U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 24, 2021 06:42 AM UTC
26 Comments
Today is National Handshake Day
Dana Milbank has fun with Qbert.
Lauren Boebert, lost in a cacophony of crazy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/lauren-boebert-lost-cacophony-crazy/
"to contrast her Biden censure with the Jackson censure, in 1834. Both times, Boebert’s answer betrayed no indication that she knew who Andrew Jackson was."
Giuliani – He's melting. Ha, ha, ha, ha ha!
Rudy loses law license over 2020 election subversion.
https://www.axios.com/rudy-giuliani-new-york-law-license-48095707-332d-4b4d-9670-b10ad0a165d4.html
At least he’s not your lawyer:
In re Giuliani
If only it were Tuesday. Then we could call it Goodbye Rudy Tuesday. Maybe the permanent disbarment order will come on a Tuesday.
A thought on capital gains taxes (and yes, I have a giant interest in this).
Capital gains span the gamut from high speed trading gains (I think those hurt society) to standard stock gains, to VC/IB profits from investments, to the pay-offs to founders and employees at start-ups.
On the one hand, I don't think we want to be dividing these up by category as the accountants will figure out how to get everything classified in the most favorable category.
On the other hand, the pay-off for start-ups, if made too low, could be killing the goose that lays the golden egg. For the venture capitalists and investment banks they are totally built around having a small number of their investments be a giant win (and the rest is unimportant by comparison). The tax on those big wins determines the ROI on those investments.
And for founders & employees (my category), we forgo the larger salary we would get at Google, Microsoft, etc. and in return, if it's successful, we get they payoff when sold. And again, that difference is pay post-taxes vs. capital gains post taxes.
I don't know what the answer is. Part of the answer might be to put a tax on stock trading as that gets the traders without touching the start-up investors.
Personally I hope they find a way that works well for the employees who get the payout – at Windward this let people pay off their school loans in full, for some it was pay off all their debts & mortgage, etc. It was life changing and a great return for their choosing to take the risk working for a small company that doesn't pay as well as big tech.
Myself, I've been opposed to the "soak the rich" political approach taken in D.C., by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other ultra-liberals, by calling for a wealth tax. I would rather see a modest fee placed on each share of stock that gets traded on an exchange.
One thought — follow the example of houses and give a one time exemption of capital gains up to some significant amount.
Heck, I'd even be up for step system that would exempt MULTIPLE generations of capital gains when the money is re-invested into another "small business" that creates or increases jobs. [I'd LIKE a "pay-for" by taxing the gains of those who destroy jobs and balance sheets, the Alden Capital and Bain Capital and their ilk, but would bet that would never happen.)
You oversimplify.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
FWIW – a good chunk of what I made will go into my next start-up. I never needed investors for Windward and with this money, I can do something bigger without the downsides of having to get investors.
Also, I'm not against paying taxes (well, I would like to keep it all). The 20% is very reasonable for someone that will reinvest most of what's left. And very reasonable for the employees and their payout.
But the thing is, if you do it based on outcomes, well my company eliminated a ton of jobs. That was why companies bought our software, to have it replace work people were doing. A ton of new technology eliminates jobs.
And you also have companies that reduce jobs in the companies they buy. Happens in software too (I turned down offers from companies that would have done that to Windward). But at times those reductions are called for – so how do you differentiate on that?
As I said, it's a hard problem.
It is complicated.
But income is income and calling it capital gains and taxing it differently than wage income puts wage earners at a huge disadvantage.
Which is the glaring take away point in the Propublica article.
I am reminded of the Davos exchange with Michael Dell when as a defense of not paying higher taxes he points out that he and his wife started a foundation and that foundation certainly deployed the capital better than any government would have. He thought his real point was that no economy has ever thrived when the marginal tax rate on the rich was high. Though another of the panelists had data that proved that incorrect.
Yeah – that may well be the best way to do it.
Disagree.
To the pitchforks!
We accept that different people take actions that put them at higher risk of needing medical care. And that is a trade-off of allowing people to live the life they want.
For example, we could outlaw motorcycles, smoking, alcohol, sky diving, extreme sports, backyard pools, trampolines, etc. and we would have a lot fewer people in the hospital. We could mandate continuing with masks and distancing and keep annual flu deaths very low. The list goes on…
Boy would that life suck. We all have a couple of high(er) risk items we would hate to give up.
I think we're getting close to that point with COVID vaccinations. The question is not have we eliminated the possibility of hot spots, its have we reduced things enough that it doesn't stress the medical system. If so, then if some people want to risk death or chronic medical impairment, that's their decision.
I've read that almost all persons now hospitalized in Colorado for COVID are people who declined to get the vaccinations. Yes, it is their decision. But they're also being selfish because many of their loved ones have gotten the shots. In their desire for "freedom," they don't think of the potential impact on family and friends.
Can insurance companies charge the unvaccinated more? I know I once got a better rate on health insurance because I didn't smoke (and agreed to a blood test to provie it).
Not since the ACA.
Can't agree. If a person dies skydiving, they don't hurt anyone else physically unless they land on them.
Meanwhile, a person carrying COVID can put housemates, coworkers, family members, and people gathering together inside for extended periods of time at risk, plus as mentioned on a thread yesterday can help spread variants that might be more dangerous than the original. I checked yesterday and Mesa was at about 40% fully vaccinated, and their ICU and ventilator capacities are seriously tested, which means actions of the unvaccinated might put great burdens on health care workers and facilities.
Being unvaccinated might be their "decision," but the impacts to others could be far-reaching or even lethal.
Methinks if the non-vaxxed and proud of it had to pay their own medical bills, many would change their tune.
You have more trust in the awareness and planning of people than I do.
Young people who think they are immortal or invulnerable are not investing now because they will need money later;
middle aged people continue focus on the actual bills in hand and routine bills coming by the end of the month; most seem to be not worrying about bills that might come, might not.
older people already have medicare, so most do not purely pay their own medical care
Even now, only about 10% of the population has had confirmed COVID cases; only about 2% have had to go into a hospital (and some of those weren't "serious" illness); only about 0.2% or 0.3% died, and another 0.6% have variable impacts due to "long haul" COVID-19. I like to think of myself as one of the "more" privileged, more protected, and more likely to plan than most people in our society. And I've only recently gotten serious about changing my behavior and my spending habits to account for 3-5% chances of illness or death.
Related required reading, on how close Trump may have come to death and how he could have exposed g_d knows how many high-profile others during his sickness. Seriously, this is a good short read.
What about cigarette smokers?
Not exactly sure what you mean with this question, but got curious & found that people world-wide smoke 5.5 TRILLION cigarettes per year. According to the WHO, tobacco kills 8 million per year, & they say second-hand smoke accounts for 1.2 million of those. Do we accept this – not exactly, since we tax fairly heavily and companies charge more for insurance. But it creates heavy demand for health care, and it's expensive once someone gets seriously ill.
So, in my mind impacts beyond what happens to the individual making a choice include death or cancer due to 2nd hand smoke, cost in medical treatment probably borne somewhat collectively, and burdens on the medical system.
Yes, that was my point. When COVID impact gets down in the neighborhood of cigarette impact, then we accept it as a life choice which does impact us all in the medical costs.
I don't like it, but who am I to say what bad choices we will subsidize and which ones will we disallow.
You think heroin and meh should be illegal? DWI? Speeding – say 100mph+ on streets ?
Heroin should be legal, on the British model, with a doctor's prescription and a cost of not more than $5 a dose. Take the profit put of it and the drug lords will stop recruiting new addicts.