Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

Hey look at that another topic you are completely ignorant about

One does allow for limitations.

I'm also a firm believer that what I support is only possible, if humans stop being shitbags.

Freedom cannot be absolute, because the inevitable result of anarchy is oppression, and then government.

[Glorious Leader]

Or you were lying, and using words to knowingly mislead and push an emotional appeal rather than a rational argument.

Or he's ignorant and/or brainwashed by endless propaganda. Attributing it to malice what can be explained simple stupidity isn't necessary.

[uuuhname]

That would be anarchy.

no, it isn't.

that would be "property ownership for property ownership's sake is the only real value you bring to society"

[Machismo]

Didn't say it was. Said you are making the same arguments.

I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other.

I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age.

There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North

Excerpts from Calhoun's speech before Congress, "Slavery a Positive Good", in 1837. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slavery_a_Positive_Good

You're making the same arguments.



That doesn't mean I don't give a shit about them. It means I do not see any argument being made that these are things which should be protected. You certainly haven't made any such argument. You've just declared it, and called me names because I dispute your position's validity.



You have explicitly and directly attacked the entire concept of rule of law itself, in your earlier posts. Every time you bemoan that they will be "forced" to sell things. That "force" is just the enforcement of the law. If you've got a problem with that "force", then your problem is with the concept of rule of law itself.

Or you were lying, and using words to knowingly mislead and push an emotional appeal rather than a rational argument.

Once again, this is shit I'm not saying. Trying to equate me to a slave holder... would be like me comparing you to Hitler, because he didn't care what happened to the Jews whose liberties he sought to deny. Its a shitty analogy, and pathetic that you insist on trying to make it. But, if you feel compelled to continue, just refer to that analogy as a response.

I did make those arguments, several times... and ypu couldn't be bothered to care.

As for laws, I'm very god there's no polital capital to put the laws you want to implement on the books. I'm glad that reality is far less oppressive in this country, and far more accepting of liberty and capitalism. We can dismiss the fantasy you want.

[Glorious Leader]

no, it isn't.

that would be "property ownership for property ownership's sake is the only real value you bring to society"

what did that one asshole say something like I think voting should be like money. Every dollar you have gives you a bigger vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom cannot be absolute, because the inevitable result of anarchy is oppression, and then government.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

For everyone else this is very instructional about how to deal with libertarians. Their professed love of freedom stops at actual freedom. Because that would undermine the existing class structure and the movement wasnt funded and paid to do that.

[Machismo]

no, it isn't.

that would be "property ownership for property ownership's sake is the only real value you bring to society"

Now you are bemoaning being allowed to own property?

No, the value you bring to society is what you have to offer. It can be labor, products, services, or even a willingness to help others.

[uuuhname]

what did that one asshole say something like I think voting should be like money. Every dollar you have gives you a bigger vote.

well, unfortunately that one asshole isn't entirely wrong in that assessment from a practical sense of how the US was founded.

[Machismo]

what did that one asshole say something like I think voting should be like money. Every dollar you have gives you a bigger vote.

- - - Updated - - -



Why do you hate freedom so much?

That seems like a terrible question. If you do not restrict actions that cause harm, then you suffer a net reduction in liberty.

[Glorious Leader]

well, unfortunately that one asshole isn't entirely wrong in that assessment from a practical sense of how the US was founded.

I can't remember it was some conservative dick being interviewed in a forum stating something along those lines. Basically democracy should be for sale.

[uuuhname]

Now you are bemoaning being allowed to own property?

No, the value you bring to society is what you have to offer. It can be labor, products, services, or even a willingness to help others.

I'm just explaining to you what is at the core of the libertarian argument.

except that's not what characterizes libertarianism, at all.

[Glorious Leader]

That seems like a terrible question. If you do not restrict actions that cause harm, then you suffer a net reduction in liberty.

Wow you statist.

For everyone else reading you'll note that its never ascertained exactly who will suffer the "net reduction " in liberty and what liberties will be curtailed. This is most likely because nobody on the face of the planet gives a shit if Jeff Bezos has slightly less net worth so they have to lump everybody in. It's this weird abuse of solidarity. You'll also note too that evidently concentrated accumulation of capital isn't considered harm despite the overwhelming evidence of how much it has distorted almost every single facet of human life.

[uuuhname]

I can't remember it was some conservative dick being interviewed in a forum stating something along those lines. Basically democracy should be for sale.

well, democracy should be for people who can afford it, so more or less, yeah.

[Machismo]

I'm just explaining to you what is at the core of the libertarian argument.

except that's not what characterizes libertarianism, at all.

You were speaking about what value someone brings to society. Your hate boner for libertarianism is off-topic, and not part of this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow you statist.

For everyone else reading you'll note that its never ascertained exactly who will suffer the "net reduction " in liberty and what liberties will be curtailed. This is most likely because nobody on the face of the planet gives a shit if Jeff Bezos has slightly less net worth so they have to lump everybody in. It's this weird abuse of solidarity. You'll also note too that evidently concentrated accumulation of capital isn't considered harm despite the overwhelming evidence of how much it has distorted almost every single facet of human life.

I bet Jeff Bezos cares. I bet the other people caught up in such a wealth tax would care.

We know for a fact that mark Cuban cares about the issue.

[uuuhname]

You were speaking about what value someone brings to society. Your hard on for libertarianism is off-topic, and not part of this thread.

okay? this isn't a refutation to what I said... and please, we all know these last few pages has allllll been about wresting with your undying devotion to libertarian ideals. if you want to stop derailing the thread start with yourself.

[Machismo]

okay? this isn't a refutation to what I said... and please, we all know these last few pages has allllll been about wresting with your undying devotion to libertarian ideals. if you want to stop derailing the thread start with yourself.

You guys are tying to make it about libertarianism. I'm trying to stick to the actual thread, which is the false narrative that the wealthy are not paying their fair share. SO, do you want to talk about the numbers, again?

I'd be glad to point out that they are, and that there's a terrifyingly large number of people who don't know the difference between income and wealth.

[Ivanstone]

So, you want to make a new test that says that anyone who is wealthy automatically gets sent to detention...

Its a terrible analogy.

Their article is clear, they misrepresented what a "true tax rate" even is, and is basing it off of wealth, for a fucking income tax.

Sears lost market share, and their per-atore sales plummeted. Wal-Mart was offering products for much less, and was focusing on cities and towns with less than 50k people. Meanwhile, Sears was stuck in shopping malls with expensive rent.

Gates hanging g with Epstein is shitty, and even he has said as much. If he's a pedophile, then fucking arrest him for it. As for him stealing Dos, nope.

Thats the thing you don't get, all these examples are of companies who were the little guy, and they beat the big guys.

You don't know much about modern schooling do you? Like how there's a variety of for-profit companies that make tests for public schools.

Its like the whole "Teach a Man to Fish" line. Teach him to fish and then sell him over-priced, poorly made fishing poles.

They're really didn't. Try again.

Sears could've survived since they sell different products than Wal-Mart. Their leadership had other ideas.

He stole DOS.

These aren't the little guys. Very often they're the children of already wealthy people. You'll find very, very few rags-to-riches stories and even fewer who did it honestly.

[uuuhname]

I'm trying to stick to the actual thread, which is the false narrative that the wealthy are not paying their fair share.

which they are not, or else we wouldn't have homelessness, we wouldn't have poverty, it wouldn't exist if the wealthy were "paying their fair share". from the jump you are here to spin your narrative that they are. which you should realize by now that the arguments around this are naturally going to fall into the same pattern! so again, start with yourself! remove yourself from the conversation.

[Machismo]

You don't know much about modern schooling do you? Like how there's a variety of for-profit companies that make tests for public schools.

Its like the whole "Teach a Man to Fish" line. Teach him to fish and then sell him over-priced, poorly made fishing poles.

They're really didn't. Try again.

Sears could've survived since they sell different products than Wal-Mart. Their leadership had other ideas.

He stole DOS.

These aren't the little guys. Very often they're the children of already wealthy people. You'll find very, very few rags-to-riches stories and even fewer who did it honestly.

This analogy has jumped the tracks... and isn't coming back.

Nope, not really.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/did-bill-g...e-heart-of-dos

Netflix started out tiny, and was an interesting idea on how to get people DVDs. It exploded as soon as bandwidth improved, and streaming became a thing. Blockbuster had their chance to own it... and laughed.

As for how it relates to this thread, generational wealth is not a crime, and it's not worthy of punishment due to resentment.

Sam Walton appealed to "lower-class" people, and they flocked to him for his cheap prices. He was closer to rural areas, and people didn't travel further to go to malls. When suburbanites realized that they could save money, they also went there, and they abandoned K-Mart, Sears, and all the other "anchor" stores and department stores.

- - - Updated - - -

which they are not, or else we wouldn't have homelessness, we wouldn't have poverty, it wouldn't exist if the wealthy were "paying their fair share". from the jump you are here to spin your narrative that they are. which you should realize by now that the arguments around this are naturally going to fall into the same pattern! so again, start with yourself! remove yourself from the conversation.

They are, according to the numbers, as well as the United States government. No need to spin it at all, the people in charge are the ones who make that determination, as they are the ones who make the laws. If you can find criminal fraud, then prosecute, and take them to court. Until then, your argument is entirely based on emotion, and your feelings.

If you don't want to continue the conversation, then don't. I'm not forcing you to respond.

[uuuhname]

"being born into royalty isn't a crime, and it's not worthy of punishment due to resentment."

~Henry the 16th or whatever.

[Machismo]

"being born into royalty isn't a crime, and it's not worthy of punishment due to resentment."

~Henry the 16th or whatever.

Are you saying people should be punished for who their parents were?