Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Ivanstone]

That was already provided.

It's the owner of In&Out Burger.

I pointed out that In&Out had $1B in revenues and a 20% profit margin. Does that sound like a $200M profit? Because it sure sounds like it. Looks to me like she's got more than enough money to pay for a wealth tax.

- - - Updated - - -

Is they are paying back taxes, that would mean they wee not complying with laws. So, exactly what laws did they break?

Not collecting sales tax is a crime.

[Machismo]

What search term should I use then? Because warrens tax plan in combination with lynsi snyder lead me to mmo-c.

Both of which were already provided in this thread multiple times.

It's not my job to catch you up to speed. If you choose to read up, great. If not, that's also just fine.

- - - Updated - - -

I pointed out that In&Out had $1B in revenues and a 20% profit margin. Does that sound like a $200M profit? Because it sure sounds like it. Looks to me like she's got more than enough money to pay for a wealth tax.

- - - Updated - - -



Not collecting sales tax is a crime.

What crime did they commit? Surely, we have laws that were broken, and they were taken to court over these things, right?

[Ivanstone]

What crime did they commit? Surely, we have laws that were broken, and they were taken to court over these things, right?

They have been taken to court numerous times over this issue. They've even paid some back. They've not paid all of it back. Seriously, google is a thing.

[Machismo]

They have been taken to court numerous times over this issue. They've even paid some back. They've not paid all of it back. Seriously, google is a thing.

Yes, it is... so how much do they supposedly owe?

[Dontrike]

Where are you getting that money from?

Are you taking some else's freedom to give them.that money? Or, are you only giving yours? Shit, just keep printing it, you'll have all the freedom in the world

/s

I agree, you shouldn't have to pay for them... so don't

Wait for it...

Even for you all of that was incredibly lame, and that's saying something.

- - - Updated - - -

Both of which were already provided in this thread multiple times.

If it's so easy to find then you should be able to easily show how right you are.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it is... so how much do they supposedly owe?

You literally just told someone it's not your job to look up their question. If you're interested go find it.

[Mayhem]

Both of which were already provided in this thread multiple times.

It's not my job to catch you up to speed. If you choose to read up, great. If not, that's also just fine.

A very useful reply, thank you very much.

What crime did they commit? Surely, we have laws that were broken, and they were taken to court over these things, right?

Why ask questions? Look up the answers yourself, it surely isn't someone else's job to catch you up to speed, right?

[Machismo]

Even for you all of that was incredibly lame, and that's saying something.

- - - Updated - - -



If it's so easy to find then you should be able to easily show how right you are.

- - - Updated - - -



You literally just told someone it's not your job to look up their question. If you're interested go find it.

You are the one trying to equate giving people money to freedom. I simply wanted to know where that money was coming from.

I already showed I'm right, with the data. That burden was handled.

I'm not the one claiming they owe more, without even being able to show howuch "more" actually is. That's what happens when people base it off the false premise set by the article.

- - - Updated - - -

A very useful reply, thank you very much.



Why ask questions? Look up the answers yourself, it surely isn't someone else's job to catch you up to speed, right?

I have, I was resting you. The reality is that most states didn't have laws that covered such transactions and interrmediaries. States have since updated laws to cover those types of transactions, and sales taxnis collected.

[Shadowferal]

What search term should I use then? Because warrens tax plan in combination with lynsi snyder lead me to mmo-c.

He typically uses his quoted opinion as a source.

[Mayhem]

He typically uses his quoted opinion as a source.

Machismos sources: "look it up, I said it somewhere in this thread already"

[Machismo]

Machismos sources: "look it up, I said it somewhere in this thread already"

It was presented, multiple times. This is a common issue, people like her have their wealth largely tied up in a single source. That's why wealth taxes are bad. Warren's wealth tax just happens to be a fucking nightmare.

[Endus]

No, the issue was long that they are not paying their "fair share."

I wanted them to quantify it, since that's what they want to charge someone... but people balked. People have long talked about taxing closer to the tax rates of yore, so that's what it could look like. Would Bezos paying that much over 5 years satisfy you?

It isn't about being "satisfied". We're not talking about some ancient godling that needs sacrifices or something. You really seem to not understand incredibly basic concepts, or to willfully misrepresent them because they're inconvenient for you.

Wealth taxes and, to a lesser degree, progressive income taxes serve two broad objectives. Potentially more, but these are the big two. The first, and most obvious, is to fund government programs. If you need more funding, you need to raise taxes; simple. How much you need to raise taxes is determined by how much funding you need.

The second objective, particularly with a wealth tax, is to disincentivize hoarding of wealth. You make that increasingly less beneficial, to encourage divestment back into the economy, helping to work against wealth inequality. This is a "good" all to itself, separate from the funding of programs.

Basic shit, man. Asking for a specific percentage is also asinine; it's like asking "exactly how many grains of rice does it take to make a 'pile of rice'?" It's a knowingly dishonest question.

- - - Updated - - -

It was presented, multiple times. This is a common issue, people like her have their wealth largely tied up in a single source. That's why wealth taxes are bad. Warren's wealth tax just happens to be a fucking nightmare.

You have never explained why this is "bad" for a wealth tax.

You argue that Lynsi Snyder might have to sell part of In-N-Out to pay her wealth taxes. So? That's not a "bad thing", to begin with. You keep faking that it is, and that we should all be aghast about it, and it isn't even a bad thing in the first place.

It's like when you venemously accused me in another thread a couple days ago of having the questionable motivation of "wanting to ensure people are taken care of". Shit you say does not make sense.

[Bodakane]

Except, you already got caught lying about that.

Remember? This is history, if you want to dredge up your lies about being paid in stock, then by all means, let's get to it.

Tell me, what was Jeff Bezos income over the years that are covered in his tax records?

The only liar is you. He has stock in lieu of a commiserate paycheck. 7 year olds can understand this.

They use stocks instead of paychecks to make their income so they can avoid as much income tax possible.

Get flash cards to help you. Get an adult to help you. Practice thinking. Do whatever is necessary for you to understand this.

[Machismo]

It isn't about being "satisfied". We're not talking about some ancient godling that needs sacrifices or something. You really seem to not understand incredibly basic concepts, or to willfully misrepresent them because they're inconvenient for you.

Wealth taxes and, to a lesser degree, progressive income taxes serve two broad objectives. Potentially more, but these are the big two. The first, and most obvious, is to fund government programs. If you need more funding, you need to raise taxes; simple. How much you need to raise taxes is determined by how much funding you need.

The second objective, particularly with a wealth tax, is to disincentivize hoarding of wealth. You make that increasingly less beneficial, to encourage divestment back into the economy, helping to work against wealth inequality. This is a "good" all to itself, separate from the funding of programs.

Basic shit, man. Asking for a specific percentage is also asinine; it's like asking "exactly how many grains of rice does it take to make a 'pile of rice'?" It's a knowingly dishonest question.

- - - Updated - - -



You have never explained why this is "bad" for a wealth tax.

You argue that Lynsi Snyder might have to sell part of In-N-Out to pay her wealth taxes. So? That's not a "bad thing", to begin with. You keep faking that it is, and that we should all be aghast about it, and it isn't even a bad thing in the first place.

It's like when you venemously accused me in another thread a couple days ago of having the questionable motivation of "wanting to ensure people are taken care of". Shit you say does not make sense.

Except, thats a misconception that wealth is being hoarded. Its simply a matter of companies getting extremely large, all as a result of people wanting to spendoney there. Or, as you like to put it, their size is a feature for consumers.

In the end, this is like arguing that you believe companies are too big to exist, and should be torn down.

- - - Updated - - -

The only liar is you. He has stock in lieu of a commiserate paycheck. 7 year olds can understand this.

They use stocks instead of paychecks to make their income so they can avoid as much income tax possible.

Get flash cards to help you. Get an adult to help you. Practice thinking. Do whatever is necessary for you to understand this.

Non he has stock.

Full fucking stop.

He could go work for anyone, even as a cashier at McDonald's and that stock would still exist. He has that stock, because he started the company. He could just as easily pay himself hundreds of millions a year, and he'd still have that stock.

[Endus]

Except, thats a misconception that wealth is being hoarded. Its simply a matter of companies getting extremely large, all as a result of people wanting to spendoney there. Or, as you like to put it, their size is a feature for consumers.

In the end, this is like arguing that you believe companies are too big to exist, and should be torn down.

You just attempted to shift the discussion from individual wealth to corporate size.

Not playing stupid games with you, and not letting you change the subject. The thread's about personal wealth, stop derailing because your arguments can't support themselves.

[Bodakane]

Except, thats a misconception that wealth is being hoarded. Its simply a matter of companies getting extremely large, all as a result of people wanting to spendoney there. Or, as you like to put it, their size is a feature for consumers.

In the end, this is like arguing that you believe companies are too big to exist, and should be torn down.

- - - Updated - - -



Non he has stock.

Full fucking stop.

He could go work for anyone, even as a cashier at McDonald's and that stock would still exist. He has that stock, because he started the company. He could just as easily pay himself hundreds of millions a year, and he'd still have that stock.

Nope. You’re lying. He has stock to avoid income taxes. Fact. It’s why he was only paid $81k/year in paychecks, that can be taxed.

Tell you what, prove you have any understanding of this at all….define income.

[Machismo]

You just attempted to shift the discussion from individual wealth to corporate size.

Not playing stupid games with you, and not letting you change the subject. The thread's about personal wealth, stop derailing because your arguments can't support themselves.

Their wealth is almost exclusively tied up in one single company...either a company they started, or one they inherited.

You are now seeing the problem I've been highlighting. They are not wealthy as a result of "hoarding" wealth, but because their company skyrocketed in value.

Seriously, I have been pointing this out for weeks.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. You’re lying. He has stock to avoid income taxes. Fact. It’s why he was only paid $81k/year in paychecks, that can be taxed.

Tell you what, prove you have any understanding of this at all….define income.

No, he has stock, because he started the company. At one point, he owned the entire thing.

That definition has been provided to you... a painful number of times. Honestly, I'm starting to feel bad.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i...0or%20a%20gift.

[Endus]

Their wealth is almost exclusively tied up in one single company...either a company they started, or one they inherited.

So?

You are now seeing the problem I've been highlighting.

No, I'm not. What you're pointing at is not a problem at all.

They are not wealthy as a result of "hoarding" wealth, but because their company skyrocketed in value.

Seriously, I have been pointing this out for weeks.

Again, so?

What you're describing is the literal definition of "hoarding wealth". And there's nothing about that set of circumstances you describe that suggest it would be untenable to tax their wealth. You keep holding up a blank sheet and demanding we understand what's written upon it. There's nothing there.

[Shadowferal]

[Machismo]

So?



No, I'm not. What you're pointing at is not a problem at all.



Again, so?

What you're describing is the literal definition of "hoarding wealth". And there's nothing about that set of circumstances you describe that suggest it would be untenable to tax their wealth. You keep holding up a blank sheet and demanding we understand what's written upon it. There's nothing there.

So, you keepnwondering why this is being discussed, and I explained it to you.

Remember, the size is a feature... not a bug.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hoarding.asp

[Endus]

So, you keepnwondering why this is being discussed, and I explained it to you.

Declaring something to be a problem is not an explanation as to why it's a problem.

Remember, the size is a feature... not a bug.

Again, deflecting to the size of a corporation, when the topic is individual wealth.

Stick to the topic, stop deflecting just because your arguments fall apart.