prev <-> next
[2021-10-25 19:11:32] - yeah i don't look at p/e ratios either. but without paying attention to "earnings", like what's the point? aren't spending and revenue basically the only "fundamentals" you have? ~a
[2021-10-25 19:09:17] - a: Yeah, I got your point. It's why I don't bother with p/e ratios anymore. Way too misleading sometimes, and can easily get thrown off by things like spending. It can be useful for mature companies that aren't significantly changing their business, but not helpful for growing companies that are constantly innovating. -Paul
[2021-10-25 19:07:33] - oof, i had a typo in that comment. oh well. ~a
[2021-10-25 19:05:32] - paul: yes. ~a
[2021-10-25 19:05:24] - paul: probably just a large increase in spending. if your spending jumps a bunch and catches up with your spending, then your earnings will be ~0, so your price divided by earnings will go through the roof. i wonder if anybody looks at log(p/e) to get a better feel for your actual price ridiculousness. ~a
[2021-10-25 19:04:20] - a: Trailing 12 months? That would encompass the time the parks and movie theaters were closed, right? -Paul
[2021-10-25 19:03:26] - a: I have no idea. I don't care much about p/e ratios. It just doesn't seem right that Disney would have the same nosebleed p/e as Tesla. -Paul
[2021-10-25 19:02:59] - That has to be a weird oddity of.... something.
COVID? -Paul[2021-10-25 19:02:27] - ok
what do you think the pe ratio is? ~a[2021-10-25 19:02:08] - a: Wait, what? Disney has a 300 p/e? That doesn't sound right. -Paul
[2021-10-25 18:59:42] - disney is another company at 300x p/e ratio which seems like it's probably not safe at this size. ~a
[2021-10-25 18:58:49] - paul: yeah its not exactly a safe asset at $1t, though. the earnings are $3 per share which is pretty crazy, even compared to this crazy market. p/e ratio of 300x is fairly unheard of for a company at this age / stage. ~a
[2021-10-25 18:55:54] - I still can't believe Tesla is a $1T market cap company. So bonkers. It was only a few years ago when Cathie Wood was giving those estimates and people were laughing at her. -Paul
[2021-10-25 18:55:13] - a: I didn't even dig down into the replies, so I was confused who ChrisGuthrie was for a bit. If I had to guess, Austen is libertarian-ish. -Paul
[2021-10-25 17:27:34] - paul: 5. it's a huge loophole that a lot of uber-rich people definitely take advantage of. read r/fatfire some time, they all talk about opening loans and paying interest to a bank instead of taxes to a government. ~a
[2021-10-25 17:23:53] - paul: i like this for a lot of reasons: 1. its a compromise that isn't as crazy as the current proposal. 2. its much easier to manage. 3. you don't have to worry about "what counts" or how to value the asset, a loan manager is doing this anyways 4. it's the kind of thing usually only billionaires do anyways. ~a
[2021-10-25 17:23:07] - paul: jonathan_allred's response to this is an interesting middle-ground. his proposal is that if you open a new loan with a taxable equity as collateral, that counts as a taxable event (you'd pay taxes and your cost-basis would be updated). ~a
[2021-10-25 17:09:59] - paul: well if it matters, i also think its a dumb idea. ChrisGuthrie is right-of-center based on his other tweets. Austen on the other hand, i'm not convinced either way. ~a
[2021-10-25 16:57:07] - a: They could easily be right of center too, but I honestly think it's just a bunch of investors offended by the very idea of an unrealized capital gains tax. Heck, even knowing that it wouldn't apply to me doesn't change how dumb of an idea I think it is. -Paul
[2021-10-25 16:56:13] - https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1452525437897166850 "can you link these?" It's a little hard to find, since twitter is all about what people are talking about now and this morning it's all about Tesla and Hertz. Here's one. Most of the people talking about it largely just discuss investing on twitter. -Paul
[2021-10-25 16:48:37] - paul: yeah, its a wonder that more companies don't do this. my company has an even number of shares. ~a
[2021-10-25 16:47:01] - paul: regarding the target, i generally specified "people above a certain threshold that i am well below", because i have no idea how the target of the tax is chosen. "how the hell do we determine net worth then" i don't know if this is the threshold, but i wouldn't assume it is. "start the year as billionaires and end it not as billionaires" lines in the sand are often chosen, but they're usually based on something easy to calculate. ~a
[2021-10-25 16:46:56] - a: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA?p=TSLA&.tsrc=fin-srch So weird that the outstanding shares of Tesla is such that if/when it hits $1,000 a share, it will basically hit a $1T market cap. -Paul
[2021-10-25 16:43:01] - paul: "talk on twitter" . . . can you link these? i'll hazard a guess that these people are right-of-center, based on how this conversation is (intentionally) tuned away from the target of the tax, which i would consider relevant, to say the least. ~a
[2021-10-25 16:38:33] - "I feel like a lot depends on your definition of 'wealthy' here". for marginal, no, it does not. for marginal the definition of wealthy is defined by the tax law (top marginal tax rate). for effective, yes, it's important to define wealthy, but regardless of which definition you pick, i'm confident that it'll be true based on how much lower the marginal tax rate is compared to pretty much any time in the history of the 16th amendment. ~a
[2021-10-25 16:34:51] - paul: "I trust you" "state and local taxes or something" washington post, and yes, it is an overall "effective tax rate" that includes everything. ~a
[2021-10-25 16:29:41] - a: Plenty of people start the year as billionaires and end it not as billionaires (or vice versa) depending on the whims of the stock market or whatever else. -Paul
[2021-10-25 16:28:52] - a: Also, I actually don't think it's that common for taxes to specifically target people like that, right? Even our progressive income tax targets the higher income, not individuals. How often have we specifically passed taxes which flat out only affect people with a certain net worth or higher? Also, how the hell do we determine net worth then? -Paul
[2021-10-25 16:27:06] - a: "without being rude . . . how did this happen?" Because all the talk on twitter (which is where I mostly have read about it) focuses on the "unrealized capital gains" part (and how difficult it might be to keep track of all of that) and not the target of the tax. -Paul
[2021-10-25 16:25:55] - a: "i'm confident that taxes (marginal and effective) on the wealthy are lower than ever" I feel like a lot depends on your definition of "wealthy" here. We talking the top 0.01%? Wealthiest 400 families? What? -Paul
[2021-10-25 16:25:12] - a: "the wealthiest 400 richest families payed a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 50% in 2018" That's specific enough that I trust you are right, but don't the majority of Americans not pay any federal income tax (or get a net payout?) I assume this is counting state and local taxes or something? -Paul
[2021-10-25 15:40:30] - paul: i found the first few sentences here (sigh). it does use the word "liquid", which is good? "I hadn't considered that it might only apply to the wealthy" without being rude . . . how did this happen? every sentence in the bit i found in this link includes references to "billionaires", or "extremely wealthy", or both. ~a
[2021-10-25 15:26:48] - paul: (otoh, i'll say that i'm against a wealth tax) ~a
[2021-10-25 15:25:50] - paul: "If there is one thing I am confident in, though, it's that a tax initially aimed at the wealthy is going to eventually trickle down to most everybody else" i'm not as confident in that as you are. i am much more confident, though, that the wealthiest 400 richest families payed a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 50% in 2018. also, i'm confident that taxes (marginal and effective) on the wealthy are lower than ever. ~a
[2021-10-25 15:16:35] - a: Ah, I hadn't considered that it might only apply to the wealthy, but I suppose that makes sense. If there is one thing I am confident in, though, it's that a tax initially aimed at the wealthy is going to eventually trickle down to most everybody else. -Paul
[2021-10-25 14:55:20] - paul: "Yellen Describes How Proposed Billionaire Tax Would Work" i literally can't read the article
based on the title alone, i see the word "bllionaire tax", so without reading the article (...) i'll blindly assume this applies only to people above a certain threshold that i am well below. ~a[2021-10-25 14:53:45] - a: "and only for billionaires" Why only for billionaires? I'm far from a billionaire, but I've got dozens of assets that this would apply to that I now need to keep tracking of rolling cost basis (bases?) for. -Paul
[2021-10-25 14:27:46] - paul: some etfs will package this up for you with an asset. for instance, upro (ymmv, there are a lot of huge issues with upro that are hard to summarize, but it boils down to: high volatility will somehow magically decrease your profit). ~a
[2021-10-25 14:26:34] - paul: what is a good hedge for inflation? i feel like we've had this conversation a bunch and i always bring this one up that you forget: some sort of reverse bond ("write" bonds, or "sell" bonds, write bond options) or more easily: open some mortgages. its hilarious how much i hold in (positive) bonds though, considering how much i believe inflation will increase in the near future. ~a
[2021-10-25 14:23:54] - paul: the logistics of how to enforce this would be simple, imo. unless they want to include things that don't have an obvious value. ~a
[2021-10-25 14:23:33] - paul: only marginally honestly, and only for billionaires. but only marginally is the key takeaway: i would hate it, but i could def do this for my own holdings (only the ones with an obvious value), and i'm not a billionaire. ~a
[2021-10-25 14:22:09] - a: So you reset your cost basis once unrealized gains taxes are assigned? Oof. That's going to make taxes even more complicated, no? -Paul
[2021-10-25 14:21:31] - https://twitter.com/jack/status/1451733913961783299 One could make the argument that Square is sitting on a ton of very accurate data in terms of spending in the US economy and Jack might have some good insight into what is happening. Besides bitcoin and equities (especially international equities), what is a good hedge for inflation? More hard assets? -Paul
[2021-10-25 14:20:18] - paul: if i were to make a system (if its something that we can assign an obvious value to) it'd work just like realized gains. so, every year, it changes your cost basis, so you don't get double-taxed, you can report losses up to a certain amount, etc. ~a
[2021-10-25 14:18:40] - a: My brain hurts just thinking about the logistics of how to enforce this. -Paul
[2021-10-25 14:18:22] - a: I haven't seen anything in terms of specifics. I don't even know if they've said how the timing would work (like, do you get taxed every year? or just once, and if once, then when do they determine?) would you get double dipped in terms of capital gains too? What happens if those unrealized gains go away? Do you get a refund later? -Paul
[2021-10-25 13:22:30] - paul: assuming we're talking about only normal holdings on the normal stock market, taxing unrealized gains for billionaires is something that is at least reasonable and achievable but it'll definitely encourage billionaires to start making holdings on whatever is exempt, though (which, i would hope, would be anything without an agreed-upon value). ~a
[2021-10-25 13:21:55] - paul: i can't read the article because i don't have an account. can you tell me if they describe what types of holdings would be included/excluded? do you think they might exclude anything that is subject to capital gains, but where no value can be assigned to the thing until its sold? like a (small) private company, or piece of art? (if i were a billionaire) would i pay taxes on a tiny company where even i don't know what its worth? ~a
[2021-10-25 12:52:58] - https://www.barrons.com/articles/live-updates-51635096306 Renewed push for taxes on unrealized capital gains. -Paul
[2021-10-25 12:52:30] - a: Yeah, maybe I got you and Daniel confused again. Sorry.
-Paul[2021-10-23 14:31:53] - paul: 2021-09-02. unless we had the conversation a third time, i think you might be misremembering. i agreed with you and dainiel on various points. i think its misleading to only call it horse-dewormer. on september 2nd we were specifically talking about 911 calls (which stemmed from a very incorrect story about percentages). ~a
[2021-10-23 13:44:54] - a: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we had a discussion a month or two ago about Ivermectin where I made the point it was used on humans and so it was weird to keep referring to it as a "horse de-wormer" unless you were trying to own the other side and I thought you were of the opinion that it was okay. -Paul
[2021-10-22 16:46:29] - mig: he acknowledged to taking ivermectin. ivermectin is a controversial treatment designed for animals. he acknowledged to taking a controversial treatment designed for animals. insanely misleading. ~a
[2021-10-22 16:40:38] - the statement in the transcript ~a posted by Anderson Cooper is hard to reconcile as "technically true but misleading". The specific medicine he was prescribed is very much not designed for animals. I think that statement at least qualifies as fitting criteria 1). - mig
[2021-10-22 16:26:12] - paul: if i said "joe rogan acknowledge to be an ignorant asshole", when the truth is that joe rogan acknowledged to being q-anon. and everybody knows that q-anon is full of ignorant assholes. it's not exactly true that joe rogan acknowledged to being an ignorant asshole, right? it's like a weird word-puzzle to find the truth within the lies? ~a
[2021-10-22 16:22:25] - paul: "a false statement purporting to be fact" is something that needs fleshing out, for situations where 100 people out of 100 would have been confused by how a public statement was worded. ~a
[2021-10-22 16:20:41] - paul: i wonder if there's a version of a moron in a hurry (trademark) for defamation lawsuits. like, i feel like you have to read carefully and study closely some of the things cnn says to see what part of their statements aren't complete and total lies. ~a
[2021-10-22 16:16:26] - a: "while what cnn is maybe (only) technically true, its very misleading. the implications are incorrect." Yes, we agree on these statements. I think what CNN said was technically true, but also misleading and provides incorrect implications. I think the first is what probably matters for a defamation suit. -Paul
[2021-10-22 16:11:53] - paul: he acknowledged taking ivermectin. he didn't acknowledge taking a controversial treatment. he didn't acknowledge taking a treatment designed for animals. so maybe it's only like 99.9% false. ~a
[2021-10-22 16:10:11] - paul: that is correct. its been used by cattle since 1981 and humans since 1987. while what cnn is maybe (only) technically true, its very misleading. the implications are incorrect. though if it came down to a defamation suit though, it could be it would come down to that (#1 in miguel's list). ~a
[2021-10-22 16:04:57] - I believe Ivermectin was first used on animals, no? -Paul
[2021-10-22 15:29:26] - mig: very much so, yes. i've seen his number of viewers, and i've seen how smooth he talks. i 100% believe vaccine hesitancy is exacerbated by him and people like him. ~a
[2021-10-22 15:12:44] - a: do you think Rogan is that much of a factor is vaccine hesitancy? I'm not that convinced. - mig
[2021-10-22 15:10:51] - in addition since Rogan is a public figure, he must prove the statement was made with malicious intent. - mig
[2021-10-22 15:09:57] - 4) may be a sticking point. - mig
[2021-10-22 15:09:51] - a: quick result from google - To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. - mig
[2021-10-22 14:46:26] - mig: i think what rogan has done and is doing here is super damaging to the world. so i have a hard time backing him here. but, as a wise man once said, cnn shouldn't have said that. defamation sucks, and lying at a time of crisis for clicks sucks, but honestly, what rogan has done sucks far worse. ~a
[2021-10-22 14:44:28] - a: yes, that was 100% false. - mig
[2021-10-22 14:39:11] - paul: i definitely wouldn't say "mostly true", wow. i found this transcript which politi-adrian labels as "mostly false". "He also acknowledged taking controversial treatment designed for animals". that is 100% false, right? defamation though? maybe! what are the rules for defamation? ~a
[2021-10-22 14:39:09] - paul: The AP did quickly issue a correction and retraction. Maybe not to the counter protester's satisfaction., but that probably blunts a potential defamation suit. CNN is doubling downing to the point where you could conceivably claim it's being done in malice. - mig
[2021-10-22 14:31:02] - mig: I think the counter protester at the Netflix walkout might have a better case assuming there is no evidence he ever shouted obscenities. -Paul
[2021-10-22 14:11:51] - mig: I don't think this is a good look for CNN (both the original statements and then the doubling down on defending it while attacking Rogan), but I suspect it wouldn't rise to defamation. Not a "false enough" statement? This is one of those I could see politifact (or whoever) rating it as "mostly true". -Paul
[2021-10-22 13:48:23] - this statement is pretty hard to reconcile with Dr. Gupta's interview with Rogan, where he admitted, "yeah CNN shouldn't have said that." - mig
[2021-10-22 13:47:35] - https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-defends-joe-rogan-coverage-only-thing-network-did-wrong-was-bruise-the-ego-of-someone-pushing-dangerous-conspiracy-theories/ there's probably a high barrier for a public figure like Joe Rogan, but does he have a defamation case against CNN at this point? - mig
[2021-10-22 12:42:18] - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/22/trump-social-media-spac-digital-world-acquisition-corp-surges-another-100percent.html Who's buying?
-Paul[2021-10-22 04:18:12] - mig: That's like a perfect mash-up of Covington AND "mostly peaceful protestors". -Paul
[2021-10-22 01:49:24] - https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1451280366841614343?s=21 original caption for reference. - mig
[2021-10-22 01:46:56] - https://www.dailyadvance.com/features/entertainment/correction-netflix-chappelle-protest/image_80bb9535-d71c-5573-a384-74f177111573.html another hell of a correction. - mig
[2021-10-21 23:20:47] - wow, fed to ban [some] policymakers from owning individual stocks. ~a
[2021-10-21 19:15:31] - a: Rarely have I ever WANTED to offend. I'm just really good at it. -Paul
[2021-10-21 18:54:23] - paul: it was an interesting side note for me that apparently 76er games have been blacked out in China once Daryl Morey became GM tin Philly. We talk a lot about Trump being thin skinned, but ... wow. - mig
[2021-10-21 18:41:53] - paul doesn't want to offend? MAN times have changed. ~a
[2021-10-21 18:40:56] - a: Yeah, I mean, I probably wouldn't say anything just in case a legit religious conversion happened and I didn't want to offend, but I would probably assume satire if it had a prayer on it. -Paul
[2021-10-21 18:11:29] - there are, sure. i guess i was referring to the story/poem, not just footprints by itself. ~a
[2021-10-21 18:11:25] - mig: Can't wait to hear Kerr and James and co condemn him. -Paul
[2021-10-21 18:10:35] - a: It probably depends, right? Are there not just pictures of footprints in the sand? -Paul
[2021-10-21 18:01:00] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/sports/basketball/celtics-kanter-china-tibet.html kind of interesting to see where this'll go for Kanter. - mig
[2021-10-21 15:37:01] - "the lord" ~a
[2021-10-21 15:36:17] - paul: "unless it says something about God carrying you on it" uhhh, it does though, doesn't it? ~a
[2021-10-21 15:35:45] - a: Right, but even the footprints thing.... Like, unless it says something about God carrying you on it, I could see where somebody might be like, "I like the beach and this is a pretty picture" and not realize it had religious overtones. -Paul
[2021-10-21 15:25:42] - yeah, the footprints thing is pretty overtly religious. but i hear you. live laugh love is too close to something people like audrey or me would actually put up. ~a
[2021-10-21 15:24:29] - a: Unless it was very clearly and explicitly religious, I would probably assume it was put there seriously as a "make the house look nice" kind of thing. I hear it's what adults do. -Paul
[2021-10-21 15:12:17] - if i put a "live, laugh, love" sign or a framed footprints/carrying me/jesus/etc story in my house (called footprints apparently), and you saw it there, would you assume it was a joke? like put there satirically? or would you assume that audrey or i had put it there seriously? i sometimes wonder why we don't see more satire or irony in decor. ~a
[2021-10-20 20:48:01] - Daniel: I've tried. For whatever reason people get all indignant about trading 1sts to me but do it all the time with you. I think it's a good strategy that has clearly worked for you but for some reason others keep trading with you. -Paul
[2021-10-20 20:04:30] - Random odd factoid I just noticed - in our fantasy keeper league I'm the only player (that I can tell from looking) that has ever had multiple first round picks and I've done it 4 times out of the 9 years in our yahoo league history. Kind of surprised that no one else has tried to make that happen at some point. -Daniel
[2021-10-20 19:31:29] - a: Got it. I also wouldn't count home equity or funds that contain multiple assets in it. -Paul
[2021-10-20 19:18:10] - paul: it used to be much higher, but now i'm down to ~6% of my liquid portfolio. (home equity isn't part of my liquid portfolio: it would fail this rule of thumb. i also am not counting "vanguard" or "vti" or "bnd" as a single asset, which might be a mistake if vanguard turns out to be super corrupt) ~a
[2021-10-20 19:11:25] - a: What is the max you'll let any one asset get in terms of percentage of your "portfolio" (or net worth or however you think about it)? -Paul
[2021-10-20 19:08:46] - paul: yep. i'm always buying *and* always selling: i generally don't like any one asset to be too much of my portfolio. also, it's a currency, so i like to earn and spend! ~a
[2021-10-20 19:07:05] - a: You're selling here? I think bitcoin still has room to run. It can still go up like 4x and be smaller than gold's market cap. I think $100k within the next two years is possible. -Paul
[2021-10-20 18:17:59] - especially for things that aren't "supposed" to keep going up like equities. ~a
[2021-10-20 18:17:24] - selling on the reverse-dip makes just as much sense. ~a
[2021-10-20 18:16:23] - a: Missed buying the dip!
-Paul[2021-10-20 16:33:36] - paul: new bitcoin ath. ~a
[2021-10-20 14:10:46] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/seriesibond.asp the fourth bullet in "key takaways" is "Series I bonds earn a fixed interest rate for the life of the bond and a variable inflation rate that is adjusted each May and November" afaik, the fixed interest rate (that does not change) is 0%?
so, you're guaranteed to get 0% plus inflation (which moves)? yeah, its pretty shit, but this is the fucked-up world we all live in. ~a[2021-10-20 14:07:13] - a: Okay. Maybe you can (re?) educate me on i-bonds, then.
As I understand it, the interest rate can change before the bond matures? It's not locked in? -Paul[2021-10-20 13:50:56] - paul: nope, i can tell you nothing. sounds like a pure ponzi scheme to me, but i understand that short-sellers could potentially be paying at least a few basis points. ~a
[2021-10-20 13:50:33] - a: An yeah, an American car company that almost single handedly created the EV sector here..... left out of an American EV event. Hard not to think the Biden admin has it out for Tesla (probably because they are non-unionized). -Paul
[2021-10-20 13:49:42] - a: I know virtually nothing about it other than just recently finding out it was a thing people were doing AND apparently you can get a good rate on it. Was hoping you could tell me more.
-Paul[2021-10-20 13:33:10] - paul: nope. i've considered doing it for small balances, but i would never do it for a large balance. why the interest rate drops so quickly for larger balances blows my mind. they're using it to lend to short-sellers, right? (correct me if you've heard differently, i've just googled around a few places) if so, wouldn't the interest rate drop only marginally? ~a
[2021-10-20 13:26:22] - paul: i keep forgetting that tesla is an american car company
maybe its because he's such the black-sheep of car companies: no dealerships. i'm very on the fence about no dealerships. at first i thought it was a good thing, but i've become less convinced over time. ~a[2021-10-20 13:22:24] - a: Do you earn interest by lending out your btc? -Paul
[2021-10-20 13:21:53] - https://twitter.com/heydave7/status/1450658438049112070 Lots of Tesla bulls are concerned over the appointment of Missy Cummings as the new senior adviser for safety at NHTSA. I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy, but it IS weird when taken into account with how Tesla wasn't invited to Biden's EV event either. -Paul
[2021-10-19 20:58:57] - the message board requires about $0/year of maintenance, you can pay me one quarter of that. its my other website that's taking down the world and i refuse to use two computers, haha. ~a
[2021-10-19 20:57:54] - daniel, also the ads wouldn't be nice: we all care a lot about our neighborhood, except mig who doesn't vote. ~a
[2021-10-19 20:56:12] - I feel like we should contribute to your new computer cost given you are providing us a free service without ads! -Daniel
[2021-10-19 20:49:45] - yeah, i think its sending stuff to the database, but i'm not 100% sure. ~a
[2021-10-19 20:48:55] - nope that wasn't it either. maybe sending stuff to the database? ~a
[2021-10-19 20:47:12] - nope. hmmm. maybe the "new words" thing? ~a
[2021-10-19 20:46:34] - ok, daniel, i turned off the "notifications" thing. we'll see if that's what was making things slow. ~a
[2021-10-19 20:44:52] - daniel: "doesn't make it nice though" as campaign ads go this actually was very nice . . . on the other hand, i guess you're kinda right: making fun of the voter is atypical. ~a
[2021-10-19 20:39:07] - daniel:
yeah, i'll be buying a new computer in ~2022, so we only have to endure this for a few more months. ~a[2021-10-19 19:51:54] - a: Also I'm not sure how we can know whether it was effective or not? Is that info available somewhere? -Daniel
[2021-10-19 19:51:26] - everytime i hit enter again after two seconds thinking I mis clicked or something then immediately go why didn't you just be patient Daniel....
[2021-10-19 19:50:37] - a: I am definitely not an expert so if someone did studies and found its effective vs a more positive spin go vote ad I could believe it and might result in a positive of getting more people to vote. Doesn't make it nice though. -Daniel
[2021-10-19 19:50:33] - a: I am definitely not an expert so if someone did studies and found its effective vs a more positive spin go vote ad I could believe it and might result in a positive of getting more people to vote. Doesn't make it nice though. -Daniel
[2021-10-19 19:40:47] - daniel: any suggestions for how you'd change the ad? it's targeted at people who are borderline considering voting, so the fact that it pisses people off that wouldn't be voting anyways might not matter? i honestly think it probably has (from their perspective) positive outcome. ~a
[2021-10-19 19:07:55] - The ad made me chuckle but not sure I love it either. I'm pro people voting but it does seem like a not nice way to go about it. -Daniel
[2021-10-19 18:59:06] - mig: love it. great ad. ~a
[2021-10-19 18:57:23] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUKhqzGdjso I really fucking hate this ad that's popped up lately. Even more so that's it's an older ad that's been reprised by McAuliffe's campaign. - mig
[2021-10-19 15:38:21] - paul: i guess maybe it depends on what we mean by "acceptable". accepted in what context? it's fine for others to find jokes about emmit till funny and acceptable in their hearts: i wouldn't ever try to police people's (racist) thoughts. but i'd expect/support a walkout of netflix if netflix thought it was funny and "acceptable". ~a
[2021-10-19 15:18:06] - a: Sorry, to be clear, none of this is meant to be an attack. It's genuine curiosity (especially now that I know we're talking personal preference). I'm working through this too. I'm surprised by your answer of: "of course?" Even I could see a situation where the answer is: "maybe not?" Jokes about Emmett Till? -Paul
[2021-10-19 15:08:37] - paul: "Are we talking about your own preferences? Or the culture in general?" i'm not the only person to state this before. this isn't an original position. but we're talking about my opinions or culture in general if you want. "if you think a joke is in bad taste, is it okay for others to find it funny and acceptable?"
of course? and, netflix employees always have the freedom to walkout if they want. ~a[2021-10-19 15:06:51] - https://reason.com/2021/10/19/nartional-crime-victimization-survey-asian-american-violence/ Some (stressing "some") evidence that there has been no increase in anti-Asian violence between 2019 and 2020. -Paul
[2021-10-19 15:03:51] - a: Ah, okay. Are we talking about your own preferences? Or the culture in general? Or how the culture SHOULD be? Like, if you think a joke is in bad taste, is it okay for others to find it funny and acceptable? -Paul
[2021-10-19 15:01:45] - paul: imo the only requirement is that your joke be funny. but if a joke is in bad taste, it'll be unfunny most of the time. ~a
[2021-10-19 14:58:47] - no. ~a
[2021-10-19 14:58:04] - a: What we're talking about here is that, for some segment of the population, no jokes about certain groups are ever allowed, right? -Paul
[2021-10-19 14:57:31] - a: Right, I addressed that exact thing: "(even if off-limits just means the joke won't land or whatever)". I get that there's a difference between "off-limits" and "joke not landing", but I'm trying to simplify things to make the discussion easier. I mean, technically calling somebody a negro is not off-limits and just "won't land" but I'm not sure that nuance is necessary. -Paul
[2021-10-19 14:41:56] - paul: for example, i think chappelle's recent special has "landed" for some and not others? i've seen very mixed reviews. lots of people online are saying there aren't any jokes. maybe the jury is still out? ~a
[2021-10-19 14:33:38] - paul: "it's all about some subset of people being off-limits to jokes" i've said no to this three times, but i'll say it again. no, it's not that. the joke won't land or whatever is literally my only argument, so please don't brush it off? ~a
[2021-10-19 14:25:06] - a: Okay, so at the most simplistic, it's all about some subset of people being off-limits to jokes (even if off-limits just means the joke won't land or whatever) no matter where they come from? How about intra-group jokes? Could a trans comedian make jokes about trans people that lands? -Paul
[2021-10-19 13:59:10] - yep. but, if its a hard-hitting joke with a traditionally oppressed as the butt of the joke, it probably won't land. ~a
[2021-10-19 13:57:53] - a: Can the traditionally oppressed make jokes about another traditionally oppressed (but different) group? -Paul
[2021-10-18 19:14:36] - paul: i'd call it traditionally oppressed in this context. i definitely wouldn't say "you can't make fun of them" though. i'd instead say hard-hitting jokes with these people as the butt of the joke probably won't land. ~a
[2021-10-18 17:40:54] - a: Okay, yeah, I guess you could define it as "oppressed" (ie, you can't make fun of them) versus "non-oppressed" (everybody else). Is that what you mean? -Paul
[2021-10-18 16:32:31] - traditionally oppressed in this context? ~a
[2021-10-18 16:32:00] - a: "it just needs to be a binary field" What's the binary field? Top and bottom? -Paul
[2021-10-18 16:14:31] - (and if it matters, i haven't seen the closer. i'm on a temporary hiatus from netflix. i'll watch it eventually, but not in the next few months) ~a
[2021-10-18 16:12:56] - paul: you don't need a ranking, no. it just needs to be a binary field. ~a
[2021-10-18 03:05:08] - In order to have punching up/down, you need to have some sort of ranking of groups to determine which direction the punching is going, right? This goes back to what I was talking about awhile ago in terms of believing it's silly to try to rank groups like that. -Paul
[2021-10-15 21:41:29] - 1) mostly fits? 2) I mean, that's the problem. I think minority/trans groups have the punching up/down thing backwards. That point was made pretty plainly by Chapelle when he was talking about The Baby (you can shoot a black man, but you better not hurt a gay person's feelings) - mig
[2021-10-15 20:15:42] - So 1) does that fit with what you saw miguel? 2) in the punching up/down paradigm what happens when people disagree about where they or others fall in that system? Hmm -Daniel
[2021-10-15 20:15:05] - I read somewhere (on reddit probably) an interesting comment about Chapelle's show where he is making jokes about trans peeps and that part of his point is that some people see that as 'punching down' as aaron has phrased before but that he (and his point apparently with the jokes maybe?) is that Chapelle doesn't see it as punching down. -Daniel
[2021-10-15 19:09:54] - Finally watched "The Closer." It's a bit hit or miss on the jokes, but entertaining overall. - mig
[2021-10-15 15:12:31] - aaron: The fear of needles thing and lack of health insurance parts were interesting to me as well. -Paul
[2021-10-15 12:52:14] - well, i've heard that being pregnant makes you feel like shit. and the second vaccine shot made me feel like shit. so maybe the two would cancel out and they would feel wonderful
- aaron[2021-10-15 12:51:35] - paul: good article which highlights a lot of nuance that i'd heard bits and pieces of around. the expectant mothers thing was something i hadn't considered but makes total sense - aaron
[2021-10-15 12:41:45] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/opinion/covid-vaccines-unvaccinated.html I thought this was a good investigation into the unvaccinated in America and what makes them vaccine hesitant. -Paul
[2021-10-14 19:23:14] - daniel: i hope so too. but chances are low that this will get fair and equal treatment under the law. so whether or not the law should come down harshly on the unnamed teenager, it probably won't regardless. this quote from the lawyer representing the victims sums up my opinion: "if somebody were to hurt six people with anything else they would’ve been arrested on the spot" ~a
[2021-10-14 18:31:34] - a: Hopefully the DA is able to get an investigation done and figure out what charges he thinks are appropriate / applicable. -Daniel
[2021-10-14 18:23:21] - daniel: this case was not handled appropriately by the investigating agency. PERIOD. this doesn't change what you said two weeks ago, i'm sure, but its interesting that the DA is pissed that the kid, who's parents have connections with city hall, had his case treated improperly. ~a
[2021-10-14 18:21:45] - yay. i seriously started buying ibonds recently because of what you said. (i buy shit-tons of "normal" bonds on the stock exchange, but only recently started buying ibonds again) ~a
[2021-10-14 18:19:26] - a: https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/inflation-treasury-series-i-savings-bonds/ Might need to look into I bonds after all. -Paul
[2021-10-14 14:40:29] - aaron: also, there were some far harshercritical comments that were left out of the article as well. Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show a 'contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.' - mig
[2021-10-14 14:31:10] - aaron: it was edited out of the televised interview, which gets a lot more eyeballs than a rando article on yahoo news. - mig
[2021-10-14 14:08:13] - aaron: "at the request of the supreme court" ... "at the request of ABC news" i'm not sure that kind of thing does happen? this is the kind of decision that's usually left between the editor and the author, not the subject or the owner. i agree with your conclusion, though! removing quotes by the editor+author is totally normal. ~a
[2021-10-14 14:02:46] - to me the only noteworthy inclusion in the article is katie couric's weird dismissive (and perhaps disrespectful) attitude towards RGB - aaron
[2021-10-14 14:01:03] - it sounds like the real article title should be something like, "Katie Couric admits published article went through review process," unless I'm misunderstanding. she edited out some remarks out at the request of the supreme court, and then edited some remarks in at the request of ABC news. ...doesn't this kind of thing happen for every article? - aaron
[2021-10-14 13:58:40] - https://news.yahoo.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-trump-kaepernick-and-her-lifelong-love-of-the-law-132236633.html i'm sort of confused about what was edited out, since the published article includes all the remarks. lacking familiarity of the controversy, i thought these remarks weren't included in the article - aaron
[2021-10-14 13:52:23] - i don't think it's disrespectful as much as someone from the media will have a much different understanding of a question, or the social implications of its answers -- versus someone who is an expert in the field - aaron
[2021-10-13 22:40:10] - paul: "But Couric writes in her memoir that she thought the justice, who was 83 at the time, was 'elderly and probably didn't fully understand the question.' This strikes me as pretty disrespectful to Ginsberg. - mig
[2021-10-13 19:00:09] - This is an exciting development. I can leverage my (hopefully big enough) retirement account to help bridge the time from an early retirement to age 60. -Paul
[2021-10-13 18:59:12] - a: Yeah, it makes sense. It just seems more flexible than I would expect from the government. I would think they would be like: "No, you can only retire at age 59.5 and that's that" -Paul
[2021-10-13 18:20:30] - sepp seems like the epitome of "planned out". ~a
[2021-10-13 18:19:40] - paul: i'm not surprised about no hardship requirements. in fact, i'd expect hardship being a bad reason to set up sepp (or the like). the point of having a tax-shelter account is having planned money. there's nothing in that about it being "enough" or it being for when you're "old". just . . . planned out? ~a
[2021-10-13 18:18:06] - It really just seems like: "You want to withdraw early? Okay! But no backsies." -Paul
[2021-10-13 18:17:23] - Daniel: Yeah, the lack of flexibility definitely needs to be considered but.... I'm still surprised there are no other "hardship" requirements or anything. -paul
[2021-10-13 18:16:36] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10088027/Katie-Couric-admits-editing-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-interview-protect-late-justice.html I'm sympathetic for being a little forgiving for the elderly, but this seems like thumbing the scales a bit in terms of objective reporting. Seems unlikely Clarence Thomas would've gotten the same courtesy had he made controversial comments. -Paul
[2021-10-13 18:15:18] - (at least I'm pretty sure thats what I remember as the catch to a Sepp withdraw plan - its been awhile since I've read about that) -Daniel
[2021-10-13 18:14:51] - Paul: Sepp isn't flexible at all - thats the catch. You make a payment plan and thats it! No changing till later. But yeah trying to figure out a minimum type payment plan with that and then maybe withdrawing extra if you need? /shrug -Daniel
[2021-10-13 14:16:55] - i've heard that they require a fork-lift, but thanks
~a[2021-10-13 13:13:29] - a: I'll help you lift them, but have to transport them around in your bike.
-Paul[2021-10-13 02:54:57] - Yeah, I'll have to check with TD Ameritrade later (they were the previous brokerage and took over from Scottrade so hopefully they have those forms). Also, I finally got around to looking into the Sepp thing. That's crazy. It's just like withdrawing early from a retirement account penalty free... -Paul
[2021-10-12 19:29:06] - paul, wanna make a bike-lane with me? ~a
[2021-10-12 19:26:44] - they don't get mailed to you, and you don't file them. you just download them. so that's probably why you weren't tracking (and why paul and i weren't either). my guess is that you ask the custodian of your account and they tell you, since this information is supposed to roll over from custodian to custodian. but . . . that's totally just a guess. ~a
[2021-10-12 19:23:48] - I honestly couldn't even say if I've ever received a 5498. I mean I totally could have but didn't pay attention / file / realize why I cared so who knows whats happened to those if I did receive them. I can check where stuff gets filed and see? -Daniel
[2021-10-12 19:06:51] - paul/daniel: i did see on some random website that during rollovers your old custodian is required to pass this information to the new custodian, but based on what i've read online you should definitely keep track of your 5498 documents forever (they say until the account is emptied out). i'm definitely missing a few 5498s, my oldest 5498 is from 2010, so i've fucked this up too. ~a
[2021-10-12 18:34:38] - I definitely don't have those contribution numbers personally either. -Daniel
[2021-10-12 18:27:02] - 2004: $500
~a[2021-10-12 18:26:41] - daniel/paul: i guess i should also mention that i recorded exactly how much i contributed to roth for every year since i started working. ~a
[2021-10-12 18:23:34] - i meet with my financial advisor tomorrow, maybe i'll ask. ~a
[2021-10-12 18:22:23] - daniel: but there does not "have" to be something. you don't report cash tips, you don't report barter transactions, you don't file state sales tax on in person sales, you get caught, and you get punished (usually maybe they just demand the money with interest, but sometimes you go to jail). but no, there is often nothing else that keeps you honest. ~a
[2021-10-12 18:20:57] - daniel: yeah, i mentioned 5498 further down. ~a
[2021-10-12 18:19:48] - So thats how the IRS knows. How an individual knows? My guess is make your brokerage tell you somehow... -Daniel
[2021-10-12 18:19:21] - Googling provides the notion of IRS Form 5498 which your brokerage sends to the IRS that includes how much in roth contributions you made. -Daniel
[2021-10-12 18:16:56] - What prevents someone from just claiming they contributed 100% of their Roth balance in retirement? There has to be something right? -Daniel
[2021-10-12 18:14:54] - paul: my guess is turbotax is asking how much you reported to your roth ira to be sure you aren't overcontributing (there are a lot of rules, and its not always obvious if you're overcontributing or not). ~a
[2021-10-12 18:14:02] - a: I agree there's absolutely no reason it should be reported, but Turbo Tax asks me every year if I contributed. You can ask Gurkie. Every year I complain that it shouldn't have to be reported even if I did. -Paul
[2021-10-12 18:12:12] - paul: no, i'm not sure the irs has documentation of this. because its not reported in my taxes. also, random websites on the internet (including irs.gov) say stuff similar to this: "roth ira contributions are not reported on your tax return". i think 5498 or 1099-R might have some info on this, but i'm not 100% sure. ~a
[2021-10-12 18:09:50] - paul: yeah, sorry, man, i have no idea how this is done. def ask your financial advisor. my guess is they'll say something along the lines of 1099-R or 5498. or something like that? ~a
[2021-10-12 18:09:24] - Daniel: I might do that if it gets to a point where it's important. All my work is still very hypothetical and many years off in the future. I agree it should be there somewhere. At the very least, maybe the IRS has documentation on it? -Paul
[2021-10-12 18:07:24] - Paul: email / live chat with someone and ask? It seems like it has to be there somewhere? Or at least I would think so... -Daniel
[2021-10-12 18:04:48] - a: I just tried finding info on my Roth IRA contributions in Merrill and I can't find it anywhere. They don't even seem to have any transaction info prior to 2019. My contributions are from like 10+ years ago. I don't think there's any chance I can find that if it wasn't somehow stored in my account. -Paul
[2021-10-12 17:56:15] - its ok, i just said pretent. that's not even a word. ~a
[2021-10-12 17:55:33] - a: OH, the word was earlier in the sentence. So it's my mind. -Paul
[2021-10-12 17:55:17] - a: Omg, I did? I re-read it and could've sworn that word was missing. Am I losing my mind? Or my eyesight? -Paul
[2021-10-12 17:47:03] - paul: you said "not". ~a
[2021-10-12 17:46:59] - a: It's a word I like to use when I want to feel fancy. -Paul
[2021-10-12 17:46:39] - was NOT taking into account. Whoops. -Paul
[2021-10-12 17:12:55] - paul: i had to google what "impertinence" means. is that a word people regularly use? ~a
[2021-10-12 16:28:43] - a: "yes, also 0% on your cost basis" Yeah, heh, it's obvious but it's also not something I was taking into account. Oof. I hate taxes so much. -Paul
[2021-10-12 16:23:54] - pretent=pretend, oops. ~a
[2021-10-12 16:23:24] - paul: yes, also 0% on your cost basis
it might do me good to do a "pretent" turbotax filing with estimates from retirement and see how far off i am. ~a[2021-10-12 16:17:57] - a: But.... withdrawals from Roth IRAs wouldn't get taxed at all? And I could control traditional IRA / 401(k) withdrawals to fit under one of the lower tax brackets. And long term capital gains tax rates for taxable accounts are likely to be 15%... -Paul
[2021-10-12 16:15:53] - a: "my income will be much lower and also I've already paid taxes on a lot of that money" Oh, geez, I'm such an idiot. I wasn't even taking that into account. I was assuming that, after I retire, all the money I will be pulling from taxable brokerage accounts and retirement accounts would be taxed at income tax rates. -paul
[2021-10-12 16:09:17] - daniel: "overall tax rate the last few years so I just normally go with approximately that" I'm calculating my taxes in retirement to be much much lower. my income will be much lower and also I've already paid taxes on a lot of that money (the roth but also the cost basis of the taxable accounts). ~a
[2021-10-12 16:01:07] - daniel: "I just estimate an effective tax rate and go with that" i am also doing this, but now my effective tax rate should be greater than i thought it was going to be. i'm changing my 6.0% effective tax rate to 6.38% because of this conversation with paul
~a[2021-10-12 15:59:08] - I just estimate an effective tax rate and go with that (which is less specific but I also run out of mental energy to get more specific. Our accountant has given us our overall tax rate the last few years so I just normally go with approximately that. -Daniel
[2021-10-12 15:58:37] - a: OR.... considering the major guesses/assumptions I am making in so many other areas (tax rates staying the same, estimating spend, estimating health insurance spend, assuming a constant 6% return in the market, etc) should I not worry about what is just a few thousand dollars difference and try to account for it elsewhere (increase estimated spend)? -Paul
[2021-10-12 15:52:58] - paul: google sheets: file -> spreadsheet settings -> calculation. once you turn it on, create a circular reference (taxes = spending + taxes? or spending = taxes + spending?), and watch google sheets solve it for you! you can test this by creating an equation IN A1 that looks like "=1+A1*0.1" and the result should be ~1.111. ~a
[2021-10-12 15:51:48] - paul: ah ok. then i'll fully admit to not having ever thought about this before
yay for dialog and cooperation. uuuh, it sounds like this is much closer to the circular reference solver i discussed further down then. ~a[2021-10-12 15:48:19] - a: "is it that paying the taxes, requires increased taxes, which requires increased taxes, etc???" Yes. If I want $100k to spend, then I know the tax on $100k would be $18,079.50, but I can't just assume I need $118,079.50 because the taxes on THAT are actually $22,418.58. -Paul
[2021-10-12 15:24:14] - paul: oh? is it that paying the taxes, requires increased taxes, which requires increased taxes, etc??? if that is the issue, i don't think i've been accounting for that? i'm totally not sure if i'm correctly accounting for that or not. ~a
[2021-10-12 15:15:54] - i follow how tax brackets work, and how marginal-tax systems work, but i still don't follow your question i guess. ~a
[2021-10-12 15:14:00] - paul: ok, then i don't understand your issue i guess. if your known is how much you want to spend, and you are just adding on the tax money (with tax brackets), what is the problem? spending + taxes = total. i assume "addition" wasn't what you were missing? ~a
[2021-10-12 14:35:23] - a: "i start with the amount of money that i want to spend, and add onto it the taxes" No, that's exactly what I am trying to do, but I am trying to do it with tax brackets (to try to get more accurate) and not just a flat percentage. -Paul
[2021-10-12 14:28:44] - paul: i do none-of-the-above. i start with the amount of money that i want to spend, and add onto it the taxes, which seems very different from what you're doing? so the math is much much easier. iow, if i think i'll spend x in retirement, and i think there will be 6% taxes in retirement, then i assume i'll spend x*106% after taxes. yes? ~a
[2021-10-12 14:12:17] - paul: THREE: have something solve it for you. google sheets does have a circular reference solver built-in (file -> spreadsheet settings -> calculation), but sadly you aren't solving a circular reference, you're inverting a function.
i'm not sure which tool to suggest honestly, maybe wolfram alpha will do it, but really i have very little knowledge about algebraic tools, sorry! ~a[2021-10-12 14:10:26] - paul: ONE: guess-and-check. you plug in various x values until you get (close enough to) the correct RESULT. TWO: undo the function. solve for x! this can be a bit tricky especially when you have a complex if-statement in your function. you should definitely try to simplify your function first! this will make it easier to solve for x. iow, please figure out which if-statement you're falling into and get rid of the rest! ~a
[2021-10-12 14:04:48] - paul: this is not a stupid question, and there are a lot of answers. three i can think of. but first i'll simplify your question: f(x)=RESULT. RESULT is known. x is unknown. and f(...) is your nested if-statements. (fine print: hopefully your function is continuous-ish, and/or doesn't have too many local minimums/maximums. it probably does not, but i haven't seen your function). ~a
[2021-10-12 13:32:10] - a: You've got me down a rabbit hole of calculating my taxes more specifically now, and I have what feels like an incredible stupid question. I have the amount of money I want post-tax, and I know how to calculate taxes (with a big-ass nested if statement), but how do I extrapolate what pre-tax income I need from there? -Paul
[2021-10-11 17:44:49] - a: Yeah, that one didn't seem "libertarian specific" as much as more a commentary on society and how it has changed. I thought it was funny, but agree it didn't really fit the theme. -Paul
[2021-10-11 16:01:30] - my least favorite part of the whole thing was the hitting the lady on the butt. i get that they were just trying to make a joke about how the james bond actor changes, but other than that it seemed to not fit within the confines of the libertarian james bond joke. unless libertarians are more ok than other people with mistreating women and saying it was a "different time" or that they were a "different person"? ~a
[2021-10-11 14:45:25] - a: Yup. I think he's a frequent collaborator. -Paul
[2021-10-11 13:59:41] - i see remy. ~a
[2021-10-11 13:38:24] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G94n14eTfUQ I know I probably enjoy these more than most others here, but I thought this "Libertarian James Bond" video was pretty good. -Paul
[2021-10-10 16:22:58] - a: i know what it is but have never read it. - mig
[2021-10-10 04:20:15] - Daniel: Yeah, Gurkie likes WoT. She is looking forward to the show. -Paul
[2021-10-08 20:29:57] - Its a book series that in Fantasy book circles is up there with Game of Thrones. Amazon is making a TV show based on it that starts this fall. I was just curious if anyone else was familiar with the IP. -Daniel
[2021-10-08 20:27:41] - or aba i guess. ~a
[2021-10-08 20:26:36] - daniel: nope. gurkie and mig seem like your go-to there. ~a
[2021-10-08 20:04:34] - All: Random question for folks - have any of you heard of the Wheel of Time or have any idea that is? Just curious. -Daniel
[2021-10-08 15:57:43] - Paul: My guess is that its there somewhere since it an important number that the IRS would want to verify. So in order to do that I think they would want someone other than you to be able to tell them. -Daniel
[2021-10-08 15:55:59] - Yeah, my experience is the same as Adrian's. My Roth contributions were like 20 years ago. At the time, my IRA was with Scottrade. They got acquired by TD Ameritrade, at which point I transferred it to Merrill. Somewhere along the line I think my history of contributions got dropped. -Paul
prev <-> next