Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

Again, moving goalposts.

I'm not going kick at moved goalposts. I'm not playing that game.



I'm not lying, at all. I have, in fact, stated that some people may have to sell their ownership stakes.

You've yet to provide any rational explanation for why that's even a problem in the first place.



No. It wasn't.

Which is why you have to rely on trying to paraphrase me, because you can't actually quote me directly saying that, because I did not say that.

If you're so certain that you're paraphrasing me correctly, feel free to cite me directly.

You said he didn't pay more in proportion than the average American.

It's a way to play games.

They pay more in absolute individual terms.

They do not pay more in proportional terms.

They also do not pay more in collective terms; the top 1% (which is arguably too wide a category in the first place) don't pay 50% of the total income tax collected in the USA.

That's simply and objectively wrong.

You intend for them to sell, which is the point. You quite literally want them to be forced to sell their companies. I'm not sure why you are even trying to deny this, since you seem so proud of it.

I don't need to paraphrase you, I literally copy/fucking/pasted what you typed, and used it as the argument.

They'll figure it out, right? You were cited, and you got pissy.

[Endus]

It's an income tax, you are moving goalposts. he was discussing income.

Fucking nope.

If you go back to the article in the OP, you'll find we're talking about a wealth tax.

[Machismo]

He's adding irellevant shit again?

"I'm the only one fighting for the starving children in Ethiopia....?"
Gotta add the words "freedom" or "liberty" somewhere...

How is that stance any different than the stance of the GOP on abortion and voting?

They'll figure it out.

[Slant]

It's an income tax, you are moving goalposts. he was discussing income.

Fucking nope.

That's the current system. We are suggesting an alternative maybe more appropriate that goes by wealth instead of income. We are suggesting a change. A CHANGE MEANS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WHAT CURRENTLY IS. It's SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Do you understand? It's not what you're upset about. We're not arguing that's not how it is now. We know the current status quo. We think it might be worth exploring a change to that.

You could, theoretically, disagree with that change. But you won't. Cos you haven't read anything I wrote. I'm sure, you're already seething and responding to Endus again. I'll bet an infraction that you won't read this shit.

[Machismo]

If you go back to the article in the OP, you'll find we're talking about a wealth tax.

Yep, and if you go back to your comment, which I quoted, you were responding to Bodakane who was talking about INCOME.

Mind you, he doesn't understand the difference, which is quite clear. But, you should.

Get out of here with that bullshit notion the wealthy pay more taxes, they don't. They pay a smaller percentage of their yearly income than the average American does. That's literally been proven time and again, including the OP article of this thread.

That's what you responded to.

[Endus]

That's simply and objectively wrong.

You intend for them to sell, which is the point. You quite literally want them to be forced to sell their companies. I'm not sure why you are even trying to deny this, since you seem so proud of it.

I don't need to paraphrase you, I literally copy/fucking/pasted what you typed, and used it as the argument.

They'll figure it out, right? You were cited, and you got pissy.

You copy-pasted a post, and then lied about the context of what it was saying.

I have never made an argument that they should be forced to sell their companies. But if they can't pay their obligations in any other way, you still haven't made an argument as to why they shouldn't be expected to.

[Machismo]

That's the current system. We are suggesting an alternative maybe more appropriate that goes by wealth instead of income. We are suggesting a change. A CHANGE MEANS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WHAT CURRENTLY IS. It's SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Do you understand? It's not what you're upset about. We're not arguing that's not how it is now. We know the current status quo. We think it might be worth exploring a change to that.

You could, theoretically, disagree with that change. But you won't. Cos you haven't read anything I wrote. I'm sure, you're already seething and responding to Endus again. I'll be an infraction that you won't read this shit.

Take it up with Endus, he was specifically responding to someone talking about income.

Get out of here with that bullshit notion the wealthy pay more taxes, they don't. They pay a smaller percentage of their yearly income than the average American does. That's literally been proven time and again, including the OP article of this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

You copy-pasted a post, and then lied about the context of what it was saying.

I have never made an argument that they should be forced to sell their companies. But if they can't pay their obligations in any other way, you still haven't made an argument as to why they shouldn't be expected to.

It was in the context of income taxes, which I happily provided.

Are you saying you also don't know the difference between wealth and income?

[Slant]

Sometimes I hate being right...

[Shadowferal]

You copy-pasted a post, and then lied about the context of what it was saying. .

If he keeps this up he'll be banned again, sooner than later.

[Machismo]

If you go back to the article in the OP, you'll find we're talking about a wealth tax.

You were responding to Bodakane, who was talking about income.

Get out of here with that bullshit notion the wealthy pay more taxes, they don't. They pay a smaller percentage of their yearly income than the average American does. That's literally been proven time and again, including the OP article of this thread.

[Endus]

Yep, and if you go back to your comment, which I quoted, you were responding to Bodakane who was talking about INCOME.

Mind you, he doesn't understand the difference, which is quite clear. But, you should.

Cherry-picking is a bad faith strategy. The thread's about a wealth tax. You're trying to shift goalposts again.

[Santti]

Reporting him doesn’t work so the only option is to counter his crap.

I guess, but it always leaves the thread a huge wasteland of diarrhea. I'd prefer ignoring him, and leave him soiling himself and not help him spread it all over.

[Machismo]

Cherry-picking is a bad faith strategy. The thread's about a wealth tax. You're trying to shift goalposts again.

You mean quoting your comment in full, as well as the comment you were replying to?

I showed that this (that specific comment) wasn't about wealth, but that you were talking about income.

Are you really trying to get mad at me, because you supposedly didn't read the person you were responding to?

Now, you clearly knew it was about income, because when you responded to me, you cited the average income tax rate paid by Americans, which is 14.6%. How can you then try and say you weren't talking about income?

[Endus]

You mean quoting your comment in full, as well as the comment you were replying to?

I showed that this (that specific comment) wasn't about wealth, but that you were talking about income.

Are you really trying to get mad at me, because you supposedly didn't read the person you were responding to?

At this point, you're trying to hold me responsible for what you think was someone else's error.

Let me know if you're interested in making a legitimate argument against anything I've actually argued.

[Machismo]

At this point, you're trying to hold me responsible for what you think was someone else's error.

Let me know if you're interested in making a legitimate argument against anything I've actually argued.

You responded, and were talking about income. I know this, because when I responded to you, you spoke about the average income tax rate for Americans.

Apparently you missed the study at the start, which demonstrated people like Jeff Bezos paying zero income tax in certain years.

0% < 14.6%.



No "rationalization" necessary. Your position rests on an ought statement that I categorically reject. If she (or any other wealthy individual) can't afford their tax obligations, and have to sell part of their ownership of their business, that's how things work when you don't plan for your tax obligations. That's not the government's fault.

There is absolutely no reason her ownership shouldn't fall into question. If she were sued and needed to pay off the decision against her, and her only asset was her ownership of In&Out, she'd be obliged to sell there, too. Same difference.

Or, are you saying you're not paying attention to that, either?

So, are you still going to lie, and say that particular comment was not about income?

[Endus]

You responded, and were talking about income. I know this, because when I responded to you, you spoke about the average income tax rate for Americans.

Or, are you saying you're not paying attention to that, either?

If you read that post, I was talking about income tax within specific years.

So what's your issue with that particular point? And don't claim it's "cherry-picking", since the point was that it should not be possible for someone that wealthy to claim zero income in any given year. When that shows up, it demonstrates an issue with the tax system.

[Machismo]

If you read that post, I was talking about specific years.

So what's your issue with that particular point?

So, you agree you were the one cherry picking and moving goalposts...

Meanwhile, on average, he pays 23%, which is higher than the 14.6% the average American pays.

In proportional terms, Bezos pays more.

[Endus]

So, you agree you were the one cherry picking and moving goalposts...

Meanwhile, on average, he pays 23%, which is higher than the 14.6% the average American pays.

In proportional terms, Bezos pays more.

As I edited in above, knowing it was coming;

"Don't claim it's "cherry-picking", since the point was that it should not be possible for someone that wealthy to claim zero income in any given year. When that shows up, it demonstrates an issue with the tax system."

[Machismo]

As I edited in above, knowing it was coming;

"Don't claim it's "cherry-picking", since the point was that it should not be possible for someone that wealthy to claim zero income in any given year. When that shows up, it demonstrates an issue with the tax system."

Of course it's possible, sometimes the wealthy lose money in a year. If they cash out stocks at a loss, it could be billions. The last time I checked the gains/losses from stocks sales are income.

[Endus]

of course it's possible, sometimes the wealthy lose money in a year. If they cash out stocks at a loss, it could be billions.

Jeff Bezos didn't lose money that year. In 2007, his wealth increased by $3.8 billion, as Amazon doubled in value, and Bezos paid $0 in income tax.

Why bring up a hypothetical to avoid dealing with the factual reality we're discussing?