Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[xChurch]

I can't believe this thread is still going. In the end, if billionaires can afford yachts so big they need their own yachts, they can afford a wealth tax. If they can afford to create space companies to just have a pissing contest among themselves to see who can go further faster, they can afford a wealth tax. If they can afford to set up their own enclaves where they buy out all surrounding property just so they can have an unobstructed view of the scenery, they can afford a wealth tax. Literally, no one who is not wealthy is going to shed a tear because Bezo can only afford one Giga yacht. Personally, I couldn't care less about those who already have far more freedom than the vast majority of people, maybe, possibly, losing some of that freedom, and I highly doubt I'm alone in that.

[Machismo]

This is word salad that means nothing.

You're flatly incorrect about what "fair share" means; it is not in any way defined by the US government. You don't want to deal with the term on proper footing, so you lie to misrepresent it, and then apply it inconsistently with regards to your own position to boot.

You've got no business claiming others "lack basic understanding". You've repeatedly tried to redefine words and terminology because their proper meaning won't support your views.

They are literally the ones who determine it, because they are the ones setting the tax laws.

It's why I have asked so many people, even in this thread, what they mean when they say "fair share." And what they mean is... someone else is paying more.

I don't need to redefine words, I am fine with using the dictionary definitions, even when it pisses you off that I used "exploit" correctly.

[Shadowferal]

You've got no business claiming others "lack basic understanding". You've repeatedly tried to redefine words and terminology because their proper meaning won't support your views.

Yup.

Standard tactic; claim that people don't understand and then try to get them to understand by using bullshit.

Like when Ron Paul was still in congress and said "if you don't vote for my bill then I win." (Yea... He wasn't all there. So he left congress, presumably to find the rest of himself.)

[Machismo]

it's a terrible argument because it's butting into YOUR appeals to emotion when you call these people hatful and jealous of rich people. when all we ever want to do is ensure this capitalist system you claim to care about so much functions a little less off of the suffering and misery of working class people so that it can SUSTAIN itself better.

That's the problem, many of you are calling for taking all their wealth. Others are calling to force them to sell off their companies, or have them taken by the government.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup.

Standard tactic; claim that people don't understand and then try to get them to understand by using bullshit.

Like when Ron Paul was still in congress and said "if you don't vote for my bill then I win." (Yea... He wasn't all there. So he left congress, presumably to find the rest of himself.)

I offered you numbers, ad you didn't refute them. Am I to understand you agree with my assessment? If you fail to answer, I'll take that as acknowledgement that my math is right.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't believe this thread is still going. In the end, if billionaires can afford yachts so big they need their own yachts, they can afford a wealth tax. If they can afford to create space companies to just have a pissing contest among themselves to see who can go further faster, they can afford a wealth tax. If they can afford to set up their own enclaves where they buy out all surrounding property just so they can have an unobstructed view of the scenery, they can afford a wealth tax. Literally, no one who is not wealthy is going to shed a tear because Bezo can only afford one Giga yacht. Personally, I couldn't care less about those who already have far more freedom than the vast majority of people, maybe, possibly, losing some of that freedom, and I highly doubt I'm alone in that.

This is exactly my point, an attempt to minimize this, by dehumanizing them. Meanwhile, mark Cuban made it clear why a wealth tax is a bad idea.

[Shadowferal]

[Machismo]

And their income tax payments went up as a result.

[uuuhname]

That's the problem, many of you are calling for taking all their wealth. Others are calling to force them to sell off their companies, or have them taken by the government.

so what? how it that any different when you strawman saying "you just hate rich people!" or "why don't you give away every penny you own to the government to prove to me, myself and I that you aren't a hypocrite????" you are fooling no one when the best argument you have is "well you guys are just hypocrites!" no one cares, get a real argument.

[Shadowferal]

so what? how it that any different when you strawman saying "you just hate rich people!" or "why don't you give away every penny you own to the government to prove to me, myself and I that you aren't a hypocrite????" you are fooling no one when the best argument you have is "well you guys are just hypocrites!" no one cares, get a real argument.

Haven't you learned by now that he was never interested in having an argument. He certainly was never interested in convincing anyone of the validity of his disgusting beliefs.

[uuuhname]

Haven't you learned by now that he was never interested in having an argument. He certainly was never interested in convincing anyone of the validity of his disgusting beliefs.

he's made that clear himself several times, but thanks.

[Machismo]

so what? how it that any different when you strawman saying "you just hate rich people!" or "why don't you give away every penny you own to the government to prove to me, myself and I that you aren't a hypocrite????" you are fooling no one when the best argument you have is "well you guys are just hypocrites!" no one cares, get a real argument.

Once again, that proves my point. You don't give a shit about their freedoms. Meanwhile, that's what you guys attempted to project onto me the entire time.

[Shadowferal]

he's made that clear himself several times, but thanks.

Just scope out Sen Rand Paul.

[Endus]

They are literally the ones who determine it, because they are the ones setting the tax laws.

And that's a lie, intended to change the meaning of "fair share".

The government has fuck-all to do with that. Which is why the government will constantly re-examine and adjust their tax policy, precisely because even the government does not agree that what they have established is necessarily "fair".

The government itself does not make this claim, and I have no idea where the hell you could have gotten it, so it just seems like an empty lie meant to confuse and distract.

It's why I have asked so many people, even in this thread, what they mean when they say "fair share." And what they mean is... someone else is paying more.

That's a willfully dishonest framing. All you've got are lies.

I don't need to redefine words, I am fine with using the dictionary definitions, even when it pisses you off that I used "exploit" correctly.

You didn't. You misused that word too.

[Machismo]

And that's a lie, intended to change the meaning of "fair share".

The government has fuck-all to do with that. Which is why the government will constantly re-examine and adjust their tax policy, precisely because even the government does not agree that what they have established is necessarily "fair".

The government itself does not make this claim, and I have no idea where the hell you could have gotten it, so it just seems like an empty lie meant to confuse and distract.



That's a willfully dishonest framing. All you've got are lies.



You didn't. You misused that word too.

They have everything to do with it, because they are the one's setting the laws themselves. They do change tax policies, when they (the government) determines what that "fair share" is.

Do I need to give you the definition, again?

[Endus]

They have everything to do with it, because they are the one's setting the laws themselves. They do change tax policies, when they (the government) determines what that "fair share" is.

Feel free to cite the legal definition of "fair share" any time if you want to make this claim, and make sure it lines up with your use of the term.

Until you do, you're lying.

Hell, I'll do you one better and link the actual legal definition(s), none of which mean what you're claiming. Not a single one.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/fair-share
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fair-share/

Now, none of us were using "fair share" in a legal sense, but that's what you're talking about if you insist the government defines it through tax law.

And you're objectively, definitively wrong on that point.

[Machismo]

Feel free to cite the legal definition of "fair share" any time if you want to make this claim, and make sure it lines up with your use of the term.

Until you do, you're lying.

Hell, I'll do you one better and link the actual legal definition(s), none of which mean what you're claiming. Not a single one.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/fair-share
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fair-share/

Now, none of us were using "fair share" in a legal sense, but that's what you're talking about if you insist the government defines it through tax law.

And you're objectively, definitively wrong on that point.

Once again, the "fair share" thing isn't even my argument, so take it up with the people who are demanding that "fair share." The burden falls on them, as it's their argument.

But hey, thanks for the links. It's good to know the people using it as their rallying cry are completely misusing it. Maybe now, they'll stop trying to base their demands off of it.

[Endus]

Once again, the "fair share" thing isn't even my argument, so take it up with the people who are demanding that "fair share." The burden falls on them, as it's their argument.

They're using it fine. They never made a claim that it was a legal term, unlike you.

You're just constantly, unapologetically lying, because you can't defend your position.

[Machismo]

They're using it fine. They never made a claim that it was a legal term, unlike you.

You're just constantly, unapologetically lying, because you can't defend your position.

No, they aren't. They are demanding a fair share, and not defining it properly.

You literally posted what you deemed to be the "legal definition."

I simply appealed to authority on the topic, because they are the ones who actually determine what that "fair share" is. They determine this, because they set the tax laws.

According to the United States government, everyone who is legally paying their taxes, is paying their "fair share."

[Bodakane]

Once again, the "fair share" thing isn't even my argument, so take it up with the people who are demanding that "fair share." The burden falls on them, as it's their argument.

But hey, thanks for the links. It's good to know the people using it as their rallying cry are completely misusing it. Maybe now, they'll stop trying to base their demands off of it.

No one but you, tried to equate fair share with legal. You did that. No one else. You did it right here:

They are paying a fair share. If you have evidence that they are breaking the laws, then let's see it.

You did it, because you know you can't argue fair share the way it was used, by me, so you, no one fucking else, tried to make it about legality.

So, over just this one point about "fair share", you have not only shown yourself to be a liar, but also a bad faith poster. Basically, exactly like all the Trump supporters that have been banned from here. Your tactics are literally no different.

[xChurch]

This is exactly my point, an attempt to minimize this, by dehumanizing them. Meanwhile, mark Cuban made it clear why a wealth tax is a bad idea.

Not trying to dehumanize them, trying to humanize them. Unless you think the things billionaires can do are things everyone can do. The wealthy live like the lords and kings of old, I just want them brought more down to earth. No one needs their own space company, or Giga yacht, or private enclave and in fact, very few people will ever even come close to having this kind of stuff. Instead of allowing a select handful to live far above and beyond what an average person does, it's far better for society if their excess wealth is used for the betterment of society as a whole. Billionaires can and should still exist to a point, but not to the point it starts to have a determinantal effect on society, which based on the record amounts of corporate consolidation and the amount of money being push into politics alone, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that isn't what's happening.

[uuuhname]

You don't give a shit about their freedoms.

no I don't not when that freedom boils down to "owning things". that's not freedom, that's ownership, for ownership's sake.