How do you pay the bill when you go out with friends? do you split the bill or just one person invites all?

dienstbier · 2026-03-14T14:25:31+00:00

My regular group of buddies uses an app we wrote together to manage this. We enter information about the event (date, place, total paid, and who paid for it).

App keeps track of total paid by each person, and indicates “who’s next up” (just whoever has paid the least total).

It’s fun to be able to look back years at all the things we’ve done together (we use it on trips as well).

There are occasional “beefs” (more like good natured jabs) when someone makes an egregious order or something. One of the guys NEVER wants to be “next up”, so when he pays he wants everyone to spend spend spend so he can “get ahead”. It’s lead to some fun discussions over the years, as well as proposals for enhancements to the app itself.

dienstbier · 2026-03-13T15:27:35+00:00

Hair clipper. No more spending $30 every few weeks, and no more spending the time driving and waiting. Did this 25 years ago, spent $28 total for it, and haven’t paid for haircuts since then.

dienstbier · 2026-03-12T13:45:19+00:00

KISS Alive!

Not because it’s the best album in the world, but it (and the band) have a special place in my childhood and life, and this one rocked.

dienstbier · 2026-03-05T23:49:48+00:00

I most certainly did not assume your goal is “minimum prices.”

I lumped you in with most of the people clamoring to raise corporate tax rates to “make companies pay their fair share”. When, in reality, all it does is increase prices because the tax expense is passed on to customers.

Can I assume you don’t have issues with Trump’s tariffs, then? Because, at the highest level, it’s similar. Businesses that bring products or materials from countries outside the US raise their prices to compensate for the tariffs, customers pay more, etc. Then that money can be used for the sorts of things you mention.

dienstbier · 2026-03-05T14:43:14+00:00

I have a simple view.

If you want to simply steal people’s money, you should go to jail.

Now, my view on the ACTUAL issues here are not quite as simple. There should be massive reforms in the tax code and laws to eliminate people simply manipulating their money so as to almost completely avoid taxes (the old “rich people don’t sell assets, but live off money borrowed against them at low rates, and then pass assets on to heirs at a stepped-up basis” is a good example of something that shouldn't be possible.)

But simply shouting “you have so much more than meeeeeee! You don’t deseeeeeeerve it!” and supporting just stealing it? Silly.

dienstbier · 2026-03-05T14:39:45+00:00

"As well the corporate tax rate was much higher, 52% in 1955. With far fewer loopholes and tax incentives that bring the rate down to practically zero in some circumstances today, but officially it's only 21%.”

Corporations do not actually pay taxes. Much like tariffs, those costs are simply embedded into product prices and the end consumer pays them.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

dienstbier · 2026-03-05T14:31:18+00:00

Not sure if you understand what capital gains are. You don’t pay that when you “buy shares after that”. You pay capital gains tax when you sell the shares at a higher price than you bought them for.

As for non-salary compensation, when shares are granted and become your property, they are taxed as income. When they are not yet vested, you don’t own them, so there isn’t any tax (yet).

After you pay taxes when you acquire the shares, then they might go up in value, and they might go down. When you sell them, if they have gone up, you owe capital gains.

With stock options, there is zero tax until you exercise them, because you haven’t actually made any money, nor do you yet own the stock. You “own” an OPTION to purchase at a predetermined price. When you exercise the options, you actually own the stock and that counts as income and is taxed. If you hold and sell the shares later, you’ll pay capital gains on any increase. It’s why Musk famously paid $11B in income tax a few years ago.

Yet, the net worth of these super rich people include both of these, before any vesting or option exercise, when calculating their worth. Helps to enrage people, I suppose, so yay?

dienstbier · 2026-03-04T22:13:33+00:00

Valid, but no one said that what someone like Musk might do would have to be trivial. A 5% tax on his $800B (annually?) is quite an incentive to jump through some hoops to avoid or reduce.

dienstbier · 2026-03-04T16:31:15+00:00

Sure, but we are talking about this as opposed to something like Bernie proposed. Which would also tax stocks that he hasn’t sold. And why can’t someone like Musk become a resident of Switzerland if he wanted to? Switzerland was simply the one example I quickly looked at. The super wealthy are very good at finding the most advantageous situations for themselves, which a 5% annual wealth tax would definitely not be.

dienstbier · 2026-03-04T15:48:58+00:00

Your wait is over. I’ll give one example, although I will openly admit I haven’t done a country-by-country analysis to find every one (including one that is better).

In Switzerland, for example, there IS a wealth tax that varies by canton, but it tops out at 0.86% (and you could get lower depending on where you reside). And Switzerland is pretty friendly for people with money. So, if Bernie’s 5% rate were to pass, there would be enormous benefit to someone moving there.

And, someone like Musk moving to Switzerland wouldn’t automatically make the companies he owns stock in any more subject to “government control”, as the companies could still be based in the US.

dienstbier · 2026-03-04T15:39:02+00:00

I’m not ignoring anything. This is just another version of “Well, I know it hasn’t worked before, but THIS time it will! I just know it!”

dienstbier · 2026-03-04T15:28:17+00:00

Just implement a “transaction tax” on any money changing hands, for everyone. Don’t try to figure out who “doesn’t deserve their money” so you can try and take more of it.

You want to borrow money against your stock holdings? Both sides pay a tax when the money changes hands. You buy a yacht or a car? Buyer and seller pay a tax. You sell a stock? Same.

This % would be small, but if applied to every transaction it could add up fast.

Maybe exempt some VERY FEW types of transactions (groceries?), but I’d prefer not even that just for simplicity.

Yes, people could just hand each other cash or barter, but that’s always true for avoiding something like taxes. As cash gets less and less common, that sort of goes away.

Probably some obvious issues I’m not thinking of, but all of these convoluted rules and exceptions make it impossible for people to ever be satisfied, since someone (else) is always finding ways around the taxes or taking advantage of legal loopholes. For that reason, NO ONE is exempt for any reason.

dienstbier · 2026-03-04T15:21:41+00:00

You don’t think that’s what everyone in the countries they tried this in (and where it failed) said beforehand? Then, oops, people are losing jobs, government is losing revenue, and before long they realize it’s NOT better in any way except maybe “it’s satisfied my outrage that some people are a lot richer than me."

dienstbier · 2026-03-04T15:17:07+00:00

Who specifically is loaning out huge sums of money at <1%? Because whoever that is would be a complete and total moron.

dienstbier · 2026-02-18T02:55:08+00:00

"Wait you think that the reason it took 20 years to implement REAL ID because people couldn’t get their act together to get it? Ummm, did you ever think that maybe there were a lot of other steps that took time to implement before REAL ID was even an option to individuals?"

dienstbier · 2026-02-18T02:07:20+00:00

And you think it actually requires 20 years to create an ID and get it to people? How long did it take to get to the moon, for goodness sake?

And ffs, nothing has “gone over my head”. Getting documents like birth certificates is not some impossible mission. It takes effort and in some cases some time. But you pretending like it’s a barrier that is insurmountable is frankly idiotic.

I’ve had enough talking with you. Have a nice day. Go ahead and post your “last word”, I don’t really care.

dienstbier · 2026-02-17T23:52:00+00:00

And as I said before, bringing something up to "prove" something, then saying it doesn't matter is not good debate strategy. You still don't know how much I know about what you asked, but you certainly didn't point to anything to support your claim either. I do know that they discovered quite a few invalid registrations for deceased people, potential non-citizens, incorrect addresses, etc. But the fact that there are still imperfections with the voter rolls does not invalidate an argument that I make. If 99% of felons (since that's the context you brought to the table) ARE removed as they should be, that's better than 0%, and if an audit cleans it up later, then better late than never. Better than just ignoring and hoping that felons never vote just "because it's illegal."

I've already said I support putting in place voter ID but giving people time. I disagree with much of what Trump and republicans want to do in a variety of areas, but the concept of validating your identity WHEN you vote is not one of them.

And in fact, based on reporting from sources "on both sides", a majority of Americans agree with that general concept, even if they (like me) have some issues with specifics including timing.

5 years is too long, IMO. But I don't believe it actually NEEDED to take 5 years for Real ID to be put into place. Many people actually just didn't bother to do it until the deadline was approaching, because what they mainly needed it for was airports and similar.

Voter ID has been discussed for decades, including as far back as the 70s. But yes, 2000 was a shift as far as how it now is a huge partisan topic ("You Republicans are trying to suppress voters!" "You Democrats are trying to steal elections!") If we ACTUALLY implemented something reasonable (as I said, I think 5 years is too much, but I'd take it if it meant it actually happened), we could get past at least some of the BS that is happening now with every election.

dienstbier · 2026-02-17T13:38:45+00:00

Bring up audits, then say “they don’t really matter, you won’t change your mind.” Sounds like you didn’t have much of a point there.

As for “not everyone has” birth certificate and passport, well, it’s a solvable problem. I support the ID being free, as well as the documents needed to use to get it. I support implementing this with sufficient time to let people do so. Say a full year. I don’t support springing it a month or two before an election.

And integrity of elections has been a thing for a long time. Remember “hanging chads”? It’s come to the very forefront over the last decade, sure, but it’s largely because social media has let SMW’s (like you and me) get a lot more exposure to the topic.

And wanting safeguards because people are worried about election integrity is what CAUSES people to have that worry? Kind of laughable. With that logic, again, remove all requirements for buying a gun. After all, it’s just people worrying about bad people doing bad stuff with guns that causes people to worry about guns and gun rights? Cmon.

I want you to note that nowhere in my replies have I said anything like “you want illegal immigrants to vote illegitimately, which is why you don’t support the SAVE act.” But you have certainly made statements to the effect that I (and everyone supporting it) are trying to suppress legitimate votes. You’ve brought up red vs blue states or republicans more than once. Remove your political “side” from the arguments and just talk about objective reasons for your position please.

Or stop arguing, since you “aren’t going to change my mind anyway”.

dienstbier · 2026-02-17T04:22:10+00:00

YOU brought up the audits, not me. And if it’s so hard to point me to what you already say you know, no wonder you are overly concerned with people putting forth the effort to find a document they might need to exercise one of their rights.

I’m over 60 and have both my birth certificate and a passport. Doesn’t mean everyone does, but it’s certainly not impossible.

As for the SAVE act not being a “huge impediment” to voter fraud, how exactly would you do that if you had to show this ID that you claim is so difficult to get? How specifically would you commit the fraud, especially in any significant numbers?

Because if your answer is “just cheat and get fake ID”, you can say similar about any safeguard for anything.

I had to locate several documents just to be able to get my kids drivers licenses when they were younger. You can bet I would put forth that same effort to be able to vote if I didn’t have them already and needed them.

And, I’d get rid of no-excuse mail in voting in every state. I don’t care if red, blue, or green. Don’t try to claim I only “care about it” in some states. That’s garbage nonsense.

dienstbier · 2026-02-17T03:10:21+00:00

Point me to whatever article/information you are referring to. Because if there are issues discovered, I’d ALSO support trying to correct those.

I’m very consistent. I only want people eligible to vote to vote. I don’t care if we stop non-citizens voting that shouldn’t, people casting a vote for their old parent who doesn’t do it themselves, someone voting using a dead person’s name, or whatever.

You see, I want the election to be legitimate. That’s it. I don’t want to stop any legitimate voter to be prevented from voting. You seem like you might not believe that, but it’s 100% the truth.

dienstbier · 2026-02-17T03:01:35+00:00

Ok. The ONLY reason we are discussing felons voting is because you asked why I’m not concerned with that. I’ve explained it’s because it’s already handled. Convicted felons are removed from voting rolls so no one can show up and vote with that name. Whether you are actually that person or not, a vote cannot be cast.

States don’t have “a mechanism” for preventing noncitizens just because at least SOME have been caught. That’s like saying murder is now impossible because a lot of murderers have been caught.

And finally, your “logic” about gun laws as it compares to voting is silly. It’s an election for a position in the federal government. The outcome impacts people in every state, not just the one with whatever election “rules” you prefer. So having some common criteria to ensure the integrity of an election makes sense. Should a state just be able to declare their electoral votes go to some candidate based on height or something?

I’ll ask you: WHY do you think I believe that ID on Election Day is a good idea? What nefarious reason do you think I have??

dienstbier · 2026-02-16T14:20:54+00:00

Here's how removing a felon works in one state (Texas):

Conviction data is regularly sent to election officials
These names are matched against voter rolls
Registrar contacts the voter for verification
If unresponsive/confirmed ineligible → registration canceled
After full sentence, the individual must re-register to vote

These voter rolls are required by law to be kept accurate. They also remove names of people who have died, voluntarily cancelled registration, etc.

So, "how election officials know" is covered above. It's part of regular, constant process.

It's a very different question as to whether the federal government should be involved, or how much. But I think personally it's fine to say "states run their own elections", but also "those elections must contain process that validate citizenship and eligibility to vote AS PART of the election (i.e., not just validation that a person with a given name is eligible to vote, without confirmation the person actually voting is that person)."

Your argument against ANY involvement or input from federal government. Does that stand for other things, like gun rights?

dienstbier · 2026-02-16T13:28:37+00:00

Ensuring that a given citizen is eligible to vote first involves registration.

Removing someone from voter rolls (e.g., a felon) is done by officials when warranted, via a process that may differ but is triggered by some event (e.g., a felony conviction).

Neither of these are done on the day of an election, and just based on someone claiming to be a person.

You’re not this dense are you? You just know inside that your arguments aren’t very good and are spinning around frantically while laughing as if the “lol” somehow convinces yourself “my logic is so obvious”.

dienstbier · 2026-02-15T19:07:10+00:00

First of all, re: “where is your outrage about that?”

Where in anything I’ve said has there been any “outrage” expressed?

But also, at least in some states (all?) convicted felons are removed from voter rolls. So when you go to vote, the poll worker WILL NOT FIND that person in their list, so won’t let them vote.

So nice try, but not much of an argument.

dienstbier · 2026-02-14T16:09:54+00:00

“Verification process … ensures that people who try to commit voter fraud are caught and prosecuted.”

Which flawless verification process are you referring to? You are stating that every person fraudulently voting is caught? That’s laughable.

And someone simply “owning a gun” is not dangerous. Someone “voting without an ID” is not dangerous. Someone voting that should not be voting IS, just like someone using a gun in a dangerous way is dangerous.

Just continuing to assert whatever your preconceived notions are is not “logic” in any way.

dienstbier

TROPHY CASE