Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Endus]

My numbers are backed by evidence.

Good luck!!!

I shouldn't entertain this, but I'm bored. So here we go.

Assuming the highest implementation of Warren's wealth tax at 6%.
Assuming the figure of $3.6 billion for Snyder's net worth is accurate.

That would put Snyder's tax obligations at $156m at 6%, and $19m at 2%, for a total of $175m/year in wealth tax.

In&Out's revenue in 2018 was about $1b. I'm using 2018 figures because I can't find more recent; they'd have grown since so this is underselling my point, if anything, as the valuation for net worth is current. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloeso...h=7a6c7b54b9cd

Their profit margins are around 20%, according to this; http://mastersinvest.com/newblog/201...n-n-out-burger

That means of that $1b in revenue, $200m was profit.

And . . . $200m is more than $175m. Snyder already takes in enough in profits (of which she is the sole beneficiary, as the sole owner) to pay her wealth tax, and still be taking in millions. And we haven't gotten to her salary, her capital gains, or any other revenue generation she might be making outside In&Out (all of which were already included in her net worth, so we're just not including her gains, here).

So she's still be making millions and In&Out would still be expanding just as quickly and she'd be paying her wealth tax just fine. See what happens when you start including a more-thorough assessment of her finances, and don't neglect to include her income streams?

Before you say it, there'd be taxes on that income, sure. But we can't pre-emptively assess what shenanigans her accountants could work out to protect it from being taxed, as we saw in the article in the OP. Regardless, it wouldn't be anywhere near what you were claiming.

[Machismo]

You asked for an example of when I'd be happy, I put in an aspirational number.
I currently do not make quite that amount after taxes (slowly getting there).
It was mostly to show that I'm not a sociopath who think I am an island.
Which you seem to think you are.

I'm not the one laughing while eating the rich.

What sociopaths

- - - Updated - - -

I shouldn't entertain this, but I'm bored. So here we go.

Assuming the highest implementation of Warren's wealth tax at 6%.
Assuming the figure of $3.6 billion for Snyder's net worth is accurate.

That would put Snyder's tax obligations at $156m at 6%, and $19m at 2%, for a total of $175m/year in wealth tax.

In&Out's revenue in 2018 was about $1b. I'm using 2018 figures because I can't find more recent; they'd have grown since so this is underselling my point, if anything, as the valuation for net worth is current. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloeso...h=7a6c7b54b9cd

Their profit margins are around 20%, according to this; http://mastersinvest.com/newblog/201...n-n-out-burger

That means of that $1b in revenue, $200m was profit.

And . . . $200m is more than $175m. Snyder already takes in enough in profits (of which she is the sole beneficiary, as the sole owner) to pay her wealth tax, and still be taking in millions. And we haven't gotten to her salary, her capital gains, or any other revenue generation she might be making outside In&Out (all of which were already included in her net worth, so we're just not including her gains, here).

So she's still be making millions and In&Out would still be expanding just as quickly and she'd be paying her wealth tax just fine. See what happens when you start including a more-thorough assessment of her finances, and don't neglect to include her income streams?

Before you say it, there'd be taxes on that income, sure. But we can't pre-emptively assess what shenanigans her accountants could work out to protect it from being taxed, as we saw in the article in the OP. Regardless, it wouldn't be anywhere near what you were claiming.

Nope, it cannot expand nearly as fast, as you just cut into almost 90% of their profits... and they are still obligated to pay corporate taxes on top of that. Let's not forget they are based out of California, so those taxes would also come into play. 21% for federal on those profits, and 8.84% for California.

So, not only could there be no expansion, it would be a retraction.

[Endus]

Nope, it cannot expand nearly as fast, as you just cut into almost 90% of their profits...

Expansion costs come out of revenue before profits.

How are you not aware of this? Profits are what's left over when all business expenses are accounted for, not just daily operations but expansion, R&D, bonuses, everything. Profits are what's paid out directly to shareholders as dividends.

and they are still obligated to pay corporate taxes on top of that.

And? I acknowledged there'd be taxes.

So, not only could there be no expansion, it would be a retraction.

See, this is why I shouldn't have entertained it.

I provided the math and figures, and now you're just hand-waving it away. Because you were never going to take the argument seriously, no matter what it said.

Corporate taxes cannot possibly limit a company's expansion. That's not how they work. They are not applied to gross revenue.

[Machismo]

Expansion costs come out of revenue before profits.

How are you not aware of this? Profits are what's left over when all business expenses are accounted for, not just daily operations but expansion, R&D, bonuses, everything. Profits are what's paid out directly to shareholders as dividends.



And? I acknowledged there'd be taxes.



See, this is why I shouldn't have entertained it.

I provided the math and figures, and now you're just hand-waving it away. Because you were never going to take the argument seriously, no matter what it said.

Not future expansion, not necessarily.

Those taxed, assessed both her and her company, would put one of the most well-run, and most-profitable fast food companies... well into the red.

You have taxation rates of 87.5 and 29.84 percent on the same money.

[Endus]

Not future expansion, not necessarily.

Those taxed, assessed both her and her company, would put one of the most well-run, and most-profitable fast food companies... well into the red.

Literally can not put In&Out in the red, or hurt their expansion. Corporate taxes come off profits, not gross revenues. Expansion costs are part of the operating costs of the company, not part of the profits. And you can't drive a company into the red by taxing only the profits in the black. Even a hypothetical 100% corporate tax could not put a company in the red or hurt their expansion.

[Shadowferal]

I provided the math and figures, and now you're just hand-waving it away. Because you were never going to take the argument seriously, no matter what it said.

Take heart in the fact that a wealth tax is inevitable. I mean all "his" arguments" have alwsys been more about making the wealth gap bigger. And history has shown us twice in the past couple of centuries that such a thing destroys itself, with the wealthy literally killed.

[Machismo]

Literally can not put In&Out in the red, or hurt their expansion. Corporate taxes come off profits, not gross revenues. Expansion costs are part of the operating costs of the company, not part of the profits. And you can't drive a company into the red by taxing only the profits in the black.

Your wealth tax does not deal with profits, thats the point.

It can send people into the red. Its based on net worth, not on profits.

Thats why the wealth tax is such a terrible idea.

[Endus]

Your wealth tax does not deal with profits, thats the point.

Then you need to be more clear, because you're conflating a business and a person.

It can send people into the red. Its based on net worth, not on profits.

And?

This isn't about the business or its expansion any more, or driving the business into the red. That's what you were claiming. Now you're shifting the goalposts.

Thats why the wealth tax is such a terrible idea.

Why is that a terrible idea? Why is the rich becoming slightly less rich a terrible idea? That's what you never explain.

[Muzjhath]

Why is that a terrible idea? Why is the rich becoming slightly less rich a terrible idea? That's what you never explain.

Because you might be taking their property that they have fairly built by exploiting others. Which just isn't fair because they exploited it legally and created jobs and added value!!!

/s if that wasn’tapperant

[Machismo]

Then you need to be more clear, because you're conflating a business and a person.



And?

This isn't about the business or its expansion any more, or driving the business into the red. That's what you were claiming. Now you're shifting the goalposts.



Why is that a terrible idea? Why is the rich becoming slightly less rich a terrible idea? That's what you never explain.

Your undermining your entire argument. You've gone from it not being able to send a company into the red, to saying "so what" if it does.

Making her slightly less rich, ever single year, means forcing her to sell her company. Now, you may not care about that, but the people who actually build and run companies... care a great deal.

When a person's net worth is almost entirely tied up in their company, then you cannot ignore the link, especially when your actions will tax them out of that company.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you might be taking their property that they have fairly built by exploiting others. Which just isn't fair because they exploited it legally and created jobs and added value!!!

/s if that wasn’tapperant

How exactly has Lynsi Snyder exploited her workers?

[Muzjhath]

Your undermining your entire argument. You've gone from it not being able to send a company into the red, to saying "so what" if it does.

Making her slightly less rich, ever single year, means forcing her to sell her company. Now, you may not care about that, but the people who actually build and run companies... care a great deal.

When a person's net worth is almost entirely tied up in their company, then you cannot ignore the link, especially when your actions will tax them out of that company.

- - - Updated - - -



How exactly has Lynsi Snyder exploited her workers?

Do any of them need foodstamps?
If a single one does she is exploiting their labour for profit.
(A single example)

[Machismo]

Do any of them need foodstamps?
If a single one does she is exploiting their labour for profit.

Her company has long paid its employees well above the industry average, and has provided health care for decades.

Its literally one of the companies that people point to as a paragon of proper treatment of employees.

Shit, Endus provided two links that also sing their praises.

[Endus]

Your undermining your entire argument. You've gone from it not being able to send a company into the red, to saying "so what" if it does.

That's not "undermining".

It can't send a company into the red. Period. Not possible.

It might send an individual into the red, if they're uber-rich enough to qualify for the wealth tax, but that's not a problem in the first place.

Two separate points on two unrelated issues.

Making her slightly less rich, ever single year, means forcing her to sell her company. Now, you may not care about that, but the people who actually build and run companies... care a great deal.

And? That isn't an argument. "Rich people don't like policies that don't help rich people" is just wasting people's time. Why should their opinions overrule the best interests of society?

When a person's net worth is almost entirely tied up in their company, then you cannot ignore the link, especially when your actions will tax them out of that company.

That isn't how these things work. These things don't affect the company at all. And you've yet to make any kind of argument that they "should" retain ownership of said companies, as a matter of principle.

How exactly has Lynsi Snyder exploited her workers?

Net worth of $3.6 billion, which not paying a living wage.

- - - Updated - - -

Her company has long paid its employees well above the industry average, and has provided health care for decades.

Its literally one of the companies that people point to as a paragon of proper treatment of employees.

Shit, Endus provided two links that also sing their praises.

"Not as exploitative as some" is not the same thing as "not exploitative".

Capitalism is exploitation. That's the system.

[Shadowferal]

"Undermining...?" He has no problem with his own lying deceptive arguments, but draws the line at what he sees as "undermining."

[Muzjhath]

Her company has long paid its employees well above the industry average, and has provided health care for decades.

Its literally one of the companies that people point to as a paragon of proper treatment of employees.

Shit, Endus provided two links that also sing their praises.

Considering that the industry average is so horrible I think it should be overseen and probably regulated to hell and back in the US? Not the selling point you think it is.
Endus probably linked for contrast. Better doesnt necessarily equal good.
I think any corporation that has employees that get government benefits should pay the government for said costs.

You also didn't answer. Do any of their employees need foodstamps? Or government housing? Or any other of the bazillion other things that US capitalists abuse for even a cent an hour in gross profits

[Machismo]

That's not "undermining".

It can't send a company into the red. Period. Not possible.

It might send an individual into the red, if they're uber-rich enough to qualify for the wealth tax, but that's not a problem in the first place.

Two separate points on two unrelated issues.



And? That isn't an argument. "Rich people don't like policies that don't help rich people" is just wasting people's time. Why should their opinions overrule the best interests of society?



That isn't how these things work. These things don't affect the company at all. And you've yet to make any kind of argument that they "should" retain ownership of said companies, as a matter of principle.



Net worth of $3.6 billion, which not paying a living wage.

- - - Updated - - -



"Not as exploitative as some" is not the same thing as "not exploitative".

Capitalism is exploitation. That's the system.

Let me know when you realize you just tacitly admitted she'd have to sell the company... or slowly bankrupt it.

I'm guessing you don't care enough to think about it that hard.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering that the industry average is so horrible I think it should be overseen and probably regulated to hell and back in the US? Not the selling point you think it is.
Endus probably linked for contrast. Better doesnt necessarily equal good.
I think any corporation that has employees that get government benefits should pay the government for said costs.

You also didn't answer. Do any of their employees need foodstamps? Or government housing? Or any other of the bazillion other things that US capitalists abuse for even a cent an hour in gross profits

This is your argument, the burden of evidence falls to you. It would appear even their lowest employees make about what you do... (roughly $15 an hour)

[Endus]

Let me know when you realize you just tacitly admitted she'd have to sell the company... or slowly bankrupt it.

Can't bankrupt it.

I've always said she may have to divest herself of some of her ownership. You've yet to explain why that's a problem.

I'm guessing you don't care enough to think about it that hard.

Or you're just straight-up ignoring what I'm actually saying, because it serves you better to make something up instead.

[Machismo]

Can't bankrupt it.

I've always said she may have to divest herself of some of her ownership. You've yet to explain why that's a problem.



Or you're just straight-up ignoring what I'm actually saying, because it serves you better to make something up instead.

Yes, it can. She can just keep pulling from the company, to pay for the fact that the tax burden is higher than the profits and her income.

She could sell their properties, one by one.

Yes... it's not a "may" have to divest herself from her own company, but "will" have to divest herself from her own company.

That's what the math says.

[Endus]

Yes, it can. She can just keep pulling from the company, to pay for the fact that the tax burden is higher than the profits and her income.

The company isn't a personal bank account. And if she does so, it's her bankrupting the company by selling stuff off for personal gain, not the tax man.

She could sell their properties, one by one.

Yes... it's not a "may" have to divest herself from her own company, but "will" have to divest herself from her own company.

That's what the math says.

You mean your half-assed math, rather than the more-fleshed-out math I provided that debunked your claims?

[Machismo]

The company isn't a personal bank account. And if she does so, it's her bankrupting the company by selling stuff off for personal gain, not the tax man.


You mean your half-assed math, rather than the more-fleshed-out math I provided that debunked your claims?

That's the entire fucking point, you are taxing her on something that isn't a liquid asset, so coming up with that money, means liquidating it.

So, shall I direct you to my very first post in the entire thread, or the bridge analogy?

Both are appropriate. Sure, you didn't drown her, you just pushed her off the bridge, and told her to fly like an eagle.

Your math still shows one of the best-run companies in the entire fucking country, being forced to operate in the red, as a result of your actions. You forgot about all the other taxes you still support...

Now, imagine for one fucking second, if her company had even a single bad year.