Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the referenced interview above, Musk is spot on about the sad state of California... more will follow his lead.


"Elon Musk railed against his former home of California during an interview published Wednesday. But he said he misses parts of living in the state, including his friends. "But it's increasingly difficult to get things done. California used to be the land of opportunity. Now it has become and is becoming more so the land of overregulation, overlitigation, over-taxation, and scorn," he said.

In recent years, Musk has sold off a vast portfolio of California real estate. Most recently, he parted ways with a sprawling Bay Area estate for $30 million, which he said was his last remaining house. Late last year, the Tesla billionaire confirmed that he had moved to Texas, where he claims to rent a $50,000 home from his rocket company, SpaceX."
 
Last edited:
That would be fine, as long as it is within the law. The Trump thing is said to be providing a benefit w/o documenting it for tax purposes, so as long as that is done no future litigation will happen, don't want that. Especially with Liz and Bernie calling for his blood (money)
 
Gotta love Bernie and Liz for their deep understanding of macroeconomics. ;)

1640490096253.png
1640490151423.png
 

Attachments

  • 1640490751299.png
    1640490751299.png
    64.3 KB · Views: 55
That would be fine, as long as it is within the law. The Trump thing is said to be providing a benefit w/o documenting it for tax purposes, so as long as that is done no future litigation will happen, don't want that. Especially with Liz and Bernie calling for his blood (money)
you seem to have info that dozens of prosecutors don't have, maybe you should enlighten them because they've been trying for years to find any evidence of what you are claiming
 
you seem to have info that dozens of prosecutors don't have, maybe you should enlighten them because they've been trying for years to find any evidence of what you are claiming

My partner is an attorney and follows a number of attorneys on Twitter. They are all in agreement, the State of New York is closing in. The grand jury has been empaneled.

What the Trump Organization is facing is virtually a unicorn in tax issues. The reason they haven't been brought down until now is putting together a case takes tons of effort on the part of a prosecutor and nobody wanted to put in the effort until now.

Over the last 30 years or so, prosecutors all over the country have been going for easy cases that usually plead out. Their budgets don't allow for a lot of trials. As a result perps who have the resources to hire good lawyers and take the case all the way to trial. To bring a case like that requires making sure every little detail is nailed down and for large cases like the Trump Organization, that requires a concerted effort by a large legal team over months if not years. It's very expensive to bring a case like that, and putting away low level drug dealers who plead out is a lot cheaper.

So the poor go to prison, middle class people come to some sort of plea agreement that keeps them out of prison or only a short sting, and the rich keep on criming.

BTW, bringing this back on topic, I don't think Elon is guilty of any tax crimes, nor is he cooking the books in any legal way.

There are different types of rich people. Those who were born rich and lived the high life their entire existence are out of touch with the way the rest of the world lives. For them wealth is part of the wall paper.

Then there are some people for whom how much your worth is a matter of keeping score. They may live lifestyles much more lavish than their real wealth to impress others. For them it's about being seen to be rich. There is usually some form of narcissism involved.

Then there are people who are innovators and they invent something new, or make a major contribution to that end. As a result of that they end up getting rich. I'm sure most are quite happy to be rich (it's beats being poor), but it isn't their primary motivation, it's a side effect. Steve Jobs lived in the same middle class house in the Bay Area for decades. Elon Musk is currently living in a glorified shipping container. Bill Gates drives a Ford (though he does have a fancy house). For most of the innovator rich, the bulk of their wealth is locked up in stock in the company they built, they have never realized that wealth.

It's funny money, just like for most of the rest of us our house might be worth a lot more than we paid for it, but the only way we can realize that wealth is sell the house or take out a loan. And if the housing market crashes before you sell, you aren't getting as much money out of that house.

This is one of the things that annoys me about Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders' crusade against the rich. They don't get the distinction. The people who are the worst offenders aren't the innovators. It probably wasn't cool for Jeff Bezos to take a child tax credit, but that's a loophole in the tax code that should be closed. Most of the biggest tax cheats are the middle group who are playing every game possible to look as rich as possible. That includes cheating if they can get away with it.

We should close up some loopholes in the tax code. One thing that would probably help a lot is tax stock options more heavily. If people had to pay taxes on tax options as if it was regular income at the stock market price for the option the day it was exercised, that would bring in more income.

The US constitution does not allow for a wealth tax (unless it was done in such a way to tax small, poor states much more heavily). The only tool Congress has to work with is tax income. They need to focus their energies on tightening up the income tax regulations and quit with the silly talk of a wealth tax.
 
My partner is an attorney and follows a number of attorneys on Twitter. They are all in agreement, the State of New York is closing in. The grand jury has been empaneled.
without trying to provoke an argument the fact that your partner is an attorney means little to this case other than he can shed some general insights. then you go on to say that his insights come from twitter.
well that destroys and credibility of his insights.
 
without trying to provoke an argument the fact that your partner is an attorney means little to this case other than he can shed some general insights. then you go on to say that his insights come from twitter.
well that destroys and credibility of his insights.

Dismissing everything on Twitter is like dismissing every printed newspaper because the National Enquirer was a printed newspaper. If you start throwing out everything because of some sources in a particular areas being poor, you're going to end up with no sources for anything. There's some bad information on this forum, just like there is bad information on Twitter. There is also some excellent information here, same with Twitter.

Everyone she follows has a reputation as credible outside of Twitter.
 
Do they want him to pay unrealized capital gains tax on stock he hasn't sold? The dude owns 20% of a trillion dollar company that he started and that company is growing... he isn't Scrooge McDuck swimming in a pool of gold coins and hoarding his wealth from the rest of society. Any stock he does sell is hit with a very large tax bill... his "net worth" would drop more than 50% if he actually sold all of his stock. Of course he'd still be absurdly rich, and that deserves its own discussion, but calling him a freeloader is just stupid politics. That is why the media loves using "net worth" or wealth to play up disparities because it exaggerates how much people actually have by failing to include the taxes they'll pay if they ever try an access that value.

The term "fair share" must test well in focus groups or something because politicians keep saying it without ever actually defining it. The only thing we can know for sure is that whatever a successful person currently pays in taxes (even if it is 60 cents on the dollar), their "fair share" would be more.
 
  • Love
Reactions: FlatSix911
Gracious:


I wonder how much of this DEBRIS they speak of in the article is actually


And isn't the space station WAY higher than the LEO Starlink satellites?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyFloyd
Gracious:


I wonder how much of this DEBRIS they speak of in the article is actually


And isn't the space station WAY higher than the LEO Starlink satellites?
That is like blaming COVID Vax for COVID.
This is important part of article.
The complaints have not been independently verified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911
Status
Not open for further replies.