1. #2621
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    70,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    No, it's not hardship to you.
    Not just "to me". "To any reasonable use of the term".

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

    You're misusing words because your position cannot hold up to honest scrutiny, and you know it.

    You spoke of harm, and guys like Mark Cuban laid out very specifically why it's hardship, mainly due to a lack of liquid assets, and it would force them to sell off their property. Your inability to be empathetic is not a valid argument.
    Minor annoyances he would get his accountants to deal with is not "hardship" by any measure.

    And nothing I'm saying has anything to do with any "lack of empathy". There you go with the personal attacks and/or projection, again. You can't make your case on the facts, so you have to portray me as a "bad person".

    You are quite literally forcing them to sell their property, which is a hardship.
    This is recursively false.

    They aren't "forced to sell their property", they're obliged to pay their legally-owed taxes. Like everyone is. If you're going to call that "forcing", all you're really saying is that law enforcement exists as a concept. It's a meaningless use of the term "force". It's the same kind of "forced" like "they force me to stop murdering people".

    If you're not against the very basic concept of "rule of law", then you know you're being dishonest, here.

    And if you are, you're absolutely nuts and that position says everything anyone needs to know about you. You really are opposed to stopping serial killers from getting their kill on, in this instance.

    And despite the nonsense use of "forced", it's not a "hardship", since we're talking about wealth over $50 million, and you're using that word incorrectly.

    You can't define your terms properly. And you deflect every time you're asked to. Because you're using scary-sounding words out of their proper context because you hope that dishonest appeals to emotion might gain you some ground when you very clearly know that logic and reason can't gain you any.


  2. #2622
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That's tantamount to saying you don't mind shooting into a crowd, so long as you hit a bad guy in the process.

    They are increasing their wealth, because they are not selling their property. That's it. That's the big fucking secret.

    Those unrealized gains cannot be easily liquidated, because it means selling their property to pay... for that property. Mind you, it's bad enough that they do it for homes, but this is like doing it to your Magic Card collection. It's worth so much, and you did such a good job of taking care of them, that you are now forced to sell them, to pay for the good job you did.
    Its stupid analogies that gets you infractions. Do better.

    Not true at all. They're increasing their wealth in part because things like stock and real estate can appreciate but they can also use their wealth to obtain even more wealth.

    Again you fail to see the point. In spite of unrealized gains being difficult to liquidate they still have an abundance of liquidity which can be used to further increase their wealth and live an opulent lifestyle.

    How much stock do you think Jeff Bezos sold to buy a half billion dollar yacht? The answer is likely zero. He probably did take out a low interest loan for it, used his stock as collateral, used the loan interest as a tax deduction and will just coast on a heap of cash until he can rent out his yacht to make even more money. And yes that's what the wealthy do with their yachts. They're pricey to purchase and maintain but rentals are a great way to make money.

    The only time Bezos "sold" any stock was giving up stock to MacKenzie Bezos. That's about 50 billion in stock for the world's most expensive dick pic.
    Last edited by Ivanstone; 2021-08-28 at 04:53 PM.

  3. #2623
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And he did not get that as a salary, which was the claim you made.

    It's an asset.

    Your sheer ignorance on the definitions of basic words is not my problem. WE already established that I understand the concepts, because I provided the literal definitions for you, to clear up the misconception on your part.

    A salary and wealth are not the same thing.

    Income and wealth are not the same thing.

    A salary is part of one's income.

    Bezos does not receive stock as part of his salary.

    The stocks he sells are part of his income (via capital gains/losses).

    The stocks he does not sell, are part of his wealth.
    It is his compensation for his role in the company. He wasn't an outside investor like you or I that just purchased shares. It was part of his compensation package.

    It is why he took such a small paycheck.

    You are fucking wrong, the proof has been provided.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  4. #2624
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Not just "to me". "To any reasonable use of the term".

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

    You're misusing words because your position cannot hold up to honest scrutiny, and you know it.



    Minor annoyances he would get his accountants to deal with is not "hardship" by any measure.

    And nothing I'm saying has anything to do with any "lack of empathy". There you go with the personal attacks and/or projection, again. You can't make your case on the facts, so you have to portray me as a "bad person".



    This is recursively false.

    They aren't "forced to sell their property", they're obliged to pay their legally-owed taxes. Like everyone is. If you're going to call that "forcing", all you're really saying is that law enforcement exists as a concept. It's a meaningless use of the term "force". It's the same kind of "forced" like "they force me to stop murdering people".

    If you're not against the very basic concept of "rule of law", then you know you're being dishonest, here.

    And if you are, you're absolutely nuts and that position says everything anyone needs to know about you. You really are opposed to stopping serial killers from getting their kill on, in this instance.

    And despite the nonsense use of "forced", it's not a "hardship", since we're talking about wealth over $50 million, and you're using that word incorrectly.

    You can't define your terms properly. And you deflect every time you're asked to. Because you're using scary-sounding words out of their proper context because you hope that dishonest appeals to emotion might gain you some ground when you very clearly know that logic and reason can't gain you any.
    Once again, mark Cuban made it very clear why he disagrees with you.

    My position has not changed, and is still holding up just fine. This is always about taxing the shit out of other people, based on a bullshit narrative.

    "It's just a minor annoyance." Nah, says you. mark Cuban says otherwise. Shit, most governments on the planet also say otherwise. And mind you, we're talking about a guy who said he's willing to pay a higher income tax rate. He just doesn't want to be forced to sell his shit.

    I can assume you wouldn't like to also be forced to sell your own shit.

    I already provided the math that shows that they would be forced to sell their shit. Of course, if your argument is that they can just make more money elsewhere," then you are opening up to that being used against poor people. if we raise the taxes of poor people, they can just sell some shit, or make more money elsewhere. There, glad that argument is headed off before it started.

    I defined it just fine, including liberty, harm, and hardship. I don't really need your approval on words. I'm also fine using the dictionary definitions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    It is his compensation for his role in the company. He wasn't an outside investor like you or I that just purchased shares. It was part of his compensation package.

    It is why he took such a small paycheck.

    You are fucking wrong, the proof has been provided.
    Nope, he already had it, he started the fucking company.

    He didn't buy those stocks, he built them.

    No, you are fucking wrong, and the quote has been provided... over and over again.

    At the end of the day, you could have just said you didn't mean he got it as part of his salary, but it was part of his wealth. But, you couldn't swallow your pride, and chose to argue, all while being objectively wrong.

    This is the same disingenuous bullshit that was shown about the original article.

    Or, do you also want to say what your "true tax rate" really is, based on your overall wealth?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Its stupid analogies that gets you infractions. Do better.

    Not true at all. They're increasing their wealth in part because things like stock and real estate can appreciate but they can also use their wealth to obtain even more wealth.

    Again you fail to see the point. In spite of unrealized gains being difficult to liquidate they still have an abundance of liquidity which can be used to further increase their wealth and live an opulent lifestyle.

    How much stock do you think Jeff Bezos sold to buy a half billion dollar yacht? The answer is likely zero. He probably did take out a low interest loan for it, used his stock as collateral, used the loan interest as a tax deduction and will just coast on a heap of cash until he can rent out his yacht to make even more money. And yes that's what the wealthy do with their yachts. They're pricey to purchase and maintain but rentals are a great way to make money.

    The only time Bezos "sold" any stock was giving up stock to MacKenzie Bezos. That's about 50 billion in stock for the world's most expensive dick pic.
    It's not a bad analogy, it's quite literally people calling to tax wealth, and not income. I simply made it more relatable. It you collect other things, then by all means, tabulate it all. Yes, people can use wealth to obtain more wealth, we all do it. We invest in houses, property, or even Magic Cards and comic books. You are literally bitching that investments exist.

    You can also leverage your wealth to get loans. Nobody is stopping you, it's called collateral.

    Bezos has sold stock on many occasions, because he isn't 100% owner of the company that he founded. He sold all the rest of that stock, or he gave it away, or used it for someone else's salary. But, we know he didn't pay himself in stock.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/05/amaz...on-shares.html

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachels...h=1779c62e792c

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/bezo...n-shares-.html

    Shall I keep going?
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-08-28 at 05:07 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  5. #2625
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Nope, he already had it, he started the fucking company.

    He didn't buy those stocks, he quite literally built them.

    No, you are fucking wrong, and the quote has been provided... over and over again.

    At the end of the day, you could have just said you didn't mean he got it as part of his salary, but it was part of his wealth. But, you couldn't swallow your pride, and chose to argue, all while being objectively wrong.

    This is the same disingenuous bullshit that was shown about the original article.

    Or, do you also want to say what your "true tax rate" really is, based on your overall wealth?
    I get it now. You've invested too much into he argument and you lack the intestinal fortitude to admit you're wrong. Because of that, you're going to actually fucking argue all Bezos was compensated for his role at Amazon was $81,000/year and health/dental.

    This is my fault, because your lack of understanding on this and the Trumpian levels of pride with which you wield your ignorance are literally not worth more of my time.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  6. #2626
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    70,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, mark Cuban made it very clear why he disagrees with you.
    As far as I know, he never called it "hardship". Feel free to link a quote rather than make vague references.

    And regardless; Mark Cuban might just be as wrong as you are. You think him having a recognizeable name makes him automatically right?

    I can assume you wouldn't like to also be forced to sell your own shit.
    Am I worth more than $50 million?

    This is you, again, deflecting to a dishonest framing.

    I already provided the math that shows that they would be forced to sell their shit. Of course, if your argument is that they can just make more money elsewhere," then you are opening up to that being used against poor people. if we raise the taxes of poor people, they can just sell some shit, or make more money elsewhere. There, glad that argument is headed off before it started.
    Someone with more than $50 million in assets has plenty they can sell without suffering.

    A poor person, pretty much by definition, is living at a deficit from where they should be, and are already suffering.

    Again, this is why we have progressive tax brackets. Which nobody but extremist types have issues with. I don't believe for one second you don't understand this, you're just lying about it because you're hoping an appeal to emotion might work on people. Because you can't actually state your case honestly, openly, and clearly. You have to keep trying to pretend that making a wealthy person consider maybe divesting themselves of some stock while still remaining super-rich is in any way comparable to increasing taxes on those already struggling to make ends meet.

    And seriously; if you're "okay with using dictionary definitions", the dictionary conclusively proves you wrong as to what "hardship" means. Someone who's still worth north of $50 million is not suffering "hardship", by any definition you can provide. And you know it.


  7. #2627
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I get it now. You've invested too much into he argument and you lack the intestinal fortitude to admit you're wrong. Because of that, you're going to actually fucking argue all Bezos was compensated for his role at Amazon was $81,000/year and benefits.

    This is my fault, because your lack of understanding on this and the Trumpian levels of pride with which you wield your ignorance are literally not worth more of my time.
    Do you know what a salary is?

    Honest question.

    "“We believe that all company-incurred security costs are reasonable and necessary and for the company’s benefit, and that the amount of the reported security expenses for Mr. Bezos is especially reasonable in light of his low salary and the fact that he has never received any stock-based compensation,” the company stated in the proxy statement."

    It really cannot get any more clear.

    When did his company compensate him with stock?
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  8. #2628
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    It is his compensation for his role in the company. He wasn't an outside investor like you or I that just purchased shares. It was part of his compensation package.
    It is why he took such a small paycheck.
    You are fucking wrong, the proof has been provided.
    Re; "portfolio line of credit."
    He can essentially borrow 50% against his stocks rather than sell them outright. And that percentage is where every billionaire should get dicked.

  9. #2629
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    As far as I know, he never called it "hardship". Feel free to link a quote rather than make vague references.

    And regardless; Mark Cuban might just be as wrong as you are. You think him having a recognizeable name makes him automatically right?



    Am I worth more than $50 million?

    This is you, again, deflecting to a dishonest framing.



    Someone with more than $50 million in assets has plenty they can sell without suffering.

    A poor person, pretty much by definition, is living at a deficit from where they should be, and are already suffering.

    Again, this is why we have progressive tax brackets. Which nobody but extremist types have issues with. I don't believe for one second you don't understand this, you're just lying about it because you're hoping an appeal to emotion might work on people. Because you can't actually state your case honestly, openly, and clearly. You have to keep trying to pretend that making a wealthy person consider maybe divesting themselves of some stock while still remaining super-rich is in any way comparable to increasing taxes on those already struggling to make ends meet.
    You spoke of hardship, you invoked that word.

    I'm more likely to believe the target of the hardship and harm, than the person seeking to inflict it... especially when we both agree the event actually happened, and that you will almost certainly never be targeted by it.

    I'm also more likely to believe him, because he laid out exactly why it was problematic, while also saying he's willing to pay more in taxes, just not in a way that forces him to sell shit (his words).

    Nope, you are not worth more than $50 million, which is the point. You have no problem pushing something that will almost certainly never impact you negatively. It's the justification for all sorts of oppression throughout time.

    Again, this is specifically about a wealth tax, and the problems for them have been laid out quite clearly.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Re; "portfolio line of credit."
    He can essentially borrow 50% against his stocks rather than sell them outright. And that percentage is where every billionaire should get dicked.
    You mean you don't like the idea of collateral?
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  10. #2630
    I don't know what everyone is complaining about, didn't you all hear, Jeff Bezos, only got $81,000/year for being the head of Amazon. That's it. That was the total of his compensation.

    You really have to admire a guy who ran the biggest company in the world AND scrimped and saved to build a spaceship with just receiving only $81,000/year for his effort.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  11. #2631
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I don't know what everyone is complaining about, didn't you all hear, Jeff Bezos, only got $81,000/year for being the head of Amazon. That's it. That was the total of his compensation.

    You really have to admire a guy who ran the biggest company in the world AND scrimped and saved to build a spaceship with just receiving only $81,000/year for his effort.
    Nobody said he only received $81k a year. That was his salary.

    His real wealth gain was from the stock he owned by starting the company. The company didn't have to pay that to him, because it was always his.

    I own a fair amount of Chipotle stock, and have for a long time. When my company (that is not Chipotle) pays me my salary, are they compensating me for the increased value of my Chipotle stock? Of course not. That stock is not salary, and it's not compensation, it's an owned asset.

    Now, if I sold that stock, which I have sold stock in the past, that becomes part of my income, based on capital gains/losses.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-08-28 at 05:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  12. #2632
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Someone with more than $50 million in assets has plenty they can sell without suffering.
    No probs with the $50 million mark..90% taxed on all assets above that... 200 billion...leaves bezos with 20 billion. I'm sure he'll be crying in his expensive liquor...

  13. #2633
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    No probs with the $50 million mark..90% taxed on all assets above that... 200 billion...leaves bezos with 20 billion. I'm sure he'll be crying in his expensive liquor...
    And what exactly is going to happen to all that stock he's forced to get rid of?

    Does he just hand it over to the government?
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  14. #2634
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not a bad analogy, it's quite literally people calling to tax wealth, and not income. I simply made it more relatable. It you collect other things, then by all means, tabulate it all. Yes, people can use wealth to obtain more wealth, we all do it. We invest in houses, property, or even Magic Cards and comic books. You are literally bitching that investments exist.

    You can also leverage your wealth to get loans. Nobody is stopping you, it's called collateral.

    Bezos has sold stock on many occasions, because he isn't 100% owner of the company that he founded. He sold all the rest of that stock, or he gave it away, or used it for someone else's salary. But, we know he didn't pay himself in stock.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/05/amaz...on-shares.html

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachels...h=1779c62e792c

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/bezo...n-shares-.html

    Shall I keep going?
    I am not bitching about the existence of investments. You simply lack the imagination to see the bigger picture. You see your wealth portfolio and just assume that a much wealthier is the same except bigger. That is not the case. Here's an actual good analogy:
    Think of the tax system as the tides. A rock on the beach has a gravitational field (as do all objects with mass) that has an effect on the tides. The moon also has a gravitational field that effects the tides. One object has a negligible effect on the tide, the other does not. All of us here are just rocks. The ultrawealthy are the moon. You could treat both the same way but through out history we've done two things. Prevented or used rocks as weapons and built structures to shield us from the effect of the tides. Two different reactions to the same effect.

    I haven't genuinely advocated for a wealth tax. Its a potential remedy but again here's the difference between you and me. You think you see the wealthy as naive innocents who will have to sell their worth to pay for the evil wealth tax. I, on the other hand, assume that the wealthy will be able to easily pay the wealth tax without shedding a penny of their worth. You simply can't grasp the idea that the wealthy don't use their wealth like everyone else does. The OP shows that this is generally the case.

    Bezos sold some stock! Oh noes. So what happened? Oh right he's still the richest man on earth even after the world's most expensive dick pic. He's simply reinvesting his wealth into other areas. In the earlier years selling stock allowed him to aggressively reinvest more money in Amazon. He has less stock but the stock he had left is more valuable due to reinvestment. Not the smoking gun you're looking for.

  15. #2635
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Re; "portfolio line of credit."
    He can essentially borrow 50% against his stocks rather than sell them outright. And that percentage is where every billionaire should get dicked.
    I mean god fucking forbid, that a group of people who use and benefit from government resources more than 99% of the population combined, should have to pay taxes on money that they use to make more money.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  16. #2636
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    I am not bitching about the existence of investments. You simply lack the imagination to see the bigger picture. You see your wealth portfolio and just assume that a much wealthier is the same except bigger. That is not the case. Here's an actual good analogy:
    Think of the tax system as the tides. A rock on the beach has a gravitational field (as do all objects with mass) that has an effect on the tides. The moon also has a gravitational field that effects the tides. One object has a negligible effect on the tide, the other does not. All of us here are just rocks. The ultrawealthy are the moon. You could treat both the same way but through out history we've done two things. Prevented or used rocks as weapons and built structures to shield us from the effect of the tides. Two different reactions to the same effect.

    I haven't genuinely advocated for a wealth tax. Its a potential remedy but again here's the difference between you and me. You think you see the wealthy as naive innocents who will have to sell their worth to pay for the evil wealth tax. I, on the other hand, assume that the wealthy will be able to easily pay the wealth tax without shedding a penny of their worth. You simply can't grasp the idea that the wealthy don't use their wealth like everyone else does. The OP shows that this is generally the case.

    Bezos sold some stock! Oh noes. So what happened? Oh right he's still the richest man on earth even after the world's most expensive dick pic. He's simply reinvesting his wealth into other areas. In the earlier years selling stock allowed him to aggressively reinvest more money in Amazon. He has less stock but the stock he had left is more valuable due to reinvestment. Not the smoking gun you're looking for.
    I don't consider them naive, nor do I consider them evil.

    They are just people. They deserve the same rights and freedoms as you do, and the same rights as I do.

    As has been pointed out, they wouldn't just be able to pay it, because they don't have the liquid assets. to do it. This is specifically in regards to Warren's plan, which is crazy high. Most of these wealthy people don't have billions in liquid assets lying around. Most of it is invested in a single company. The more successful that company is, the more their wealth goes up, and the more their tax burden goes up. That puts an even higher burden on the rest of the assets that are not stocks in that company.

    That's why I highlighted Lynsi Snyder, who is the sole owner of a company, and how she would be forced to sell off that company, piece by piece. There's simply no way around it. She either takes parts of her company, or she takes money out of that company, to pay for the new tax burden. And, that would mean less money to her employees, and less benefits, like heath and medical. Or, it means a worse product.

    Now, this isn't a one-time thing, which is the problem, it's a cumulative restriction, to the tune of 6% a year in Warren's plan. Bezos would survive, no doubt about it. But, it's still damn burdensome, billions and billions a year. For Lynsi Snyder, it's far more impactful, as she would have to start selling the company that she owns outright, after a few years of that cumulative impact.

    And, since I still consider both of them as people, I cannot justify that. This is especially true, since the people pushing this the hardest, will never be negatively impacted by the tax they wish to implement.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I mean god fucking forbid, that a group of people who use and benefit from government resources more than 99% of the population combined, should have to pay taxes on money that they use to make more money.
    Do you have any numbers to actually back this up?
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  17. #2637
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    As has been pointed out, they wouldn't just be able to pay it, because they don't have the liquid assets. to do it.
    Again.

    THEY DO NOT SUFFER FROM A LACK OF LIQUIDITY. STOP ASSUMING THEY DO.

    The OP amply highlighted that this is the case. Previously I assumed having enormous wealth would create an advantage that most of us don't have. For example, the donor-to-taxcuts pipeline or the use of lobbying. Sure I can contribute to a lobbyist or make a political donation but I'm just a rock. My contributions are meagre. Their's are not.

    This was a simplistic unimaginative view of taxation that I had in part because I was assumed that they might have less liquidity because of the need to sell assets. I no longer have that view.

  18. #2638
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Again.

    THEY DO NOT SUFFER FROM A LACK OF LIQUIDITY. STOP ASSUMING THEY DO.

    The OP amply highlighted that this is the case. Previously I assumed having enormous wealth would create an advantage that most of us don't have. For example, the donor-to-taxcuts pipeline or the use of lobbying. Sure I can contribute to a lobbyist or make a political donation but I'm just a rock. My contributions are meagre. Their's are not.

    This was a simplistic unimaginative view of taxation that I had in part because I was assumed that they might have less liquidity because of the need to sell assets. I no longer have that view.
    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.

    Accessing money is easy, because they can pay it back. But, the thing about wealthy people, is that they try to not keep putting themselves in debt, without paying off the previous debts. They got rich with compounding interest, and they'd get poor with that compounding interest from the debt (relatively speaking). So, once they took out that loan, they'd have to pay it off, or simply add more debt the next year. And, the way they pay that debt off, is to sell some shit.

    So, let's take Lynsi Snyder. Her new tax burden for Warren's plan, would be about $160 million more a year (if I recall). Sure, she could leverage a loan against her company, and pay it off that first year. But, come the second year, she's still got that $160 million loan, plus interest, as well as another $160 million tax bill. And, since most of her assets are a single company, it's only a matter of time before she has to sell parts of it off.

    Seriously, it would be about 4 years, before she's have no other choice, but to sell the company, as she would have already sold off everything else.

    Now, Bezos is a bit of an outlier, because his value is skyrocketing so quickly. His value is skyrocketing so much, he'd just keep selling stock, over and over again. But, if we're pushing a blanket policy for him, that would apply to others, then people like Lynsi Snyder are going to be caught up in it all.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-08-28 at 06:28 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  19. #2639
    Elemental Lord Santti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,338
    Libertarian talks about Empathy.

    Lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransath View Post
    Money laundering, especially prior to his election? I couldn't give a flying fuck.

  20. #2640
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    70,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You spoke of hardship, you invoked that word.
    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.

    I'm more likely to believe the target of the hardship and harm, than the person seeking to inflict it... especially when we both agree the event actually happened, and that you will almost certainly never be targeted by it.

    I'm also more likely to believe him, because he laid out exactly why it was problematic, while also saying he's willing to pay more in taxes, just not in a way that forces him to sell shit (his words).
    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.

    Nope, you are not worth more than $50 million, which is the point. You have no problem pushing something that will almost certainly never impact you negatively. It's the justification for all sorts of oppression throughout time.
    In this case, we're talking about a move against oppression. You're the one supporting it, not I.

    Again, this is specifically about a wealth tax, and the problems for them have been laid out quite clearly.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And what exactly is going to happen to all that stock he's forced to get rid of?

    Does he just hand it over to the government?
    Sell it to whoever's buying. The government doesn't want stock, they want their owed taxes.


Posting Permissions

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