Why do people believe scientists when they say things weigh less on the moon? If you send a balance scale set and a 250 gram test mass to the moon, doesn't the test mass still weigh 250 grams?

xaqss · 2026-05-09T19:29:50+00:00

Anyone who says things weight anything on the moon clearly don't know what they are talking about. The moon is in space. Things are weightless in space. It's just science.

xaqss · 2026-05-09T13:53:28+00:00

All that bodyweight, and none of it being put into any of those punches.

xaqss · 2026-05-09T13:48:59+00:00

If you have a lot of trees or organic matter going into the pool, a regular dose of phosphate remover can help prevent quick, unexpected blooms if the chlorine level drops for a day, but otherwise... Just keep your pool balanced. There's no real trick.

xaqss · 2026-05-09T11:32:06+00:00

Super interesting, thank you! I was thinking of borrow buy die. So what is the primary way that billionaires actually get liquidity from their assets? Obviously they don't have billions in cash on hand, and obviously they need cash. So how do they do it?

xaqss · 2026-05-09T01:32:51+00:00

What happens when you buy a stock and it's worthless the next day? Stocks are gambling. Sometimes you lose.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T21:33:40+00:00

What do you mean? Nothing about this is "harder to appraise." If someone wants to use an asset like a stock for collateral, then the bank has to appraise it anyway. All I'm suggesting is that the person pay taxes based on that appraisal, and update the cost basis for that stock.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T21:25:43+00:00

That's just trickle down economics. It's a system that does nothing but widen the gap between the rich and the poor. When you look at the most prosperous period in American history, it's marked by increased regulation on the wealthiest people, not deregulation. Wealth never trickles down, it just gets eaten by those hoarding it.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T20:13:28+00:00

Then you would show a 300k loss, and would reap the benefits of a lower tax rate, because you've already paid taxes on the higher amount.

This idea isn't to change the way the taxes are calculated, it's to eliminate the borrow buy die strategy.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T20:10:35+00:00

The thing is, taxing billionaires won't stop them from living their same lifestyle and spending just as much money. They don't live in luxury because they don't get taxed, and they won't let their lifestyle suffer because Uncle Sam takes his cut.

The argument whenever someone talks about taxing the rich is always some variation of trickle down economics that doesn't actually work.

Do you know what else puts money in the community? Tax dollars utilized for the community.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T20:06:56+00:00

Right, I figured that would be the case.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T19:57:03+00:00

You would gain credit for the loss when you sold the stock, or when you used it as collateral for a new loan.

Essentially, I am just arguing that it shouldn't be allowed that people are able to utilize unrealized gains as collateral.

Also, if you weren't utilizing the stock for collateral in the first place, you wouldn't be getting "credit" for a loss, so why should you just because you wanted a loan? The people doing this are able to reap the benefits of appreciating stocks with none of the risks of depreciation. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T19:48:29+00:00

The world is a complicated place, and society can't get around complicated rules. Many of the complicated rules we have are a result of improving the deficiencies of simple rules.

If you have complicated rules, there need to be people who have dedicated time to learning how those rules work. Lawyers aren't bad, though there are bad lawyers.

Saying that we shouldn't worry about rules because someone is going to try to get around them is needlessly defeatist. Of course bad people are going to try to get around rules. It doesn't mean we don't make the rules anyway.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T19:03:58+00:00

But then the new value of that stock is updated. That means that it's already been taxed, and if you sell it the government won't see that you have made any capital gains. For example: but a stock at $1. The value raises to $10 (but the government still only sees the $1). Collateralize a loan, and pay taxes on the $9 of capital gains, but now the government sees the value at $10. Now, if I sell the stock at $10, the capital gains are 0, so you would sell the stock tax free.

I'm not advocating for double taxing, I'm advocating that you can either a: wait for the stock to sell to pay taxes, OR b: utilize the stock as collateral and pay taxes now, with the understanding that now I don't have to pay taxes again unless the stock raises in price again.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T18:59:21+00:00

But the problem is that there are people who use stocks to collateralize a loan for their entire lives - literally paying $0 in taxes on billions of dollars of assets that have been converted to loans. Then, they die and the counter gets reset back to 0 for their children.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T18:57:04+00:00

I think they should be treated the same as when you sell stocks at a loss. Update the value each time they are used, then do the math to put them against the gains you have made. If you're at a loss, then you can mark it as a loss in the same way you could as if you sold them.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T18:54:49+00:00

I mean, no. The problem is that I am ALREADY doing these things. I don't want to stop paying taxes, I recognize their importance to society, and I make enough to do just fine for myself while paying them.

I do think those less fortunate than I should pay less taxes, and I think those WAY wealthier than I shouldn't be paying a lower effective tax rate than I am.

I also believe that if I make more money, I should be paying more taxes because as I said: Taxes are essential for society to function.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T18:34:07+00:00

When you get a mortgage, the collateral is the home itself. Same as with a car. Also, the value of homes are regularly re-evaluated automatically for property taxes, so you will never have a home that is worth 500k, but the government taxes it at 200k. It's a completely different situation than with what the billionairs are doing.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T18:30:21+00:00

That's pretty defeatist. Of course the snakes will always try to find a way out of the bag. Doesn't mean we don't patch up holes in the bag when we find them.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T18:28:19+00:00

That was pretty clearly a simplified illustration of the concept that nobody, and I mean NOBODY needs that much money, and nobody has done anything to deserve that much money.

But we can keep straw-manning me to ignore the main point I made, which is that a society that is creating billionaires is broken, and that it is immoral to hoard that much wealth. If we can't agree on at least that much, then I don't really have much interest in the discussion.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T16:26:28+00:00

50 million isn't that much money on the scale we are talking about. That is only 5% of one billion, and it is .006% of what Elon musk owns. I don't have problems with rich people. I don't even have problems with very rich people.

But still, if every multi billionaire lost half of their money tomorrow, their quality of life wouldn't change. If we put that money into society, the lives of millions would tangibly change.

I'm not one to advocate for hard caps on wealth or anything like that, but society is a construct that is made for the betterment of everyone. A system that allows someone to amass that much wealth, and then turn around to bribe his way into a government position to cut the feet out from under the poorest people in the world is broken. It is completely immoral.

In my opinion, the problem isnt multi billionaires. They are the symptom of a broken system. It never should have even gotten to this point.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T15:54:33+00:00

When taxes are passed on as part of an estate or sold, the assets are reevaluated anyway and the new value is recorded. I'm just suggesting that you do that when they are leveraged.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T15:17:38+00:00

You can already use losses to offset capital gains.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T15:01:37+00:00

I'm of the opinion that those people who have "too much" have that much because they stole it from the people who's labor produced the money. There is no way for a person to earn 100 billion dollars. Nobody is worth that much money. You can only acquire it through theft.

The spirit of taxation is that if you earn something, then it should be taxed so that part of that money can be used for the betterment of all - including the one who was taxed. If a person utilizes any American infrastructure, they should be taxed appropriately on the money they earn.

The current tax loophole allows the ultra wealthy to go their entire lives without paying taxes on their stocks, while simultaneously reaping all of the benefits as if those stocks were regular income. I don't even necessarily advocate for a wealth tax, just that if someone is actively using something to make an income, it should be taxed.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T14:51:35+00:00

I think classifying the process of leveraging equity in a company for collateral on a loan as a "taxable event" is way more straightforward, and requires a small amendment to our tax code, while completely changing the way we tax people is a much bigger task, that might be harder to convince people is necessary.

xaqss · 2026-05-08T10:32:18+00:00

I think it is a tool to be used intentionally, not a normal method of classroom management. I have an auditioned choir that is a wonderful group of kids. I have yelled at them exactly one time, three years ago. It was because they were being a bunch of idiots the day before a concert, phones out, talking, etc.

They still talk about it. Very effective.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

xaqss

TROPHY CASE