Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[beanman12345]

450 posts, this thread should be closed, its not healthy.

[Machismo]

Yes, we all know you're using the literal definition of the word. I also just said you were.

The examples you seek are in the article from the OP. You posted an article talking about all his shares. You have argued that he shouldn't pay taxes on actual yearly earnings until he sells the....go ahead, Ill let you finish your own argument.........

Ok, you are bad faith poster. There is no doubt. I have said multiple times it is not that he has stocks. No one is coming for you, so get off the fucking cross. I have said repeatedly, it is because he uses stocks and other investments as his salary so he can minimize his income tax and that is something only people of his wealth can do.

So please, misrepresent my argument again....eventually it will get you banned.

So, you're blaming me, because you're not using the words correctly, getting caught lying, and expecting me to judge you based on your feels.

Nah, fuck that. I want evidence.

His stocks are not earnings, they are not income, they are not his salary... not until he sells that stock... then it's income... and just income.

You said:

"I have said repeatedly, it is because he uses stocks and other investments as his salary so he can minimize his income tax and that is something only people of his wealth can do."

How exactly is he doing this?

I'm asking you to back up your argument with a citation. Why the fuck would I take your word for it, when you don't even know what those words even mean? You have been tapdancing away from providing that evidence for more than a day.

You: He's abusing the system by getting stocks for a salary, and using loopholes.

Me: No he's not, here's the evidence. What loopholes?

You. Fuck, you're stupid... he's getting stocks for his alary, loopholes man!!!

Me: No, you're lying, the evidence was given.

You: Fuck, this is stupid, all the loopholes!!!

Me: Nah, you clearly don't know the definitions of all these words, here's the definitions.

You: I didn't mean like actual salary, I meant it in the metaphorical sense. And don't forget the loopholes!!!

Me: What loopholes?

You: You need to be banned!!!

Does that pretty much cover it?

[Shadowferal]

450 posts, this thread should be closed, its not healthy.

Pretty much a regurgitation of two other threads;

anarchist and libertarian thread

and this closed thread

[Machismo]

Pretty much a regurgitation of two other threads;

anarchist and libertarian thread

and this closed thread

And yet, I'm the guy providing all the evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

It was provided and you said, “BUT UBER DRIVER!”

Nah, it wasn't.

The same dude is pushing the narrative that salaries aren't really salaries..

[Machismo]

I provided said evidence to which the retort was supplied. You may need to log out if you can’t remember who is who.

Nope, no you did not.

You really should go back to the narrative he's pushing.

[Bodakane]

So, you're blaming me, because you're not using the words correctly, getting caught lying, and expecting me to judge you based on your feels.

Nah, fuck that. I want evidence.

His stocks are not earnings, they are not income, they are not his salary... not until he sells that stock... then it's income... and just income.

You said:

"I have said repeatedly, it is because he uses stocks and other investments as his salary so he can minimize his income tax and that is something only people of his wealth can do."

How exactly is he doing this?

I'm asking you to back up your argument with a citation. Why the fuck would I take your word for it, when you don't even know what those words even mean? You have been tapdancing away from providing that evidence for more than a day.

You: He's abusing the system by getting stocks for a salary, and using loopholes.

Me: No he's not, here's the evidence. What loopholes?

You. Fuck, you're stupid... he's getting stocks for his alary, loopholes man!!!

Me: No, you're lying, the evidence was given.

You: Fuck, this is stupid, all the loopholes!!!

Me: Nah, you clearly don't know the definitions of all these words, here's the definitions.

You: I didn't mean like actual salary, I meant it in the metaphorical sense. And don't forget the loopholes!!!

Me: What loopholes?

You: You need to be banned!!!

Does that pretty much cover it?

Yep, you just keep ignoring everything I've said, pick out one or two things, harp on them, and repeat.

I've explained the loopholes repeatedly. I've directed you to the evidence repeatedly. You won't hear it. You won't check the evidence. You are liar. You are a bad faith poster.

[Machismo]

Yep, you just keep ignoring everything I've said, pick out one or two things, harp on them, and repeat.

I've explained the loopholes repeatedly. I've directed you to the evidence repeatedly. You won't hear it. You won't check the evidence. You are liar. You are a bad faith poster.

You have yet to provide any citations for any of your claims.

What loopholes are you talking about? I want someone else's words, not yours... since we've established you are having issue with that. If you are going to claim he's using supposed tax shelters and loopholes, I want to see which laws he's looping through, and which shelters he's hiding his money in.

[Machismo]

I linked an article discussing the thousands of delivery drivers Amazon uses to make prime deliveries… seriously, log out.

Yep, and his narrative is that the wealthy get more out of society, and therefore owe more. So, considering they pay... far, far more, I guess you guys have nothing to complain about!!!

[Bodakane]

You have yet to provide any citations for any of your claims.

What loopholes are you talking about? I want someone else's words, not yours... since we've established you are having issue with that. If you are going to claim he's using supposed tax shelters and loopholes, I want to see which laws he's looping through, and which shelters he's hiding his money in.

I have told you the proof is the article in the OP. You ignore that.
I have told you what the loopholes are. You ignore it.

Until you stop lying and posting in bad faith, that's all you're getting.

[Masark]

Me: What loopholes?

Loophole: Billionaire obtains income without it legally counting as income.

This loophole was identified over 100 years ago.

Hull predicted that tax avoidance would become common. The ruling opened a gaping loophole, Hull warned, allowing industrialists to build a company and borrow against the stock to pay living expenses. Anyone could “live upon the value” of their company stock “without selling it, and of course, without ever paying” tax, he said.'

[Machismo]

Sorry, I was discussing OUR exchanges. Why are you forcing me to defend someone else’s posts? Let’s stick to you and me, if you remember that is.

Great, so then why are you talking about other drivers, talk about him, personally.

- - - Updated - - -

I have told you the proof is the article in the OP. You ignore that.
I have told you what the loopholes are. You ignore it.

Until you stop lying and posting in bad faith, that's all you're getting.

Nope, that was shredded, and I pointed to it.

Great, I never expected anything from you, other than the verifiable lies you were telling.

- - - Updated - - -

Loophole: Billionaire obtains income without it legally counting as income.

This loophole was identified over 100 years ago.

I see no problem with being able to borrow against stocks, because you can also borrow against a home.

It's collateral. If that's the mysterious loophole, then that's pitiful. I have stock. You have stock (hopefully). That's like saying having kids is a tax loophole, so should we also shut all those other credits and deductions down?

Jesus...

[Machismo]

He directly profits from said drivers. They wouldn't be driving if not for his profit motive to cut out the USPS/UPS/FedEx.... Is this really the best you have?

Citizens directly benefit from drivers, so I guess it's on them, as well. They wouldn't be driving, if they weren't performing a good/service for the consumers.

Time for that quantifying I was talking about.

[Masark]

I see no problem with being able to borrow against stocks

Yeah, well, we do see a problem. It allows these people to functionally realize gains without legally realizing them, thus defeating the entire purpose of the tax and deprive society of the funds it requires to function.

But your infantile ideology doesn't allow you to see that problem.

[Elegiac]

I see no problem with being able to borrow against stocks, because you can also borrow against a home.

Property gets passively taxed based on its value, tho.

[Machismo]

Yeah, well, we do see a problem. It allows these people to functionally realize gains without legally realizing them, thus defeating the entire purpose of the tax and deprive society of the funds it requires to function.

But your infantile ideology doesn't allow you to see that problem.

Should you be able to take a loan against your other property and valuables? I mean, home-equity loans are damn common.

- - - Updated - - -

Property gets passively taxed based on its value, tho.

You can take out a loan against your other assets. Hell, take one out against your comic book collection.

Stocks are taxed when sold.

[Masark]

Should you be able to take a loan against your other property and valuables? I mean, home-equity loans are damn common.

If I were using that as functionally my sole source of income, it should be taxed as income.

Additionally, you appear to be evading the entire concept of progressive taxation.

[Machismo]

If I were using that as functionally my sole source of income, it should be taxed as income.

Additionally, you appear to be evading the entire concept of progressive taxation.

So, it's not so much that it's a loophole, because literally everyone can do it.

You can take a loan out against your property.

It's that you don't like it.

As for progressive taxation, even mark Cuban says he's fine with paying more income taxes. The big issue is taxing non-liquid assets, because it would cause him to have to sell those assets to pay for it.

But, if people are going to argue that others shouldn't be able to take loans out against their assets, then that's going to be a hard sell.

[Elegiac]

You can take out a loan against your other assets. Hell, take one out against your comic book collection.

You seem to have grasped the essence of why modern wealth tax plans call for no exemptions.

[Machismo]

You seem to have grasped the essence of why modern wealth tax plans call for no exemptions.

SO, to be clear, you don't think people should be able to take out loans against your assets?

[Machismo]

Profiting isn’t the same as benefitting. And most citizens pay a tax on every delivery they receive. Bezos likes to pay none for the millions he sends out.

Well, people are swearing that employees being educated before they ever work for a company, means that the company is profiting.

Damn, this is getting even more difficult to quantify

- - - Updated - - -

It’s weird he thinks people advocating for it wouldn’t pay it if they were required to.

That's because they are advocating for something they know would never apply to them.