Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

The SCOTUS ruling that was over-turned. It didn't take long to figure out the ruling was wrong but Amazon built an empire while crushing small business at the same time. The physical presence limit at least mitigated the problem somewhat but even that was 15 years too late.

And again the morally correct thing to do would be to remit the sales taxes.

It did take a long time, it took 26 years, and only occurred, because of the advent of online shopping.

No, that's not the morally correct thing to do. If they suddenly raised your taxes, would you remit all the past taxes for long before that law existed? This makes no sense at all.

[Shadowferal]

/shrug I mean, if he wants to pretend that someone in here agrees with him so be it.

He tends to that because no one agrees with him, not even other libertarians. But he tries to massage his ego so he doesn't feel alone in his mental masturbatory logic.

[Mayhem]

Here, you go:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

Cool, so considering no one seems to know what Lynsis net worth is, I've found numbers that range between 1bn and 4.2bn she either has to pay 19mio or 211mio.

And you think that's too much? Is this because you can't comprehend percentages or how much a billion is?

- - - Updated - - -

He tends to that because no one agrees with him, not even other libertarians. But he tries to massage his ego so he doesn't feel alone in his mental masturbatory logic.

Libertarians can't agree with each other because libertarianism isn't defined well enough. Everyone just picks their favorite parts and never explains how it's going to work, but they disagree with you no matter what.

[Bodakane]

\Nope, that's not my argument. my argument is that owning stock, and a salary are two very different things, as are income and wealth.

The realized gains from selling stock are income. The dividends received are also income. I've been saying that the entire time. So, if you understand that to be income, you can no longer say that simply owning a stock is classified as income.

No, its 100% your argument. You are flat out saying Bezos would only make $81k in paychecks from Amazon no matter what his stock owning status is.

If you're not saying that, then you understand he is avoiding paying income tax through the loophole of stock ownership.

Either you're lying now or you've been lying the whole time.

Either way, you're a liar.

[Machismo]

Cool, so considering no one seems to know what Lynsis net worth is, I've found numbers that range between 1bn and 4.2bn she either has to pay 19mio or 211mio.

And you think that's too much? Is this because you can't comprehend percentages or how much a billion is?

- - - Updated - - -



Libertarians can't agree with each other because libertarianism isn't defined well enough. Everyone just picks their favorite parts and never explains how it's going to work, but they disagree with you no matter what.

Yes, yes it is.

That's a lot. Or, to put it in perspective, a family that has assets of $600k, would pay $36k at 6%.

Every year.

- - - Updated - - -

No, its 100% your argument. You are flat out saying Bezos would only make $81k in paychecks from Amazon no matter what his stock owning status is.

If you're not saying that, then you understand he is avoiding paying income tax through the loophole of stock ownership.

Either you're lying now or you've been lying the whole time.

Either way, you're a liar.

No, I'm not saying that. If I were, you'd be able to point it out.

He's not avoiding paying income tax, he's just not paying the wealth tax that doesn't exist. So, what is Jeff Bezos income? He's not making income on dividends of Amazon stock, because they don't have dividends. He's paying on the sale of stock, which he has done several times in recent years. He's not paying on owning stocks, because owning stocks ISN'T FUCKING INCOME.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Yes, yes it is.

That's a lot. Or, to put it in perspective, a family that has assets of $600k, would pay $36k at 6%.

Every year.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I'm not saying that. If I were, you'd be able to point it out.

He's not avoiding paying income tax, he's just not paying the wealth tax that doesn't exist. So, what is Jeff Bezos income? He's not making income on dividends of Amazon stock, because they don't have dividends. He's paying on the sale of stock, which he has done several times in recent years. He's not paying on owning stocks, because owning stocks ISN'T FUCKING INCOME.

Because a wealth tax aimed at billionaires suddenly impacts an average family with a house? What fresh nonsense is this?

[Endus]

No, it literally isn't.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hoarded%20wealth

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

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hoard

The word isn't as narrow as you're trying to interpret it. I used it fine. Stop with the bullshit.

Again, you're trying to misconstrue why these people have wealth in the first place. The company's value is directly tied to the wealth of the person who owns that fucking company.

This is categorically false. You're getting the relationship backwards.

The person who holds ownership over that company has wealth because of the value of that company. Selling their shares of ownership has no effect on the value of the company whatsoever (other than potential market effects if other buyers think they're dumping stock, but that's an indirect effect tied to psychology, not the sale itself). Trading ownership stakes around does not affect the value of the company itself in any way. In fact, companies generally use it as a way to increase their value, and that's why the stock market exists.

I'm not misconstruing anything.

[Machismo]

Because a wealth tax aimed at billionaires suddenly impacts an average family with a house? What fresh nonsense is this?

That's my point, this is all about making someone else pay money. People cannot be bothered themselves, so they want to make others do it for them.

[Endus]

That's my point, this is all about making someone else pay money. People cannot be bothered themselves, so they want to make others do it for them.

You mean this is a lie you repeatedly turn back to, because character attacks are easier than making a point on the facts.

[Machismo]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hoard

The word isn't as narrow as you're trying to interpret it. I used it fine. Stop with the bullshit.



This is categorically false. You're getting the relationship backwards.

The person who holds ownership over that company has wealth because of the value of that company. Selling their shares of ownership has no effect on the value of the company whatsoever (other than potential market effects if other buyers think they're dumping stock, but that's an indirect effect tied to psychology, not the sale itself). Trading ownership stakes around does not affect the value of the company itself in any way. In fact, companies generally use it as a way to increase their value, and that's why the stock market exists.

I'm not misconstruing anything.

In this case, the hoarding is one company.

One.

Well, less than one... a part of one in the case of Bezos.

So, they are hording by not owning more, and just keeping the same one. Today I learned that literally every homeowner is hoarding wealth, according to Endus.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean this is a lie you repeatedly turn back to, because character attacks are easier than making a point on the facts.

How much more would you pay under Warren's wealth tax?

[Huehuecoyotl]

That's my point, this is all about making someone else pay money. People cannot be bothered themselves, so they want to make others do it for them.

Ah, so you can't argue against taxing billionaires on its merits, so you've decided to argue against where it may or may not lead. Pretty sure there is a name for that falacious approach, we'll add it to your long list of debate avoidance mechanisms.

[Machismo]

Ah, so you can't argue against taxing billionaires on its merits, so you've decided to argue against where it may or may not lead. Pretty sure there is a name for that falacious approach, we'll add it to your long list of debate avoidance mechanisms.

I have been arguing against it, and this is one of my points. How much more would you pay under Warren's Tax Plan?

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

"That's not the point!!!"

Nah, that is the point. People have no problem making others pay for shit.

[Huehuecoyotl]

So, they are hording by not owning more, and just keeping the same one. Today I learned that literally every homeowner is hoarding wealth, according to Endus.

So you are comparing owning the house you live in, with owning a large part of a company with a worth greater than most countries in the world? You are so fucking dishonest at this stage, that it's pathetic. You've dug yourself into such a whole with this warped world view of yours that you're prepared to break your own back contorting to try and defend it.

Grow up.

[Machismo]

So you are comparing owning the house you live in, with owning a large part of a company with a worth greater than most countries in the world? You are so fucking dishonest at this stage, that it's pathetic. You've dug yourself into such a whole with this warped world view of yours that you're prepared to break your own back contorting to try and defend it.

Grow up.

I'm simply showing how stupid it is to call it hoarding.

If owning one of something is hoarding, because it goes up in value... then I have some bad news for homeowners whose property goes up in value.

[Themius]

I'm simply showing how stupid it is to call it hoarding.

If owning one of something is hoarding, because it goes up in value... then I have some bad news for homeowners whose property goes up in value.

When you buy up 30 houses and refuses to put them on the market you're hoarding...

What's your problem?

[Endus]

In this case, the hoarding is one company.

One.

Well, less than one... a part of one in the case of Bezos.

So, they are hording by not owning more, and just keeping the same one. Today I learned that literally every homeowner is hoarding wealth, according to Endus.

They are. How is that a problematic statement?

It doesn't mean it's inherently bad. That comes about with issues of scale, which is where you fall apart because you keep wanting to think Jeff Bezos is no different than someone living in a 2-bedroom bungalow they inherited from their parents.

How much more would you pay under Warren's wealth tax?

$0.

Because I'm Canadian. Same reason I would pay $0 in income tax to the IRS no matter how much money I make.

Regardless, I don't choose whether a policy is good or bad based solely on how it impacts me, personally. I pay taxes for health care, and I'm willing to pay more for better health care for everyone. And so on. I care about the impacts on society, as a whole. I'm only going to factor in, in my mind, if the policies inflict hardship, and then pretty much only because if they're inflicting undue hardship on me, they must be inflicting such hardship on a lot of people, and that's the problem.

But a wealth tax, applied to middle-class me? Wealth taxes are meant to combat the accumulation of wealth, above a point. There's no reason to expect to apply it to those whose net worth is below that point. It's a ridiculous argument.

[Machismo]

When you buy up 30 houses and refuses to put them on the market you're hoarding...

What's your problem?

That would likely be considered hoarding, as that fits the definition.

Owning part of one company would not.

[Huehuecoyotl]

I have been arguing against it, and this is one of my points. How much more would you pay under Warren's Tax Plan?

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

"That's not the point!!!"

Nah, that is the point. People have no problem making others pay for shit.

This isn't just about raising revenue, as others (including myself) have explained to you already. If you leave the system as it is, the billionaire class are going to hoover up more and more money. The end result of that, if unchecked, is that there won't be enough money left in the system for the rest of us for society to actually function properly. This is a mechanism to redress that, and try and rebalance the economy.

The fact it happens to raise tax that can then be used to properly fund things like SS is a bonus.

But you appear to be happy for this to carry on, regardless of what damage it does eventually. While complaining about the funding for SS hitting a wall in 2034. It's almost like you're a hypocrite who will use anything to support your position, without any sort of intellectual consistency.

[Machismo]

They are. How is that a problematic statement?

It doesn't mean it's inherently bad. That comes about with issues of scale, which is where you fall apart because you keep wanting to think Jeff Bezos is no different than someone living in a 2-bedroom bungalow they inherited from their parents.



$0.

Because I'm Canadian. Same reason I would pay $0 in income tax to the IRS no matter how much money I make.

Regardless, I don't choose whether a policy is good or bad based solely on how it impacts me, personally. I pay taxes for health care, and I'm willing to pay more for better health care for everyone. And so on. I care about the impacts on society, as a whole. I'm only going to factor in, in my mind, if the policies inflict hardship, and then pretty much only because if they're inflicting undue hardship on me, they must be inflicting such hardship on a lot of people, and that's the problem.

But a wealth tax, applied to middle-class me? Wealth taxes are meant to combat the accumulation of wealth, above a point. There's no reason to expect to apply it to those whose net worth is below that point. It's a ridiculous argument.

Let's pretend that you were an American, how much more would it cost you? We both know it's zero, which is my point. Wealth taxes are being pushed by people with nothing to lose, and everything to gain from them. There's no risk for you, because all you see, is free fucking money. People say we shouldn't listen to billionaires, because they don't want to lose money. I say we shouldn't listen to people who have no skin in the game.

Let's not forget, the "hoarding wealth" was your argument, so feel free to move those goalposts. Let me know when you're finished.

[Bodakane]

YNo, I'm not saying that. If I were, you'd be able to point it out.

He's not avoiding paying income tax, he's just not paying the wealth tax that doesn't exist. So, what is Jeff Bezos income? He's not making income on dividends of Amazon stock, because they don't have dividends. He's paying on the sale of stock, which he has done several times in recent years. He's not paying on owning stocks, because owning stocks ISN'T FUCKING INCOME.

Its one of two things, either....

1) Owning the stocks allows him to take a small paycheck.

or

2) You're saying the stocks have no bearing on the paycheck.

You've denied both, which makes you a liar, because there are only two options.