Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Endus]

Libertarian talks about Empathy.

Lol.

Predicated upon a "the rich should be allowed to continue to exploit the masses, causing undue suffering as a result" premise, no less.

[JohnBrown1917]

Predicated upon a "the rich should be allowed to continue to exploit the masses, causing undue suffering as a result" premise, no less.

Which is fine because not all poor people donate to charity..


or something.

[Ivanstone]

Except, they do. In order to get more liquid assets, they either sell their shit, or they take out loans, against their shit. The latter isn't feasible for a wealth tax, because it's compounding debt, both with an interest rate, and because they have to repeat it every single year.

Again it’s almost like someone got a hold of their tax records and showed that this isn’t the case. If they’re willing to take out loans (and be unaffected by the associated interest) to fuel additional investments and a luxury lifestyle than they can use some of that money to pay some tax.

[Endus]

If you are feeling empathetic, perhaps you would like to help out those Afghani refugees. You can send care packages, money, or even help by putting a family up for a short while, until they can get on their feet in this country.

Why would you think this is a reasonable counterpoint?

I strongly support my government supporting as many Afghan refugees as we need to, particularly any who provided support for Canada during out efforts in the region.

The only reason I don't think it should be provided by myself personally on an individual basis is because I have no means to ensure standards are met or to determine who should be offered that support. I'm fully in support of the government pulling more in taxes to fund that endeavour, though, since they do have the capacity to take a systemic approach to solve the issue, whereas a personal approach will inevitably fail. The same reason personal charity never solves any systemic problems; no matter how charitable some individuals may be, they can't address the issue systemically.

It's like asking me why I don't just feed all the poor myself. I can volunteer with my local food bank (and have), but I can't solve the problem by myself, and it's a ridiculous thing to suggest.

It's a horseshit accusation to make that grossly misrepresents the issues, to deflect from the point.

[Machismo]

I don't have a problem with the word.

You are lying about what the word means. Mark Cuban never said he'd suffer hardship if a wealth tax were implemented. That's why you can't quote him saying so.



Again, "I want to stay rich and continue exploiting ownership" is not the same thing as "it would be impossible to accomplish and cause me to suffer hardship".

You're claiming the latter. And can only demonstrate the former.



In this case, we're talking about a move against oppression. You're the one supporting it, not I.



Other than rich people whining that they might have to pay their share for once, no, you haven't laid out a single problem. And that one thing itself isn't a problem, either.



Sell it to whoever's buying. The government doesn't want stock, they want their owed taxes.

No, Mark Cuban said it would be a burden, and he would absolutely have to "sell shit." He said he's willing to pay more in income taxes, but that a wealth tax is a huge problem, because of a lack of liquidity. He made that point very, very clear.

This isn't a move against oppression. Having money does not oppress others. I'm not oppressing you, because I got a raise at work.

I never said it's impossible, I said it's an undue burden, and punitive.

They can sell it to their buddy for a dollar the day before an assessment, then their net worth would be significantly lower, and they wouldn't have the tax burden. Then, their buddy could sell it back afterwards. Well, we found the loophole.

Here's the problem that you people don't get, Warren's wealth tax would send the stock market into a death spiral, which would make 1929 look like a blip.

They are paying their fair share This is according to the United States government, which is the arbiter on what that means.. They are simply not paying as much as you want. Luckily, the USG doesn't really care what you think on the issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Predicated upon a "the rich should be allowed to continue to exploit the masses, causing undue suffering as a result" premise, no less.

Who is Lynsi Snyder exploiting?

[uuuhname]

I never said it's impossible, I said it's an undue burden, and punitive.

It's punitive to give back to the system that A) gave you that wealth in the first place and B) to help ensure the system you claim to care about so much continues to operate as it currently does. this is why no one should take libertarians seriously. they constantly argue about having their cake and demanding it be spoon fed to them on top of it all.

[Machismo]

Again it’s almost like someone got a hold of their tax records and showed that this isn’t the case. If they’re willing to take out loans (and be unaffected by the associated interest) to fuel additional investments and a luxury lifestyle than they can use some of that money to pay some tax.

Except, it's not just "some money" it's billions a year.

Imagine if you suddenly had to pay taxes on all your assets. What changes would you have to make? Let's do an example... a 40-year-old person with total assets of $300k. That's not bad, but it's not a ton. You have a bit of stock, a house that has increased in value, and some other things. Nothing too fancy. Now, if we were to apply a similar wealth tax of 6% (which is the high end of Warren's plan), that is an additional tax burden of $18k a year. Now, my guess is you are close to that age, how would you like to pay the federal government that much more per year? Of course not, that's absurd. It's only a matter of time, before you have to sell your biggest asset, which is your house.

Let's take it a bit further. Imagine you own a small HVAC company. It's just you, and about 4 employees. That would probably be your biggest asset, and you'd have to sell that.

[Endus]

No, Mark Cuban said it would be a burden, and he would absolutely have to "sell shit." He said he's willing to pay more in income taxes, but that a wealth tax is a huge problem, because of a lack of liquidity. He made that point very, very clear.

A burden is not hardship.

This is where you misuse the word.

I never said Cuban wouldn't have to sell things off to meet his obligations. I don't see that as a problem in the first place.

Cuban's "lack of liquidity" is fictional. He can liquidate his wealth. He chooses not to.

This isn't a move against oppression. Having money does not oppress others. I'm not oppressing you, because I got a raise at work.

Again, straight-up ignoring context. You getting a raise doesn't make you a wealthy capitalist.

I never said it's impossible, I said it's an undue burden, and punitive.

You have no basis for "undue". And "punitive" is just a straight lie, meant to push an appeal to emotion fallacy.

They can sell it to their buddy for a dollar the day before an assessment, then their net worth would be significantly lower, and they wouldn't have the tax burden. Then, their buddy could sell it back afterwards. Well, we found the loophole.

You say that like auditors don't exist. That's what we'd call "tax fraud".

Here's the problem that you people don't get, Warren's wealth tax would send the stock market into a death spiral, which would make 1929 look like a blip.

Why should we entertain fiction as if it were an argument?

They are paying their fair share This is according to the United States government, which is the arbiter on what that means.. They are simply not paying as much as you want. Luckily, the USG doesn't really care what you think on the issue.

This is hilarious.

If they implemented a wealth tax, then their "fair share" would be that required by that wealth tax, according to the United States Government, which is the arbiter on what that means.

You didn't think that comment through, did you?

Who is Lynsi Snyder exploiting?

Every single one of her employees.

That's how capitalism works. Capitalism is exploitation. Workers labor, the profits off that labor are taken by the capitalists. That's exploitation.

And $13/hour for front-line staff is a garbage wage that isn't anywhere close to a living wage.

[Machismo]

Why would you think this is a reasonable counterpoint?

I strongly support my government supporting as many Afghan refugees as we need to, particularly any who provided support for Canada during out efforts in the region.

The only reason I don't think it should be provided by myself personally on an individual basis is because I have no means to ensure standards are met or to determine who should be offered that support. I'm fully in support of the government pulling more in taxes to fund that endeavour, though, since they do have the capacity to take a systemic approach to solve the issue, whereas a personal approach will inevitably fail. The same reason personal charity never solves any systemic problems; no matter how charitable some individuals may be, they can't address the issue systemically.

It's like asking me why I don't just feed all the poor myself. I can volunteer with my local food bank (and have), but I can't solve the problem by myself, and it's a ridiculous thing to suggest.

It's a horseshit accusation to make that grossly misrepresents the issues, to deflect from the point.

It's perfectly reasonable. If people are going to scream about empathy, and use that as an argument, then I will use empathy against them.

Trying to claim I'm not empathetic, now that's a horseshit accusation, I agree.

So, glad to know the empathy angle is a bust!!!

- - - Updated - - -

It's punitive to give back to the system that A) gave you that wealth in the first place and B) to help ensure the system you claim to care about so much continues to operate as it currently does. this is why no one should take libertarians seriously. they constantly argue about having their cake and demanding it be spoon fed to them on top of it all.

So, how much more are you willing to give back?

[Endus]

It's perfectly reasonable. If people are going to scream about empathy, and use that as an argument, then I will use empathy against them.

Trying to claim I'm not empathetic, now that's a horseshit accusation, I agree.

So, glad to know the empathy angle is a bust!!!

Try reading my posts next time. You might be able to figure out what I'm actually saying before you post something like this that proves you don't.

Also, kudos on claiming to be empathic while, at the same time, in your own words, weaponizing people's empathy against them.

[Machismo]

A burden is not hardship.

This is where you misuse the word.

I never said Cuban wouldn't have to sell things off to meet his obligations. I don't see that as a problem in the first place.

Cuban's "lack of liquidity" is fictional. He can liquidate his wealth. He chooses not to.



Again, straight-up ignoring context. You getting a raise doesn't make you a wealthy capitalist.



You have no basis for "undue". And "punitive" is just a straight lie, meant to push an appeal to emotion fallacy.



You say that like auditors don't exist. That's what we'd call "tax fraud".



Why should we entertain fiction as if it were an argument?



This is hilarious.

If they implemented a wealth tax, then their "fair share" would be that required by that wealth tax, according to the United States Government, which is the arbiter on what that means.

You didn't think that comment through, did you?



Every single one of her employees.

That's how capitalism works. Capitalism is exploitation. Workers labor, the profits off that labor are taken by the capitalists. That's exploitation.

And $13/hour for front-line staff is a garbage wage that isn't anywhere close to a living wage.

No, I'm well aware you accept that Cuban would have to sell shit. I'm also aware you don't give a shit that he'd have to sell shit. I'm also aware that's the entire point of why you want to do it. You want to forcefully take their companies away from them, and this is the means.

Every employee is exploiting every business owner, so your argument is stupid. The poor are exploiting the taxpayers. stores exploit customers, customers exploit stores. If you don't like those $13/hour wages, then tell those employees to stop exploiting those companies, ad exploit a different company.

That's why I'm glad that no wealth tax is coming. Warren's plan doesn't stand a chance, and the Democrats would disappear into obscurity if they tried to push it.

- - - Updated - - -

Try reading my posts next time. You might be able to figure out what I'm actually saying before you post something like this that proves you don't.

Also, kudos on claiming to be empathic while, at the same time, in your own words, weaponizing people's empathy against them.

Once again, I was responding to someone bashing me for not being empathetic. I simply used their argument against them. Kudos for you ignoring the person who started it, to go after me for slinging it back in their face.

So, I'll wait for you to condemn him... any second now.

[Endus]

No, I'm well aware you accept that Cuban would have to sell shit. I'm also aware you don't give a shit that he'd have to sell shit. I'm also aware that's the entire point of why you want to do it. You want to forcefully take their companies away from them, and this is the means.

Nope.

Not what I, or anyone here, said. You can't honestly counter what we are saying, so you pull out flimsy lies, like this.

Every employee is exploiting every business owner, so your argument is stupid. The poor are exploiting the taxpayers. stores exploit customers, customers exploit stores. If you don't like those #13 hour wages, then tell those employees to stop exploiting those companies, ad exploit a different company.

This is just a lot of blatantly false statements. Every single thing you said here is false.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, I was responding to someone bashing me for not being empathetic. I simply used their argument against them. Kudos for you ignoring the person who started it, to go after me for slinging it back in their face.

So, I'll wait for you to condemn him... any second now.

You didn't. You just proved them right.

[Machismo]

Nope.

Not what I, or anyone here, said. You can't honestly counter what we are saying, so you pull out flimsy lies, like this.



This is just a lot of blatantly false statements. Every single thing you said here is false.

Are you suddenly outraged at the definitions of words?

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/exploit

They are exploiting those companies for money and profit. Those companies are exploiting them for labor.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope.

Not what I, or anyone here, said. You can't honestly counter what we are saying, so you pull out flimsy lies, like this.



This is just a lot of blatantly false statements. Every single thing you said here is false.

- - - Updated - - -



You didn't. You just proved them right.

So, you're saying by him mocking my empathy, he has no empathy?

Or, does it only work one way?

[uuuhname]

So, how much more are you willing to give back?

I'd be willing to give all of it back under the pretense that it comes back to me in the form of free housing, a basic income regardless of my employment status, free healthcare and higher education. but that's not the society we live in, is it?

[Machismo]

I'd be willing to give all of it back under the pretense that it comes back to me in the form of free housing, a basic income regardless of my employment status, free healthcare and higher education. but that's not the society we live in, is it?

I'm talking about the society we do live in, so no need to deflect.

[uuuhname]

I'm talking about the society we do live in, so no need to deflect.

oh sorry that I responded to your deflection in a way that makes you look childish. I'll do better next time.

[Machismo]

oh sorry that I responded to your deflection in a way that makes you look childish. I'll do better next time.

Well, when I see people demanding others pay more, I do want to see if they are willing to do the same. I'm noticing a distinct lack of commitment to their stances, when they are called out on it.

This entire thread is about the wealthy supposedly not paying enough, but the United States government says they pay enough. The numbers show they pay more, as compared to their income.

So, those wealthy are giving back.

[Ivanstone]

Except, it's not just "some money" it's billions a year.

Imagine if you suddenly had to pay taxes on all your assets. What changes would you have to make? Let's do an example... a 40-year-old person with total assets of $300k. That's not bad, but it's not a ton. You have a bit of stock, a house that has increased in value, and some other things. Nothing too fancy. Now, if we were to apply a similar wealth tax of 6% (which is the high end of Warren's plan), that is an additional tax burden of $18k a year. Now, my guess is you are close to that age, how would you like to pay the federal government that much more per year? Of course not, that's absurd. It's only a matter of time, before you have to sell your biggest asset, which is your house.

Let's take it a bit further. Imagine you own a small HVAC company. It's just you, and about 4 employees. That would probably be your biggest asset, and you'd have to sell that.

If I had to do it I would just take money from my bank account. Just like most of the Swiss citizenry. Have you done any research on how overburdened Swiss Billionaires are? They pay wealth taxes, their wealth generally appears to increase and there’s quite a lot of them.

More importantly I am insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I am just a rock. I do not presume that my assets and abilities are the equivalent of a billionaire. Even if I were to decuple or even hectuple my wealth I would still be insignificant. Great wealth simply distorts the world around it. It used to defy my imagination. Your imagination still can’t grasp it since you’re still using simplistic micro analogies.

Shall I now point out that the Moon’s gravitational field is so large that it not only distorts distant physical objects but time itself? Thats what the ultra wealthy have. Enough wealth that it distorts everything around it. I always assumed that the distortion was there but now I assume it’s much bigger than I previously believed.

[Machismo]

If I had to do it I would just take money from my bank account. Just like most of the Swiss citizenry. Have you done any research on how overburdened Swiss Billionaires are? They pay wealth taxes, their wealth generally appears to increase and there’s quite a lot of them.

More importantly I am insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I am just a rock. I do not presume that my assets and abilities are the equivalent of a billionaire. Even if I were to decuple or even hectuple my wealth I would still be insignificant. Great wealth simply distorts the world around it. It used to defy my imagination. Your imagination still can’t grasp it since you’re still using simplistic micro analogies.

Shall I now point out that the Moon’s gravitational field is so large that it not only distorts distant physical objects but time itself? Thats what the ultra wealthy have. Enough wealth that it distorts everything around it. I always assumed that the distortion was there but now I assume it’s much bigger than I previously believed.

The Swiss wealth tax is quite small, and I still don't support it. Warren's plan is far, far more radical.

How long would you be able to take that increased tax burden out of your bank account? 2 years? 3? So, let's test a theory, since you're in country. Take an true estimate of your wealth, and take .8% of that total, and put it into a new bank account that you cannot touch, until all your liquid assets are dried up. We can either speed it up to once a month, or keep it at once per year. Let's see how long it takes for you to feel the pinch.

And therein lies the issue, it's way easier to just take from a small percentage, than it is to burden the entire populace. Just take a lot more from each, and everything is right as rain...

Of course, this underscores what I've said for years. People don't give a shit about the freedoms of others.

[uuuhname]

Well, when I see people demanding others pay more, I do want to see if they are willing to do the same. I'm noticing a distinct lack of commitment to their stances, when they are called out on it.

because you take it personally! it's obvious it gets an emotional rise out of you. all you have are appeals to emotion and when people refuse to meet you on that field you get even MORE upset over it.