For subscribers to The Athletic, I posted my annual Minor League Player of the Year column this week, as well as my last regular-season scouting notebook of 2023, covering prospects I saw from the Red Sox, Orioles, and Nationals. I’ll head to Arizona in October for Fall League coverage, of course. My podcast will be back next week and I’ve already filed my next review for Paste.
And now, the links…
- Longreads first: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t just take a bunch of free trips from billionaire Harlan Crow; he also attended donor parties hosted by the billionaire Koch brothers, as reported here by ProPublica.
- The New York Times reports on child labor at Perdue and Tyson chicken-processing plants, where immigrant kids are exploited by factory officials willing to look the other way and who claim ignorance when these children are seriously injured on the job. The Department of Labor only investigates when they receive a tip, and fines top out at $15,000.
- Penn Medicine hired a new facilities director for its hospital without checking his background, which included a five-year federal prison sentence for wire fraud and misuse of a social security number. Larry Butler was fired four days into his tenure as COO of a hospital in Oregon in 2022, but Penn still hired him in July of 2023, only for him to “resign” four weeks later.
- The Indian state of Kerala is experiencing yet another outbreak of the Nipah virus, which causes severe respiratory illnesses in humans and appears to have jumped the species barrier from pigs about 25 years ago. This is the fourth such outbreak in Kerala in the last five years.
- Elon Musk’s grandfather was an antisemite and avid supporter of South Africa’s racist apartheid system, according to this lengthy story from The Atlantic, which contradicts Musk’s own mythmaking.
- The U.S. media continues to fuck up its coverage of the Presidential race, treating Trump as some sort of entertainment vehicle – as they did in 2015-16 – while playing into dubious narratives around President Biden’s age or his son’s behavior.
- The daughter of Dennis Rader, the serial killer who called himself “BTK,” is an adult now and is trying to use her knowledge of her father to help police close more cases.
- The Sound of Freedom was a surprise box-office hit this summer and sits in 10th place this year for U.S. receipts thanks to a broad effort by conservative and Christian groups to sell tickets, but the subject of the film, Tim Ballard, was ousted from his anti-human trafficking organization after an investigation into sexual misconduct, and now the film’s producer also stands accused of sexual assault, in this case of a minor.
- The all-Muslim city council in Hamtramck, Michigan, banned the display of any Pride flags on public property during June (Pride Month) this year, after LGBTQ+ groups had supported the Muslim immigrant groups when they arrived in the city. The issue came back up this past week when Mayor Amer Ghalib refused to march near the city’s queer alliance in a Labor Day parade.
- South Africa is facing a new, xenophobic movement called Operation Dudula that is targeting foreigners in the country and blaming them for the rise in drug addiction, especially the drug known as nyaope, a form of black tar heroin that sellers claim contains antiviral properties. The group’s beliefs and philosophy seem to mirror those of right-wing, anti-immigrant groups in the U.S. and Europe.
- Azerbaijan has reclaimed the majority-Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh after the region’s separatist government, which called itself the Republic of Artsakh, agreed to disarm and to seek reintegration with the surrounding nation. This should end the looming humanitarian crisis in the region but may lead to a large exodus of ethnic Armenians; it also may further reduce the influence of Russia, which had backed Armenia’s interests with military aid, in the Caucasus.
- Russell Brand’s agency learned three years ago that a minor accused him of sexual assault, and they ignored her. Tavistock Wood dropped Brand from its roster with the revelations this month that three other women also accuse him of rape or sexual assault, and they’re claiming they knew nothing about it.
- Gabrielle Hanson, a Republican and Trump-supporting candidate for Mayor of Franklin, Tennessee, used images of women culled from social media in campaign materials, claiming these women – many of them women of color – were her supporters. The women were actually selected seven years earlier for an ad campaign for the clothing brand The Limited and had posted photos of themselves at a celebratory brunch, which Hanson and her now ex-campaign manager Erin Mazzoni used without their permission. That link has an incredible video where journalist Phil Williams interviews Mazzoni, who sounds, to put it kindly, completely bonkers.
- Alabama Republicans continue to fight to preserve their gerrymandered legislative map that suppresses the power of Black voters (who make up 27% of the state’s population), and they’re doing it with the backing of Leonard Leo’s dark-money network. Just this summer, Congressional Republicans blocked a bill that would have required such dark-money groups to come into the light and disclose their donors.
- Both The New Yorker and Paste ran stories on The Baseball Project, the fun supergroup with members of R.E.M., Dream Syndicate, and the Minus Five, where all of their songs are about baseball. They’re great live, by the way.
- Anti-vaccine misinformation is highly effective: More Oklahoma parents are skipping safe, effective childhood vaccinations against dangerous and incredibly contagious viruses like measles.
- Climate change may cause 39 million U.S. homeowners to lose access to home insurance, including many homeowners who don’t accept the reality of climate change and vote for the one party that also denies it.
- New York editor Katy Schneider describes “the pandemic skip,” the way we all lost about two years to the pandemic but may not have fully realized or internalized the passage of that time.
- A sketchy group calling itself “NY Citizens Audit” has received a cease-and-desist letter from the New York Attorney General’s office, accusing the group of intimidating voters by posing as election officials to knock on doors and accuse people of committing voter fraud.
- Australian officials visited D.C. this week to call on the United States to drop its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents, a call echoed here by the Freedom of the Press Foundation because the same overbroad reading of the Espionage Act could easily be used against all sorts of journalists anywhere on the political spectrum.
- Believing transphobic things does, in fact, make you a transphobe.
- Board game news: Undergrove, the next new game from Wingspan designer Elizabeth Hargrave, will go up on Kickstarter in November, and you can save the page now to be notified when it’s live.
I must say that interview did no favors for Hanson. When I worked in politics (many moons ago, I used to make sure my candidates understood basic social media guidelines. The first is only take and post photos from events you’re actually at. Second make sure they’re either in your district or at an event/meeting that people would know why you’re there. Third make sure people at the event know there’s a chance they’re being photographed. This failed all three tests spectacularly. Plus Hanson shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Biden v Missouri. The government can’t force Meta to take down photos like that. However if all of the women in the photo make that request (considering it’s being used without their permission and it’s not a public domain photo), Meta can certainly do that. The news station is also fully entitled to fact check pictures like that and point out lies.
How is “lesser of two evils” a “false equivalence” ?
Trump is pure evil. Biden is a bad president. I made no equivalence. I am acknowledging that Trump is orders of magnitude worse than Biden. That does not change the fact that I consider Biden to be a bad president.
Also, you’re taking the phrase “lesser of two evils” a bit too literally. It just means picking the least bad of two undesirable choices.
I grow weary of people blaming voters like me for “costing” democrats elections. They are costing themselves elections by nominating lousy candidates who inexplicably fail to beat lousy GOP candidates. Are the Democrats unable to find another Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, who were able to win decisively without needing to cajole third party voters into voting against their conscience?
Why do you consider Biden to be “a bad president?” I’m actually curious – is it because of specific policies, because he’s too progressive, or not progressive enough?
I’m going to vote for Biden again. I certainly have policy disagreements with him and wish he were more progressive. He’s also delivered on quite a lot despite an unfavorable Congress and generally unfavorable economic conditions. And the GOP is going to nominate either the election-denying insurrection inciter or someone equally untenable.
Well, if the democrats are interested in ranked choice voting, they need to figure out a way to make it happen.
“And yes if think Trump is a threat to this country (your own words) and aren’t voting for Biden, you’re enabling said threat to this country no matter how justify it.”
Well, the problem here is, that sort of thinking is why we continually end up in this annoying situation in the first place. At what point are people willing to try to start dismantling the oppressive and ineffective two-party system?
I am not a registered democrat. Why is it my responsibility to get Biden elected? The democrats cannot nominate a good enough candidate to win on the strength of their registered voters?
@Frank, you’re coming across like a spoiled brat. I guarantee if a state tried to institute RCV for electing the President, it would go all the way to the SC and you can take one wild guess how that corrupt group would go. The system sucks but it’s the system we’ve got. In the meantime, work to implement those changes. However you’re the one who said Trump is a threat to this country (not me). If we accept that premise (which you established btw), you must vote for the best viable alternative. There’s only one viable alternative under the electoral college system as much as it sucks. Again you were the one that set the conditions that Trump is a threat to this country. That makes one logical move under the system. Otherwise, you’re complicit if Trump gets elected and you’re not in a solid red or solid blue state. I’m in a purple state and while Biden isn’t close to liberal enough for me, I know the consequences of Trump being President. No one has any excuses if they claim to know better.
@ Brian.
I don’t think it’s fair for you to say I’m acting like a spoiled brat just because I do not wish to “fall in line” and support the two-party system which I loathe.
You are trying to berate me into voting for a democrat when I prefer third party or independent candidates. That is a perfectly reasonable stance for me to take. I do not feel as though I am wasting my vote. I am making my voice heard by saying, “Hey, some of us do not approve of this two-party system, and I want to slowly build toward increasing the viability of third-party candidates.”
I flatly disagree with much of the GOP platform, and much of the democratic platform. I would much rather see Biden elected than Trump or DeSantis or any GOP candidate. But, if the democrats cannot elect a candidate that can win on the strength of the registered democrats, that is their failure, not mine.
@Keith:
I should probably spend some time writing up a thorough piece on my general dissatisfaction with the Democratic party and Biden, because I think your questions are reasonable.
Winging it for the time being while watching football games and highlights:
I generally find Biden and the democrats frustratingly ineffective on the issues I care about. Maybe a lot of that is simply logistical difficulties of working with a stubborn GOP; I don’t know.
I would like to see Biden and the democrats do (or try to do) more to relieve some of the regressive taxes assessed to lower or middle-class earners. The regressive payroll taxes are dreadful. I do not understand why low-income earners are paying money they can ill-afford toward social security and Medicare. These programs are intended to help people with less money. Why collect payroll taxes from low-income earners while capping the amount paid by the wealthy? I am upset at the astonish low social security payments received by my elderly mother who has worked her entire life, and has paid these taxes her whole life, but doesn’t even get enough back to live on.
On top of that, I do not understand why lower income earners do not get more of a break when paying taxes on stock investments. I would think lower-income earners should be encouraged to save and invest. If an investment loses money, the investor loses 100% of the investment (perhaps minus the $3000 a year that can be deducted from taxable income). But, if a rare shrewd investment was made, the gains are taxed at a significant amount. I would like to see that changed for the lower- and middle-class earners. Rather than whining about how much billionaires pay in taxes, I would prefer to see more efforts at relieving some of these taxes on lower-class earners.
When I hear millionaire democrat politicians who own multiple homes complaining about the taxes paid by billionaires, while my elderly mother barely receives enough money to live on, I get frustrated.
I am frustrated by the lack of criminal justice reform regarding drug policy. Why are there so many people in prison for non-crimes? Why aren’t the democrats and Biden doing more about it? I was thoroughly disgusted that Biden traded a dangerous international criminal for the release of a basketball player who violated a stupid drug law in Russia. There are tens of thousands, maybe more, in our own US prisons for basically the same thing Griner did. Maybe Biden should have set an example for Russia and the world by releasing our own non-violent drug prisoners and expunging their records so they can be productive members of society. It’s especially bothersome considering the role Biden played in putting these people in prison in the first place.
Overall, I just feel that the democrats and Biden should be able to do more to draw centrist voters away from voting GOP and toward voting democrat. Why isn’t that happening? Whatever the reasons, they’re not getting the job done, so I vote for candidates whose views more closely align with mine, which tends to be third party or independent candidates.
@Frank, it’s an irrational stance based your own premise about Trump being a threat to this country while Biden isn’t. This isn’t 2008 or 2012. Also your arguments about nominating electable candidates is a classic case of circular logic. Someone’e electable if they get elected. Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been seen as particularly electable in September 1991. Same with Barack Obama in September 2007 or Donald Trump in September 2015. Also neither of the two major parties can win solely off the strength of their base. They either need a certain portion of the middle on their side or enough people in the center to punt. You’re punting in a spot where it helps one candidate more than the other. Just realize that your choice helps the person you called a threat to this country. That’s not berating or guilt tripping you. It’s cold hard reality.
This is a reply to FrankJones and the reasons you do not like Biden as president
Payroll Taxes, Social Security, Medicare: I don’t understand how this is a critique of the Democratic party. They are the party that is working towards Medicare expansion(the federal government, because of Democrats, will pay the vast majority of the bill if States choose to opt into Medicare expansion) and only Republican led states have refused to accept the expansion. As for social security, the Republicans are debating how many years to push back retirement but you’re upset with the Democrats? There is no world in which Biden and the current congress are going to make payroll taxes more progressive or increase social security payouts when the other party is actively trying to destroy these programs and make taxes more regressive. This doesn’t feel like a legitimate critique:
Stock investments: First of all, as long as you hold the stock for several years, you will pay a low capital gains tax on the growth so I don’t think you’re explaining stock investment taxation well. Additionally, a very small % of low income workers even have stock investments so this is not an issue impacting low income individuals. A third of the middle class doesn’t even own stock so I’m not sure why this is such a hot button topic for you.
Democrats complaining about how much billionaires are taxed: Who are you even talking about here? Every single Democratic senator voted against the Trump tax cuts which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. In my state, Illinois, our democratic billionaire governor attempted to change the state constitution to allow for raising income taxes on people like himself. I don’t think you have the right party here.
Drug Policy: Biden pardoned thousands with marijuana convictions in 2022 and Federal government is about to change the classification of marijuana, which would be a major first step towards greater ability to conduct research and eventual decriminalization.
I don’t mean this to be a personal attack but it seems you either aren’t paying attention or you are being disingenuous. You’ve picked a very strange list of topics and examples.
@Tony – your post (and Brian’s) to me does seem like a personal attack, and I grow weary of personal attacks. They come off as Sanctimonious and self-righteous. I was a democrat much of my life. (I have never voted republican). Some years ago, I became disillusioned with the democrats and left the democratic party. Being lectured and insulted in the manner chosen by you and Brian is not making me rethink my decision.
I was not talking about the age at which people can start receiving social security payments. I was talking about other aspects of the situation, which you did not respond to.
The number of middle-class and lower-class earners exceeds the number of upper-class earners (by a lot, if I’m not mistaken). If the democrats cannot appeal to enough of these voters to avoid the congressional roadblocks that you attribute the failings of the democratic party to, then that itself is a failing of the democratic party.
The tax on long-term capital gains are not low. It’s 15%. That’s a lot to a low-income earner, especially considering that it was already post-tax income that was invested in the first place, and that the same earner would absorb close to 100% of the loss if the investment resulted in a loss. It’s a hot-button topic for me because I feel strongly about this issue. I am strongly against restrictions on abortion and I find the GOP position on the issue loathsome. But, I could just as easily say, “I don’t see why this is such a hot-button issue for so many people when we have condoms and birth control and could just avoid accidental pregnancies. Somehow, I’ve managed to avoid accidentally creating an unwanted pregnancy all these years. Nevertheless, I DO believe abortion rights should be a hot-button issue. I am not going to just handwave it away merely because it hasn’t been an issue for me personally. Similarly, I don’t have much patience for your dismissing my issues by saying you do not see why it is a hot-button issue for me. My mother worked as a social worker most of her life, helping society immensely. She paid into social security her whole life. The amount she now receives back is unacceptably low, not even enough to pay her bills. She made one shrewd (or lucky, perhaps) stock investment, but because she just crosses the threshold for the diving line between paying 0% or 15% tax, she would be facing a 15% tax. I have every right to view these as hot0button issues.
You said 1/3 of middle-class workers do no own stock. Well, that means 2/3 of them do. Leave the middle class alone when it comes to taxing wise stock investments. I really do not care what amount of taxes billionaires are paying. Levying higher taxes against billionaires while leaving unchanged the issues I am upset about will not assuage me in any way. I am not sure why people expect lower-class and middle-class earners to be happy about taking more money from billionaires while doing nothing do ease the tax burden or decreasing purchasing power of the lower-class or middle-class earners.
As for Democrats and billionaires – congratulations, you somehow missed my entire point. Reread what I wrote and respond to what I actually wrote. Until then, I am not going to bother replying, because you have given me nothing of substance to reply to.
As for criminal justice reform – What has been done is too little and too slow. Check the numbers regarding prison population and per-capita prisoners in our country relative to other countries. It’s unacceptable. I choose to vote for candidates who are more willing to tackle the problem more seriously.
Also, this notion that “my vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Trump” is absurd. My voting does not increase the number of Trump’s votes. Some centrist / independent / third-party voters DO vote GOP in some elections. THOSE are votes for the GOP.
On top of everything else – I do not believe people in their late 70s should be running for President. Obviously, that applies to both Biden and Trump.
I do think the noise made by the GOP about Hunter Biden is absurd, considering that he’s merely a family member of the candidate, whereas the actual GOP candidate is charged with numerous far more serious crimes than Hunter Biden is being charged with.
Stock Investments: 15% is very low for taxing earnings. You can argue for it being lower but that is a low rate. It can be a hot button topic for you but the fact remains that it is not a pressing issue for the majority of low and middle income earners. Abortion is a hot button issue not because I say it is, because the people say it is. You will not find people calling investment tax rates as a top issue.
Social Security and Medicare: You have a choice here. Vote for the party that wants to immediately push back the age of eligibility and eventually destroy the entire program, vote for the party that is working to protect it, or give a protest vote to a third party. It is Biden and the democrats that are attempting to increase payroll taxes on income over 400k, which is a complaint you gave above so I don’t know why you don’t give them credit.
Criminal Justice Reform: And here is why I had to put that personal attack comment in. I can’t read this rebuttable and actually think you’re being genuine here. Biden’s admin is taking serious steps, which I mentioned, and yet its too little too late. You seem to want Biden to snap his fingers and accomplish everything immediately but nothing moves that fast(and no third party candidate is going to move faster). The decriminalization and legalization movements have been led by Democrats and Republicans have been clear that they want to undo those actions.
As for the billionaires comment, it would have been great for you to clarify because I still have no idea what you’re talking about.
Look, you do you. I voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein and now I look back on those votes(which were inconsoquential as I vote in Illinois) and I know they were a cowardly way out. This isn’t the time to “make a statement”, its a time to impact the results. I don’t mean to say this only goes one way as my vote for Johnson was a vote for Obama and my vote for Stein was a vote for Clinton. Third party votes are just a vote for whoever ends up winning, at least in this country.
As for ranked choice voting, if you can’t see that the Democrats support this and the Republicans are vehemently against it(they’ve literally called it election fraud), I don’t know what to tell you.
Frank and others:
The tax rate on long-term capital gains is ZERO percent on the first $83,350 in such gains for a married couple filing jointly (and $41,675 for single filers). The 15 percent rate only kicks in on amounts above those thresholds. And, remember, that is only the gains– if you have gained $83,350 in a single year on an investment or investments, that almost certainly means that you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in principal. (And, of course, the gains must be realized, not on paper.) The fact is that there are NO low-income taxpayers getting screwed by capital gains taxes. If you have enough capital gains to owe taxes on them, you are not low-income.
But, by all means, vote for a threat to the country to address this non-issue.
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
@ Brian and Tony.
Wow.
Do you two honestly believe that your condescending, belittling, sanctimonious attitude toward centrist voters such as myself is goi to succeed in bringing people like me back to the democratic party that I am already disillusioned with??
The two of you epitomize what is wrong with the democratic party and the attitude that caused Hillary Clinton to lose in 2016. A smug sense of moral superiority without any regard for really trying to hear the concerns of centrist voters.
I have devoted countless hours of my life to causes I feel strongly about: Opposing the death penalty, opposing restrictions on abortion, opposing discrimination under the law against people for reasons of ethnicity, race, religion, sexual identity, whatever. Opposing the aggressive military actions and vast military spending that has us always at war and always meddling in foreign affairs for mostly the wrong reasons. Etc.
And yet, unless I align my views EXACTLY with the views you two have, and unless I fight for those views exactly to the extent that you two deem appropriate or necessary, I am “part of the problem” and “enabling Trump to win”
To hell with both of you and this utter nonsense.
And, to Brian:
You are completely wrong about the long-term capital gains tax. Please get your facts straight before lecturing me. The first $41,657 (That’s not even the correct number for 2023; it’s now $44,625) is NOT exempt from long-term capital gains tax and is NOT taxed at 0%. For anyone earning above $44,625, the entire capital gain is taxed at 15%.
So, my elderly mother, who has long retired and not physically able to work anymore, and earns barely above that $44,625 number, getting peanuts from social security despite paying into the system her whole life, and who cannot even afford to live in the city she has served her entire life, must surrender 15% of whatever modest capital gain she made from a shrewd investment many years ago. Absurd. And if you think it’s such a small amount she has to pay, then YOU pay it. I’ll contact you with our information so you can send us a check. Because right now, she can barely afford groceries thanks to the significantly decreased purchasing power of the dollar and her fixed income. It’s a pretty bad situation for senior citizens on a modest fixed income.
@Brian
“But, by all means, vote for a threat to the country to address this non-issue.”
What the hell, man? I very clearly stated I have never voted GOP and I never will.
Frank,
First, I am not a Democrat. I have never been either a registered Democrat or a Republican.
Second, regarding the line of mine that you quoted, a vote for a third-party candidate, if you live in a swing state, is effectively a vote for Trump if you believe, as you say you do, that Trump is the greater of two evils between he and Biden.
Third, I cited the capital gains tax bracket for the 2022 tax year because this is 2022 and, in most of my state, the tax-filing deadline hasn’t arrived yet. (It’s October 15 in nearly every California county including mine.) You’re citing the number for the 2023 tax year. The difference only makes my point more valid, because an even higher amount of gains is subject to the zero-percent threshold this year. I am one of those taxpayers whose income comes entirely in the form of long-term capital gains, and I just did my taxes three weeks ago, so these numbers are fresh in my mind.
Tax brackets are graduated. You only pay a higher percentage on amounts above each threshold. For 2023, the federal long-term capital-gains tax rate is ZERO percent on amounts up to $44,625 for a single filer. If you earned $44,635 as a single filer, you would owe ZERO percent on the first $44,625 and then 15 percent on the ten dollars above $44,625, or $1.50. (In fact, once the standard deduction is applied, you wouldn’t even owe the $1.50.) See https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/capital-gains-tax-rates, for example. Plug a gain of $45,000 into the 2023 calculator and you will see that the tax owed is $56.25, which is an effective tax rate of 0.125 percent (0 percent on the first $44,625 and 15 percent on the next $375).
A person applying the standard deduction of $12,950 can earn as much as $57,575 without owing a single dollar in federal income taxes. That is higher than the median income in the United States.) If your elderly mother is realizing more than $44,625 in capital gains each year, that is not a modest gain. It means that she is earning, in capital gains alone, before her Social Security, more than the median individual in the U.S. earns in total. And most people earning $40,000 are earning it in wages, which do not get the preferential tax treatment that capital gains get. Wages are taxed from the first dollar, at ten percent on the first $11,000. If you earned $23,950 in wages and take the standard deduction, you would owe $1,100 in federal taxes (10 percent of $11,000). If you earned $57,575 in long-term capital gains– more than twice as much as the wage example– you would owe zero dollars in federal taxes. (These are simplified examples. Obviously, individual tax filings can be much more complicated.)
The thing is, you’re right that the capital-gains system is unfair, but you’re wrong about to whom it’s unfair– it’s unfair to people who work for a living. People who earn income passively get the benefit of a lower tax rate compared to people who earn wages.
@ Brian
I do not think we understand each other regarding the capital gains tax.
First of all: A person who has retirement income of $45,000 is not doing all that well these days. Not when living in a major city with a high cost of living. My mother and/or I have every right to be upset about how little retirement income she receives from the government after a lifetime of paying into the social security system.
Second: You seem to be saying that you think the first $44,625 is exempt from long-term capital gains tax. It is not. That 44,625 number is the amount of income that, above which, a person’s entire capital gain gets taxed at 15%. So, if my mother were to sell her investment at a gain of 20k, she would pay a 15% tax on it, and I think that’s ridiculous, partly for reasons I have alluded to, and partly for reasons we have not even discussed yet. If you think an income of 45k in today’s economy (while living in one of the most expensive cities in the country) and a modest capital gain of 20k puts her in some sort of elite class, so be it. I think that’s absurd. I would like to see saving and investment encouraged by making the first $1,000,000 of long-term capital gains exempt from taxes. Isn’t that what people want? To take money from millionaires, not modest-income retirees with a modest capital gain?
Also, now I am genuinely questioning my own sanity, because you said in all seriousness that “this is 2022” and that’s why you cited 2022 statistics. Ummmm. The current year is 2023. A stock sale that occurs today would be taxed at the 2023 numbers when taxes are filed in April of 2024. What on earth are you saying when you say, “This is 2022”? I have not seen anything about an October 15th deadline, but that is irrelevant anyway. Even if the deadline for 2022 taxes had been extended to October 15th of this year, that would have no bearing on the tax rate for a stock sale closed in September of 2023. That transaction would obviously be taxed at the 2023 rate. The 2022 rate applies to transactions that occurred in the year 2022.
As for my third-party vote being a vote for Trump: No. My third-party vote if a vote for the third-party candidate whom I vote for. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Biden is a vote for Biden. My third-party vote does not increase the number of votes Trump has.
It is not my fault Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016. That’s the fault of the people who voted for Trump, and the fault of the democratic party for nominating a bad candidate.
So, what is your voter registration status? Would you care to share with us whom you have voted for in recent elections? I am curious as to when you abandoned your principles because of this ridiculous mentality about “throwing away a vote”.
Also, why is my third-party vote a vote for Trump? A republican could just as easily say, using the same asinine logic, that my third-party vote is a vote for Biden.
Has it occurred to you that if I did not disagree so strongly with some of the democratic party platform, maybe I would be more inclined to vote democrat?
Frank,
I was trying to explain to you in my reply why I cited the 2022 numbers and not the 2023 numbers in my original post– because I just filed my taxes for 2022. When I said “this is 2022,” I meant “this is the 2022 tax year.” Due to extensive flooding in California, the filing deadline for 2022 was extended to October 15, 2023, in almost every California county, including mine. But none of this is relevant to our discussion. I replied to you using the 2023 numbers since you correctly pointed out that they are applicable in this tax year and, again, the 2023 numbers only strengthen my point as the zero-percent bracket allows you to earn even more long-term capital gains income without paying any federal income taxes in 2023 than it did in 2022.
We’re going around in circles here. I just do not understand how you are unable to comprehend that capital gains are tax-favored compared to wages. You owe federal income taxes on the first dollar of adjusted gross income. You do not owe any taxes on long-term capital gains until you have realized more than $44,625 of adjusted gross income *in this tax year.* If your mother sold her asset for a $20,000 long-term capital gain, as in your example, she would owe no federal taxes on it. This is without even getting into the deductions, standard or itemized, that are available to all taxpayers. The people who realize large amounts of capital gains are overwhelmingly the wealthiest taxpayers. The fact that they get the benefit of this tax advantage has been a political issue for years, but you apparently want to make the system more unfair to the middle class, most of whom have little or no capital gains. See https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58781, which will show you that, for the 2019 tax year, “Among the top 1 percent of the distribution, business income and capital income (including capital gains) were, on average, a larger percentage of income than in lower income groups. Among households in the top 0.01 percent, capital income (including capital gains) accounted for an average of 70 percent of income before transfers and taxes in 2019.” You want to let the super-rich get even more of a pass on taxes by exempting the first MILLION in capital gains? Do you understand that the average American earns $1.7 million in income before taxes in their entire lifetime? And you think it’s a problem that people who realize up to a MILLION dollars in capital gains income *in a single year*, which is taxed at a maximum rate of 20 percent compared to a max rate of 37 percent for wage income, are being taxed too much? You have everything backwards. If the first million dollars in capital gains were tax-free, the shortfall in tax revenue could only be made up by jacking up tax rates on ordinary income– which are already higher than the rates on capital gains. You keep talking about investors “taking risks” that should be rewarded. Why shouldn’t people who work be rewarded? Most investors are completely passive. Why should that be advantaged over work? That is how the current system works. Wage income is taxed from dollar one at anywhere from 10 to 37 percent. Capital gains are taxed at from 0 to 20 percent. Such gains are already hugely advantaged. Exempting the first million dollars of capital gains from taxes would not be “taking money from millionaires.” It would be allowing millionaires to realize a million dollars in income every year without paying *any* federal income taxes on it.
I’m also not sure you understand that only gains are taxable. If I invest $200,000 in 4000 shares of a stock at $50 a share, and then I sell 500 of those shares at $80 a share a year later for a gross transaction of $40,000, only the gain– the $30 difference between the cost basis of $50 and the sale price of $80– is taxable. Thus, only $30 times 500– or $15,000– of the total $40,000 transaction would be taxable. On that $15,000, I would owe no federal income taxes because it is subject to a zero-percent long-term capital-gains rate. You made an allusion to double taxation– that money invested has already been taxed– but that is not how it works. Your principal (i.e., your cost basis) is not taxed. Only the gains are taxed.
I could actually sell another 500 shares and now I would have $80,000, of which only $30,000 is taxable, and I would still owe no federal income taxes on it. Even if I sold a third tranche of 500 shares, giving me $120,000– $75,000 in principal and $45,000 in long-term capital gains– I would still owe no federal income taxes because the standard deduction would still keep my adjusted gross income below the 15-percent capital-gains tax bracket. And then next year, I can start over from zero and do it all again. I have made nearly all of my income in long-term capital gains in each of the last seven tax years, and I have owed no federal income taxes in most of those years because of this tax advantage. It’s ridiculous that the system allows me to do this. It’s the “Warren Buffett’s secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett” argument. Even Warren Buffett acknowledges it’s a totally unfair system that advantages the wealthy.
In our current system, there are two candidates who can win the presidential election: the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. As much as you might wish otherwise, that is not the system we live in. You believe that one of these candidates is a threat to the country and “orders of magnitude worse than Biden.” If there were an instant runoff, based on those beliefs, you would vote Biden above Trump even though you view Biden as unacceptable. If you were to vote for anyone other Biden or Trump believing that Trump is orders of magnitude worse than Biden, then you would effectively be voting for Trump because only those two candidates can win. Any vote for “not Biden” effectively becomes a vote for Trump in a system where only two candidates can win. Yes, it is true that you could reverse that argument, but you have already established that the candidates are not equivalent. If you really believe that Trump is a threat and orders of magnitude worse than the other major candidate, then you should vote for that other candidate even if it is an inanimate carbon rod.
My voter registration status is active. Are you not aware that states allow a voter to register as independent or decline-to-state? I have lived in three different states, and I have been a registered independent or the equivalent for my entire voting life.
I have not abandoned my principles. I voted for Biden enthusiastically in 2020. He was clearly the best candidate. I wish he had run in 2016. I will vote for him enthusiastically in 2024. He deserves re-election on his own merits, for reasons including those that other posters have delineated. But he also deserves re-election if his opponent is Trump because, in that likely scenario, one candidate is a pathological liar, malignant narcissist, unrepentant criminal and insurrectionist who will do incredible damage to the country if he is given power again, and the other candidate is Joe Biden. Any other candidates on the ballot are irrelevant unless you live in a state that is not in play. Only two candidates can win. The highest principle is that you do nothing that could help the fundamentally unfit Trump to gain power, power that he will abuse just like he did when he was previously in office. Any other consideration or clinging to conscience or principle, if you believe that Trump is orders of magnitude worse than Biden, is misplaced under the current circumstances.
I’m not saying that no one should vote for Trump. I mean, I wish we lived in a country where everyone could see him for what he is. But there are tens of millions of Americans who believe he was a good president, that he cares about people like them, and that he is innocent of all the charges against him in civil and criminal courts. I think those people are dead wrong but, if that’s what they believe, they should vote for him. But you don’t believe that. You believe he is a threat to the country. You believe he is orders of magnitude worse than the only other candidate who can win. You should vote for that other candidate. To vote for anyone other than the only candidate that can beat Trump is to enable Trump’s election. It is fiddling while the world burns.
Last thing, and I’ll be brief on this because others have addressed it– with respect to almost every issue you listed as important to you, it is the Democrats who are closer to your position and it is the Republicans who are opposed to it. I don’t understand, based on what you yourself claim to value, how you could be ambivalent about the difference between the parties.
@Brian
I am not sure why you are lecturing me extensively on these matters. I did major in economics, and I understand how taxes work.
You have been repeatedly making an incorrect statement.
A person whose income is above the $44,625 threshold pays a 15% tax rate on any capital gains (unless it reaches the threshold for the 20% rate). I am not sure what has led you to think otherwise, but you are wrong.
And what made you think I need an explanation on realized gains versus unrealized gains? I am well aware that unrealized gains are not taxed. To tax unrealized “gains” would be preposterous.
Using the example I’ve been giving, if a person with $45,000 of income made had a realized capital gain of $20,000, that person would pay 15% tax on that 20k capital gain. I have no idea why you think it is 0%. But you’re wrong.
Holy shit, you really are speaking to me as though I am a complete idiot. Do you really think I do not understand that the COST BASIS IS SUBTRACTED FROM THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF A STOCK SALE WHEN CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN ?????????????????????
I know how to calculate a capital gain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I refer to a capital gain of 20k, I mean a CAPITAL GAIN OF 20k!!!!!!
You are saying that you paid NO taxes on your 45k of capital gains for 7 years? That would only be true if your other income were below $41,225 or whatever the 2022 number was. In the example I have been using, that is NOT THE CASE. A person whose ordinary income is just above that threshold pays capital gains tax on the full amount of the capital gain. I have been very clear on this. I am not sure which part you are misunderstanding.
When someone invests money in a stock or similar investment, the money used for the investment is already what is left over after paying payroll taxes and income taxes and the myriad other taxes in our system. I have no issue with a relatively low rate of taxation on capital gains, being that the money invested is already post-tax money.
But, if people really feel the need to take a lot of money from the wealthy, fine, go ahead – what do I care? I am not wealthy and probably never will be, and my mother certainly is not wealthy. My life is unaffected one way or the other whether Warren Buffet pays 20% or 40% tax on his capital gains. I really do not care. But to encourage investing by the lower and middle classes, I do believe there should be a much higher threshold for the 0% rate. Does the government really need to take a 15% tax on modest capital gains from the middle class? Can it not function on the several trillion dollars it already collects from other sources?
Yes, I am well aware that a person can be registered as something other than a republican or democrat. Obviously, I am aware of this. I’ve made it clear I am not a democrat or republican. I am not sure why you would think I am unaware of this. I was merely curious as to your designation.
Also, I never said people who work should not be rewarded! I think the payroll taxes should be eliminated on lower-class earners and anyone earning less than (let’s say, arbitrarily, 100k). Similarly, I would like to see all the brackets for income tax raised, to further benefit the lower and middle classes, thus further rewarding workers and protecting their earned income. Where did you get the idea that I do not care about rewarding workers and protecting their income ??????? It is YOU who has gotten ME completely wrong and backwards.
Did you somehow get the idea that I am a member of the wealthy elite? I can barely afford rent and groceries. My elderly mother can barely afford anything. I have some orthopedic injuries I have not dealt with because I cannot afford the medical bills. I am waiting until 2024 in the hopes that I have better health insurance by then. I shop at Aldi and try to keep my food spending to $300 a month, even though my daily caloric needs are in the range of 3200-4000. I do not go on vacations. I do not buy jewelry. I do not buy or wear expensive clothes. I buy clothes at Walmart or target. Etc.
But, what difference does it make what I say? You are going to dismiss any of my personal reasons for my political philosophy as selfish or self-serving, while claiming your views to be the morally superior ones. You are not interested in anything I have to say or what my reasons are. You have objected to my premises from the start and will find reasons to dismiss whatever I say.
Keith- Really love your work and have for many years. I happen to lean slightly right of center politically but consider myself a reasonable person that doesn’t vote along party lines. In fact, I would jump at the opportunity to support a third party candidate in this next cycle. I also know you lean left politically. I have no problem with this and actually love the opportunity to debate with people that have different views than I do! This comment irked me a little though:
The U.S. media continues to fuck up its coverage of the Presidential race, treating Trump as some sort of entertainment vehicle – as they did in 2015-16 – while playing into dubious narratives around President Biden’s age or his son’s behavior.
I have no issue with the first part (The U.S. media continues to fuck up its coverage of the Presidential race, treating Trump as some sort of entertainment vehicle – as they did in 2015-16) but what exactly is dubious about the President’s age narrative? Has he shown himself to be mentally fit enough to lead our country? (This is not me saying Trump is more mentally capable at all.) And why shouldn’t his son’s behavior, especially with other countries involved, play into consideration when considering a candidate?
Answering your question: yes, Biden has unquestionably shown himself to be mentally fit enough to lead. He has been president for almost three years and, while people may disagree with his policies, he hasn’t done anything to suggest that he is incapable of doing the job he has been doing capably since January 2021. I don’t understand what the case to the contrary would be. He tripped a couple of times? He sometimes stumbles over his words or forgets a name? I’m in my late 40s and I sometimes forget names. At no point has Biden shown any sign of cognitive issues or any kind of instability, let alone the instability that is Trump’s stock in trade. If the choice is between Trump and Biden, the choice is between two elderly men, one of whom is a pathologically lying crazy person who is detached from reality and who doesn’t care about anything but himself. I realize that there are a lot of people who are unable to see that this is what Trump is, but you seem to able to see it. If you see it, the only defensible vote is for the only candidate that can beat Trump. A third-party candidate will not win a single state, let alone the entire electoral college.
I mean, one of the two candidates bizzarelly admitted to passing the short term memory portion of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (we never found how he did on the other parts). It’s usually done because a doctor or close family member has concerns of the patient’s cognitive ability.
Biden has shown himself to be mentally fit enough to lead our country over the past two and a half years. That’s not really in question unless you’ve fallen down a right-wing media hole.
If this were an open field, I wouldn’t choose an octogenarian as my preferred candidate. That’s not our situation, however; the current front-runner for the opposition is under indictment in three different jurisdictions, has undermined our democracy through deeds and actions, lied about the results of the last election, fomented an armed insurrection, and rather clearly indicated he won’t accept the results of a future election if he loses it. Biden is old. I don’t see how any rational person can view these two things as equivalent.
The question is not whether Biden has done anything over the last 3 years to male himself seem unfit to be president. Or rather, that should not be the question. The question should be, “Given Biden’s age, are there legitimate concerns that he might become unable to handle his duties as president by the end of a 2nd term?”
The answer to that question is probably “yes”. However, as Keith and other have noted, each major party is apparently going to nominate an elderly candidate, so essentially that question becomes a non-factor, since it can be applied to either candidate.
And, for the reasons mentioned by Keith and others, and numerous other reasons not mentioned, the GOP candidate is an outright criminal and horrible person and a threat to our own country, and thus I cannot see how any reasonable person would justify voting for the GOP candidate over Biden.
Personally, I’ll vote for neither of them. If that means I am “wasting” my vote, so be it. What’s the alternative? To hear for the rest of my life that every election has now become “too important” to vote my conscience, and therefore I must choose the lesser of two evils? I don’t believe this deeply entrenched two-party system serves anyone effectively, so I will vote against the two-party system by voting for a 3rd party or independent candidate.
If the Democratic party wants me to vote against the GOP candidate, I am willing to do that – all they need to do is enact a ranked-choice system of voting. At that point, I’ll happily fill out a ballot with the GOP candidate at the bottom of my list (or not on my list at all, if that’s permissible under a ranked choice ballot system), while also voting for my first-choice candidate (which would be neither major party candidate). I would include the democratic candidate on my list to “do my part” in helping prevent the GOP candidate from being elected.
But, when neither of the two major parties seems interested in ranked-choice voting, to me it symbolizes that both parties are okay with losing half the time as long as it means they win half the time. In which case, we’re all basically being trolled by both parties if we just continue to vote for one or them (or rather, against one of them).
Replying to FrankJones:
Until we have the system you want (ranked-choice voting), you have to vote the system you have. Under that system, unless you live in a state that is not contested, a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Trump, whom you correctly identify as a criminal and a threat to the country. Describing Biden as “the lesser of two evils” in this scenario is ridiculous. One of the candidates endangers the country, by your own account. How does Biden’s “evil,” in your terms, possibly justify this false equivalence?
I recognize that there is a certain segment of the voting public that really believes Trump was a great president who cares about people like them and that does not acknowledge his criminality or dishonesty. But Trump could never win an electoral-college majority with only those voters. His only path to victory is if other voters buy into the idea that it doesn’t make any difference whom they vote for because both candidates are terrible, and if those voters either sit out the election or vote for third-party candidates. That’s how Bush beat Gore in 2000, but the premise is wrong. It absolutely makes a difference who wins.
Frank, it’s pretty misleading to claim Dems have no interest in ranked choice voting when most of the cities and areas that use it are predominately Dem. Obviously liberals seem to be more willing to enact it than conservatives. And yes if think Trump is a threat to this country (your own words) and aren’t voting for Biden, you’re enabling said threat to this country no matter how justify it.
Russia will be weakened by the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict big time but not by backing Armenia, they effectively did the opposite. They washed their hands of long time ally Armenia (who have been helping them skirt sanctions) because Azerbaijan is more powerful and closely aligned with Turkey, which Russia needs a lot more than Armenia in regards to Ukraine. Once the Rusisan “peacekeepers” showed to be apathetic, Azerbaijan moved in. It is just another alliance that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on which is par for the course for the Russian federation.
“This should end the looming humanitarian crisis in the region but may lead to a large exodus of ethnic Armenians”
I mean, the ethnic cleansing you explicitly mention is a big part of said humanitarian crisis. Don’t think there’s anyway to see this Azerbaijani land grab as anything but “bad”
I don’t see a “good” solution to the crisis; it’s a majority Armenian enclave within Azeri territory, and there’s little or no historical precedent for that turning into a stable, long-term situation. I’d linked a few weeks ago to a story on the possible humanitarian crisis in the region because of the Azeri blockade of food and medicines, and this is the update, with U.S. media spending very little ink on the story because it doesn’t involve us.
While I think your stance has some merit from a pure realpolitik standpoint, I have a couple counters:
1. I think Azerbaijan’s status as a right-wing petrostate backed by the US, Turkey, and other Western interests is an important factor here (and also explains some of the lack of media coverage). To some degree, we are letting them do this because it furthers our interests.
2. While mass displacement of a people *may* alleviate immediate material concerns, the resulting “stability” is still “violent” in any meaningful sense of the word. A salient analogue of this is Native American reservations, which have subpar life expectancy, health, wealth, etc… Just because there is nominative “peace” in these situations, does not mean that an ongoing toll is not being inflicted on the victims of ethnic cleansing.
I guess I’m looking at this through the lens of how Artsakh became such an enclave, through a war rather than a negotiation, and how that was likely to be forever unstable because it was linked to Armenia by that one tiny corridor. I apologize if any of what I wrote above came across as cheering the Azeri takeover.
No apology needed…I did not assume you were cheerleading or antyhing close to it. Mostly just happy to talk though things. Final note: thought this statement was good and wish I would have seen it before my last post, as it sums up much of what I was trying to say better than I did: https://international.dsausa.org/statements/artsakh/
The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) has been covered pretty well for years by the Los Angeles Times. This is almost certainly because Los Angeles County is home to the largest number of Armenians outside of Armenia itself. Where I live, you see a lot of Artsakh flags on cars.
People that come up with these bloviating word salads to sanitize their votes for Trump are worse than those that just walk around in their maga gear. Do you also explain to waitresses how it’s not that you’re cheap, it’s the need to protest the broken tipping system when you leave zero?
That’s a good analogy. I hate the system of tipping for all of the 10,000 reasons why it sucks. However as long as the system exists, I know logically that tipping is the moral thing to do. Otherwise, I’m just punishing those who are being screwed by the system even more.
@FrankJones
The impact of a third-party/protest vote has been written about pretty extensively. Below is a pretty succinct explanation of how that vote serves to help the presumptive GOP nominee in 2024
https://www.thirdway.org/one-pager/explainer-why-a-presidential-third-party-in-2024-would-benefit-the-gop
@ Mat
Be that as it may, I vote for the candidate whose views are most closely aligned with mine.
Why are there so many republicans in this country? Doesn’t the democratic party represent the interests of the poor, the lower class, and the middle class? Of the disenfranchised, the oppressed? Numerous minority groups? The underprivileged? I would think democrats should have an overwhelming majority of support from the general population. Apparently, they do not. Maybe the democrats are not doing enough to gain significant support from the demographic they should naturally appeal to.
Also, if there really are 39% of voters who identify as independents, even if 3/4 of those independents have “leanings” one way or the other, I take that as an encouraging sign. 39% is a lot. It means there is hope for an independent candidate at some point during our lifetime.
Also, in any recent presidential election, what percentage of eligible voters actually voted for the winner? 25-30%? Only 50-60% of eligible voters actually vote, right? And of those, the votes are split close to 50/50 for the two main candidates.
If all the non-voters AND all the independent voters galvanized and said, “Let’s start working toward getting an independent candidate elected,” it could happen.
By the same (il)logical reasoning being used against me in this thread, the massive numbers of non-voters are also voting for Trump, since apparently anyone NOT voting for Biden is voting for Trump, even if that person does NOT actually vote for Trump.
So, I kindly ask that people leave me alone, let me vote for the candidates I believe in, and find a way to get those tens of millions of non-voters to go out and vote Biden.
Here’s an interesting question. What if the democrats picked one issue that is most important to republican-leaning centrists, and modified their stance on that issue? Would that bring a lot of undecided / independent / non-voters to their side? I’m asking because I do not know the answer. Also, such a move might cause some democrat-leaning centrists to go to the other side. So, I am not sure what would happen.
Frank, maybe the reason there aren’t ‘enough’ democrats in the U.S. is because of people who think like you do about these issues.
And what I mean by this is the idea of hoping for a ‘perfect’ candidate in a world in which perfection doesn’t exist, complaining when someone isn’t perfect, and using that argument as justification for avoiding a tough yet important decision.
I’d argue that it’s not even tough, as Frank explains his thinking. It’s more self-serving and he wants us to think he’s some deep intellectual with his reasoning. I went to college; I knew tons of people like this when I was 19.
Just say you don’t want to pay taxes. That’s a reasonable stance, even if I vehemently disagree. Be honest about it and stop being a snob, with these convoluted, pseudo-intellectual justifications that make you feel better about the selfish choices you want to make.
News flash: lots of people vote against their economic interests for the greater good (and against the collapse of democracy).
I strongly disagree with some significant portions of the democratic platform. That is why I am no longer a democrat being a democrat for quite a few years into adulthood.
I very strongly disagree with much of the GOP platform, hence I am not a republican either. I find the GOP position on many key issues to be especially loathsome, whereas I generally think democrats are well-intended but just misguided or incorrect in their approach.
I am not necessarily looking for a “perfect” candidate – I know no such candidate exists. But if I do not vote for Biden, it is because I am voting for a candidate whom I believe to be a better candidate than Biden. It’s as simple as that. I am not sure why people are struggling with this or insulting me. But, hey, that’s okay. The condescending insults being thrown at me on this blog say a lot more about the people making those insults than they say about me.
@Malcolm:
My objection to the highly regressive payroll taxes, which very disproportionately affect the lower-class earners, is a legitimate gripe.
I also believe the 0% threshold for modest capital gains should be raised. That’s a perfectly reasonable stance to take.
Nobody has addressed my key issues of concern, specifically, the pitifully low amount of social security benefits paid out to retired senior citizens, especially compared to the skyrocketing cost of living and devaluation of the dollar.
Yes, I very strongly object to the tax system in this country. Much of that has to do with my immense dissatisfaction with what the government spends the money on. That’s a reasonable stance.
Your ad hominum attacks presented no analysis, no reasoning, no attempts to actually discuss the issues. Essentially, you are being a troll.