Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Cornucopalypse | Lemonade Stand - Ep. 41 Premium [VIDEO] (Patreon)

Published:
2026-02-02 21:45:03
Edited:
2026-09-25 22:44:06
Imported:
Tags:

Videos

  • 607495764.mp4

Downloads

Content

Recorded on: January 30th, 2026

TOPICS

Boomers

Trump says he won't lower housing costs

Social Spending

Mamdani's Budget

California Billionaire Tax

Wealth Taxes

Wealth Flight

Files

Comments

Terrance Ladd

Just when i thought i had to sit with my thoughts

Rare Possum

What the other guy said! I can;t read

ElseWhere

Another peak Primo ep

Kruger Main

Yeah I’m 19 in college, I’m never getting a house so I just put my 250$ warhammer 40k set on Klarna

Alex Martinez

Can't wait to see what happens in the next 24hr

Goose2

I don’t understand how we all agree the government is horribly inefficient but you all still think raising taxes is the solution. Even if we continue with the leaky pipe analogy.. we all agree there’s a leak and it needs to be fixed but you don’t increase the water pressure when you try to do that. Infact you do the opposite, you shut the entire water line off. Nothing about our government gives me confidence that they even want to fix the leaks. IMO raising taxes shouldn’t even be apart of the equation until someone actually starts fixing the leaks FIRST 🤷🏼‍♂️

Cole Markusen

I never really got the unrealized gains when used as collateral. If you're using your stocks to get a loan, you're now realizing the value of your stocks. Can we not just close that loophole?

Steven Blankenship

They talk about this later, but you MUST make sure that billionaires can’t accumulate more wealth, as it breaks the game

Green0Photon

I can't tell if Aiden meant that they were about to be sponsored by T Tax or if the other person was using it and was struggling. Either way, I hate T Tax, so I'm happy they didn't do an ad with it lmao. Freetaxusa though, is great, and it would be based to be sponsored by them lmao

Eren Snover

Atrioc accidentally falling into saying “the fact that we have a tax preparation industry at all is a failure” is the hardest I’ve ever laughed at this show. TurboTax becoming a bit is honestly the best thing that could’ve happened with that whole situation.

Goose2

You’re right my comment was premature 😅 they moved on from the topic and then went right back to it and practically responded to the comment

Mire

New York City specifically had huge deficit problems in the 70s and the city nearly went bankrupt. One of the concequences of the agreement that saved the city was very strict limits on their budget, which is what Mamdani is referring to. So to answer Aiden's question it's specifically something related to NYC, not all US cities. I recommend the planet money episode "The Year NYC Went Broke" for a more detailed summary of the crisis.

garret barber

They are joking about the backlash they got for having a turbo tax ad

Alex Martinez

I don't care if rich people leave. If wealth is barred from politics and wealth is taxed, we will heal from whatever wound occurs. In the long term, we will finally be free of the cancer that is wealthy bastards. "But rich people aren't all bad :(" Okay, who's in the Epstein files. Is it a bunch of brokies? No, it's rich pedos using money to abuse the poor.

Malcolm Delgado Monay

I truly feel that Gen z and Gen Alpha are just going to be a repeat of the Greatest generation. Everything is lining up. Insane wealth inequality, world tensions rising, countries trying to separate from the dollar in the middle of a financial bubble(Great depression part 2?). Fun times

Malcolm Delgado Monay

Debt is not taxable, but if that were the case. They would just find a different way, I could imagine a BNPL but that is not "debt" it's just money from your future self when you would liquidate your stocks, but that future never comes so you would have to put your stocks as collateral (might sound the same but it's actually new, innovative and revolutionary).

Tom Thorburn

The line about ezra not coming in here to "wonk off on your face" was elite, thank you doug

Eddie H.

I too care little for the vibes of one Ezra Klein. However, 'Abundance' is a vacuous piece of pablum. There are too many regulations? You want to get rid of some? Sure, which ones? For a self-proclaimed "policy wonk", his book is entirely devoid of specific policy proscriptions. That's the issue, the devil is the details. The difference with Mamdani is that when he talks about de-regulation, he's coming to the table with a specific list of regulations to eliminate and why. Klein does not do this, so when he says 'we need to de-regulate', we assume, maybe unfairly maybe not, that he means what everyone else who uses that phrasing means.

Green0Photon

I love how we essentially got an episode on the wealth tax. I'd love more episodes about it with you guys doing more research into it, maybe even book club. I feel like this episode captured the initial feelings that people would have about it. But the rabbit hole goes way deeper. I kinda thought the same way as Doug, and in some ways still do. Taxing unrealized gains feels kinda yucky. But after finding Gary's Economics on YouTube, who seems to repopularized the convo about it in Europe, it seems like it's the only possible way to fix the US's psychotically large debt. Considering how much we talk about the issue of the US's insane unpayable debt, it feels perfect for this podcast to go more into. If we were to have it, I don't think there should be any on wealth below 50MM. Maybe as low as 30MM? 10MM seems to close to retired rich but still close enough to a normal person to not be stupid, considering how expensive housing can be. All of this with inflation, of course. As successful as the Spain wealth tax is, I think it's stupid to tax the wealth of people with sufficiently low wealth. It's the billionaires and hundred millionaires that are actually taking significant amounts out of circulation. I have no clue about how reasonable the Cali or federal wealth taxes would be. Though Cali is already good at taxing people out of state anyway. I'm just glad the convo is starting, because damned the federal deficit is a deep hole.

Green0Photon

Having now finished the episode I'm amused how they bring it back up to finish it, and again how the one episode I hadn't watched was the one that got all the backlash lmaoooooo

Green0Photon

It was great seeing coverage of Mamdani. Despite it being about him facing a problem, it was a fundamentally positive topic to cover. Vs week after week of hearing about the latest depressing thing. It's a very nice palatte cleanser. And even the wealth tax one wasn't so negative. I'm very happy with this ep.

Green0Photon

Holy based. But seriously, I've known for a long time that Billionaires were bad, but having them all be accomplices in the Epstein files is just even worse. Among all the other shit in there.

ゴミの河童

Can't a man have of billions of dollars of hoarded wealth without any responsibility to the people producing that wealth? I thought this was a free country.

XCaliber

I'm may not be seeing the downfall of this... but isn't the solution to the unrealized gain loophole, that billionaires keep using, as simple as taxing anytime that unrealized gain is used in some way for monetary transactions, like as collateral? If I use $1 million worth of stock from my $100 million portfolio to get a $1million loan, I have to pay taxes (my income tax rate) on that $1million. Not my complete net worth, just the part I'm using for real monetary "gains", the loan in this case. Sure, I can then show that $1million loan as debt and save on taxes over that, but from what I know that already happens. This way at least the government gets an equivalent of what would be an income tax as if I sold that stock. This would close the borrowing against assets to circumvent taxes loophole, right? Also, maybe the US should start taking stocks as taxes as well. Let the US gov own stocks and hold it as a reserve (like Norway's wealth fund). This reserve is paid for by payment packages that have stock. If Musk pays himself X amount of Tesla shares, he has to give Y out of that X to this reserve as income tax (depending on his tax rate). He doesn't have to pay cash, just the stock itself. This way the argument that "what if the stock crashes, then I don't have that money" is invalid because they you also have paid less tax because both X and Y scale with the stock price. This reserve will also help the US benefit from the booming stock market. If someone complains that this will lead to the gov owning huge chunks of public company (oh no we are becoming China!), doesn't that already happen with our 401Ks, only Vanguard owning it instead of the gov? Or maybe the gov can then start a trump account like thing where all these incoming stocks can be distributed to people as appreciating assets? This would lower the strain on the social security as they can pay out with these stocks instead of cash. It might also stimulate move movement in the stock market where financially struggling people get their hands on some stock that they can sell. I am not financially literate enough to understand what the outcome of such selling would be, but I feel like it would make the market less bullish and reduce risks of bubbles forming. Curious what people think about this...

butkusthebeast91

Great episode in general but a small note. For the Modern MBA public transit, he misses a big point on why other countries can run it at a profit. In the US, we don't force drivers to pay the enviromental and infastructure costs of taking a more expensive mode of transit. If we had fuel tax and vechicle registraion costs that were similar to those in much of the EU and especially East Asia, that would push far more people to public transit in places where that is viable. Since the marginal cost of more riders is almost nothing once the infastructure is in place, this would make the systems far more profitable to run. In summary, we don't just need to build good systems for people to ride transit, but we need to force them out of their cars, either through increased costs or travel times.

Maxwell Dimensio

I appreciate the upbeat and relaxed vibes in these turbulent times. Really uplifting.

Rj

I have never heard someone more succinctly describe why billionaires need to be taxed then Aiden- "I want to tax you not because I want that money, but because the amount of money you have accumulated is affecting the game for everyone else" SO TRUE

exgota

the issue isn't the billionaires, it's the entire startup ecosystem that leaves. california as a STATE will fall apart if SV starts to leave, that's how dependent they are on the taxes of those counties

Vincent Alvesteffer

I mean... unrealized capital gains tax would incentivize cash positive businesses over the acquisition model generating competition among markets which is only good for consumers... I'm not against detonating the stock market and crashing it as everyone has to sell sell sell in order to pay taxes that would, similar to 2008, give younger people an opportunity to enter the market and build wealth for retirement

Guy Fernando

When is the book club dropping

Jokerx

well I think that wound could be a signifcant downgrade in quality of life for many people yes your point is that it would be healed eventually but for someone already struggling rich people leaving would not help them, and trump being in office kind of proves that a majority of people dont care about the long term, which is a part of why this is such a hard problem to solve. Billionaires and more importantly millionaires need an incentive to stay that doesn't revolve around taxes and more about opportunity, and right now the US has a lot of opportunity and not a lot of taxes, and surely if there is a lot of opportunity and "a lot" of taxes that would make millionaires and billionaires want to actually engage in the good part of trickle down economics

Real Lightfield

I think one of the other reasons that Ezra Klein got a bad reputation is that hes a zionist unless im mistaken, which seems pretty important.

David

The thing Doug needs to understand about Ezra Klein, HES NOT A LEFTIST, he does not call himself a leftist, he does not ally himself with leftist, he actively discourages the Democratic Party from WORKING with leftist. He’s a liberal and he called himself that and he is not a ally to any left wing political project, look at his own opinions on Zorhan

Itur_Turtle

You put it into words so well, I completely agree but wouldn’t have been able to say it this well.

makaveli

@ 50:00 that’s just how property taxes work, when your property is worth more money, you pay more in annual property taxes though you have not realized any gain on the property because you haven’t sold it

theo

No lie, I feel about boomers how they feel about immigrants. Theres no level of clear headed logical argument that could sway me from my hate, they are truly the most detestable people you could fit in a group

theo

Also, we hate Ezra Klein because he's literally "Dad trying to be cool to his kids" his ideas aren't necessarily anything very new or radical and much of the issues he's addressing are ones him and his class of employment helped create. Ezra has had the ability to be an abundance democrat for years as people further left have been SCREAMING about these issues and now because he's a white guy with attention he wants the benefits of these good ideas that aren't even really his.

theo

44:05 man I think if rich folk had just paid their taxes and not been making it so difficult for us to get those taxes it wouldnt be affecting them so harshly. Really sounds like a them problem though they set this up. I don't see how someone with a startup taking on the burden of taxes for a business that might not be successful doesnt make sense? Ive heard for years that owners are the ones taking the risk and regardless of profit they use the services taxes pay for.

Gavin Picard

I think having specific policy prescriptions is bad when the whole premise is evaluate things on a case by case basis

istri aadmi

Maybe I’m wrong about this but my understanding is that narrow tax policies aimed at billionaires always sound good but are not huge revenue streams. For instance, biden’s billionaire min income tax was projected to raise 360B over 10 years. 36B a year is what 1% or less than annual spending. And another example was the senator wyden’s billionaires income tax proposal which had slightly higher estimates of around 500B over 10 years. It’s my understanding that broad tax policies are always better at generating revenue and are easier to implement.

Timothy Vidales

TL:DR Capital gains taxes creates lock-in and favors buybacks over dividends. It nudges markets toward concentration and makes everything more unstable I currently work in investing/ finance as an analyst, and imo there’s some important aspects of the current US capital gains tax system that aren’t well discussed. In a previous episode where you guys were discussing wealth taxes, Doug mentioned at one point that instead of wealth taxes, we should increase capital gains taxes instead. I agree with the general take that wealth/ unrealized cap gains taxes are of questionable effectiveness. However, I do think there are a couple big externalities that capital gains taxes create, that result in compounding problems in the investment markets and larger economy. I’m going to preface this by clarifying I’m not saying we should eliminate taxes on the wealthy, or on people who own stocks. What I am trying to say is that taxing assets at the point of sale can create bad incentives. Firstly, capital gains taxes disincentivize selling assets. This is called the lock-in effect. You would not believe how many people in the industry who have unreasonably high allocations in NVDA, TSLA, MSFT, and the like, either through owning the stocks directly or owning them indirectly as part of the S&P500. Most of the time, they even recognize that they are opening themselves up to concentration risk. But a big aspect of their decision is that if they sell to reallocate to safer assets, they will incur capital gains. And because of the way compounding works, taking the tax hit earlier rather than later creates a huge difference in downstream returns. This also creates a sort of feedback loop, because the less people sell, the higher the stock price goes up, which makes the unrealized gains higher, which makes the potential tax hit even harder. And as Atrioc mentioned, the step up on death further reinforces the incentive against selling. Secondly, the current tax setup incentivizes stock buybacks over dividends for returning money to shareholders. Both dividends and long term capital gains are taxed at essentially the same rate. However, the primary difference is with dividends the tax hit is immediate upon receiving the dividend, while a buyback uses capital gains, so you don’t get taxed until you sell. This is even worse with foreign investors, who get an additional 30% withholding tax on dividends, and often face no taxes on US capital gains. Companies are incentivized to go with whatever option yields the best returns for shareholders, and in most cases, buybacks are the superior vehicle from the shareholder perspective. And this is a large part of the reason why we’ve seen the move towards buybacks over dividends in the past few decades. But this raises some problems. On average, investment returns create less consumption compared to dividends (I remember they touched on this in an earlier episode). Additionally, a preference for buybacks over dividends serves to, again, drive asset prices higher. In my opinion, a significant amount of the dysfunction and risk in the current financial markets stem from the downstream consequences of our tax system. On a systemic level, the preference for buybacks and the disincentive to sell create a feedback loop that pushes us towards a more concentrated, risky, and less equal financial system. Combine that with the current corporate tax incentives for taking out leverage and debt over issuing equity when a company needs to raise money, and the problem magnifies. I’m not arguing for a cut in the overall taxes paid by stock owners, but rather a change in where it’s collected. To be clear, these are far from the only factors influencing the path the market has taken. However, I think these incentives taken together have played a larger role than most people realize.

Ian Goldie

We have to defend Russ Hanneman’s third comma

DougDoug

hey, Doug here! I am SUPER badly informed about tax policies and the tradeoffs and I appreciate the perspective here. If you end up finding additional articles or videos or anything that explain concepts like what you're describing here in a somewhat approachable way, could you send them to me? either email (dougdoug@dougdoug.com) or ping me in the patreon discord. I feel like I've consumed a lot of "beginner" economic content, where they greatly oversimplify things and you don't really understand any nuances. And I've tried to read the "advanced" economic stuff which feels so esoteric that it doesn't really stick in my brain at all. So if you find intermediate level analysis of this type of tax policy and think it might be helpful for me, please pass it along!

cring

I, for one, welcome our new TurboTax overlords

WillyThaJawn

can't wait for them to address Aimen's rampant appearance in the new Epstein file drop

Timothy Vidales

Thanks for the reply! No need to qualify by saying you're badly informed, this stuff is complicated. And be honest, I'm still learning and trying to wrap my head around all of it myself. Tax policy isn't exactly the most riveting party convo. But especially from my own research, work experience, and talking to coworkers/ portfolio managers has made me hyper aware of how much nearly every aspect of the industry is warped by chasing tax efficiency. It's become increasingly clear to me that HOW you tax something directly changes incentives, and those incentives have economy shifting downstream effects and can make or break whether a tax helps people or destroys lives in aggregate. I'll look around for some resources and get back to you.

Marc

Fully understanding the criticisms of a wealth tax, in general, I'm just so annoyed at how any form of progress seems to be halted by theoretical discussions. I'm so tired of wasting time discussing "expropriation vs. abolition of taxes". When the only thing that actually matters is stuff like how that weird loophole can be plugged.

SweetBaby's_Ray

Manifesting a Mamdani interview for you guys

DamnOrange

Am i stupid or can the whole problem doug has with the wealthtax fixed by setting a timelimit before it is applyed. Simple put, look how long it takes for an startup to fail in avarage. then take that avarage time and ad it in the law with a frase like: "for this tax to apply you need to have a networth of over 1billion for X amount of time"

Miraz

Also, while taking a lot of ideas within the circles the spaces of financially fragile people(sex workers, Trans people, medically disabled people, etc) he will turn around and suggest that those need to drop a lot of cultural issues without understanding that the concessions he is proposing are not ones he himself will make and will instead just shift the democratic party right. Like when he said the dems should run a "pro-life democrat" to win center right voters. Having a pregnancy young and single might be the quickest way to proverty - but he'll ignore that fact to focus on policy and "culture wins" I am mulling over this idea: "Poor economic policy is when racist/transphobic/non-humanist." The idea is if someone believes there are leeches in the system, they will not be happy with any economic plan that feeds them. They will craft an economic system to starve the leeches. I just dont think Ezra Klein realizes that and is on a slippery slope going down, in which his OG plan can be bastardized to only benefit certain groups of people while throwing the rest away who "dont act right enough and want to much."

Green0Photon

@Tim that's so interesting. I really hope you find something to share for everyone to learn more about this sort of thing. As left wing as I am, it's a pretty clear issue how capital gains tax disincentivizes selling, income tax disincentivizes income (or rather reporting it and causing a whole bad deduction culture), and wealth tax would cause issues in terms of hiding wealth and forced selling. Not a simple problem to solve. There's no easy way to identify who has more and proportionally pull it from the extremes. That doesn't have some trade-off in terms of big problems stemming from it. As much as it seems a wealth tax would help a lot.

Saad Salman

ezra is by no means the worst offender of his sphere, but he and the people around him seem to have a pretty vested interest in reflexively defending the wealthy and the way they've guided the democratic party for the last few decades. just the way they frame issues and solutions, and especially as far as abundance goes, it feels sometimes like Klein and Thompson just didn't read their own book. Like the people they have as loud voices in the Abundance coalition are huge red flags in terms of pitching ideas that are obviously beneficial mainly for rich people. also a lot of the people in his circle are SUPER hostile to the Lina Khan-derived faction of the party. Ezra himself I honestly don't have a big problem with but because he's at the center of a lot of centrists that are openly hostile to progressives and leftists, he gets a lot of shit from us. It's just very hard to want to attempt to be a part of the Abundance coalition when it's very obvious that it is being co-opted to advocate for forms of deregulation on corporations that the book never mentioned. That's why what Mamdani is doing is great - he's not justifying his actions with a book or a movement, he's just pointing out obvious problems in the system and doing what needs to be done to fix them. Unfortunately I anticipate the Abundance vs Antitrust factional war will be ever present for a long while.

Jack Coleman

I am not the most knowledgeable on finance and economics on a macro scale, but it feels like many of the points against the wealth tax can instead be seen as benefits from a different angle. If we implemented some sort of wealth tax, for wealth in excess of some amount to not burden everyday people, those with billions would have to sell some assets. Selling their assets would give an immediate tax benefit to the government from the capitalized gains, but would also drastically lower stock prices by flooding the market with currently concentrated stocks. This would hurt those holding the stocks currently, but isnt the metric that 90% of the stock market is owned by the top 10%, but would see less damage to those with less wealth and would be a benefit to those with no current wealth or who are starting on the asset ladder. The lowered value of their stocks would also lead to less taxes owed in future years and a more liquid, accessible stock market. If this was not a one time tax but a recurring one it would overall discourage the concentration of wealth in non liquid assets and incentivize at least some of their income to be in taxable income as opposed to stock so they can afford their taxes without another huge shock to the stocks value. This yet again would create more liquidity in the economy, even if only slightly. All of a sudden the borrowing against your own stock strategy would be less attractive as that accumulated stock would lead to more taxes every year. And if this loophole could be worked on it would even further discourage wealth concentration, and fixes to the current estate tax system could help even further. For the point of some boomer grandmother's house going up in value, I think housing, at least for a main residence, could be ignored from wealth as we already have a tax system for that, property taxes. But since boomers are trying to get rid of that top maybe that shouldn't be ignored, again if property taxes go away then we wouldn't be adding new taxes just keeping thay part away. Our cureent tax system has so many cut outs and specific rules that work to protect certain activities or behaviors, so a similar situation for start ups could be done and I dont think that is a valid reason on its own to discount the entire idea. Plus if stocks are losing value on a wide scale than the value of that start ups stock would also likely decline lowering any potential tax burden from a wealth tax. I understand that from a more privileged position and being farther in life may change how you feel, but for those in Gen z or alpha a feedback loop of liquidating stocks, therefore lowering prices, and dis-incentivizing wealth accumulation in illiquid assets seems like a good way to somehwat reset the "game." A crash in the stock market, or housing market if boomers were forced to sell, doesn’t sound like a potential bad outcome of a policy like this but a rebalancing.

HelloHubert

Ezra Klein my favorite Israel defender

Thomas

The thing is unrealized gains aren't "real" and they don't become real just because someone held them for long enough. Imagine you're a large shareholder of chegg and after X years you have to start paying wealth taxes. Then the stock crashes 99% because of chatgpt. You end up owing a wealth tax on money that never existed

Shayon Dasgupta

Just in case I’d like to point out, It isn’t Doug’s view. He was largely summarising the points raised against it from sources he followed

Kerdalidec Yay

In terms of combating the Buy, Borrow, Die strategy, what downsides would there be to taxing personal loans over a certain dollar amount? Like if you want a loan for £10,000,000 you have to pay a deposit for which a small percentage is tax. What flaws are there in such a system?

Excalibur 11

The people who do not already own stocks are not gonna be the people buying these discounted stocks though, it's gonna be hedge funds who can organise deals on a larger scale. So no-one is gonna have an easier time getting into the stock market. Then the other thing about making it yearly is a horrible idea, as it would simply reduce the value of every business over a cap every year to be at that cap. This is bad because it deincentivises innovating beyond a certain point, as beyond that point the stock price cannot grow, so no more gain can be passed to the shareholders. The main issue is that if you set the limit too low, you will inevitably stifle innovation and kill startup companies, but if you set it to high, you will not really be collecting much money at all. The issue is the overlap of these two limits is significant, so there is no perfect or even good limit to cut it off at. Income of individuals is simply the best way to tax people.

Anna Kim

How do I join the discord server?

BelugaWhale

Are people still talking about the forbidden sponsor? Move on lil bro

wcranny

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the unrealized capital gains portion by Doug but I don’t understand why he keeps equating billionaires to regular people. His mom is not getting taxed on her house because she is not a billionaire. It doesn’t make sense for most people bc billionaires aren’t most people

wcranny

Saying that it could possibly maybe somehow get taken advantage of in the future for non billionaires is just not an argument that works

SaacAttaac

I don’t think Doug is a bad guy, but he speaks with more sympathy for billionaires than anyone else

SaacAttaac

Doug also doesn’t notice his life is better because state spending is going towards the poorest. I’m sure there’s inefficient spending but Doug is really underestimating how much worse it is to be poor outside of wealthy states

dcaff7

I would love to hear your thoughts on the comparison of a net worth or asset tax to property tax. To me it seems like literally the same principle just on a different scale. So if it works for property tax, shouldn’t there be an amount where it works for other assets? I understand that there are consequences to forcing liquidation of assets, but if we set up a recurring small tax of say 1%, then billionaires would have to budget for that and make sure some amount of their massive wealth is liquid. I don’t see any downsides to this so I’d love to hear your thoughts on it should this topic come back up!

Bird

Instead of taxing unrealized capital gains, we just need stricter enforcement of capital gains, especially by aggressively cutting out loopholes and exceptions. A one time wealth tax feels like throwing their hands up and saying a band-aid is just so much easier then a surgery. Through purchases, death, or any other transfers all this money will eventually be transferred so that's where it should be targeted for taxation. In my opinion the first big steps would be having stocks taxed at time of sale not in the state/ city where you live when you sell them, but where you bought them. (Maybe locked into the tax law when it was purchased, the goal here is to prevent people from fleeing to low tax states right before selling stocks.) And making it so if a stock is passed on and the child/ inheritor sells it, that the capital gains is from purchase not acquisition (or that those capital gains have to be paid at inheritance, inheritance taxes are fundamentally broken in this country and this is one part of that, however works best so long as it doesn't reset without payment on transfer.) Closing loopholes and tax fraud will be a never-ending battle, but I guarantee is we could just persistently start trying again we'd make a massive progress, and if we could sell it to the average American we'd get 95%+ of the way. But if we won't try to address the core issue then I guess maybe a band-aid on a gaping wound is marginally better then doing literally nothing.

Appollochan

Giiirrl the T**** **x stuff is so funny. I hope this stays as an inside joke! 😂

pnott

If you connect your discord to your patreon, it should happen automatically. Be warned, it will join you to the discord of every single person you are a member of with no way to disable that for some reason.

This

Hi guys ... not sure if you will see this. I had a question. With all this chaos and misinformation, I wondered what and where you go for your “sources of truth”? I ask because the anxiety of seeing my favorite news pubs coerced or worse, owned and manipulated and then social media like threads is filled with so much .... just stuff ... and I truly don't trust anything on x ... anyways. I wanted to ask in the off chance you might see this ... Thanks !!!

Ethan Adame

Can you guys get Gerald Ford on the podcast?

Anna Kim

It says "unable to get status"

Rachel Cunningham

i wonder if we could tax based on pledged collateral that isn real estate property for individuals??

Emmanuel Alagbala

Thank God Atrioc addressed the buy, borrow, die loophole @47minutes. The whole "wealth cant be taxed cause unrealised gains" is so fundamentally dishonest cause it misses the point. They literally borrow against that same "unrealised gains". So it CLEARLY has immense value. Literally close that loophole, pursue tax on any income, increase capital gains tax. Like these will solve a majority of thr issues