Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

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?

Wealth and income are not the same thing.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

[Slant]

Wealth and income are not the same thing.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

We understand that.

We think wealth beyond a certain level should be taxable.

You are the one not understanding what people say.

We know the current state.

We think it ought to be changed.

That is what we are discussing.

[Machismo]

We understand that.

We think wealth beyond a certain level should be taxable.

You are the one not understanding it.

Oh, I understand that just fine. I've been talking about the wealth tax plenty, and it would force people to sell their own companies.

This was specifically about income taxes.

[Endus]

Wealth and income are not the same thing.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

We grasp it fine. Again, the entire point of the article, and this thread, is that the wealthy abuse this distinction to evade paying taxes on wealth generation.

Welcome to the central point of the article in question. How are you unaware that's what we're discussing?

Edit: Hopefully this catches you before you respond; you keep resorting to the "force them to sell their companies", as if that's somehow a "bad thing" we should be concerned about. That's not an argument you have ever tried to back up, and frankly, I dismiss it offhand.

[Machismo]

We grasp it fine. Again, the entire point of the article, and this thread, is that the wealthy abuse this distinction to evade paying taxes on wealth generation.

Welcome to the central point of the article in question. How are you unaware that's what we're discussing?

It's a very, very clear distinction. Sadly, most people cannot seem to see it...

[Endus]

It's a very, very clear distinction. Sadly, most people cannot seem to see it...

As demonstrated, frankly, by your own insistence on returning to income every time we talk about a wealth tax.

[Machismo]

As demonstrated, frankly, by your own insistence on returning to income every time we talk about a wealth tax.

You were talking about it, while I was banned. I didn't bring it up, you did.

You were talking about income. I refuted you, with evidence.

[Shadowferal]

[Slant]

Oh, I understand that just fine. I've been talking about the wealth tax plenty, and it would force people to sell their own companies.

This was specifically about income taxes.

They don't need to sell all of their company. They could give some of the company stock to the employees that are actually doing the legwork in increasing the company's value. On top of their salary, that is.

You know, just to stay under "that level".

[Endus]

You were talking about it, while I was banned. I didn't bring it up, you did.

You were talking about income. I refuted you, with evidence.

Income's a component of wealth, friendo. Of course it's part of the discussion.

You also have not "refuted" anything. You keep shifting goalposts, lying about my arguments, or similar bad-faith tactics. Those aren't "refuting".

[Machismo]

They don't need to sell all of their company. They could give some of the company stock to the employees that are actually doing the legwork in increasing the company's value. On top of their salary, that is.

In 17 years, Lynsi Snyder would lose controlling stake in her solely-owned company.

The math is there.

- - - Updated - - -

Income's a component of wealth, friendo. Of course it's part of the discussion.

You also have not "refuted" anything. You keep shifting goalposts, lying about my arguments, or similar bad-faith tactics. Those aren't "refuting".

I provided evidence that showed tax rates for income, Broseph.

So much for not paying proportionally more.

[Slant]

In 17 years, Lynsi Snyder would lose controlling stake in her solely-owned company.

The math is there.

I didn't say you had to give vote-shares away. There are stock options that don't include voting rights. There are ways to make these things happen. The tools exist.

[Endus]

In 17 years, Lynsi Snyder would lose controlling stake in her solely-owned company.

The math is there.

And why is that a problem?

You've yet to make an argument that explains that. You just want us to accept it as a given.

Not that voting stock is even a necessary sale to achieve the goal, as Slant pointed out above.

[Machismo]

And why is that a problem?

You've yet to make an argument that explains that. You just want us to accept it as a given.

It's a problem, because it's a family business, that is run extremely well.

It's famous for being good to its employees, and because of that, you want to take that away from them.

Once again, I'm talking to someone who doesn't want ANYONE to own the means of production. You don't want her to own any of it.

[Slant]

It's a problem, because it's a family business, that is run extremely well.

It's famous for being good to its employees, and you want to take that away from them.

And other people might be just as good as running the business. Something being "a family business" and "being run well" is not a reason not to change things in the context of our discussion. That's just you whining about fairness.

Also, since the VW Group is arguable one of the largest, if not the largest automaker on the planet, you might be inclined to say they're a well run family business. All of that is technically true.

Remember that emissions scandal that led to some arrests a few years ago? Yeah, that was exclusively born out of the "family business" model, because lead engineers and upper management didn't dare to oppose the family that owns the business and/or didn't dare to tell them they couldn't make the emissions goals that were required.

A family business typically isn't the best business model beyond a certain size.

[Machismo]

And other people might be just as good as running the business. Something being "a family business" and "being run well" is not a reason not to change things in the context of our discussion. That's just you whining about fairness.

Other people may be able to take care of your house better than you, so we should force you to sell it. It's only fair, right?

Nah, no thanks.

[Endus]

It's a problem, because it's a family business, that is run extremely well.

It's famous for being good to its employees, and you want to take that away from them.

Okay, grammatically, the "them" in that final sentence reads thusly;

"It's famous for being good to its employees, and you want to take that away from [the employees]."

And that's not something anyone's argued. They have no ownership that is being taken away from them. And nobody's argued about taking control of the company away from Snyder. That's a straw man you made up.

Nothing here explains why Snyder shouldn't be expected to pay a wealth tax. You don't even make an attempt. That it's a "family business" isn't an argument. And the rest has to do with management, which isn't part of what's being discussed in the first place.

[Machismo]

Okay, grammatically, the "them" in that final sentence reads thusly;

"It's famous for being good to its employees, and you want to take that away from [the employees]."

And that's not something anyone's argued. They have no ownership that is being taken away from them. And nobody's argued about taking control of the company away from Snyder. That's a straw man you made up.

Nothing here explains why Snyder shouldn't be expected to pay a wealth tax. You don't even make an attempt. That it's a "family business" isn't an argument. And the rest has to do with management, which isn't part of what's being discussed in the first place.

Nah, you want to take it away from her.

[Slant]

Other people may be able to take care of your house better than you, so we should force you to sell it. It's only fair, right?

Nah, no thanks.

If I have a 200 bedroom mansion and only use one room in it, I could actually see the argument. Now what? Did I just completely wreck your feeble attempt to undermine what we're saying? Holy shit, that's one of the better own goals you just scored...

[Endus]

Other people may be able to take care of your house better than you, so we should force you to sell it. It's only fair, right?

Nah, no thanks.

For someone who complained just a moment ago about people blurring the line between "wealth" and "income", you should know better than to pretend that "personal property" and "ownership of the means of production" are the same thing.