US Politics: A Sinematic view on voting rights and the filibuster

[S John]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is no such thing as an inevitability end.  He was foolish to claim there was one.

Especially when classical examples of democracy in Athens/Rome are arguably most famous for the manner in which they failed. With Rome in particular, the end of the Republic might be one of the most relentlessly prodded historical periods out there. Neither Athens nor Republican Rome were liberal democracies in the modern sense, but they were something other than autocratic and it seems odd to have two really famous and continuously studied examples of democratic backsliding in the historical record and declare that the modern order could never slip away. 

Modern people tend to overlook that there is nothing genetically superior about us vs. our ancient or even prehistoric ancestors. We have not evolved in any significant way, we just enjoy the inheritance of a really good run absent total global societal collapse. That seems obvious on its face but I think it’s hard sometimes to realize that we are the exact same beings as primitive hunter-gatherers, or ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.

The extremes of behavior of which humans are capable is mostly mitigated by our relatively comfortable circumstances but we are not higher beings than those who sacrificed virgins to bloodthirsty gods or made drinking implements of the skulls of fallen enemies. Hell, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan have only very recently begun to fade from living memory.

We are capable of great and noble things but there will never be a time when humans can relax and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Everything that we have achieved and hope to achieve requires constant maintenance. It’s similar to getting into good physical condition. You can’t just declare victory one day and never exercise again because beer, pizza, and fries are still out there. Its a struggle that will last until we are all dead.

 

[ants]

4 hours ago, S John said:

Especially when classical examples of democracy in Athens/Rome are arguably most famous for the manner in which they failed. With Rome in particular, the end of the Republic might be one of the most relentlessly prodded historical periods out there. Neither Athens nor Republican Rome were liberal democracies in the modern sense, but they were something other than autocratic and it seems odd to have two really famous and continuously studied examples of democratic backsliding in the historical record and declare that the modern order could never slip away. 

Modern people tend to overlook that there is nothing genetically superior about us vs. our ancient or even prehistoric ancestors. We have not evolved in any significant way, we just enjoy the inheritance of a really good run absent total global societal collapse. That seems obvious on its face but I think it’s hard sometimes to realize that we are the exact same beings as primitive hunter-gatherers, or ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.

The extremes of behavior of which humans are capable is mostly mitigated by our relatively comfortable circumstances but we are not higher beings than those who sacrificed virgins to bloodthirsty gods or made drinking implements of the skulls of fallen enemies. Hell, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan have only very recently begun to fade from living memory.

We are capable of great and noble things but there will never be a time when humans can relax and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Everything that we have achieved and hope to achieve requires constant maintenance. It’s similar to getting into good physical condition. You can’t just declare victory one day and never exercise again because beer, pizza, and fries are still out there. Its a struggle that will last until we are all dead.

Not an expert, but do we really know if this is true? For example, we know diet has impacted our height in a very short timeframe. Do we know other things which we do now which we didn't do then don't impact us in various ways (such as brain formation)? 

[Isalie]

Well, we know that theres been bigger and stronger humanoids with larger brains. But i think its very much the consensus that nothing significant has happened in the last 80k years. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Isalie said:

Well, we know that theres been bigger and stronger humanoids with larger brains. But i think its very much the consensus that nothing significant has happened in the last 80k years. 

I fear Mike Judge is a prophet.

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

42 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I fear Mike Judge is a prophet.

Ignoring the dubious science presented and the (possibly, I have not watched the movie) unitentional endorsement of eugenics here

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Ignoring the dubious science presented and the (possibly, I have not watched the movie) unitentional endorsement of eugenics here

He’s absolutely not endorsing eugenics.  He’s pointing out there is no “direction” to evolution.  There is no guarantee we are getting “smarter”.  

That said I will concede that the film presumes intelligence is an inhereted trait and not a learned skill.

 

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He’s absolutely not endorsing eugenics.  He’s pointing out there is no “direction” to evolution.  There is no guarantee we are getting “smarter”.  

That said I will concede that the film presumes intelligence is an inhereted trait and not a learned skill.

 

Probably not intentional, yes. But there is the implication that "dumb" people should not have so many kids. That is eugenics.

[Fragile Bird]

In the second story about how the rich manage to avoid paying taxes, ProPublica has reported that Peter (not Ribert) Thiel used his Roth IRA to buy shares of PayPal at 1/10th of a cent back in 1999. The Roth IRA was brand new, and Thiel had just founded PayPal. Those shares are now worth $5 Billion.

Other billionaires have used similar tactics and have made hundreds of millions of dollars. I know there are stories about Canadians who have done the same, but the most I’ve heard about was $100 M or so. Once again, professional investors who get access to shares at pennies of cost at the time of initial funding.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, L'oiseau français said:

In the second story about how the rich manage to avoid paying taxes, ProPublica has reported that Robert Thiel used his Roth IRA to buy shares of PayPal at 1/10th of a cent back in 1999. The Roth IRA was brand new, and Thiel had just founded PayPal. Those shares are now worth $5 Billion.

Other billionaires have used similar tactics and have made hundreds of millions of dollars. I know there are stories about Canadians who have done the same, but the most I’ve heard about was $100 M or so. Once again, professional investors who get access to shares at pennies of cost at the time of initial funding.

FB,

Hold on.  Was there any guarantee Pay Pal would do as well as it did?  How does using Roth funds mean he avoides Capitol Gains taxes when he sells Paypal shares to realize his profits?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

34 minutes ago, L'oiseau français said:

In the second story about how the rich manage to avoid paying taxes, ProPublica has reported that Robert Thiel used his Roth IRA to buy shares of PayPal at 1/10th of a cent back in 1999. The Roth IRA was brand new, and Thiel had just founded PayPal. Those shares are now worth $5 Billion.

Other billionaires have used similar tactics and have made hundreds of millions of dollars. I know there are stories about Canadians who have done the same, but the most I’ve heard about was $100 M or so. Once again, professional investors who get access to shares at pennies of cost at the time of initial funding.

This is silly. Easy to look back and say “oooo terrible” but that is a ret-con at best.  At the time, there were no income limits on Roth CONTRIBUTIONS, this is true.  HOWEVER, Congress changed the law.  So, the fact that Thiel took advantage of the law at the time is not nefarious or bad behavior at all.  It was entirely legal.  Also, PayPal was a HUGE risk at the time. I remember the dot com bubble, and I’m SURE you do to.  A lot of the potential high fliers in the late 1990s are at best punch lines now.  PayPal ended up being successful, but it certainly wasn’t a foregone conclusion in 1999.  Further to that, it is possible that at the time that the contribution was made that Thiel would have actually qualified for the income limitations that were later imposed.  Finally, I will acknowledge that Roths aren’t great tax policy.  My understanding is that they were put in place in a manner that would decrease the CURRENT revenue hit of an IRA (I.e., they are with after tax dollars), pushing the revenue hit out of the budget window.  They were known AT THE TIME to be fun and games with budgetary math, and that the bill would come due later (meaning now and after!).  It passed because it was a very, very popular provision and was intended to be more of a middle class help.  The fact that Congress passed a bad law (daily occurrence!) isn’t itself tax avoidance.  So, this is just breathless nonsense.  

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FB,

Hold on.  Was there any guarantee Pay Pal would do as well as it did?  How does using Roth funds mean he avoides Capitol Gains taxes when he sells Paypal shares to realize his profits?

Well, a few things.  Roths are funded with after-tax dollars, and a result, I believe they are favored from an estate tax perspective, and also from a rate perspective.  (Also at this level, he will never sell....)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So, the fact that Thiel took advantage of the law at the time is not nefarious or bad behavior at all.  It was entirely legal.  

Just because it was legal doesn't make it right.

[Fragile Bird]

22 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

This is silly. Easy to look back and say “oooo terrible” but that is a ret-con at best.  At the time, there were no income limits on Roth CONTRIBUTIONS, this is true.  HOWEVER, Congress changed the law.  So, the fact that Thiel took advantage of the law at the time is not nefarious or bad behavior at all.  It was entirely legal.  Also, PayPal was a HUGE risk at the time. I remember the dot com bubble, and I’m SURE you do to.  A lot of the potential high fliers in the late 1990s are at best punch lines now.  PayPal ended up being successful, but it certainly wasn’t a foregone conclusion in 1999.  Further to that, it is possible that at the time that the contribution was made that Thiel would have actually qualified for the income limitations that were later imposed.  Finally, I will acknowledge that Roths aren’t great tax policy.  My understanding is that they were put in place in a manner that would decrease the CURRENT revenue hit of an IRA (I.e., they are with after tax dollars), pushing the revenue hit out of the budget window.  They were known AT THE TIME to be fun and games with budgetary math, and that the bill would come due later (meaning now and after!).  It passed because it was a very, very popular provision and was intended to be more of a middle class help.  The fact that Congress passed a bad law (daily occurrence!) isn’t itself tax avoidance.  So, this is just breathless nonsense.  

Well, a few things.  Roths are funded with after-tax dollars, and a result, I believe they are favored from an estate tax perspective, and also from a rate perspective.  (Also at this level, he will never sell....)

First of all, my apologies to Thiel for calling him Robert, it’s Peter of course.

Thiel was already a very successful securities lawyer by 1999 (Sullivan & Cromwell, I wonder if I ever met him, or if he was one of those guys pulling all-nighters reading paperwork as I wandering around their halls at 3:00 am, but I don’t think he was there very long) He founded Thiel Capital in 1996. He had lots of money by then.

Of course PayPal could have been a failure. If it was a failure, we wouldn’t know him. I’m sure lots of other people put stocks worth 1/10 of a cent in their Roth IRAs as well. 
 

The point is he could put private shares into a tax-protected account. Not many middle-class Americans are in that position. Forbes estimated his wealth at $6.5 B, meaning the bulk of his wealth to date is totally protected from the tax man, and if he waits until 2027 he can take it all out without paying any taxes on it. 
 

The amount he deposited in 1999 was $2,000. Annual salary limits were $110,000 or $160,000 per couple. So Thiel paid himself a low salary in the early days of Thiel Capital. 
 

And of course, he went on to found Palantir and he was the first investor in Facebook. He likely used funds from his Roth IRA, in his IRA.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just because it was legal doesn't make it right.

I stipulated it was bad tax policy.

20 minutes ago, L'oiseau français said:

First of all, my apologies to Thiel for calling him Robert, it’s Peter of course.

Thiel was already a very successful securities lawyer by 1999 (Sullivan & Cromwell, I wonder if I ever met him, or if he was one of those guys pulling all-nighters reading paperwork as I wandering around their halls at 3:00 am, but I don’t think he was there very long) He founded Thiel Capital in 1996. He had lots of money by then.

Of course PayPal could have been a failure. If it was a failure, we wouldn’t know him. I’m sure lots of other people put stocks worth 1/10 of a cent in their Roth IRAs as well. 
 

The point is he could put private shares into a tax-protected account. Not many middle-class Americans are in that position. Forbes estimated his wealth at $6.5 B, meaning the bulk of his wealth to date is totally protected from the tax man, and if he waits until 2027 he can take it all out without paying any taxes on it. 
 

The amount he deposited in 1999 was $2,000. Annual salary limits were $110,000 or $160,000 per couple. So Thiel paid himself a low salary in the early days of Thiel Capital. 
 

And of course, he went on to found Palantir and he was the first investor in Facebook. He likely used funds from his Roth IRA, in his IRA.

Who is to say.  But again, this isn’t a “scandal” other than Congress has a tendency to pass bad tax laws.  True story!

[Gorn]

10 hours ago, S John said:

Especially when classical examples of democracy in Athens/Rome are arguably most famous for the manner in which they failed. With Rome in particular, the end of the Republic might be one of the most relentlessly prodded historical periods out there. Neither Athens nor Republican Rome were liberal democracies in the modern sense, but they were something other than autocratic and it seems odd to have two really famous and continuously studied examples of democratic backsliding in the historical record and declare that the modern order could never slip away. 

Modern people tend to overlook that there is nothing genetically superior about us vs. our ancient or even prehistoric ancestors. We have not evolved in any significant way, we just enjoy the inheritance of a really good run absent total global societal collapse. That seems obvious on its face but I think it’s hard sometimes to realize that we are the exact same beings as primitive hunter-gatherers, or ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.

The extremes of behavior of which humans are capable is mostly mitigated by our relatively comfortable circumstances but we are not higher beings than those who sacrificed virgins to bloodthirsty gods or made drinking implements of the skulls of fallen enemies. Hell, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan have only very recently begun to fade from living memory.

We are capable of great and noble things but there will never be a time when humans can relax and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Everything that we have achieved and hope to achieve requires constant maintenance. It’s similar to getting into good physical condition. You can’t just declare victory one day and never exercise again because beer, pizza, and fries are still out there. Its a struggle that will last until we are all dead.

 

It's not just nature, it's nurture as well. Better early childhood nutrition alone has greatly improved average intelligence, health and stature of modern adults compared to their ancient predecessors, so we are not "the exact same beings".

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I stipulated it was bad tax policy.

Who is to say.  But again, this isn’t a “scandal” other than Congress has a tendency to pass bad tax laws.  True story!

Its a scandal because of how bad that tax law is. Thats entirely the point - how absurd the rules are being exploited. 

We are getting to the point where 'it is legal" is exactly the reason revolt will happen. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I stipulated it was bad tax policy.

But you have also defended some bad tax policies.

A few posts back you said laws should be written so that the average person of reasonable intelligence can understand them. I assume that also means we should listen to those people when they pretty collectively say tax law in America right now is extremely screwed up and overwhelmingly favors the rich? And that furthermore the wealthy are using said savings to influence politics and government at the federal and state level to further entrench a system that disproportionally favors them?

That's why most people think the game is rigged, and only going to become even more rigged as time goes on, leading to a pure plutocratic system.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But you have also defended some bad tax policies.

A few posts back you said laws should be written so that the average person of reasonable intelligence can understand them. I assume that also means we should listen to those people when they pretty collectively say tax law in America right now is extremely screwed up and overwhelmingly favors the rich? And that furthermore the wealthy are using said savings to influence politics and government at the federal and state level to further entrench a system that disproportionally favors them?

That's why most people think the game is rigged, and only going to become even more rigged as time goes on, leading to a pure plutocratic system.

Actually I do believe that average people should be able understand tax laws (not really possible right now) and that are huge problems with the current Code.  We should have a rewrite like in 1939, 1954 and 1986.  The current Code is so encrusted with bedazzled pay-fors and incentives that it is collapsing under its own weight.  But there is zero political will to do a rewrite, and I am afraid it is only going to get worse if Congress see saws back and forth under narrow margins.  It will keep me in business, for sure, but “tax reform” (as distinguished from changes in marginal rates and some foreign stuff at the margins that only people like me understand) ain’t happening any time soon, absent a landslide by either party. And all of this is pretty apparent without publishing personal details of private citizen’s tax returns and giving truly zero context about them.  Bah humbug.  I guess it sells “papers” (or gets clicks).

Which bad tax policies have I defended?  We may disagree as to whether they are bad or not

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Also, PayPal was a HUGE risk at the time.

Well, as a business entity, yes. But I think the fact that Thiel's shares were priced at $0.001 a share, so that he spent a total of $1700 in his Roth IRA for his 1.7 million shares, means that as far as his finances went it was anything but a huge risk. If it tanked, he was out $1,700. If it went big... well, now he has $5 billion coming to him with 0 in taxes paid along the way.

I do wonder how many IPO startup millionaires and billionaires have actually reaped huge sums this way.

What I do find scandalous is, specifically, Thiel -- $5 billion? The others they cited range from $20 million (Buffett) to something like $260 million (Ted Weschler, Buffett's deputy). What does Thiel believe about his Roth IRA motherlode that no one else seems to? Or is he just more shameless, or more successful, than the others in increasing his wealth rapidly?

(Rather randomly, I wondered about the youngest billionaires, and of the "self-made" ones the youngest is Austin Russell, who dropped out of Stanford and created Luminar Technologies, now a leading LIDAR and autonomous driving software company. Why did he drop out to found a company? Because he received a $100,000 Thiel Fellowship. As in Peter Thiel. Who, yes, is a major investor in the company.)

[Zorral]

7 hours ago, Isalie said:

Well, we know that theres been bigger and stronger humanoids with larger brains. But i think its very much the consensus that nothing significant has happened in the last 80k years. 

 Means of effective birth control, the means of which can be and usually are controlled by women themselves, and dentistry, are extraordinarily significant, and indeed have changed societies.  Think of how different George Washington's life might have been if he'd had access to my dentist.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ron DeSantis is mandating surveys as to the beliefs of Florida College Students.  If one of the answers isn’t “none of your damn business” I suspect things will get ugly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/24/florida-intellectual-freedom-law-mandates-viewpoint-surveys/?fbclid=IwAR1itBYeXmOLWP4YCXbhJlwtLWoYGG6YmYPJ4tXEhPtX8gSAum1wZYIJRZQ