MidWestGuy
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | Illinois |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 2019 |
| Registered on: | 11/5/2018 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: “The rich avoid tax by taking loans against their stocks!”
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/14/26 at 10:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
when Elon Musk inexplicably (?patriotically?) elected to cash Tesla shares, fully exposed to tax, in order to buy Twitter. Obtaining a simple loan against his shares would have cost vastly less while preserving his holdings.
It's possible that no financial institution wanted to loan out a large enough amount against the shares that Elon had. Tesla stock was extremely volatile, and not diversified. Not a great holding to use as collateral. I have an LOC that I've used occasionally for some short term cash flow needs, to avoid selling appreciated shares and incurring cap gains tax. My collateral was broad index funds, essentially a Beta of one vs 'the market'.
Let's see, AI says:
quote:
At the exact time Elon Musk finalized his purchase of Twitter on October 27, 2022, his net worth was estimated to be between $204 billion and $212 billion.
and...
How the $44 Billion Deal Was Funded - Musk did not pay the entire amount out of pocket; instead, he assembled a leveraged buyout package consisting of personal wealth, loans, and outside investments:$27.7 billion in personal equity: Funded largely by selling billions of dollars worth of his personal Tesla stock
more to the point:
quote:For reference, I can borrow ~ 55% of my stocks current value. Banks limited Elon to 20%, and as shown above, that would have been risky for the bank.
Why didn't Musk borrow against his Tesla shares?
Elon Musk initially planned to take out a $12.5 billion margin loan against his Tesla shares to finance the Twitter buyout. ... The primary reasons Musk chose not to borrow against his Tesla stock include:
1. Risk of a "Margin Call" A margin loan requires the borrower to maintain a specific collateral value. Under the original terms, banks required Musk to back the loan with Tesla stock worth five times the loan amount. Between April and May 2022, Tesla's stock price plummeted by roughly 30% to 40%. Had Tesla's stock dropped further, banks would have triggered a margin call.This would have forced Musk to either instantly inject billions in cash or watch the banks forcibly sell off his Tesla shares at rock-bottom prices to cover the gap.
2. Tesla Corporate Borrowing RulesTesla’s board maintains a strict corporate policy to protect the company from executive leverage. At the time, Tesla rules limited major shareholders from borrowing more than 25% of the total value of any pledged shares. Because Musk had already pledged over 90 million shares to secure older, personal loans before the Twitter bid, he was running out of unpledged stock to legally use as collateral under Tesla’s guidelines.
1
re: R.I.P. NYPD police cars & City of New York tonight !
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/14/26 at 9:57 am to LivingstonLaw
Imagine a Democrat mayor saying this today, or any Mayor for that matter:
LINK
Chicago Mayor Daley, 1968:
LINK
Chicago Mayor Daley, 1968:
quote:
Daley issued a directive that going forward authorities should “shoot to kill any arsonist or anyone with a Molotov cocktail in his hand because they are potential murderers” and “shoot to maim or cripple anyone looting any stores in our city.”
re: “The rich avoid tax by taking loans against their stocks!”
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/14/26 at 9:15 am to Victor R Franko
Penrod:
You are talking "wash sales" rules. But they don't apply to buying back a 'similar' stock, only if you buy back the same stock/fund. There's some vague wording there that has never been tested, and that is "substantially identical". So it's not clear if I sell one S&P500 fund, and purchase another, if it is a wash or not. AFAIK, no one has had a sale be deemed a 'wash sale' unless it was actually identical.
And it is a 61 day window (30 days before and after), to be exact.
quote:
my managers will harvest losses to offset some of the gains and then reinvest in similar stocks so I don’t lose out on the opportunity of the low share prices
quote:
This isn't legal unless they're waiting the required 30 day waiting period necessary to allow the loss offset. I'm sure that's what you meant.
You are talking "wash sales" rules. But they don't apply to buying back a 'similar' stock, only if you buy back the same stock/fund. There's some vague wording there that has never been tested, and that is "substantially identical". So it's not clear if I sell one S&P500 fund, and purchase another, if it is a wash or not. AFAIK, no one has had a sale be deemed a 'wash sale' unless it was actually identical.
And it is a 61 day window (30 days before and after), to be exact.
re: “The rich avoid tax by taking loans against their stocks!”
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/14/26 at 9:01 am to lsuconnman
quote:
Remove the step-up in basis tax and this entire topic disappears.
Remove the step-up in basis tax and you have created a ton more of other problems.
So a guy builds a family business. That business can't run without the $50M factory that was built over 40 years, many of those years being hard times. So now the owner dies, and owes an estate tax on that, or all the unrealized gains are now taxed, even though they aren't taking the money out of the business?
You'll destroy those businesses, you'll destroy the incentive to build a family business.
They are getting taxed every which way, property taxes on the factory, their share of employee taxes, etc. If you own stocks, the dividends are taxed. If you manage to hang on to some, I say they are yours, and you have the right to pass them on to whoever you want, the govt should not get involved.
And don't tell me you'll make a carve out for business investments - Congress will put in 'loopholes' for their rich friends, and it will just complicate things for every one else.
re: “The rich avoid tax by taking loans against their stocks!”
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/14/26 at 8:48 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
You don’t pay income taxes on any loan or line of credit. But don’t you have to pay it back plus interest at some point?
Not really. The stocks are the collateral. They are 'locked down', you can't pull them out of that account, there may be some limits on trading within the account (they won't loan you as much if you have crazy volatile stocks in the account). Example:
You have an account with $10M of stocks. They let you borrow $2M against it, and you pay the interest every month (usually a floating rate, some index plus x.x%). You can just pay the interest. You don't need to pay any 'principal', because you own the principal.
You only need to pay the $2M to end the interest payment you are making, and free up those committed stocks if you wanted to sell them outright.
re: Things Karmelo Anthony could have done to avoid jail
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/10/26 at 2:09 pm to the808bass
quote:
Not go to a track meet he wasn’t supposed to be at as he was suspended.
Do you have a credible link for that? AI is saying no, but I can't always trust it.
re: Sentence Reached
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/9/26 at 8:08 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
His dumbass family and retarded supporters walked his arse directly into a 35 year bid instead of seeking a plea deal from the very beginning. Now that he’s been convicted and sentenced, it’s time to go after that six figure slush fund in a wrongful death suit.
From google AI:
quote:
? No plea deal was ever offered by the prosecution to Karmelo Anthony.While rumors circulated on social media that his defense team had rejected a deal, legal analysis of the trial confirmed that the state of Texas refused to extend any plea bargain. Your understanding is correct: because the prosecution holds sole authority over whether an official deal is put on the table, Anthony's legal team had no choice but to take the case to a jury.
re: Sentence Reached
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/9/26 at 7:59 pm to OU Guy
quote:
He chose Jury.
He chose.... poorly.
re: Sentence Reached
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/9/26 at 7:46 pm to Kafka
quote:From google AI (and what I read elsewhere):
I thought that was the judge's job
quote:
Under Texas state law, a defendant has the unique right to elect whether a judge or a jury assesses their sentence. Anthony's defense team specifically requested that the jury handle the sentencing phase. Following his murder conviction on June 9, 2026, the same 12-person panel deliberated and ultimately sentenced him to 35 years in prison.
In Texas criminal procedure, a defendant must file a written election for jury sentencing before the trial begins.
After the jury came back so quickly (a very strong sign that they were fully confident in a "guilty" charge, and when it was for murder, not the lesser manslaughter charge) , I bet he really regretted leaving sentencing to the jury.
re: Verdict reached in Metcalf case.
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/9/26 at 1:57 pm to Tigertittie
I linked it here in another thread...
LINK
J.D. Miles
@jdmiles11
·
2s
Breaking a verdict has been reached in the Karmelo Anthony murder trial it will be announced sometime after 2:05 PM central time
re: Defense Rests in Karmelo Anthony Trial GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/9/26 at 1:51 pm to MidWestGuy
LINK
That was fast. They didn't even pretend to have to take time to decide. It must be guilty, right? Right?
quote:
J.D. Miles @jdmiles11 · 2s Breaking a verdict has been reached in the Karmelo Anthony murder trial it will be announced sometime after 2:05 PM central time
That was fast. They didn't even pretend to have to take time to decide. It must be guilty, right? Right?
re: Defense Rests in Karmelo Anthony Trial GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/9/26 at 1:37 pm to cajunangelle
I hate legalese - while I'm pretty sure I understand what a sentence in there says, but considering the weight of a murder trial, I would need to be 100% sure I interpreted it correctly.
And to be 100% sure, I'd need to make a diagram of some of those sentences. They're full of double-triple negatives, with those twists and turns all set out before you get to the end of the sentence which says something like "then you must (or must not) find the defendant guilty (or not guilty) of said charge". By the time I get to the end, I lost what was at the beginning!
edit/add: I thought I might be exaggerating, but that paragraph that begins "Now therefore, bearing in mind..." goes on for 8 full lines - and it is one, single, long, run-on sentence.
And to be 100% sure, I'd need to make a diagram of some of those sentences. They're full of double-triple negatives, with those twists and turns all set out before you get to the end of the sentence which says something like "then you must (or must not) find the defendant guilty (or not guilty) of said charge". By the time I get to the end, I lost what was at the beginning!
edit/add: I thought I might be exaggerating, but that paragraph that begins "Now therefore, bearing in mind..." goes on for 8 full lines - and it is one, single, long, run-on sentence.
re: The Chicago Bears move forward with Indiana stadium
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/5/26 at 9:21 pm to JohnLasater
quote:
Hammond is basically Southside Chicago. It’s not a major move. They shot Blues Brothers in that area.
The Bears are on a mission from God.
Yea, I'm in a SouthWest burb of Chicago (pretty deep red area), and I see comments from people around here that it will be easier for them to get to Hammond than to downtown Chicago.
re: Black Liberals PANIC - Court REJECTS EVERY Black Juror For Karmelo Anthony Murder Trial.
Posted by MidWestGuy on 6/5/26 at 8:11 am to riccoar
quote:Not quite:
To be a juror, one you must possess some form of accepted ID AND be a registered voter.
LINK
quote:
Qualifications for Jury Service You do not need any special skills or legal knowledge to be a juror! To be qualified to serve as a juror you must:
be at least 18 years of age;
be a citizen of the United States;
be a resident of this state and of the county in which you are to serve as a juror;
be qualified under the Constitution and laws to vote in the county in which you are to serve as a juror (Note: You do not have to be
registered to vote to be qualified to vote);
be of sound mind and good moral character;
be able to read and write;
not have served as a juror for six days during the preceding three months in the county court or during the preceding six months in the district court; and
not have been convicted of, or be under indictment or other legal accusation for, misdemeanor theft or a felony.
*Note that the completion of deferred adjudication is not a disqualifying "conviction". (Texas Government Code § 62.102. General Qualifications for Jury Service. Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 35.16 et. seq.)
re: An interesting picture, worth 1000 words.
Posted by MidWestGuy on 5/31/26 at 8:03 pm to scrooster
From google Gemini AI:
This image is AI-generated.
While these five presidents have gathered together for official historic events over the years, this casual "mirror selfie" is entirely fabricated.
Several factors confirm it is a fake:
Historical Timeline Inconsistencies: The apparent ages of the men do not align. For Joe Biden to look as he does as president or vice president, Jimmy Carter would have been much older and frailer than depicted here.
Lack of Record: An unprecedented, casual photo of five U.S. presidents would be globally famous and heavily documented by major news outlets, yet no official record of this photo exists.
AI Visual Artifacts: Closer inspection reveals classic digital generation errors, particularly with the unnatural smoothing of skin textures, blending errors around the hands holding the phone, and the distortion of the phone's reflection itself.
This image is AI-generated.
While these five presidents have gathered together for official historic events over the years, this casual "mirror selfie" is entirely fabricated.
Several factors confirm it is a fake:
Historical Timeline Inconsistencies: The apparent ages of the men do not align. For Joe Biden to look as he does as president or vice president, Jimmy Carter would have been much older and frailer than depicted here.
Lack of Record: An unprecedented, casual photo of five U.S. presidents would be globally famous and heavily documented by major news outlets, yet no official record of this photo exists.
AI Visual Artifacts: Closer inspection reveals classic digital generation errors, particularly with the unnatural smoothing of skin textures, blending errors around the hands holding the phone, and the distortion of the phone's reflection itself.
re: More fun at another teen takeover event…
Posted by MidWestGuy on 5/24/26 at 9:04 am to Placekicker
Here's a Chicago local report:
LINK
LINK
quote:
CPD officers were on foot dispersing a large gathering when they were struck by a driver in a blue car heading westbound in the eastbound lane, police said. After striking five police officers, the driver drove over the curb, crashed into a CPD squad car, a pole and a fencer. The 18-year-old man driving the car was not injured and was taken into custody. CPD said they found a gun in the car. All five officers were taken to local hospitals and are expected to be OK. Charged are pending.
re: A Nancy Pelosi production - video contradicts officers claims of J6 injuries received
Posted by MidWestGuy on 5/22/26 at 9:23 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
I didn't watch every second of those videos, but from what we see, can anyone positively identify that the guy walking around in the 2nd video is the same officer testifying in the 1st? Looks like him, but I didn't see anything to make it certain.
re: TN: All members of Dem Caucus are being removed from committees for their behavior
Posted by MidWestGuy on 5/16/26 at 8:49 am to Bobby OG Johnson
Two Qs:
1) Why isn't "included setting fires" included in the notice?
2) How big is this loophole "except where membership is required pursuant to Rule 65"?
edit/add: OK, Google Gemini says:
So how many D's are on these committees now? If R's are in charge, probably already at the minimum? Does this notice have any teeth at all?
edit/add: OK, asked about that.
Sigh.
1) Why isn't "included setting fires" included in the notice?
2) How big is this loophole "except where membership is required pursuant to Rule 65"?
edit/add: OK, Google Gemini says:
quote:
Because of Rule 65, the majority leadership cannot completely hollow out minority representation on these panels, as a minimum proportional threshold must be maintained.
Because of this math, even if the Speaker exercises maximum authority to strip individual lawmakers of preferred assignments, Rule 65 dictates that the Democratic caucus must maintain roughly one-quarter of the seats on any given panel.
So how many D's are on these committees now? If R's are in charge, probably already at the minimum? Does this notice have any teeth at all?
edit/add: OK, asked about that.
quote:
Your intuition is completely spot on. Because the baseline representation was already hovering right at the proportional minimums, this notice is largely a piece of political theater and a structural "demotion" rather than a total erasure of the party from the committee rooms.
Sigh.
re: Melania AI
Posted by MidWestGuy on 5/12/26 at 9:50 am to Padme
Melanie???
But it is amusing. She's hot when she's angry. And all other times as well.
But it is amusing. She's hot when she's angry. And all other times as well.
re: Chicago Alderman, low IQ, wants to charge Walgreens with a crime for leaving a shiithole
Posted by MidWestGuy on 5/4/26 at 6:29 pm to MidWestGuy
Another quote:
:confused: I have used mail order pharmacy, and I had a car. It was more convenient for me, compared to going to the pharmacy just 5 miles away. What's the problem?
quote:
"Now, I've got to find another way. I've got to possibly go west to Cicero, and I'm living all the way here on the East Side," Gardner said. Patricia Shell does not have an option for another Walgreens. She uses an electric wheelchair for her once-a-month pick up for prescriptions. Shell does not drive. "This is convenient for me. I just live down the street here in the senior building, and I don't know what we're going to do. I guess I have to go strictly with my mail order people," Shell said.
:confused: I have used mail order pharmacy, and I had a car. It was more convenient for me, compared to going to the pharmacy just 5 miles away. What's the problem?
re: Chicago Alderman, low IQ, wants to charge Walgreens with a crime for leaving a shiithole
Posted by MidWestGuy on 5/4/26 at 6:26 pm to GatorOnAnIsland
Saw it on the local Chicago news today, the broadcast is here, and they did quote Walmart on theft and safety concerns:
LINK
LINK
quote:
statement from Walgreens spokesperson: "Our Cottage Grove Avenue store will close on June 4, 2026. Customers can continue to fill prescriptions at this location until the closing date. "Over time, this store has experienced significantly higher levels of theft and violent incidents than our other locations. Despite a range of efforts, including previous operating adjustments, these ongoing safety challenges have made it increasingly difficult to maintain a secure environment for our team members and customers. While this was not an easy decision, safety must remain our top priority.
Popular
16
