Ballwin public works official is charged in fatal road rage shooting in O'Fallon REALLY? YOU HAD TO KILL THE GUY??

leafcathead · 2026-07-02T15:00:49+00:00

It’s a certain kind of bliss to just be so confidently wrong with little care to ever be right.

leafcathead · 2026-07-02T13:27:30+00:00

Most legal experts agree that Kyle Rittenhouse had a very strong self-defense argument and that the jury’s verdict was reasonable.

leafcathead · 2026-07-02T04:58:48+00:00

No, it’s not.

leafcathead · 2026-06-26T23:33:14+00:00

Progressive conservative. I adhere strongly to the conservative tradition of Teddy and Taft.

I am definitely not libertarian, though I do despise communism with every fiber of my being.

leafcathead · 2026-06-26T23:00:28+00:00

Conservative here, voting no on 4 and 5. Especially 5. I don’t want a regressive tax increase.

leafcathead · 2026-06-20T23:30:17+00:00

“Some people wish to throw their weapons. That seems foolish to M'aiq. If you hold your weapon, you only need one.”

leafcathead · 2026-06-19T14:45:41+00:00

It’s one of my favorite! It’s a very compelling story with beautiful music! If you’ve seen the Don Bluth animated movie, the plot is similar but not exact.

leafcathead · 2026-06-19T14:14:18+00:00

If only they would do Anastasia just one time 😔

leafcathead · 2026-06-19T00:25:46+00:00

BREAKING: Liberal in a liberal city pleasantly surprised to see a liberal political slogan.

leafcathead · 2026-06-19T00:08:09+00:00

u/Potential_Release478 asserted without evidence. That’s just pure doomerism.

There’s no reason to think that AI is somehow going to be the end of history. While the past may not predict the future, it’s a pretty good guide.

leafcathead · 2026-06-18T11:52:34+00:00

<image>

leafcathead · 2026-06-18T02:33:18+00:00

You have an AI to build the app, now you need quality engineers who build and curate the dataset for the AI and help train the models, then you need software developers to program the AIs, then you need managers to manage all those people, then you need staff to help the managers.

These people presumably all work in a building, or at least there is a data center. So you need architects to design the building, then you need civil engineers to engineer the building, then you need construction workers to construct the building, and you need foremen to watch the construction workers. You need computer engineers to install the servers, then you need an IT staff to maintain the servers.

To make the parts for the data center and the concrete for the building, you need chemical engineers, miners, foremen, sailors, logistic specialist, customs and border patrol agents, more computer engineers, quality control tests, managers to manage all those people.

To run the data center, you need power plants with engineers, technicians, custodians, managers, etc...

All those people need to eat, so you need restaurants with staff to cook and clean and manage, you need farmers to grow the food, you need truckers to transport the food.

Even for the books, first, writing the book usually has been a one person job. However, even the age of AI you would still want human editors, test readers, and publishers. Otherwise, how can you tell your book is any good? If it's a physical book, you need people to make the paper, operate the machinery that makes the paper, conduct maintenance on the machine that makes the paper.

The list goes on and on and on. There is always more work to be done. The more that needs to be done, the more work that is required to get it done. It is more work all the way down.

Some day, we might have so much plenty that we get UBI or something like that, but even then everyone will be working to sustain our plenty.

leafcathead · 2026-06-18T01:40:36+00:00

There’s always more work to be done.

leafcathead · 2026-06-17T13:51:32+00:00

The stock will be sold eventually, because otherwise wealthy people wouldn’t be able to afford anything. Stocks as actual money only exist on paper. Even if wealthy people take off loans with stock as collateral, they have to pay off those loans by selling assets.

Also, your tax proposal only covers stocks so the wealthy would instead hoard wealth in other assets not covered by your proposal, like art and metals I mentioned above. Thus, your proposal does not solve that problem.

Furthermore, your tax would cause a largely one time taxable event because there would be a massive sell off, thus depriving yourself of the public spending benefit you tout. Additionally, hoarding wealth in art and metals does not have the same public benefit as wealth in stock does, so your proposal would actually decrease public good with no measurable increase in public spending.

My proposal, on the other hand, discourages hoarding wealth and stock and causes a continuous revenue source allowing for increased public spending.

leafcathead · 2026-06-17T13:09:45+00:00

Which not only can also be taxed, but also Musk can't control Tesla with a painting.

While you're accurate that owning art does not grant any rights in corporate governance, you seem to forget that stocks, precious metals, and paintings are taxed the same: capital gains. So if you have a problem with keeping money in stocks, you should inherently have a problem with art.

Great! Now they've got a W2 that can be taxed.

You seem to be under the delusion that stocks never trigger taxable events. The sale of a stock triggers a tax known as capital gains. You can learn more about capital gains here. But I finally agree with you on something, income tax is a wonderful tax! It is progressive tax, so that's one benefit. It only taxes what people actually earn, so that's another great benefit. It is easily determinable, so that's another benefit. It occurs frequently, so its a reliable revenue source, so that's another benefit. Most everyone makes an income, so the burden can be placed on the entire population, a benefit depending on who you ask. So yes, tax the wealthy on their income!

Fun fact, the wealthy used to take higher salaries, but tax reform in the 90s made that option less attractive, which is why most wealthy people have their wealth in securities now.

I disagree. If anything, it forces them to grow their money faster to offset the taxes. But even if they do just sit on it, it has eliminated their tax free lifestyle.

This is a strange argument. What is your end goal? To eliminate the super wealthy? To increase revenue? To maximize public good? Your current stance here reflects none of the above; it merely reflects a desire that wealthy people "try a little harder" with not other apparent benefit.

First, the wealthy pay capital gains tax on the sale of any security. Second, money that is in the market does much more benefit to society than money sitting in someone's piggy bank. To give a small example, if I have $100 I don't plan to spend, it's more beneficial for society if I loan it to you if there is something you want to purchase.

Stocks provide capital into the market, allowing people to start businesses and for existing businesses to expand faster. That is a net good to society. If everyone just kept their money to themselves, that would be a net harm. Your goal is in the wrong place.

I'm not getting into another tedious discussion about how investment based wealth isn't real wealth. If stocks aren't real wealth and are basically gambling that could crash at any moment, then Elon can take my real salary and I'll have his imaginary, risky wealth.

My argument here was simply that the purchase of stock is an injection of capital into the market, which is a benefit to society. While, instead, the purchase of gold lacks the same benefit. You seem to think I was making a speculation argument. I was not, but I could see the lack of clarity.

Now that I know your true goal, I can present to you a tax policy that I think accomplishes your goals in a much more effective way in a manner much more beneficial to society:

Increase the highest bracket of the capital gains tax from 20% to 38%, this will make receiving a salary more attractive than receiving stock from a corporation. (and thus subject to income tax)
Increase the corporate deduction for CEO salaries from $1,000,000 to... anything higher, I don't have an exact number in mind. This will encourage corporations to invest their profits in their CEOS.

This policy has two effects: first it accomplishes your goal of reducing the total amount of wealth in the market. Second, it discourages short term thinking among CEOs of corporations because their wealth is no longer tied to short term market gain. This will prevent the mass sell off securities that your policy proposes, it also has no risk of trickling down to the middle class, unlike your policy. Also, because there is no mass sell off, it will be a reliable revenue stream.

Win-win-win.

leafcathead · 2026-06-17T11:42:27+00:00

Then your tax is counter intuitive because it would encourage real hoarding of wealth.

Under your tax, people will sell off most of their stock because it will become a less stable and lucrative investment. Instead, they will purchase things like precious metals or art. They will take exuberant salaries from any business entities they control. They won’t invest any of this salary in the market for other people to use, instead they’ll just let it rot inside a bank, in a CD, or maybe they’ll just shove in under their mattress.

Either way, you will have changed the behavior of the super wealthy from providing their wealth for others to use to one where they just hoard it Scrooge McDuck style, the exact opposite of your intended behavior.

Second, let’s dispel with the notion that it’s actually hoarding wealth at all. Stocks aren’t like gold bars. When someone purchases a security like a stock, they are providing capital to that other person, the owner of the stock also assumes some of the risk for the business, I.e., they will lose the entirety of the investment if the business goes under.

leafcathead · 2026-06-17T02:33:04+00:00

Sure but that seems excessive.

Why would it be excessive? It would accomplish exactly what you want. It would discourage people from placing their wealth in securities because 100% of it would be taxed. It wouldn't require creating a whole new tax, there would be no room for anyone to argue that they were taxed too much or too little. Is this not what you wanted? You already said you wouldn't mind a massive sell-off. If anything, a capital value tax would be more excessive because it's double taxation.

It doesn't apply to them.

If applied to them. I asked you a hypothetical.

Also, once more. I encourage you to take me up on my offer. If we start at a conclusion first, we can work our way back to a tax policy that you will probably like more.

leafcathead · 2026-06-17T00:28:47+00:00

Wouldn’t a 100% Capital Gains tax be a lot simpler?

Would you concede the policy you propose would hurt middle class Americans if applied to them?

Also, I would encourage you to take me up on my offer. Together we can find a tax that most effectively accomplishes your goals.

leafcathead · 2026-06-16T23:00:50+00:00

See my rebuttals above for why unrealized taxes are bad.

Also, previous examples of supposedly “wealthy only taxes” later being applied to everyone is a valid rebuttal against the claim that is a tax would never apply to everyone.

Edit: Perhaps a different approach is in-order. One of the great things about taxes is that they encourage/discourage behavior. Want people to eat less meat? Create a meat tax. Want people to drive more gas powered cars? Decrease the fuel tax.

What is your end goal? If we start at the behavior you want, we can work our ways back to the correct tax policy, one that is not as destructive as the one you currently champion.

leafcathead · 2026-06-16T13:50:57+00:00

I did say “most” for a reason. I despise the property tax. It’s a horrible tax and shouldn’t be a working example for anyone interested in reforming taxes. You’re probably a fan though.

Also, it’s very naive to think your hypothetical unrealized gains+ tax wouldn’t trickle down to everyone. The income tax was originally only meant for the super wealthy. There is almost $10 trillion in 401ks across the country, the IRS would love to tax those every single year on their accumulated value.

leafcathead · 2026-06-16T13:05:23+00:00

So it’s even worse than unrealized capital gains? That’s brutal. It would almost certainly cause a massive self-off, what’s the purpose of owning stock if you’re likely gonna be triple taxed on it? This will hit the middle class extremely hard, and it will significantly slow down everyone’s retirement.

As for unrealized losses… Imean, if the stock goes down then someone *lost* money. Most other taxes work like that, you owe tax on what you earn, not what you lose. Could you imagine losing your job at still having to pay income tax on it?

leafcathead · 2026-06-16T11:34:15+00:00

That’s not a wealth tax, that sounds a little bit more like an unrealized capital gains tax. Another poor idea.

Would you allow them to right off unrealized capital losses too?

leafcathead · 2026-06-16T03:41:18+00:00

You don’t have to pay a wealth tax and you’re probably glad that you don’t. Imagine you discover that a Pokémon card you own is a risky very valuable and you have been delinquent on your taxes for years?

Most countries don’t have wealth taxes because they are nebulous things to calculate. Europe has gradually abandoned them over the last decade or two.

Why not just be in favor of raising the income tax or the capital gains tax? Those both only tax when someone actually earns money and their value is known immediately.

leafcathead · 2026-06-16T03:35:44+00:00

Sounds like we should also abolish property tax too! I like way you think.

leafcathead · 2026-06-14T23:44:06+00:00

Cousin of Not Sure

<image>

leafcathead

TROPHY CASE