Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[unfilteredJW]

I changed it to burden.

There you go, I used it right!!!

Now this is just getting sad.

[Bodakane]

And homes increase in value, and you can take out loans on that equity.
You mean like taking out a loan (which is debt)?

You can take out a loan against your property.

This is horseshit.

You didn't;t read the article. You skimmed it, saw the word loan and made your stupid fucking argument.

[Draco-Onis]

And homes increase in value, and you can take out loans on that equity.

Stocks are taxed when sold, for good reason, as has been outlined previously.

Again you are ignoring origination the money used to purchase the home is already taxed, you aren't taxed on stock issuance they are not the same.

[Captain N]

Now this is just getting sad.

It was sad the first two times it was done in this thread. At this point its blatant trolling and flaming.

[Machismo]

This is horseshit.

You didn't;t read the article. You skimmed it, saw the word loan and made your stupid fucking argument.

Nope, you can take a loan out against your property and assets.

[Mayhem]

This is horseshit.

Wait wait, wouldn't this imply he is for a tax on stocks because I believe there is a property tax.

[Endus]

Once again, you're literally complaining that a word has more than one meaning, and I used it twice.

Let's be clear, this is the second time you've complained that I used a word according to its definition.

"You didn't mean burden, you meant burden."

Talk about the ultimate "What you meant was."

It's like when we're in a climate change thread, and someone says "yeah, but the climate's always changing, there's slight variations every year". That's just climate change denier bullshit, and that they can claim to be technically correct because those words can be used differently in another context is just a description of how they're being deliberately dishonest, not an argument that they aren't dishonest.

And they'd do the same "Oh, you didn't mean climate change, you mean climate change", and act aggrieved, just like you're doing here. It's the same dishonest nonsense.

[Bodakane]

Wait wait, wouldn't this imply he is for a tax on stocks because I believe there is a property tax.

Yes, but then consistency in ideology would have to matter with such a bad faith shit poster.

[Draco-Onis]

Wait wait, wouldn't this imply he is for a tax on stocks because I believe there is a property tax.

Woot woot good point that is a major self own if we treat property as the same asset as stocks then problem solved.

[Machismo]

Again you are ignoring origination the money used to purchase the home is already taxed, you aren't taxed on stock issuance they are not the same.

And those stocks are taxed when sold. They are taxed when gains are realized.

Taking the ownership of taxes would have a major impact on 401k plans for normal folks.

We're literally back to my first post in this thread.

There's a very simple explanation for most of this; taxes are paid on the gains/losses when stocks are sold. If people want to try and tax gains/losses when they are held, then it would obliterate the 401k portfolios of tens of millions of Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

It's like when we're in a climate change thread, and someone says "yeah, but the climate's always changing, there's slight variations every year". That's just climate change denier bullshit, and that they can claim to be technically correct because those words can be used differently in another context is just a description of how they're being deliberately dishonest, not an argument that they aren't dishonest.

And they'd do the same "Oh, you didn't mean climate change, you mean climate change", and act aggrieved, just like you're doing here. It's the same dishonest nonsense.

So, you've gone from me being an anti-abolitionist, to me being a climate denier. Your similes need work.

This is like me using a word, according to its definition, and you getting angry at it.

- - - Updated - - -

Woot woot good point that is a major self own if we treat property as the same asset as stocks then problem solved.

The federal government doesn't levee property taxes.

I also oppose property taxes.

- - - Updated - - -

This is horseshit.

You didn't;t read the article. You skimmed it, saw the word loan and made your stupid fucking argument.

Nope, I read it... once you finally provided the whole thing, and responded.

It's a loan against someone's property.

[Bodakane]

The federal government doesn't levee property taxes.

I also oppose property taxes.

But they're fair, correct? I mean you literally argued for a few pages that if the government does something, its fair.

[Machismo]

But they're fair, correct? I mean you literally argued for a few pages that if the government does something, its fair.

I'd prefer sales taxes, as has been pointed out before.

Since the government isn't banning these things, then I guess these billionaires are being fair.

Do you really want to use my argument in my favor? Be my guest.

[Bodakane]

Nope, I'd prefer sales taxes, as has been pointed out before.

Since the government isn't banning these things, then I guess these billionaires are being fair.

Do you really want to use my argument in my favor? Be my guest.

Dafuq are you even talking about????

You said if the government does something, its fair. Now you're arguing that isn't because you're lying and inconsistency doesn't line up with it.

You really should be banned.

[Endus]

So, you've gone from me being an anti-abolitionist, to me being a climate denier. Your similes need work.

You're making the same arguments as those folks.

If you don't like that comparison, well, engage in self-reflection.

Also, just to be clear; I never called you either of those things. Pointing out that you make similar arguments is not the same thing. So, again, you're lying, here, basically. Hell, you know it, since you openly admit that you recognized those were similes, not allegations.

This is like me using a word, according to its definition, and you getting angry at it.

It's you changing the use of the word between two circumstances and pretending they're the same. And they are not.

If all you meant was "the tax burden on the wealthy will increase", then congratulations, you've noticed how tax increases work, and made absolutely no comment on whether or not that's a bad thing. Saying "but it's a burden" brings us back to "yes, you've discovered that taxes exist." If you want to argue that burden is oppressive or onerous, then that's an additional argument you have to make separately; you can't just point to the fact that the "tax burden" exists and pretend that means the same thing.

It does not.

Pretending otherwise is dishonesty.

Doubling down indicates you can't make that case honestly. Which, frankly, works in my favor. I was trying to get you to defend your position, but you're implicitly admitting that it's indefensible which is why you won't even try.

[Machismo]

Dafuq are you even talking about????

You said if the government does something, its fair. Now you're arguing that isn't because you're lying and inconsistency doesn't line up with it.

You really should be banned.

You guys were the one rambling about "fair share" I simply showed how the government thinks it's fair. State governments find it fair to tax property. The federal government thinks the current tax structure is fair.

Remember, the "fair share" thing is the argument of people who want to raise taxes, so be my guest.

[Draco-Onis]

And those stocks are taxed when sold. They are taxed when gains are realized.

And the money used to purchase a house is already taxed and you pay taxes yearly on your house so not the same.

The federal government doesn't levee property taxes.

I also oppose property taxes.

I know you want anarchy.

[Endus]

You guys were the one rambling about "fair share" I simply showed how the government thinks it's fair. State governments find it fair to tax property. The federal government thinks the current tax structure is fair.

Remember, the "fair share" thing is the argument of people who want to raise taxes, so be my guest.

We've been over how you don't have even a single government source that defines the current tax system as everyone's "fair share". It's a claim you're making up, not one that is actually verifiable in reality.

[Machismo]

You're making the same arguments as those folks.

If you don't like that comparison, well, engage in self-reflection.

Also, just to be clear; I never called you either of those things. Pointing out that you make similar arguments is not the same thing. So, again, you're lying, here, basically. Hell, you know it, since you openly admit that you recognized those were similes, not allegations.



It's you changing the use of the word between two circumstances and pretending they're the same. And they are not.

If all you meant was "the tax burden on the wealthy will increase", then congratulations, you've noticed how tax increases work, and made absolutely no comment on whether or not that's a bad thing. Saying "but it's a burden" brings us back to "yes, you've discovered that taxes exist." If you want to argue that burden is oppressive or onerous, then that's an additional argument you have to make separately; you can't just point to the fact that the "tax burden" exists and pretend that means the same thing.

It does not.

Pretending otherwise is dishonesty.

Doubling down indicates you can't make that case honestly. Which, frankly, works in my favor. I was trying to get you to defend your position, but you're implicitly admitting that it's indefensible which is why you won't even try.

Nah, I can simply laugh at it, and move on. And just say you're wrong with that comparison.

Nope, I used the dictionary definition of the word, whether you like it, or not. There's no need for you to be so burdened by these trivial things.

As for your "what you meant was" shenanigans, that's the mother of all straw men.

I'll make it easy for you. I used the word I wanted to use, and in the correct manner.

I meant burden.

- - - Updated - - -

We've been over how you don't have even a single government source that defines the current tax system as everyone's "fair share". It's a claim you're making up, not one that is actually verifiable in reality.

Once again, the "fair share" issue is their argument, I simply tossed it back on them. If you want to quantify it, let's do it.

Now, would you like to get back to the Propublica article?

I'm very glad that there's no political capital to push for wealth taxes at the federal level in the United States.

[Bodakane]

You guys were the one rambling about "fair share" I simply showed how the government thinks it's fair. State governments find it fair to tax property. The federal government thinks the current tax structure is fair.

Remember, the "fair share" thing is the argument of people who want to raise taxes, so be my guest.

The arrogance with which you embrace your hypocrisy and ignorance is truly staggering.

Its like talking to a brick wall that thinks its a professor.

[Shadowferal]

You could just write, "I don't want to discuss actual policy." and it'd be a lot easier on everyone. Because you don't, and every time the topic approaches actual policy discussions you throw this kind of garbage argument out as if it's some kind of "I win" button when people don't bother playing this pointless game.

O god is he going back to the whole "if you don't respond I win" bullshit? For some psycho reason he craves attention and always pushes this passive-aggressive trip...