caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Isn't that guy tweeting the one behind the PAC that got exposed several months back?

---

No idea but the facts are being widely reported and don't seem to be in dispute.

Ginni Thomas and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows attempted to overturn a free election, while Clarence Thomas sat on Supreme Court, reviewing cases that could overturn the election.

That's a huge problem.

---

Again, I say…

This is the epitome of Informational Warfare!! Everyone, in the media, knows the hearings for Brown were not real good. So, what happens? They drop this nugget to move the conversation elsewhere…

I'll have to say… they are good at what they do because people don't recognize what's going on.

There're no coincidences!!

---

I'm not seeing the connection.

SC nominations aren't general elections.

The Brown nomination is coming down to Manchin and Sinema as per usual. How does the timing of this text release tangibly impact their vote?

---

Civ, I don't think you are a dumb person, misguided? Yea.

My point is the media is creating a deflection with the Thomas information because they all know that the Brown hearings didn't go well. BTW, Mark Kelly, in Arizona, is up for an election this year, as well…

You need to look at the senate seats up for election, in November, and see which ones could flip…. That is why the media needs to drop a nugget like this.

Do you really think they just got that information and released it? Remember, there are no coincidences…

---

Thanks Cary I don't think you're dumb either.

My question is, who does dropping a "nugget" like this as a distraction benefit?

Brown? Her nomination likely hinges on the votes of two senators in Manchin and Sinema. Does this nugget impact their vote? If so, why?

If Brown isn't the alleged beneficiary, then who is?

Trump Announces Save America Raleigh in Johnston County

Awwwww zzyeahhhhh, JOCO MAGA rally boys...

Civilized said:

---

Trump Announces Save America Raleigh in Johnston County

Awwwww zzyeahhhhh, JOCO MAGA rally boys...

---

You should go Civ. Perhaps you will learn something… no, wait, you're already smarter than most that will be there…

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Isn't that guy tweeting the one behind the PAC that got exposed several months back?

---

No idea but the facts are being widely reported and don't seem to be in dispute.

Ginni Thomas and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows attempted to overturn a free election, while Clarence Thomas sat on Supreme Court, reviewing cases that could overturn the election.

That's a huge problem.

---

Again, I say…

This is the epitome of Informational Warfare!! Everyone, in the media, knows the hearings for Brown were not real good. So, what happens? They drop this nugget to move the conversation elsewhere…

I'll have to say… they are good at what they do because people don't recognize what's going on.

There're no coincidences!!

---

I'm not seeing the connection.

SC nominations aren't general elections.

The Brown nomination is coming down to Manchin and Sinema as per usual. How does the timing of this text release tangibly impact their vote?

---

Civ, I don't think you are a dumb person, misguided? Yea.

My point is the media is creating a deflection with the Thomas information because they all know that the Brown hearings didn't go well. BTW, Mark Kelly, in Arizona, is up for an election this year, as well…

You need to look at the senate seats up for election, in November, and see which ones could flip…. That is why the media needs to drop a nugget like this.

Do you really think they just got that information and released it? Remember, there are no coincidences…

---

Thanks Cary I don't think you're dumb either.

My question is, who does dropping a "nugget" like this as a distraction benefit?

Brown? Her nomination likely hinges on the votes of two senators in Manchin and Sinema. Does this nugget impact their vote? If so, why?

If Brown isn't the alleged beneficiary, then who is?

---

Any person that could be questioning what the heck they just witnessed. I am confident (for no apparent reason) that Brown Jackson is fully smart enough. The real question is why was she so unprepared?

The answer is: oh, let's throw a distraction out there to shift the narrative…

Also, your assessment of two people (one of which has already said Yes) is misguided. To use your terminology (it's a little more nuanced that that), perhaps others are looking at their upcoming election and trying to internally debate how they will be attacked…

Everything is political for these people. Well, for some, I'm sure it's more ideological than political…

Civ, just watch this opening from Tucker last night. Forget the person doing the commentary and focus on the hypocrisy. BTW, I am confident you can find plenty from Republicans also…

Biden refuses to rule out first-strike use of US nuclear weapons under 'extreme circumstances' in dramatic reversal of his campaign vow after Putin's invasion of Ukraine

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html?msclkid=206aa076ad1011ec8590518ce8c0dafc

Are we paying attention yet?

Werewolf said:

---

Biden refuses to rule out first-strike use of US nuclear weapons under 'extreme circumstances' in dramatic reversal of his campaign vow after Putin's invasion of Ukraine

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html?msclkid=206aa076ad1011ec8590518ce8c0dafc

Are we paying attention yet?

---

Haven't kept up with anything today. I know this… some of these people, in charge, are very dangerous! They need to continue working to de-escalate!!!

It's going well

NEW: Biden just argued again that sanctions against Russia were not meant to deter Putin (even claiming sanctions never deter)… despite his VP, national security adviser, secretary of state, WH press sec, DOD spox, & NSC all saying deterrence was a goal.https://t.co/gEFAWWuD70

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) March 24, 2022

In past few days, Biden said U.S. would respond in-kind if Russia uses chemical weapons (WH had to say U.S. would not use CW), suggested U.S. troops were going to Ukraine (WH said they weren’t), & declared Putin cannot remain in power (WH said that isn’t regime change advocacy).

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) March 26, 2022

He is becoming dangerous with his gaffes. First he tells US soldiers they will see for themselves in Ukraine, then he says Putin can't remain in power.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/putin-regime-change-biden-remarks-expert

And he talks to Poland about the US southern border, the problem he created…

"We understand that because we have in our southern border thousands of people a day literally, not figuratively, trying to get to the United States," he said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-thousands-people-crossing-border-migrant-surge

His administration is busy cleaning up his gaffes.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-walks-back-multiple-biden-remarks-europe-trip

This seems like a slippery slope. Billionaires today, but who else down the road. Can only hope it doesn't pass through legislation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655751/Biden-plans-unveil-new-20-minimum-tax-billionaires.html

packofwolves said:

---

This seems like a slippery slope. Billionaires today, but who else down the road. Can only hope it doesn't pass through legislation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655751/Biden-plans-unveil-new-20-minimum-tax-billionaires.html

---

someone is going to have to explain to me how you tax unrealized gains.

hokiewolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

This seems like a slippery slope. Billionaires today, but who else down the road. Can only hope it doesn't pass through legislation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655751/Biden-plans-unveil-new-20-minimum-tax-billionaires.html

---

someone is going to have to explain to me how you tax unrealized gains.

---

They'll tell you the value and you pay the taxes.

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

This seems like a slippery slope. Billionaires today, but who else down the road. Can only hope it doesn't pass through legislation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655751/Biden-plans-unveil-new-20-minimum-tax-billionaires.html

---

someone is going to have to explain to me how you tax unrealized gains.

---

They'll tell you the value and you pay the taxes.

---

A lot of those billionaires (I think) are down right evil; however, this type of thinking is scary as hell….

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

WPNfamily said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

It can't. This is redistribution of wealth under the guise of taxes. This problem could be solved with a flat tax. Works for the state why can't it work for the fed.

---

Flat tax is a possibility; however, I'm more of a fan we should tax consumption as opposed to production. Also, that would eliminate the misconception of taxing businesses.

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

This seems like a slippery slope. Billionaires today, but who else down the road. Can only hope it doesn't pass through legislation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655751/Biden-plans-unveil-new-20-minimum-tax-billionaires.html

---

someone is going to have to explain to me how you tax unrealized gains.

---

They'll tell you the value and you pay the taxes.

---

A lot of those billionaires (I think) are down right evil; however, this type of thinking is scary as hell….

---

This is the case I hear brought up most when discussing the lack of standing by such a proposal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisner_v._Macomber

I post this because its consistent with information I've tapped into over the years including a Russian History course I took one semester more than 40 years ago. The only word I wish to disavow is the word "white". Christians are Christians! We have a common enemy which is the Khazarian Mafia.

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

This seems like a slippery slope. Billionaires today, but who else down the road. Can only hope it doesn't pass through legislation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655751/Biden-plans-unveil-new-20-minimum-tax-billionaires.html

---

someone is going to have to explain to me how you tax unrealized gains.

---

They'll tell you the value and you pay the taxes.

---

A lot of those billionaires (I think) are down right evil; however, this type of thinking is scary as hell….

---

This is the case I hear brought up most when discussing the lack of standing by such a proposal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisner_v._Macomber

---

Well, looks like the Supreme Court has already ruled on this…

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

What happens when the same investments lose money the next year? Or once realized, it's at a value less than what has been taxed as unrealized gains?

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

---

nah, envy always works out!

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

---

nah, envy always works out!

---

Think about this…

A person wants to start a company. He invest a small amount into the company, then he wants to sell shares to a private equity firm. At that point, the company creates a valuation for the company. That sets a price per share that is sold to the private equity firm.

So, the investment made by the founder of a company immediately realizes an increase in his price per share. Is this now taxed? In some instances, the company hasn't sold a dimes worth of goods or services. Heck, we have a percentage of companies that never make any money and fold.

If taxing on unrealized gains is considered, people will have to rethink creating new companies, because they will not gamble on unrealized taxes needing to be paid.

I know they are only talking about billionaires; however, we all know where this goes eventually…

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

---

nah, envy always works out!

---

Think about this…

A person wants to start a company. He invest a small amount into the company, then he wants to sell shares to a private equity firm. At that point, the company creates a valuation for the company. That sets a price per share that is sold to the private equity firm.

So, the investment made by the founder of a company immediately realizes an increase in his price per share. Is this now taxed? In some instances, the company hasn't sold a dimes worth of goods or services. Heck, we have a percentage of companies that never make any money and fold.

If taxing on unrealized gains is considered, people will have to rethink creating new companies, because they will not gamble on unrealized taxes needing to be paid.

I know they are only talking about billionaires; however, we all know where this goes eventually…

---

agree. I don't think Manchin will go for it. This is why viable candidates in Arizona and Georgia needed to be presented this cycle. I know you guys hate "Rinos" but I'd rather have them than democrats

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/yes-teacher-prep-programs-are-that-woke/

Quote:

---

My teacher training featured Black Lives Matter friendship bracelets, lectures on acupuncture and essential oils, acrostic poems as final projects, and a solid grounding in critical race theory. Notably lacking was a robust emphasis on teaching, learning, cognitive science, child psychology, behavior management, curriculum, or any other practicalities of the classroom. They were present but secondary to progressive politics.

One such review from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal solicited syllabi from three of the most prestigious schools of education in the country to determine the most assigned readings at each. Lo and behold, the syllabi are replete with critical race theory, political activism, and even outright Marxism.

The Martin Center review isn't an outlier either. Another paper by David Steiner, the executive director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy, found a similar state of affairs after reviewing 15 different university teacher-prep programs a mixture of both elite and non-elite campuses. Radicals such as Freire and romantics such as Dewey dominate the curricula.

Steiner makes special mention of what does not make an appearance on these lists: educational conservatives, essays older than 30 years, authors outside of America, and courses on the history or philosophy of education. He notes how few programs asked their teachers to demonstrate competence on the methods of reading instruction, going so far as to call most of the syllabi "intellectually barren." It is, he concludes, a "serious effort to shape the fundamental worldview of future teachers," not an effort to form effective teachers.

While I want to stymie the flow of politics into our classrooms, the real fallout of our woke-ified teacher-prep programs is simply mediocrity. Teachers who can't teach create students who don't learn. It's time that schools of education receive the evaluation, due criticism, and reformation that they deserve.

---

Unfortunately, our future teachers are not learning how to teach but are spending their college careers getting their worldviews redirected to progressive politics. Why do we wonder about the negative slide in test scores of American students? Oh, wait, I keep forgetting that actual test scores are racist. If we have any hope of restoring our education system, it must begin with giving parents the choice to send their kids to schools that aren't dominated by this woke blather. Next, we must get very involved in our local school board elections and monitor school board meetings closely. Finally, review everything our kids bring home and question them about the details of what they are hearing from their teachers. I do not envy those of you who still have kids in public schools.

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

---

And where do they stop? What about your house that you haven't sold but has ballooned in value the last couple of years? What about your pension/401k?

It is scary and a complete money grab.

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

---

And where do they stop? What about your house that you haven't sold but has ballooned in value the last couple of years? What about your pension/401k?

It is scary and a complete money grab.

---

feel like the same with hate crime laws.

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

---

And where do they stop? What about your house that you haven't sold but has ballooned in value the last couple of years? What about your pension/401k?

It is scary and a complete money grab.

---

feel like the same with hate crime laws.

---

How do you mean?

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

---

And where do they stop? What about your house that you haven't sold but has ballooned in value the last couple of years? What about your pension/401k?

It is scary and a complete money grab.

---

feel like the same with hate crime laws.

---

How do you mean?

---

I equate taxing a gain that doesn't really exist to prosecution of what your thoughts were while committing a crime. Usually laws that apply hypotheticals to get the desired outcome tend to not really be fair.

---

That, I agree with…. A crime is a crime! Did you assault the person? That's Yes or No! You don't need to figure out why they did. That's for talk shows to figure out.

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

PossumJenkins said:

---

Will they give the money back if the valuations fall?

---

Exactly. Just don't understand how this could work.

---

You compare the value at the beginning of the year to the value at the end of the year. If it went up, you pay long term capital gains, if it went down, no taxes owed. It specifically targets billionaires as they don't make income the way normal schmucks like us do in terms of how income is defined.

For instance, Bezos makes somewhere around 90k in base salary (not including incentives that push him over a million). But the dude is worth billions as he's "paid" in company stock (that isn't taxed).

A flat tax just benefits the uber rich more given that you can't put average joes on the same page as the Bezos' of the world because you'd either be bankrupting the average joes or making the uber rich pay a parking fine.

Still not sold on it but I don't think it's as bad of an idea as I did when I first saw the headline of taxing unrealized gains.

---

A stock is not a gain until it's realized. Any other way of looking at it will completely open up a can of worms that will haunt us forever…

---

And where do they stop? What about your house that you haven't sold but has ballooned in value the last couple of years? What about your pension/401k?

It is scary and a complete money grab.

---

feel like the same with hate crime laws.

---

How do you mean?

---

I equate taxing a gain that doesn't really exist to prosecution of what your thoughts were while committing a crime. Usually laws that apply hypotheticals to get the desired outcome tend to not really be fair.

---

Gotcha, yea I agree with that. We're going to tell you what you meant and here's the price you'll pay. That could probably be applied to a lot of woke stuff right now