Is red lobster run by sovcits? Was the article written by sovcits? Where are the sovcits, Mr Bones?!
I have been to some nice places for seafood, but in my city there's only red lobster if you need a crab fix. It does the job, but it's getting pricey for what you get.
Sorry I guess then I don't understand the distinction you're making? It's not as though stocks are not liquid (or that margin loans are not) or that stocks are all funny money. I suppose if the tax rate was so exorbitant that selling stock would tank the share prices these ultra wealthy folks are holding them I see your point. I don't think these numbers are that high though.
I agree if you're saying that the cash-out net worth of these people is lower than their market valuations, but I doubt that it's so much lower that they are no longer ultra rich. Besides, stocks are still assets to borrow against which is how the game is played at that level, so while the number is "fake" it's also kinda not.
True fact. That said, where I live A10s fly out of Grissom AFB still all the time.
Yeah it's taxed at a much lower rate. Short term capital gains is a real bitch. Long term isn't so bad unless you're liquidating a lot... Like enough to buy a house or car or something we are discussing now. Over 450k ish is taxed 20%, but you can get a margin loan for 3 to 12 percent AND it's tax deductible lol.
Really, if you aren't rich with stock you are getting F-ed in the A...
Well, if you take the current US "budget" as $4T per year, it's a bit over $10B per day. So yeah it runs for more than a day.
Of course, this should be treated the same way as if you were to lose your job: you probably cut your expenses so as not to spend all your money in the first 2 weeks. Maybe the US would finally stop paying for tanks the army doesn't want?
You're mostly right here, except stocks are an asset you can take a loan against with a margin loan or a line of credit. I suggest if you are doing that it SHOULD count as realized gains because you absolutely can use such a loan to buy a house, a car, a yacht, an island in the South Pacific, or an aircraft carrier.
Or at least the same number of numbers.
That definitely looks like a guy who would have ploopy open source headphones.
It's just another source of information. Treating that source as absolute truth without understanding it yourself is ignorant.
And thinking your cursory understanding of a subject from a few sources you picked is just as good as someone who DID study it is equal parts naive, arrogant, and stupid.
Lol shut up I have two kids, a PhD and almost 20 years experience running a university research lab BEFORE my current job.
You don't have to understand that low dose fluoride is good for your teeth for it to be true. You don't have to understand that vaccines improve community health, or that getting enough movement throughout the day is good for heart health, or that eclipses don't cause electromagnetic anomalies for those things to be true either.
Planning to trust yourself more then experts in a field is naive to the point of being delusional. Especially if you're thinking you can go read a paper or two and "understand" it enough to be an intellectual peer of someone who actually invested years of time. No matter who you are, even if you're Einstein reincarnated, you're not that smart.
You don't have to listen blindly to every person, but listening to the consensus of people who know more than you isn't religion, it's a heuristic for making better decisions.
No that is not how expertise works. You cannot be an expert at everything: there's not enough time for one and not everyone is even capable for two. In fact, most people are decidedly NOT capable of being experts about MOST things. If someone spends their life working in an area (not watching YouTube videos about it), their perspective in that area is BETTER and is more worthy of consideration. A consensus among experts prevents any one individual from taking advantage of a situation and is even more worthy of consideration.
Have you ever been wrong? If so, there's no reason to consider to your comment because your input is irrelevant.
It is possible to be a good source of information that has come to the wrong conclusion using the best information provided. As long as you update your conclusions as more information becomes available, no harm no foul.
Needs washed, but you can just heat the oil on the stove if you've seasoned the thing in the first place.
Hunter Biden smuggles them in during the night in his laptop!