1. #3161
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    I would pay as little as possible while donating to candidates who intended to close the loopholes I was using, if I was a billionaire I would even pay for ads online and other places where I would spell out the loopholes I am using and showing others how to do it and make it a huge deal and showing that you guys need to close them because I am not the only ones doing this, I am just the one being open about it.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/ber...?id=D000021757
    https://www.opensecrets.org/search?o...=N&type=donors

    Buffett himself appears to have donated primarily to Democrat candidates.
    Berkshire Hathaway on the other hand? Keeping both sides equally greased. Including the party of Tax Cuts.

  2. #3162
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    “A job”. It’s not “a job”. It’s millions upon millions of them. One person or one thousand people improving themselves is insignificant for the most part. People being personally irresponsible will happen. Do we let them suffer from their own mistakes or do we help them? If we refuse to help them those that make society better or worse?
    You'll find libertarians love talking about one able-bodied person without any other demands on their time or any barriers to work, and whether that one person can find a job, at all, anywhere.

    They do not scale this up to a societal level, because there aren't enough jobs to go around and that makes their arguments on "personal responsibility" fall apart; you can't lay "personal responsibility" at the feet of people when there literally are no jobs they could possibly get.

    They do not acknowledge that many people have demands on their time, like ongoing education, parenthood, caring for sick loved ones, etc. Some people don't have time to take a job, but this has to be hand-waved away.

    They do not admit that there are barriers to employment, and serious poverty, particularly homelessness, is a massive one. A homeless person can't "take personal responsibility" and just "get a job". The already-limited job market is biased against them in a multitude of ways.

    They can't admit to these things, because their argument about "personal responsibility" falls completely apart at every level. So they just ignore it, because the goal isn't to create a functioning society, in the first place. It's to create a society that fosters pain and suffering on an underclass. The cruelty is the point, providing examples of why it's unreasonable won't convince them otherwise, because they're fully aware that their position will foster human suffering. It isn't a bug or accident.


  3. #3163
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    I believe in my argument. I still bought jeans from Amazon this week. My other choices were take more time that I don't have that much to spare of to go across town and buy from a small business or go to Wal-mart who are just as bad as Amazon. I don't want to give Uncle Jeff money but you make these kind of decisions when you work 7 days a week while minimizing personal expenses. Just another small killing to make it through the day.

    Actual hypocrisy is someone like Warren Buffett claiming to want to pay more tax and then not volunteering to do so. Unlike myself, Buffett can pay a lot without hurting himself and has tremendous influence on others.
    This issue is at the heart of what I've been saying all along.

    We want others to do things, while we balk at the idea. It's not necessarily drastic things, but a slow, steady decline into duplicity and complacency. In the end, it feels a little like self-loathing, and blaming others for our own minor failings.

  4. #3164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/ber...?id=D000021757
    https://www.opensecrets.org/search?o...=N&type=donors

    Buffett himself appears to have donated primarily to Democrat candidates.
    Berkshire Hathaway on the other hand? Keeping both sides equally greased. Including the party of Tax Cuts.
    Well, that tells you which is more willing to stand by what the policies.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  5. #3165
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    19,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    This issue is at the heart of what I've been saying all along.

    We want others to do things, while we balk at the idea. It's not necessarily drastic things, but a slow, steady decline into duplicity and complacency. In the end, it feels a little like self-loathing, and blaming others for our own minor failings.
    The concept that these issues are a result of SYSTEMIC concerns rather than individual behavior seems to escape you.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  6. #3166
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    The concept that these issues are a result of SYSTEMIC concerns rather than individual behavior seems to escape you.
    And the issue is that people are still misrepresenting everything that is happening.

  7. #3167
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    This issue is at the heart of what I've been saying all along.

    We want others to do things, while we balk at the idea. It's not necessarily drastic things, but a slow, steady decline into duplicity and complacency. In the end, it feels a little like self-loathing, and blaming others for our own minor failings.
    Or ya know, maybe, just having the wealthy stop being assholes.

    I've already made mention of a bunch of misanthropic activities the wealthy do in this thread but not in a comprehensive manner. I'm sure I could crowd source a bunch. I also use the word "misanthropic" instead of the word "criminal". There are probably certain things that should be criminal yet are legal because the wealthy are capable of making them legal.

  8. #3168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Or ya know, maybe, just having the wealthy stop being assholes.

    I've already made mention of a bunch of misanthropic activities the wealthy do in this thread but not in a comprehensive manner. I'm sure I could crowd source a bunch. I also use the word "misanthropic" instead of the word "criminal". There are probably certain things that should be criminal yet are legal because the wealthy are capable of making them legal.
    The issue is that all of this is based off misinformation, and a false premise.

  9. #3169
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The issue is that all of this is based off misinformation, and a false premise.
    The information appears to be correct. Real journalists will try to confirm their information. Why do you think the wealthy are so cheesed about the leak? They know its real. Their premise is not false. You just don't like it because you're consistently incapable of understanding the idea that things change when you scale them up.

    In your mind a cat and an elephant can both jump many times their own height because they're 4 legged mammals. In everyone else's mind the elephant can't jump at all because as you get bigger you lose the ability to jump. You do gain the ability to crush smaller animals under foot.

  10. #3170
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    The information appears to be correct. Real journalists will try to confirm their information. Why do you think the wealthy are so cheesed about the leak? They know its real. Their premise is not false. You just don't like it because you're consistently incapable of understanding the idea that things change when you scale them up.

    In your mind a cat and an elephant can both jump many times their own height because they're 4 legged mammals. In everyone else's mind the elephant can't jump at all because as you get bigger you lose the ability to jump. You do gain the ability to crush smaller animals under foot.
    But, the misinformation comes in when they attempt to equate wealth and income.

    I have little doubt that the numbers are correct, and I haven't seen any outrage from the wealthy about the leak. Is there some outrage? Probably. I'm guessing most people would be pissed if their tax documents were leaked to a newspaper. Either the government screwed something up big time, or there's some thieves about.

  11. #3171
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    But, the misinformation comes in when they attempt to equate wealth and income.

    I have little doubt that the numbers are correct, and I haven't seen any outrage from the wealthy about the leak. Is there some outrage? Probably. I'm guessing most people would be pissed if their tax documents were leaked to a newspaper. Either the government screwed something up big time, or there's some thieves about.
    They do not equate wealth and income. They created an analogy about how the wealthy can continue to accumulate wealth regardless of their income or taxes. This is different than average people because, again, things change at different scales.

    There was outrage in the original article never mind that it doesn't behoove them to have a public tantrum about it. They have lobbied the government to find the leaker. And yes, this is almost certainly an act of vigilantism from someone within the IRS.

  12. #3172
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    They do not equate wealth and income. They created an analogy about how the wealthy can continue to accumulate wealth regardless of their income or taxes. This is different than average people because, again, things change at different scales.

    There was outrage in the original article never mind that it doesn't behoove them to have a public tantrum about it. They have lobbied the government to find the leaker. And yes, this is almost certainly an act of vigilantism from someone within the IRS.
    They equated wealth and income, and tried to show how low their "true tax rate" was as a result. "See how little taxes they are paying!!!"

    Their wealth accumulates, because they are holding onto property that is skyrocketing in value, because the companies they created are doing so damn well. That's the thing people failed to see, almost every one of these people started those companies (or their daddy/granddaddy did in the case of the Walton Family).

    If the person worked for the IRS, then they likely committed a serious crime.

  13. #3173
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    They equated wealth and income, and tried to show how low their "true tax rate" was as a result. "See how little taxes they are paying!!!"

    Their wealth accumulates, because they are holding onto property that is skyrocketing in value, because the companies they created are doing so damn well. That's the thing people failed to see, almost every one of these people started those companies (or their daddy/granddaddy did in the case of the Walton Family).

    If the person worked for the IRS, then they likely committed a serious crime.
    Their wealth accumulates because they can obtain massive amounts of liquidity without ever having to sacrifice their assets. Even if the original asset slowly accumulates they have additional money that can be used to obtain even more wealth. If their original asset continues to grow quickly they are greatly accelerating their personal fortune.

    Roughly 1/3 of all billionaires had inheritances.

  14. #3174
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Their wealth accumulates because they can obtain massive amounts of liquidity without ever having to sacrifice their assets. Even if the original asset slowly accumulates they have additional money that can be used to obtain even more wealth. If their original asset continues to grow quickly they are greatly accelerating their personal fortune.

    Roughly 1/3 of all billionaires had inheritances.
    Yes, they inherited money, good for them. Most billionaires started their own companies, so we're talking about accruing that wealth in a single lifetime. That means they took on those other billionaires, or large corporations, and won.

    Their wealth accumulated, because the companies they owned increased in value at breakneck paces. Even the Walton Family, although inherited, had their company skyrocket whilst they controlled it. Of course their wealth went up, because that's what happens when you own a company that is doing well. And yes, it is fine that they are able to borrow against that wealth, because that's nothing more than the use of collateral. Say I have Magic Cards that I bought as a kid, and they became very valuable. I could borrow against them, and that money would not be income. I specifically mention that, because that is something that is worth way more than it was when it was started, was easy to get, and started in my lifetime. The same goes for stock like Chipotle, that went public in 2004-ish. The same goes for if I had started a company that did the same.

    Now, say I wanted t expand my company, and make it huge. I don't, but let's say I do. If my company got big, and kept growing, I could borrow against the value of my shares, and there should be nothing wrong with that. It shouldn't be my fault, nor worthy of punishment, because I have more collateral to take out loans. if my company suddenly became worth a billion dollars, It doesn't mean I have a billion dollars lying around. Sure, I could borrow against it, but I'd still owe that money, because that is debt, not income. Yes, I could sell stock, and I would be on the hook for those gains.

    The only other solution is to consider the appreciation of stock as an income, even if it's not sold... and that creates the problem of forcing people to liquidate their stock, just because they made a smart decision. I'd have to do it against my 401k, and all my stocks I have as a middle-class dude.

    The other solution is to tax loans as income. That's also a very scary thing to do, because mortgages are loans. Technically, the money I took out to buy a home, using that home as leverage, would be taxable income. The same goes for car loans, and any home equity loan taken out in the future.

  15. #3175
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    They equated wealth and income, and tried to show how low their "true tax rate" was as a result. "See how little taxes they are paying!!!"

    Their wealth accumulates, because they are holding onto property that is skyrocketing in value, because the companies they created are doing so damn well. That's the thing people failed to see, almost every one of these people started those companies (or their daddy/granddaddy did in the case of the Walton Family).

    If the person worked for the IRS, then they likely committed a serious crime.
    Funny thing is I pointed this exact thing in the beginning of the thread. The article conflated wealth and income. The article stated that whichever rich person paid X amount in INCOME taxes but then stated that it was X% of their wealth.

    I proceeded to state that if that is the metric that the article wanted to use, then nearly every home owner that owns their home(little to no mortgage) or every person who has a retirement account or any other property(cars, houses, etc.) then outside of poorer people who happen to live in an apartment, nearly everybody would be guilty of paying 5-6% of their wealth as income taxes, even though most pay close to 15 - 25 % in income taxes. This is why the article at the beginning was being disingenuous. They were trying to portray something that the vast majority of homeowners would be guilty of as a bad thing only because someone far richer is doing. Last time I checked, nobody is going around stated that people who actually own their homes aren't paying enough in income taxes compared to their wealth. Granted, it is a magnitude of difference.

    It would be more honest to call out the fact that the super rich use a different tax scale(capital gains tax) then most regular people and go from there.

    Wealth and income cannot be interchanged in this manner. Income is what you receive as compensation from providing whatever service you provide. Wealth is total value of everything you own MINUS any debt you have. Thing is, outside of businesses(this includes independent contractors), you generally cannot have a negative income if you under the employ of someone else(meaning any work you would normally get paid for you would have to pay them to work for them). You however can have a negative wealth.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The other solution is to tax loans as income. That's also a very scary thing to do, because mortgages are loans. Technically, the money I took out to buy a home, using that home as leverage, would be taxable income. The same goes for car loans, and any home equity loan taken out in the future.
    However, loans can be considered income and can be taxed as such if they are forgiven.

  16. #3176
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Sure, I could borrow against it, but I'd still owe that money, because that is debt, not income. Yes, I could sell stock, and I would be on the hook for those gains.
    From the article:
    Icahn said: “No, not at all. My borrowing is to win. I enjoy the competition. I enjoy winning.”

    And do you think he's an outlier?

    You continue to believe that this is an impediment because it would be an impediment for a non-wealthy person. Yet for them it really is not.

    On top of that they also have much more control over the legal system and your own ability to create wealth.

    I don't have an easy solution for this but at minimum they should pay more income and capital gains taxes. In fact the latter should be considered income.

  17. #3177
    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...180722613.html



    Billionaire Military Contractor Was Selling Tickets to Leave Afghanistan for $6,500: Report

    Amid a massive evacuation effort out of Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover and before the U.S. left, controversial billionaire security contractor Erik Prince was offering his own flight from the turmoil — at a steep price — The Wall Street Journal reports.

    According to the paper, Prince, 52, was selling tickets for a chartered plane out of Afghanistan at a base rate of $6,500. The cost was higher if people were in their homes and needed help getting to the airport in Kabul. The Journal reported it was unclear whether Prince had the resources to carry out the plan.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  18. #3178
    Well, the greed greatly runs in the family. He is the brother to Betsy DeVos.

  19. #3179
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Funny thing is I pointed this exact thing in the beginning of the thread. The article conflated wealth and income. The article stated that whichever rich person paid X amount in INCOME taxes but then stated that it was X% of their wealth.

    I proceeded to state that if that is the metric that the article wanted to use, then nearly every home owner that owns their home(little to no mortgage) or every person who has a retirement account or any other property(cars, houses, etc.) then outside of poorer people who happen to live in an apartment, nearly everybody would be guilty of paying 5-6% of their wealth as income taxes, even though most pay close to 15 - 25 % in income taxes. This is why the article at the beginning was being disingenuous. They were trying to portray something that the vast majority of homeowners would be guilty of as a bad thing only because someone far richer is doing. Last time I checked, nobody is going around stated that people who actually own their homes aren't paying enough in income taxes compared to their wealth. Granted, it is a magnitude of difference.

    It would be more honest to call out the fact that the super rich use a different tax scale(capital gains tax) then most regular people and go from there.

    Wealth and income cannot be interchanged in this manner. Income is what you receive as compensation from providing whatever service you provide. Wealth is total value of everything you own MINUS any debt you have. Thing is, outside of businesses(this includes independent contractors), you generally cannot have a negative income if you under the employ of someone else(meaning any work you would normally get paid for you would have to pay them to work for them). You however can have a negative wealth.

    - - - Updated - - -



    However, loans can be considered income and can be taxed as such if they are forgiven.
    I remember you pointing it out, and people seemed to ignore it.

    Yes, if a loan is forgiven, I fully expect it to be taxed, as it was "free money" at that point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    From the article:
    Icahn said: “No, not at all. My borrowing is to win. I enjoy the competition. I enjoy winning.”

    And do you think he's an outlier?

    You continue to believe that this is an impediment because it would be an impediment for a non-wealthy person. Yet for them it really is not.

    On top of that they also have much more control over the legal system and your own ability to create wealth.

    I don't have an easy solution for this but at minimum they should pay more income and capital gains taxes. In fact the latter should be considered income.
    Yes, he can borrow. He's taking an added risk, to push his future gains. It's an investment strategy, one where you are basically betting on yourself.

    Even Cuban has stated he believes he should pay more income tax. But, the problem is when people seek to equate wealth and income, as if wealth should be the determining factor on tax burden.

  20. #3180
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, he can borrow. He's taking an added risk, to push his future gains. It's an investment strategy, one where you are basically betting on yourself.

    Even Cuban has stated he believes he should pay more income tax. But, the problem is when people seek to equate wealth and income, as if wealth should be the determining factor on tax burden.
    The difference is he can be completely flexible on how repays his loan (if at all) and how he pays his taxes. Try asking your bank and the IRS if you can skip regular payments. You’ll quickly find that you won’t get the same treatment.

    Even a wealth tax is just money out. It’ll get treated just like property tax. Something to be avoided at all costs using whatever means necessary. If it comes to pass it’ll operate as a drag on some people’s growth but little else.

Posting Permissions

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