islander wrote:

...and this time they'll use brighter colors of ink so it's harder to lose. So considerate!

 oldviolin wrote:

I lost my power bill one time. Turns out it's not a big deal, they will send you another one. 

 oldviolin wrote:
that sucks
i'm here for you
please pass the ceremonial rabbeeto
i'll toss another log on the fire

 Red_Dragon wrote:
You can't lose what you never had.

Look at this another way, the US Treasury lost half of that money...which they would have owed in taxes.

Lucky for us...the taxpayer...Elon had stock options that expired in December, so he was forced to exercise/sell.  Selling at $1,100 vs. today's $930 per share made us about $2B extra in tax revenue (his total bill was ~$11B from what I read).

 miamizsun wrote: 
I remember the last time I lost a bil. Nobody even noticed...

 Red_Dragon wrote:
i don't know about that
if you lost about a hundred billion bucks that could be stressful
you can help out
please buy a tesla or microsoft surface on amazon

 miamizsun wrote:

And will those losses affect their lives one iota? No.

The world's 5 richest tech tycoons — including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates — have already lost about $85 billion this year amid a brutal market sell-off

The world's five richest tech tycoons have collectively lost about $85 billion of their wealth in the first few weeks of 2022, with their fortunes taking an especially big hit from last week's market sell-off.

The losses sent the fortune of the world's richest person, Elon Musk, down to an estimated $243 billion — some $27 billion lower than at the start of the year, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. It's also nearly $100 billion lower than November, when Musk's net worth peaked at $335 billion.

The world's second-richest person, Amazon's founder, Jeff Bezos, has lost about $25 billion in 2022.

The Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates has seen a $9.5 billion drop in his net worth since January 1, per the Bloomberg index, while the Google cofounder Larry Page's net worth has decreased by $12 billion. Rounding out the losses is Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, whose net worth has also dropped by about $12 billion this year.

The world's 500 richest people became $1 trillion richer last year

Pandora Papers | A global investigation
Billions hidden beyond reach

The trove, dubbed the Pandora Papers, exceeds the dimensions of the leak that was at the center of the Panama Papers investigation five years ago. That data was drawn from a single law firm, but the new material encompasses records from 14 separate financial-services entities operating in countries and territories including Switzerland, Singapore, Cyprus, Belize and the British Virgin Islands.

The files detail more than 29,000 offshore accounts, more than double the number identified in the Panama Papers. Among the account owners are more than 130 people listed as billionaires by Forbes magazine and more than 330 public officials in more than 90 countries and territories, twice the number found in the Panama documents.

(...)

The revelations include more than $100 million spent by King Abdullah II of Jordan on luxury homes in Malibu, Calif., and other locations; millions of dollars in property and cash secretly owned by the leaders of the Czech Republic, Kenya, Ecuador and other countries; and a waterfront home in Monaco acquired by a Russian woman who gained considerable wealth after she reportedly had a child with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Other disclosures hit closer to home for U.S. officials and other Western leaders who frequently condemn smaller countries whose permissive banking systems have been exploited for decades by looters of assets and launderers of dirty money.

The files provide substantial new evidence, for example, that South Dakota now rivals notoriously opaque jurisdictions in Europe and the Caribbean in financial secrecy. Tens of millions of dollars from outside the United States are now sheltered by trust companies in Sioux Falls, some of it tied to people and companies accused of human rights abuses and other wrongdoing.

The details are contained in more than 11.9 million financial records that were obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and examined by The Post and other partner news organizations. The files include private emails, secret spreadsheets, clandestine contracts and other records that unlock otherwise impenetrable financial schemes and identify the individuals behind them. (...)

Wyden eyes taxes on billionaires, executive pay to fund spending plans

City Council property levies are pretty high here and I do have value for money issues, particularly with my local council, but I'm in favour of paying taxes for services. The worst thing here though, imo, is "Stamp Duty" where you have to pay a butt-load of money up on top of your down payment when you buy a house. It does mean, however, that the ongoing drain over time is lower. One really good thing though, is that government policy supports keeping people in their houses as long as possible because it is more cost effective than aged care. So a friend gets oxygen delivered to her home, and help paying for cleaners and gardeners to keep the place up. If she does have to go into care, they have a sort of reverse mortgage scheme that pays for the care but still leaves some for inheritance. Her kids will do well because her tiny place in the CBD is worth more than mine because of the location.

Re: Property taxes.

I have seen this movie before.

Back in the day in a place once known as California there was a vote on what is known as Prop 13

A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes. The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics, and it is not popular politically for lawmakers to attempt to change it.

 cc_rider wrote: 

buy an old car and put it up on blocks in the front yard

and quit mowing your lawn!

 cc_rider wrote:
So property values mean nothing, as they are merely the part of the formula the state/local government is willing to change.  That's not real value...thus it isn't truly associated with any economic increase (other than the cost of running the government).

The fact you can appeal is the amusing aspect.  If values stayed the same and the rates increased 15%, there's nothing you can do about it.  California (as usual) is the foil...they set value at purchase and leave it there until you sell the house.  People then run into the problem of not being able to move.  I knew someone who had a home they paid $500k for that was worth $1.5M. They wanted to move to another part of town and replace their home for similar value, but their taxes would triple.  

With all due respect, they are driving values because A) most people feel at least partially good about the "news" their home is worth more, and B) most people aren't smart enough to evaluate the real increase.    When the shit finally hits the fan....take all of the pain at once and adjust the rates while lowering valuations.  Rinse, repeat.

 rgio wrote:
Zero. Point. Zero.
c.

 cc_rider wrote:
What were the changes in your tax rates this year?

 islander wrote:Perzactly.

We just got our appraisal - up $140K in one year. We'll appeal.

Texas' tax structure is painfully regressive. Property taxes go up and up every year, regardless of the homeowners' ability to pay. State income tax is the third rail of Texas politics, but thousands of people are being forced out of their homes because their taxes have skyrocketed, but their income hasn't. And you wonder why we have a homeless problem?
c.

 cc_rider wrote:
I don't recall ever seeing a mil levy go down, so yeah.   Also, I don't ever recall seeing a government body say 'we have enough money, let's stop collecting taxes'.   I have a 'friend' who is staunchly anti-tax and anti-government. He works for the state transportation department and brags about how he buys truckloads of gear with leftover budget money even though they don't need it. I can barely converse with him because it feels like he lives on the other side of a hyper-hypocritical barrier that my world view cant really perceive. 

 rgio wrote:
I don't care who you are, that's some funny stuff right there.
c.