Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

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...

Nope, your whole house, one room at a time. But hey, in 17 years, you won't even be in charge of your house. That will fall to someone else.

[Endus]

Nah, you want to take it away from her.

You do this every time you realize you don't have an argument. It's a pretty big tell.

[Slant]

Nope, your whole house, one room at a time. But hey, in 17 years, you won't even be in charge of your house. That will fall to someone else.

Sure, crazy example that has basically nothing to do with the subject, but I'll go along with the crazy... as long as I get to keep my one room, I'm fine with it. Oh, holy shit... that did not go as you planned, did it?

[Machismo]

You do this every time you realize you don't have an argument. It's a pretty big tell.

You stated that is a known, and even desired outcome. I literally quoted you.

The desired outcome of the new voting laws, is to disenfranchise minorities, and lead the GOP to more electoral victories... no matter the bullshit they say.

The desire for the abortion laws is to control women, and ban abortions, no matter what the proponents actually say.

[Machismo]

Sure, crazy example that has basically nothing to do with the subject, but I'll go along with the crazy... as long as I get to keep my one room, I'm fine with it. Oh, holy shit... that did not go as you planned, did it?

It's not a crazy example, it's a real-life company, one that would be impacted by this.

Well, in keeping your room, the new owners are going to charge you a lot more. Enjoy!!!

[Shadowferal]

Like I said, he was never in convincing anyone.

[Slant]

It's not a crazy example, it's a real-life company, one that would be impacted by this.

Well, in keeping your room, the new owners are going to charge you a lot more. Enjoy!!!

No, it's not a real life company. It's a 200 bedroom mansion that is used to live in. It has nothing to do with a company.

It's my room. I would be surprised if anyone but me charges me rent for being in my room. You know, the one that is my property. Godamn, how old are you? Have you ever actually been in the real world by yourself?

[Machismo]

No, it's not a real life company. It's a 200 bedroom mansion that is used to live in. It has nothing to do with a company.

It's my room. I would be surprised if anyone but me charges me rent for being in my room. You know, the one that is my property. Godamn, how old are you? Have you ever actually been in the real world by yourself?

The last time I checked, In&Out is a real company.

Of course, it doesn't surprise me that you'd love to give up something you will never have, so you can take things from others.

That's an easy trade to make, for poor people.

[Shadowferal]

Godamn, how old are you? Have you ever actually been in the real world by yourself?

Wealth worshippers rarely venture beyond their bubble. (Have you read PC2's posts? They're just as embarrassing)

[omerome]

I didn't read all of the back and forth, but I wanted to chime in because I really don't understand how anyone is against someone paying their fair share in taxes.

Let's say I was a typical working-class American with a tax bill of let's say, 12K. I know that the IRS doesn't care if I have to find the money under my couch, in a shoebox, or in my savings account. If that's what I owe, they expect me to pay it.

Why should it be any different for someone who decides to put all of their assets in a non-tangible location (stock/bonds), for example? If the rich and powerful find themselves having to sell a portion of their business/investment to meet their requirements and the value of it goes down, boo freaking hoo.

[Endus]

You stated that is a known, and even desired outcome. I literally quoted you.

Which is not synonymous with "you want to force them to sell their companies".

So clearly you know what my actual argument is, and the misrepresentation is deliberate.

The desired outcome of the new voting laws, is to disenfranchise minorities, and lead the GOP to more electoral victories... no matter the bullshit they say.

The desire for the abortion laws is to control women, and ban abortions, no matter what the proponents actually say.

You keep pretending these are legitimate comparisons, and they aren't. You're taking my comments out of context, and pretending they mean something they don't.

Specifically, a wealth tax exists to redress an inequity.

Both of these examples are cases where an inequity is deliberately created.

You keep equating the former with the latter, and that's just an obviously dishonest bit of chicanery.

[Machismo]

I didn't read all of the back and forth, but I wanted to chime in because I really don't understand how anyone is against someone paying their fair share in taxes.

Let's say I was a typical working-class American with a tax bill of let's say, 12K. I know that the IRS doesn't care if I have to find the money under my couch, in a shoebox, or in my savings account. If that's what I owe, they expect me to pay it.

Why should it be any different for someone who decides to put all of their assets in a non-tangible location (stock/bonds), for example? If the rich and powerful find themselves having to sell a portion of their business/investment to meet their requirements and the value of it goes down, boo freaking hoo.

They pay more than the average American does, based on their income.

They are paying "their fair share."

- - - Updated - - -

Which is not synonymous with "you want to force them to sell their companies".

So clearly you know what my actual argument is, and the misrepresentation is deliberate.



You keep pretending these are legitimate comparisons, and they aren't. You're taking my comments out of context, and pretending they mean something they don't.

Specifically, a wealth tax exists to redress an inequity.

Both of these examples are cases where an inequity is deliberately created.

You keep equating the former with the latter, and that's just an obviously dishonest bit of chicanery.

If you want to force an action, and you understand the consequences of that action, then that is what you are doing.

If you force someone to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, you want them to die.

[Endus]

They pay more than the average American does, based on their income.

They are paying "their fair share."

Wherein you presume your personal opinion about what is "fair" overrules everyone else's, because reasons.

[Slant]

The last time I checked, In&Out is a real company.

Of course, it doesn't surprise me that you'd love to give up something you will never have, so you can take things from others.

That's an easy trade to make, for poor people.

We were talking about a hypothetical 200 bedroom mansion, not In & Out. I have no idea why you're not getting this. You make up a batshit crazy example that makes no sense, I go along with it, so at least fucking stick to your own crazy idea instead of switching back and forth as it pleases you. You're making no sense at all.

I'm actually not poor, buddy. But you keep thinking that if it makes life easier for yourself. Additionally, I don't live in the US. Our wealth gap is not NEARLY as dramatic as is yours. And we have systems in place to make sure the poor here are never as poor as the people in the US. Even if I was poor, in our corner of the world, I'd still be richer than the poor Americans.

See, we have a responsible, social market economy that enables competetive business capitalism to coexist with social solidarity and fair trade. You should try it. Oh no, you can't exploit people here... nevermind.

[Machismo]

Wherein you presume your personal opinion about what is "fair" overrules everyone else's, because reasons.

Yes, what is fair to some, is all their money over a billion dollars.

because... reasons.

[Shadowferal]

I didn't read all of the back and forth, but I wanted to chime in because I really don't understand how anyone is against someone paying their fair share in taxes. .

Don't please. Wealth worshippers will try to convince you of the opposite by lying, misrepresenting, deflecting, he'll mock, belittle, deride...

[Endus]

If you want to force an action, and you understand the consequences of that action, then that is what you are doing.

If you force someone to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, you want them to die.

It isn't "forcing" anything; selling ownership stakes is one potential means to pay the hypothetical obligation, but by no means the only one.

And, to repeat; why is divesting ownership a bad thing, again? You continue to never explain this. You just engage in false and misleading comparisons to things like jumping off a bridge. People divest themselves of ownership in companies all the time for a whole wide range of reasons. Why is only when a wealth tax comes up that this is somehow an impossible option?

[Machismo]

We were talking about a hypothetical 200 bedroom mansion, not In & Out. I have no idea why you're not getting this. You make up a batshit crazy example that makes no sense, I go along with it, so at least fucking stick to your own crazy idea instead of switching back and forth as it pleases you. You're making no sense at all.

I'm actually not poor, buddy. But you keep thinking that if it makes life easier for yourself. See, I don't live in the US. Our wealth gap is not NEARLY as dramatic as is yours. And we have systems in place to make sure the poor here are never as poor as the people in the US. See, we have a responsible, social market economy that enables competetive business capitalism to coexist with social solidarity and fair trade. You should try it. Oh no, you can't exploit people here... nevermind.

You were the one making that goalpost about the bedrooms. I have no problem talking about In&Out.

I'm getting it just fine. You have no problem sacrificing what you know you will never have, so that you can take from others.

SO, how much more are you willing to pay of your wealth? 6% of your wealth a year, on top of what you already pay?

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't "forcing" anything; selling ownership stakes is one potential means to pay the hypothetical obligation, but by no means the only one.

And, to repeat; why is divesting ownership a bad thing, again? You continue to never explain this. You just engage in false and misleading comparisons to things like jumping off a bridge.

So, the numbers were provided, show me how Lynsi Snyder does it any other way.

I'll wait.

"I don't want to force this, but even if I did, is it such a bad thing?" You're at stage 3 of Trumpster.

[Endus]

So, the numbers were provided, show me how Lynsi Snyder does it any other way.

I'll wait.

It's an irrelevant question. To repeat the point you keep ignoring; why should I be concerned if she does have to divest herself of some of her ownership stake to pay her tax obligations?

[Machismo]

It's an irrelevant question. To repeat the point you keep ignoring; why should I be concerned if she does have to divest herself of some of her ownership stake to pay her tax obligations?

No it isn't, you claim there are other ways, fucking prove it.