1. #2161
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, do you at least agree you invoked company profits.

    In&Out is entirely owned by her, and that comprises over 80% of her net worth.

    Now you get it?
    80% of snyder is in In&Out.
    100% on In&Out are In&Out. They are not the same entity. Might have a sole owner, but I'm sure that Snyder won't be responsible for every action taken by the company she owns.
    Same as the company won't be on the hook to pay her speeding tickets in a person car.

    This is what you fail to separate in practically all of your arguments.
    - Lars

  2. #2162
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This isn't a magical incantation. I referenced them in the context of where Snyder had income coming from. You're the one who then started wildly misconstruing things from there.



    I get that you're conflating the two, and that doing so is completely unreasonable and, if Snyder tried that on tax forms, would get her charged with tax fraud and such.

    They're separate entities. You're trying to treat them as if they're a single thing, and that's not how anything works.

    A wealth tax on Snyder does not affect In&Out in any way whatsoever.

    Snyder choosing to divest some of her ownership in the company does not mean the company's operations change in any meaningful way, nor does it even mean Snyder has less control, automatically.

    Snyder is making a lot of money, and your earlier "math" completely ignored her income entirely while fearmongering about the impact a wealth tax would have.
    Once again, the math simply disagrees with you, as ALL HER OTHER ASSETS WOULD BE GONE.

    You're now caught up to 50 pages ago.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    80% of snyder is in In&Out.
    100% on In&Out are In&Out. They are not the same entity. Might have a sole owner, but I'm sure that Snyder won't be responsible for every action taken by the company she owns.
    Same as the company won't be on the hook to pay her speeding tickets in a person car.

    This is what you fail to separate in practically all of your arguments.
    If you tax her wealth, that includes In&Out.

  3. #2163
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, do you at least agree you invoked company profits.

    In&Out is entirely owned by her, and that comprises over 80% of her net worth.

    Now you get it?
    I am far from the smartest person here and i understand what he's saying. If you think his explanation is incorrect, could you explain why you think so?



    Company nets 200 million in profits.

    This profit is paid out to owners. shareholders, investors, or whoever gets a piece of the pie.

    Snyder is the sole owner of the company.

    Snyder is paid the 200 million in profit.

    At this point that money ceases to be the companies and is now income for Snyder.

    Snyder uses some of this money to pay her Tax burden.

    At no point is the burden of paying the wealth tax placed on the company. Again please if you disagree with this assessment please explain

  4. #2164
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, the math simply disagrees with you, as ALL HER OTHER ASSETS WOULD BE GONE.

    You're now caught up to 50 pages ago.
    Instead of whining about the hypotheticals of Lynsi Snyder’s fortune why don’t you try and get the thoughts of real Billionaires who live in actual countries who currently charge real Wealth Taxes.

  5. #2165
    Quote Originally Posted by Hadriker View Post
    I am far from the smartest person here and i understand what he's saying. If you think his explanation is incorrect, could you explain why you think so?



    Company nets 200 million in profits.

    This profit is paid out to owners. shareholders, investors, or whoever gets a piece of the pie.

    Snyder is the sole owner of the company.

    Snyder is paid the 200 million in profit.

    At this point that money ceases to be the companies and is now income for Snyder.

    Snyder uses some of this money to pay her Tax burden.

    At no point is the burden of paying the wealth tax placed on the company. Again please if you disagree with this assessment please explain
    Except... more than all that money would be taken up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Instead of whining about the hypotheticals of Lynsi Snyder’s fortune why don’t you try and get the thoughts of real Billionaires who live in actual countries who currently charge real Wealth Taxes.
    Snyder is a real billionaire, and I showed how she'd be impacted.

  6. #2166
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That's the point, most of them aren't sitting on mountains of money.

    Most of that money is tied up in companies.


    Warren's new plan calls for 6%, and it is annually.

    So, that would be over &10 billion... every single year.

    Taking out loans wouldn't do much, because his debt would be compounded annually.

    .

    Strange somehow MacKenzie Scott managed to find a way to get "mountains of money" to donate and not crater herself into poverty, destroy the company or destroy the stock market.

    hmmm. 2.9 billion and 4.2 billion,.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mackenz...tion-billions/


    Oh shit 6%...what will she do....

    Scott is among those billionaires whose fortunes have soared since the pandemic first crippled the U.S. in March. Her wealth is now valued at more than $60 billion, representing a boost of almost $24 billion since the start of the year, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

    ummm, hmmm she gained 24 billion last year so after a 6% tax she would be net positive what 20 billion or so? Hell after the tax and donations she is still 10-12 billion dollars richer.



    Even odder somehow the tax would cause huge problems to the stock, ownership, the individuals.....but yet a 53 billion dollar divorce payment did none of that. But hey a 4 billion dollar tax bill is going to destroy him!!!!
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  7. #2167
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Snyder is a real billionaire, and I showed how she'd be impacted.
    No you asspulled some numbers which don’t mean anything because she currently doesn’t pay a wealth tax.

    There are dozens of Billionaires who currently live in countries that require them to pay a wealth tax. Get their thoughts.

  8. #2168
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Except... more than all that money would be taken up.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Snyder is a real billionaire, and I showed how she'd be impacted.
    Not according to Endus's math. There is still 25 million left after all tax burdens are met.

    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
    Are you saying his math is wrong? if so you could you point out how?

  9. #2169
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post



    Liquidity is a huge issue. I pointed to Lynsi Snyder, who has almost all her money tied up in a single company, that she alone owns, and her family founded over 60 years ago.

    If Warren's plan were ever to come to fruition, then she would be forced to sell her company, piece by piece... all due to that lack of liquidity.




    .
    Bull
    Fucking
    Shit.


    Liquidity is not an issue when she can borrow at a lower interest rate then the returns on the stock, interest, investment returns and business income.

    I mean this is not specific to billionaires. If you have substantial assets as collateral you can borrow money, thus have huge Liquidity possibilities and ability.

    Paying back low interest loans with excess capital, business income, interest, investment returns, etc and still ending up with a massive net positive.

    Its almost like you didn't read or comprehend the original story/investigation posted?
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  10. #2170
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Bull
    Fucking
    Shit.


    Liquidity is not an issue when she can borrow at a lower interest rate then the returns on the stock, interest, investment returns and business income.

    I mean this is not specific to billionaires. If you have substantial assets as collateral you can borrow money, thus have huge Liquidity possibilities and ability.

    Paying back low interest loans with excess capital, business income, interest, investment returns, etc and still ending up with a massive net positive.

    Its almost like you didn't read or comprehend the original story/investigation posted?
    Of course not.

    Taxes bad thinks the embarrassed millionaire.

  11. #2171
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Strange somehow MacKenzie Scott managed to find a way to get "mountains of money" to donate and not crater herself into poverty, destroy the company or destroy the stock market.

    hmmm. 2.9 billion and 4.2 billion,.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mackenz...tion-billions/


    Oh shit 6%...what will she do....

    Scott is among those billionaires whose fortunes have soared since the pandemic first crippled the U.S. in March. Her wealth is now valued at more than $60 billion, representing a boost of almost $24 billion since the start of the year, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

    ummm, hmmm she gained 24 billion last year so after a 6% tax she would be net positive what 20 billion or so? Hell after the tax and donations she is still 10-12 billion dollars richer.



    Even odder somehow the tax would cause huge problems to the stock, ownership, the individuals.....but yet a 53 billion dollar divorce payment did none of that. But hey a 4 billion dollar tax bill is going to destroy him!!!!
    Good for her.

    Then again, she just got a ton of money in a divorce, and you guys want to do that to her... ever single year.

    And her ex-husband

    And all the rest.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    No you asspulled some numbers which don’t mean anything because she currently doesn’t pay a wealth tax.

    There are dozens of Billionaires who currently live in countries that require them to pay a wealth tax. Get their thoughts.
    Which is my point, the numbers are the estimated value of her company, compared to her net worth.

    That's what you people want to tax.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hadriker View Post
    Not according to Endus's math. There is still 25 million left after all tax burdens are met.



    Are you saying his math is wrong? if so you could you point out how?
    What about corporate taxes?

    You guys forgot about that, which totals 29.84% of total profits.

    He even mentioned those taxes, but didn't want to talk about them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Bull
    Fucking
    Shit.


    Liquidity is not an issue when she can borrow at a lower interest rate then the returns on the stock, interest, investment returns and business income.

    I mean this is not specific to billionaires. If you have substantial assets as collateral you can borrow money, thus have huge Liquidity possibilities and ability.

    Paying back low interest loans with excess capital, business income, interest, investment returns, etc and still ending up with a massive net positive.

    Its almost like you didn't read or comprehend the original story/investigation posted?
    And... she's have to pay it back. Year, over year, over year, over year.

    So, bull fucking shit, to you.

  12. #2172
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Can you refute the math?

    Even Endus ended up mired in a shit storm of taxing at 117% of a well-run company's profits.
    yah very easily since its a private company and you don't have the specific figures on her income, business payments, profits, revenue, taxes, etc etc

    You have guesstimates at best.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  13. #2173
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, the math simply disagrees with you, as ALL HER OTHER ASSETS WOULD BE GONE.

    You're now caught up to 50 pages ago.
    I have no idea where you're getting this from. Even if she were starting to divest ownership of In&Out, so what? That doesn't affect the company.

    If you tax her wealth, that includes In&Out.
    This is not true. Where the hell are you pulling this nonsense from?

    In&Out is a separate tax entity. Her ownership of the company would be taxed, not the company itself. Those are not the same things.

    If she sold In&Out tomorrow, she'd lose all ownership, but the company wouldn't be affected, it would continue under its new ownership, with all its resources and properties intact.


  14. #2174
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    yah very easily since its a private company and you don't have the specific figures on her income, business payments, profits, revenue, taxes, etc etc

    You have guesstimates at best.
    And that would mean taking literally all their profits, plus some.

  15. #2175
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Hadriker View Post
    I am far from the smartest person here and i understand what he's saying. If you think his explanation is incorrect, could you explain why you think so?



    Company nets 200 million in profits.

    This profit is paid out to owners. shareholders, investors, or whoever gets a piece of the pie.

    Snyder is the sole owner of the company.

    Snyder is paid the 200 million in profit.

    At this point that money ceases to be the companies and is now income for Snyder.

    Snyder uses some of this money to pay her Tax burden.

    At no point is the burden of paying the wealth tax placed on the company. Again please if you disagree with this assessment please explain
    Just wanted to be clear; that's what I've been saying. If you get it, the issue isn't how I'm describing things.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hadriker View Post
    Not according to Endus's math. There is still 25 million left after all tax burdens are met.

    Are you saying his math is wrong? if so you could you point out how?
    I admitted there'd be taxes on it (income tax, primarily), but there's plenty of ways for the wealthy to avoid paying income taxes, and I wasn't going to fake a full tax return just to prove a point. She's probably got multiple accountants working full-time to manage that kind of stuff. It wouldn't be simple.


  16. #2176
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I have no idea where you're getting this from. Even if she were starting to divest ownership of In&Out, so what? That doesn't affect the company.



    This is not true. Where the hell are you pulling this nonsense from?

    In&Out is a separate tax entity. Her ownership of the company would be taxed, not the company itself. Those are not the same things.

    If she sold In&Out tomorrow, she'd lose all ownership, but the company wouldn't be affected, it would continue under its new ownership, with all its resources and properties intact.
    And it's part of HER NET WORTH.

    A wealth tax puts In&Out as part of her, and taxes her accordingly.

  17. #2177
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Good for her.

    Then again, she just got a ton of money in a divorce, and you guys want to do that to her... ever single year.
    And her ex-husband
    And all the rest.
    She got 4% of amazon stock, but somehow she still managed to pay out all that $$$ and end up with wealth growth and amazon/MaC did not end up bankrupt like you said she would.

    It shows you she could pay the tax and still end up with huge wealth growth showing the tax would not be a burden on her.


    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post

    What about corporate taxes?

    You guys forgot about that, which totals 29.84% of total profits.

    He even mentioned those taxes, but didn't want to talk about them.

    /facepalm



    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And... she's have to pay it back. Year, over year, over year, over year.

    So, bull fucking shit, to you.

    Right and even after paying it back year over year over year she still ends up net positive on wealth.
    So what's your point.

    I have to fucking pay taxes on my assets year over year and year over year and yet i have never sold that asset.
    But damn can't tax that poor billionaire though right?
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  18. #2178
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Just wanted to be clear; that's what I've been saying. If you get it, the issue isn't how I'm describing things.
    You already there was never any question.
    And he gets nothing from this, or any of the other threads.

  19. #2179
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And that would mean taking literally all their profits, plus some.
    No it doesn't at all.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  20. #2180
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    She got 4% of amazon stock, but somehow she still managed to pay out all that $$$ and end up with wealth growth and amazon/MaC did not end up bankrupt like you said she would.

    It shows you she could pay the tax and still end up with huge wealth growth showing the tax would not be a burden on her.





    /facepalm






    Right and even after paying it back year over year over year she still ends up net positive on wealth.
    So what's your point.

    I have to fucking pay taxes on my assets year over year and year over year and yet i have never sold that asset.
    But damn can't tax that poor billionaire though right?
    By... selling...stock... and a divorce settlement.

    This isn't about being able to outpace the tax, it's about forcing people to sell their companies.

    Now, imagine all your assets were taxed at 6%, year over year. How long before you'd have to sell some?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •