work doesn't guarantee wealth.  Connections, good fortune and opportunities that present themselves due to the network of people around someone often build as much wealth as any other single factor.  Of course, there is also a difference between having money and having wealth in that discussion.

I do get a good laugh when I work with some of the older, usually female, real estate agents that talk about how they worked so hard to get where they are.  That usually means that they were in the right place at the right time and were able to cash in on market booms and the real estate bubble.  Even so, to hear them talk about it, it is due to their "expertise." 

Are there those who inherit wealth? Of course. Are there those whose connections benefit them greatly? Well Hunter Biden gives us insight into that realm. Trump comes to mind as well. But we shouldn't dismiss that many do actually build wealth on hard work, grit and determination. History tells us there is a vast abundance of these success stories. 

[AU9377 5,024]

6 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

In little league there is always the short stop / right fielder problem. The athlete often plays short stop and the right fielder is often the less athletic and often plays only half the game. Without rules he might not play at all, so weve enacted rules to make it more equitable to those not as gifted (which obviously isn’t their fault).  But if you wanted to be the best team possible you’d have to play your 9 most talented.  Which would hurt a lot of kids feelings - so we try to do a balance

I believe many of the wealthy aren’t just privileged or lucky - that’s a tired narrative - they’re usually our best “athletes”. It’s what capitalism does.   I work in private equity and most startup executives I work with I would not want to play in chess. We as a country compete globally and we desperately need them. They “produce” and create millions of jobs.

Fair has many contexts that suck and don’t seem right - but if you go too far on fair or pulverize those damn selfish athletes, there may be consequences that suck even more.

We agree on much more than we disagree on.  I am the first to tell people that fairness is not a static term.  Treating everyone fairly doesn't mean treating everyone the same.  I absolutely agree that competition builds and makes everyone better.

Capitalism is a very important part of the success of this country.  Over the past 200 plus years, as our population experienced massive growth, we realized that unbridled capitalism was unhealthy.  We have therefore evolved into a hybrid form of capitalism with government regulation and a social safety net. 

Likewise, countries adhering to more socialist values have been forced to recognize the inherent problems created by such a system.  The lack of incentive and competitive drive forced many socialist countries to also move to a more hybrid system. 

My earlier comment wasn't intended to suggest that all or most wealth is the direct result of luck or generational advantage.  However, success is often not a purely earned accomplishment.  For example, there are more Superior Court judges than I can count that wear a robe not due to their experience or knowledge, but instead because of their family connections or political proximity to someone with influence.  I personally know of one who was appointed in order to get him out of the legislature. 

 

[AU9377 5,024]

29 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Are there those who inherit wealth? Of course. Are there those whose connections benefit them greatly? Well Hunter Biden gives us insight into that realm. Trump comes to mind as well. But we shouldn't dismiss that many do actually build wealth on hard work, grit and determination. History tells us there is a vast abundance of these success stories. 

Inheriting wealth is not something anyone should be ashamed of.... I wasn't implying that it was.  I have always thought the existence of estate/inheritance taxes was wrong.  Taxes have already been paid on that money at least once and likely more than once.

My comments were more focused on the idea that the most financially successful people are the product of intelligence and hard work.  That is sometimes the case, but very often it takes more than simply being intelligent and working hard.  That is life.  It is what it is.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

22 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Inheriting wealth is not something anyone should be ashamed of.... I wasn't implying that it was.  I have always thought the existence of estate/inheritance taxes was wrong.  Taxes have already been paid on that money at least once and likely more than once.

My comments were more focused on the idea that the most financially successful people are the product of intelligence and hard work.  That is sometimes the case, but very often it takes more than simply being intelligent and working hard.  That is life.  It is what it is.

Welp.

How many of the rich inherited their wealth?

 

While 1 in 5 millionaires (21%) received some inheritance, only 3% received an inheritance of $1 million or more. In fact, the majority of millionaires didn't even grow up around a lot of money. According to the survey, 8 out of 10 millionaires come from families at or below middle-income level.Apr 12, 2023

[auburnatl1 5,006]

19 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

We agree on much more than we disagree on.  I am the first to tell people that fairness is not a static term.  Treating everyone fairly doesn't mean treating everyone the same.  I absolutely agree that competition builds and makes everyone better.

Capitalism is a very important part of the success of this country.  Over the past 200 plus years, as our population experienced massive growth, we realized that unbridled capitalism was unhealthy.  We have therefore evolved into a hybrid form of capitalism with government regulation and a social safety net. 

Likewise, countries adhering to more socialist values have been forced to recognize the inherent problems created by such a system.  The lack of incentive and competitive drive forced many socialist countries to also move to a more hybrid system. 

My earlier comment wasn't intended to suggest that all or most wealth is the direct result of luck or generational advantage.  However, success is often not a purely earned accomplishment.  For example, there are more Superior Court judges than I can count that wear a robe not due to their experience or knowledge, but instead because of their family connections or political proximity to someone with influence.  I personally know of one who was appointed in order to get him out of the legislature. 

 

The only point I was trying to make is that when a society starts villianizing wealth and success it’s a warning sign.  Everybody starts playing Robin Hood and wants to tax the living hell out of them as almost some sort of punishment. Often politely phrased “paying their fair share”.  Again, 1% is almost paying half the taxes now. 

The system has flaws and at times is rigged, any system is imperfect, but theres still a reason ambitious brilliant people from around the world desperately want to move here. We reward ability and effort more than any other country.  Bezos and musk single handedly have created more jobs, wealth for others, and opportunity than many countries. Should we tax them more?  Sure I guess. But personally I don’t really care - they’ve generated 10X more tax revenue through jobs and corporations than if we robbed their entire net worth at gun point. 

One suggestion: no matter what, just make damn sure they and the other innovators and builders don’t move somewhere else.

[AU9377 5,024]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Welp.

How many of the rich inherited their wealth?

 

While 1 in 5 millionaires (21%) received some inheritance, only 3% received an inheritance of $1 million or more. In fact, the majority of millionaires didn't even grow up around a lot of money. According to the survey, 8 out of 10 millionaires come from families at or below middle-income level.Apr 12, 2023

I don't doubt that.  After all, having assets that give someone a net worth of $1 million or more is nice, but it isn't the kind of wealth I was discussing earlier.  I only pointed out the advantage that it gives someone. I never said that it was impossible to achieve without it.  It is what it is... and to some extent will always be that way.  Complaining about it would be a waste of energy.

[SaltyTiger 7,853]

13 hours ago, LPTiger said:

In my career I came in contact with many wealthy people.   Some were first generation wealthy and some were from old money.   In the old money camp, some of relatives had grown the family company by leaps and bounds (See ACT Transportation as an example -- it recently sold for $1B -- grown by leaps and bounds by AU grad Reid Dove), some of the companies had stagnated and some were running them into the ground.    The ones that were flourishing were always run by really smart people who worked really long hours.   The ones that stagnated or declined were ones where there was no clear successor and the one chosen didn't have either the ability or desire or both.   The first generation wealthy people were all very similar to the old money ones that grew their companies.   They were really bright and they worked really hard.  Can being born into the right family be a benefit -- of course, it can.    But, based on my personal experiences, I wholly reject the idea that it is "the biggest determination" of how likely you are to become wealthy.   As our Creed says "I believe in work, hard work."   I also believe Hard work will almost always be rewarded.   Some folks just don't understand how much work is required for it to be considered hard work.

Recall reading an interesting article along those lines. It concluded that 3rd and 4th generation companies are the most pivitol/vulnerable. Those organizations have reached a stage where most or all original founders/builders have passed along assets and decisions to the “silver spoon” generation. Success or failure obviously due to the “silver spoon” work ethic, etc…

 

[LPTiger 5,173]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:39 AM, TexasTiger said:

Defund is a stupid term for proponents to use, unless they mean disband, but that’s a tiny percentage of folks. If you have to spend time explaining you mean something other than what you’re saying, you’ve already lost. The Defund folks saddled Democrats with a huge political albatross that didn’t reflect where most are. Some city councils felt pressure to respond to activists in the wake of George Floyd’s death, but those have largely continued or raised funding levels since.

Reform is needed. Good police officers— and I’m convinced most are good in most areas of the country— would benefit from reform. This is where our decentralization slows improvement. Funding varies widely, standards vary widely and bad cops just move to another jurisdiction.

So the LAPD union has announced that the size of the force is now smaller than it was in 1990 --  33 years ago -- and they can't recruit folks.  Kamala Harris applauding the $150MM cut was clearly wrong headed.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

2 hours ago, LPTiger said:

So the LAPD union has announced that the size of the force is now smaller than it was in 1990 --  33 years ago -- and they can't recruit folks.  Kamala Harris applauding the $150MM cut was clearly wrong headed.

A group of consultants actually studied and assessed your firm, yet you still think they didn’t understand the totality of the situation enough to make a sound decision. I know I’d have to do a deep dive into this huge department to make a an assessment I felt confident in. What I do know is the LAPD is the largest single budget line for the city. I also know the pandemic hit Los Angeles particularly hard, essentially shutting down one of its biggest industries that supports numerous others. According to this, they were looking at $200-400M dollar deficits at that point and there were many cuts.

Although certainly not on that scale, I’ve overseen multiple departments with budgets in the tens of millions and folks often have opinions on financial decisions I’ve made. They’re rarely (read “never” ) particularly informed opinions. You have a strong opinion on this, which is your right. I’ll admit I’m not familiar enough with the details to agree with you or debate you.

Financial exigencies often provide organizations opportunities to cut poor performers. I know most conservatives decry teachers unions protecting bad teachers. Many PD unions operate similarly. I suspect if the LAPD Union didn’t insist on protecting bad cops, don’t you think at least 5-7.5% of the force don’t bring much to the table and may even be detrimental? Maybe it was a bad decision. Maybe it was an opportunity for the PD cut the weakest officers if they didn’t have a seniority system that trumps performance. I think the answer is probably complex. But, like I said, I don’t know enough to take a strong position on the matter.

[autigeremt 6,661]

On 8/6/2023 at 8:04 PM, TexasTiger said:

It will be a vote for lawlessness and autocratic rule.

That’s obvious for either one of them. 

[TexasTiger 12,998]

On 8/6/2023 at 8:46 PM, LPTiger said:

Mea culpa -- I voted from Trump in each of the last 2 elections.   I don't think I can do it again.  He just can't rise above the fray, be dignified, offer an ounce of grace or stop being a total narcissist.   When a tack might do, he ALWAYS opts for the largest and ugliest nail he can find.   Fox News has an article up wherein Nancy Pelosi described him as "looking like a scared puppy" when he was recently indicted.   Facing criminal charges in federal court can do that to you.  But, he simply couldn't let this slightest of slight go unnoticed.   And, he couldn't simply offer a similar trivial slight.    No sir, he had to condemn her soul to Hell.   LITERALLY.   He said "She is a sick and demented psycho who someday will live in Hell!!!   I disagree with everything that Nancy Pelosi stands for and doesn't;t stand for.   The money her husband has made off public firms where she has direct input is simply unethical.    But who am I, or Trump, to judge her very soul.   I''m just sick and tired of him being a complete and total a$$hole to just about everybody not named Trump (see e.g. his comment about Pence going to the dark side).   What makes it even worse maybe, is his openness and willingness to admit to his own narcissism.   In the same Fox article -- he says that he was careful not to say anything about Pelosi's husband's assault.  And in the next sentence he says "but now she has said something about me."   I'm convinced Biden is incapable of leading us for many reasons, and I can't stomach 4 more years of Trump's constant bragging (you're going to get tired of winning, x is the best it has ever been and it isn't even close) and constant acting like an a$$.   I pray somehow the good Lord makes it so that we have better options.

Looking back at this post, so if you vote for Trump it’s because the good Lord didn’t intervene to spare you from this choice?

[LPTiger 5,173]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Looking back at this post, so if you vote for Trump it’s because the good Lord didn’t intervene to spare you from this choice?

There is still plenty of time for Him to intervene TT.   We know His plan is perfect.   He promises us that there will be fire in our lives.  Will it be 8 years of fire or 12?   I don't know, but He does.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 8/9/2023 at 10:16 AM, auburnatl1 said:

Btw I don’t villianize the wealthy, I deeply admire many of them  - most are builders who took major risks, a lot of hard work, and created companies that employ many and powers the progress that makes this country work.

That is a wonderful sentiment in a production based economy.  However, in an economy dominated by finance,,, not so much.

Growth that is the product of ambition, innovation, real productivity is admirable.  However, when growth is merely a product of rents, interest, insurance,,, that growth is about power and exploitation.  It is not sustainable.  It will destroy capitalism and democracy.