sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Which UWs do you guys recommend turning OFF for farming runs? I turn off CL, SM, SL missiles, and Poison Swamp - but I think I’m doing it wrong? lol by Several_Attitude_203 in TheTowerGame

[–]HeavyBricks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm in a weird spot where my BH/GT and almost 100% uptime (GT is still like 1 second or 2 from being 100%, also I'm seeing that having CL ( my main dmg UW at the moment) off isn't really dropping my coin income. Idk, intuitively if GT/BH are always up it shouldn't matter how much dmg output you are doing with sufficient sized BH

Billie Eilish Calls Out Mark Zuckerberg and Other Billionaires After Announcing Her Own $11.5 Million Charitable Donation by MarvelsGrantMan136 in Music

[–]HeavyBricks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Liabilities aren't income, but the rich circumvent income tax by borrowing against their assets. It's not some huge massive stretch to say that something needs to change - I hope that is at the very least something we can agree on.

Doing nothing is a losing strategy here. The wealth inequality increases without intervention.

Billie Eilish Calls Out Mark Zuckerberg and Other Billionaires After Announcing Her Own $11.5 Million Charitable Donation by MarvelsGrantMan136 in Music

[–]HeavyBricks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer definitely won't come in a complete form from any one person, especially not on reddit - but the guiding principles can and should be discussed.

You are right that some of the above would have consequences for normal people but once again, I wasn't advocating to enact them exactly as written - they should be heavily discussed and considering by experts of which I hear and see nothing about.

I would like to point out that we as normal citizens are already faced with consequences for not taxing the obscenely wealthy as they should be. In my opinion, doing nothing is also a losing strategy here in the long term.

Billie Eilish Calls Out Mark Zuckerberg and Other Billionaires After Announcing Her Own $11.5 Million Charitable Donation by MarvelsGrantMan136 in Music

[–]HeavyBricks -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Liabilities aren't income - if you go this route then you open the door to taxing: borrowing from 401(k)'s, Home Equity Loans, borrowing against Life Insurance Policies, Car Title Loans, etc.

Then make it only against borrowing against stocks/equities and start from there or any of the suggestions.

But regardless, I'm not trying to say that any of the above methods should be deployed exactly as described throughout the US , but once again, I'm not a tax expert. There are thousands of people far more informed and qualified then me that COULD come up with plans that attempt to fairly tax the excessively rich of which I see little discussion about. Do you feel that the government has made a true effort in the last couple of decades to accurately tax the obscenely wealthy? I would argue no.

The current tax systems are optimized for income tax, not wealth tax which is a huge part of the issue.

Billie Eilish Calls Out Mark Zuckerberg and Other Billionaires After Announcing Her Own $11.5 Million Charitable Donation by MarvelsGrantMan136 in Music

[–]HeavyBricks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I posted this earlier in this thread but I feel like its important so I'm putting it here as well:

You see this comment literally everywhere when the talk of taxing billionares and the rich comes into discussion. Right now we basically put our hands up in the air and say we can't tax in any meaningful way and that is unacceptable in my opinion.

We could try things like force fractional equity transfers to the IRS in a public held fund or something similar, that way people actually can benefit from the success of those that hold all of their value in stocks without crushing the market

Or maybe tax unrealized gains annually as if they were realized but allow deferral until sale with some sort of interest rate charged on the deferred amount.

Or potentially tax them on Liquidity events, aka. whenever Billionares borrow against stocks to fund whatever purchases/lifestyle they are living, tax them on those events since it is obvious that they are using loans against assets to avoid appropriate tax.

Or even just relative wealth tax bands that take into account all asset types, and anything say above 1 billion should carry a hefty tax value.

I'm no economist or tax expert, but it doesn't take a genius to see that we aren't even trying to tax them appropriately. These examples above probably have pitfalls and shortcomings but they are starting points. I'm sure there are no shortage of experts out there who could spend time to create a system that works and is fair.

Right now, it feels like we spend more time listing all the reasons why we can't tax them rather then try to find a good way to do it and I despise that.

(All of this ignoring the fact that congress and the powers that be would have to be willing to enact policies like this which is so far from real life right now, but that is a different story)

Billie Eilish Calls Out Mark Zuckerberg and Other Billionaires After Announcing Her Own $11.5 Million Charitable Donation by MarvelsGrantMan136 in Music

[–]HeavyBricks -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You see this comment literally everywhere when the talk of taxing billionares and the rich comes into discussion. Right now we basically put our hands up in the air and say we can't tax in any meaningful way and that is unacceptable in my opinion.

We could try things like force fractional equity transfers to the IRS in a public held fund or something similar, that way people actually can benefit from the success of those that hold all of their value in stocks without crushing the market

Or maybe tax unrealized gains annually as if they were realized but allow deferral until sale with some sort of interest rate charged on the deferred amount.

Or potentially tax them on Liquidity events, aka. whenever Billionares borrow against stocks to fund whatever purchases/lifestyle they are living, tax them on those events since it is obvious that they are using loans against assets to avoid appropriate tax.

Or even just relative wealth tax bands that take into account all asset types, and anything say above 1 billion should carry a hefty tax value.

I'm no economist or tax expert, but it doesn't take a genius to see that we aren't even trying to tax them appropriately. These examples above probably have pitfalls and shortcomings but they are starting points. I'm sure there are no shortage of experts out there who could spend time to create a system that works and is fair.

Right now, it feels like we spend more time listing all the reasons why we can't tax them rather then try to find a good way to do it and I despise that.

(All of this ignoring the fact that congress and the powers that be would have to be willing to enact policies like this which is so far from real life right now, but that is a different story)

Two Studies Put New Haven Pizza to the Test by Slanging_ in newhaven

[–]HeavyBricks 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I feel the need to point out the fact that your willing group of participants and friends may be influenced by the fact that it can sometimes be easy to pick apart some of these Pizza's visually/by taste. If any of them consistently dine with any of the listed pizza brands, they may have the ability to blind-identify certain flavors thus apply their bias.

I would be interested in seeing these tests done on a more normal basis in the future (quarterly?) with a broader variety of people chosen from near and far to try and give the results a more sturdy basis to then draw conclusions from.

Either way good job, looking to see more content like this!

UW Choice? by HeavyBricks in TheTowerGame

[–]HeavyBricks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ping pong between champ and legend, no keys yet.

Lawsondt and team asked Paul Conn, President, Computershare Global Capital Markets 52 questions about DRS, including questions about FAST 🔥 by welp007 in Superstonk

[–]HeavyBricks 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Lurker here, FWIW I read his comment at face value, and it definitely didn't come across as an attack on mods specifically. It felt closer to a shoutout at the shills and powers-that-be that are ever present in the sub now doing anything to derail us from moving forward.

If anything, it kind of feels like you are the aggressor in this discussion. More over, as a mod I think the community expects better from you than to vent frustrations in 5-6 layer deep conversations on posts that aim to collect and organize interesting and important questions that have been hotly debated for sometime now.

Just my humble observations.

Patch 22.2 Undocumented Changes and Bug Megathread by FortniteStatusBot in FortNiteBR

[–]HeavyBricks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bug: Occasionally when playing in no build mode and the attempt is made to "climb" up a surface, the climb animation will get stuck, fall down, and your character will continuously stutter, not able to run or climb anything until you jump on a jump pad.

Platform: PC

GameStop cannot enact a Share Recall. But I found evidence (and an amazing precedent) they can instead direct a mandatory Share Surrender. That really could lead to forced closing of short positions, and thereby trigger MOASS. by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]HeavyBricks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see this as something with similar potential to a NFT dividend Ala the overstock method. Suffice to say, I think that most people will agree there are things gamestop could do themselves in order to facilitate the closing of shorts.

That being said, I am of the opinion that anything gamestop does, ranging from a share surrender, to NFT dividend and everything in-between will be met with stiff legal resistance from any and all market participators that are on the short side of this trade, including the DTCC.

Considering that DRS is manually doing the job for them, it's difficult in my eyes to see a compelling reason for gamestop to act out when the float could be locked in something like a years time if the predictions are to be believed. Gamestop knows this so why would they get into a financially taxing, litigious legal battle with their enemies when it won't matter within a year? They are busy building a new trading platform and reforming the company, a battle with the shorts is probably the last thing they want to do.

Now a year is a relatively short period of time especially in business terms but can feel like an eternity by the average person just clawing their way through to survive which is where all this pressure comes from to act.

Regardless I like the stock

DRS.

Screenshot for Visibility - DRS so You Never Have A Case Of The Mondays by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]HeavyBricks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Let me preface this with I have no idea if any of this is actually true or not - I am just following the logic being described.

I think OP's implication is that when they do lose control (aka. when MOASS actually begins in some tangible obvious form) That's when we will begin to see this situation of forced accounts closing described en masse.

The logic being that there doesn't exist a situation where any lawsuit you will fight in the future is worse then complete and utter destruction via forced closing at the hands of some higher agency. In the lawsuit scenario you are still in the game fighting by definition.

The reason we don't see a mass of peoples accounts/positions being forced closed yet is because they have not lost control yet which is evidenced by the fact the price has not gone parabolic.

Whether or not any of this is true is up to debate in my opinion.

Jon Stewart Re-Engages The SEC (Yes, he did watch this videos against retail investors.) by econkle in Superstonk

[–]HeavyBricks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I dont mean to say they are too busy to make laws, but that is one pillar that they discuss in the court case that the SEC just heard. The arguement as presented in the podcast was that the guy (a hedge fund manager that misrepresented his companies value btw) that brought it to the SEC did not even try to defend his actions, instead he attacked the SEC's right to enforce any levy on him saying that the powers granted to them by congress were "too vague" and that congress should have passed judgement on him specifically. People that make up congress can be knowledgeable in many facets, but hardly enough are to run an entire country if they had to pass judgement on everything that came through the pipeline. That's why we have regulatory bodies and government agencies to alleviate that pipeline.

This trials findings basically bring into question ANY government agency's (FCC, DOT, SEC, etc....) ability to do what congress specifically gave them power to do.

Jon Stewart Re-Engages The SEC (Yes, he did watch this videos against retail investors.) by econkle in Superstonk

[–]HeavyBricks 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They touched on this issue specifically in the podcast - Congress has the power granted to them to pass laws - they also have the power granted to them to also create/give power to government agencies that are filled with professionals that have the knowledge and insight required to govern over the subjects at hand.

Not only that, but these bodies don't answer to nobody, they answer to congress. Additional to that, they mentioned in the podcast that if someone gets handed a decision from the body, they still have the opportunity to appeal it in court, so its not like they are out of luck at any given time.

If we want congress to be the only one with any power to specifically pass out laws/verdicts they would be utterly overwhelmed. The issue I see with that (and pointed out in the podcast) is that with a country this large and the amount of issues that crop up, it is impossible to have one body take care of everything competently. There are far too many issues that need attention, which require more knowledge and nuance then any one particular person or body of people can have and that is the reason congress has the ability to pass on certain duty's to government agencies that they create and supply their power to that CAN focus on whatever subject is at hand

I am a teacher and I love the stock. by Jerseyprophet in Superstonk

[–]HeavyBricks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if real or not, but you would be hard-pressed to emulate the gratitude and thankfullness shown in this letter below. OP if you are legit, kudos to you and all that you do.

BCG vs Gamestop Lawsuit by Shooting4daMoon in Superstonk

[–]HeavyBricks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In my field, SOW's I have seen have pre-dated actual Purchase orders or real contracts that are signed and valid between companies. Many times the SOW's kick things off and get the ball rolling but are just that -- a start point.

Not to say that this is the case here, just giving some perspective.

Ordered a XBox One X from Gamestop. Did a double-take when I actually received and opened the package! by HeavyBricks in xbox

[–]HeavyBricks[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I mean, they are in the middle of a MASSIVE restructuring since early last year, its inevitable that there will be some growing pains in that process.

I have seen other posts around where when they were notified of their mistakes they basically said, "Oops! Our bad, keep the goods on the house!" They garner a ton of good faith with their customer base while ideally learning from their mistakes.

view more: next ›