|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1431108) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 16:06:37 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 15:32:22 2017. You have no understanding of capital. Capital gain is not a subsidy.Yes, but you have a fairly vague understanding of what capital gains actually are. I already tried to explain the concept to you, but you seem to be having trouble with it. Try again: Suppose a stock has a value of $10 today. I purchase one share $10. Next week, the value is $20, so I sell it for $20. Question 1: What is my net profit? Question 2: Did I get something for nothing (ie, a subsidy)? Now suppose a stock has a value of $10 today. The government takes one share from Steve and gives it to me for free. Next week, the value is $20, so I sell it for $20. Question 1: What is my net profit? Question 2: Did I get something for nothing (ie, a subsidy)? Now suppose a piece of real estate owned by Steve has a value of $1 million today. The government takes it from Steve (without compensation) and gives it to me for free. I spend $100,000 making improvements to it, which increases its value to $1.2 million. I then sell it for $1.2 million. Question 1: What is my net profit? Question 2: Did I get something for nothing (ie, a subsidy)? The RR took the risk with the land that was now theirs. Yes, but the land was "theirs" because they got it for free. That's called a "subsidy." I refer you to the third lesson above: Now suppose a piece of real estate owned by Steve has a value of $1 million today. The government takes it from Steve (without compensation) and gives it to me for free. I spend $100,000 making improvements to it, which increases its value to $1.2 million. I then sell it for $1.2 million. When I spend $100,000 to improve the property, I have no guarantee it will actually improve the value by twice that amount. I'm taking a risk— my improvements could leave the property's value unchanged (in which case I'd be out the $100,000) or it could even damage the property and reduce its value. Or the real estate market could take a dive while the improvements are being carried out, leaving my property with a value of only $600,000. But the risks I take investing the $100,000 into the property don't change the fact that I got the property itself for free. They keep the gain, no different than a homeowner buying a distressed property and improving it. Except the point, which you consistently fail to grasp, is that the railroads didn't buy the property in the first place. They got it for free. See my example above; if the previous owner gives me a distressed property for free and I improve it, I can legitimately claim the value of the improvements as a capital gain, but it doesn't change the fact that the property itself was a gift. That I improved the property to make it more valuable doesn't erase the fact that I got it for free. Again, I am done with you. You are a demeaning asshole. And this is why SubChat's masculinity culture is so toxic. That you are proven wrong is considered inherently demeaning, but no matter how often you proclaim your desire to leave, you never actually do. You can't. Because if you leave, you submit yourself to the "shame" of having been proven wrong. Your only hope is to continue spewing gibberish in the hope that I get bored and leave, so that you can pretend my departure is a concession and convince yourself that you were totally right all along. Bad news: I have a cold. I'm laid up in bed with nothing else to do but distract myself with completely mindless entertainment. I could do this all day (and probably tomorrow too). |
|
|
|