Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Edge-]

Evidence, please.

It squares 100% with your posts.

Medicare/caid/Social Security are unnecessary expansions of the government that require harmful taxation of the people.

Similarly, even with our current broken tax system it's still a progressive tax system that taxes you more as you make more, which you've also said is causing harm. So it would stand to reason, if your thinking is consistent, that this tax rate goes down so the government isn't harming these people by taking more of their money.

Both of which could be argued to be limiting the liberty of people by denying them the money they earned and cannot choose what to spend it on.

Is this incorrect? If so, how?

[Machismo]

It squares 100% with your posts.

Medicare/caid/Social Security are unnecessary expansions of the government that require harmful taxation of the people.

Similarly, even with our current broken tax system it's still a progressive tax system that taxes you more as you make more, which you've also said is causing harm. So it would stand to reason, if your thinking is consistent, that this tax rate goes down so the government isn't harming these people by taking more of their money.

Both of which could be argued to be limiting the liberty of people by denying them the money they earned and cannot choose what to spend it on.

Is this incorrect? If so, how?

If anything, it's woefully incomplete, and disingenuous.

That's why I asked for evidence. Let's see if he provides it.

The issue is that I've called for reducing everyone's tax burden, not just "tax cuts for the wealthy."

As for cuts,I have called for all sorts of things, and understand that it would be fundamentally impossible to do it without touching the two biggest budgetary costs.

Of course, he chose to be disingenuous, which is why I called for evidence.

Thats' like saying anyone who agrees that vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle, sided with Hitler.

[Edge-]

If anything, it's woefully incomplete, and disingenuous.

That's why I asked for evidence. Let's see if he provides it.

The issue is that I've called for reducing everyone's tax burden, not just "tax cuts for the wealthy."

As for cuts,I have called for all sorts of things, and understand that it would be fundamentally impossible to do it without touching the two biggest budgetary costs.

Of course, he chose to be disingenuous, which is why I called for evidence.

Thats' like saying anyone who agrees that vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle, sided with Hitler.

So...nothing I wrote is wrong, then? Just wanna clarify if I've understood your positions correctly or not.

[Machismo]

So...nothing I wrote is wrong, then? Just wanna clarify if I've understood your positions correctly or not.

Do you think vegetarianism is an overall healthier eating choice?

Let's see how much you want to be misrepresented.

Or, if you feel this is off-topic, like my stance on government spending (it didn't stop you from commenting on it), then feel free to message me directly with the answer.

[Edge-]

Do you think vegetarianism is an overall healthier eating choice?

That doesn't seem to be an answer to my question, which at this point isn't remotely surprising.

I'll just assume it's a "no", and say that while he may have lacked nuance, he accurately portrayed your position on Medicare/caid/Social Security and tax cuts, including and especially for the wealthy who, within the context of your discussed ideology, would be the biggest benefactors from a reduction in taxes across the board.

[Machismo]

That doesn't seem to be an answer to my question, which at this point isn't remotely surprising.

I'll just assume it's a "no", and say that while he may have lacked nuance, he accurately portrayed your position on Medicare/caid/Social Security and tax cuts, including and especially for the wealthy who, within the context of your discussed ideology, would be the biggest benefactors from a reduction in taxes across the board.

Except he didn't, which is why I called for evidence. Meanwhile, you failed to answer my question, ehich is kinda the point.

I'll just assume that's a "yes," and say you agree with Hitler.

See how fucking stupid this is?

Now, would you like to get back to the actual thread, and not talk about this any longer?

[downnola]

Except he didn't, which is why I called for evidence. Meanwhile, you failed to answer my question, ehich is kinda the point.

I'll just assume that's a "yes," and say you agree with Hitler.

See how fucking stupid this is?

Now, would you like to get back to the actual thread, and not talk about this any longer?

So what is your stance on Medicare and Social Security spending?

[Machismo]

So what is your stance on Medicare and Social Security spending?

Once again, that is entirely off-topic, which is the point.

[Edge-]

Except he didn't, which is why I called for evidence. Meanwhile, you failed to answer my question, ehich is kinda the point.

Why not respond to my post since like, we're the one's discussing? You always try to blame others for your own posts, take some personal responsibility.

I'll just assume that's a "yes," and say you agree with Hitler.

Why should I respond to clearly bad-faith, irrelevant, pointless attempts at some kind "gotcha"? That's not a remotely similar or accurate comparison and you're just Godwinning so hard I feel the need to check in on Belgium.

See how fucking stupid this is?

Yeah, I can't believe you made such an awful attempt at a comparison/gotcha. I'm embarrassed on your behalf too.

Now, would you like to get back to the actual thread, and not talk about this any longer?

A discussion of taxation, including taxing the rich, and the things those tax dollars goes towards is...off-topic? Let's not backseat mod, shall we?

[Machismo]

Why not respond to my post since like, we're the one's discussing? You always try to blame others for your own posts, take some personal responsibility.



Why should I respond to clearly bad-faith, irrelevant, pointless attempts at some kind "gotcha"? That's not a remotely similar or accurate comparison and you're just Godwinning so hard I feel the need to check in on Belgium.



Yeah, I can't believe you made such an awful attempt at a comparison/gotcha. I'm embarrassed on your behalf too.



A discussion of taxation, including taxing the rich, and the things those tax dollars goes towards is...off-topic? Let's not backseat mod, shall we?

The entire thing is bad faith, which is my point. He is acting in bad faith, and you fucking know it. It's why he won't address me directly, and only shit posts from the nosebleeds.

So, if you wish to continue derailing, that's fine. Answer my very simple question that you keep avoiding.

Or, you can talk about the actual thread.

The wealthy are being taxed, and pay a higher rate than the average American.

[uuuhname]

He is acting in bad faith.

that's the person in the mirror talking to you.

[Machismo]

that's the person in the mirror talking to you.

You failed in providing your evidence. You had 24 hours, and you missed the deadline.

Thanks for your full retraction and apology.

[downnola]

Once again, that is entirely off-topic, which is the point.

If you're overly concerned about tax rates, your stance on spending is pretty relevant to the topic. Taxes don't exist for the sake existing. They fund social programs and infrastructure.

[beanman12345]

Well, this thread got to 60 pages without a single well reasoned intelligent argument why we shouldn't raise the wealthy's taxes.

[Machismo]

If you're overly concerned about tax rates, your stance on spending is pretty relevant to the topic. Taxes don't exist for the sake existing. They fund social programs and infrastructure.

Feel free to seek it out in other threads, this is about the Propublica article.

Sadly, the push is disingenuous, because far too many people are trying to equate wealth and income, as well as having no understanding of what things like capital gains are.

[Breccia]

Well, this thread got to 60 pages without a single well reasoned intelligent argument why we shouldn't raise the wealthy's taxes.

And then Mark Cuban.

What is income vs. net worth? Do you tax net worth or do you only tax income? Because net worth is fleeting. If you go back to the internet stock days, there are a lot of people who were billionaires who aren’t even close anymore and working regular jobs. When you have this type of environment where interest rates are zero, people with appreciable assets, those numbers get inflated. But if interest rates go up three months from now, six months from now, a year from now, those inflated net worth numbers could be a tenth or a hundredth of that. So, how do you tax that? That’s a legitimate question.

(Feel free to read the whole thing. He came to that interview ready to talk about this very specific issue)

That's right, Mark Cuban's answer to this burning question is "we might lose our money later".

Unlike, you know, poor people. Poor people never lose their money.

According to Forbes, Mark Cuban's net worth increased $200 million in 2020. In other words, he's deflecting. He made a bundle, paid nearly no taxes, and literally has made a billion dollars during the tax cut for the rich. No really, he was worth $3.3 billion in 2015 and $4.3 billion now.

I'll let you, and everyone, read Cuban's responses and decide if they're "well-reasoned intelligent". I, for one, say anyone complaining about having their ridiculous wealth and nearly zero taxes called out in public can cry me a fucking river.

[Shadowferal]

Why not respond to my post since like, we're the one's discussing? You always try to blame others for your own posts, take some personal responsibility.

Oh there goes the libertarian tactic...making assumptions of radical opposing arguments when no response us given.
Using that tactic we should assume you despise Biden's infrastructure plan, and are very much against repealing Trump's tax cuts (but you already said that). Damn all that money spent on vaccines must really piss you off.

Follow the above post...(in the anarchist/libertarian thread)
He already admitted he thought Trump's tax cuts weren't big enough. And his idea of a spending freeze with all the inflation going shows us all he's a villain in caricature.

[Machismo]

Follow the above post...(in the anarchist/libertarian thread)
He already admitted he thought Trump's tax cuts weren't big enough. And his idea of a spending freeze with all the inflation going shows us all he's a villain in caricature.

Like I said, thanks for misrepresenting me. With all that spending, you must despise future generations for wanting to put such a burden on them? Why do you qant to ankruot your grandchildren?

Or, we could talk about the topic, which is the bullshit barrative that the wealthy aren't paying enough taxes.

[Zan15]

Considering the fictional math you did, he can post some equally fictional math. You realize Amazon doesn't exclusively use their own vehicles to deliver, right? That deliveries from Amazon aren't their only contribution to roadway damage, which would include freight shipments to warehouses etc?

besides then you need to adjust by total miles driven and the insane multiple at which these trucks weigh vs cars.

30,000 of them can easily do the same wear and tear on the road as millions of vehicles. Not to mention that 30,000 18 wheelers are feeding 300,000+ smaller local delivery vehicles.

But we all already knew that.


Sorry but i can't give you full details down to the 10th of a mile yet cause my coffee has not kicked in

[Stormspellz]

The wealthy are being taxed, and pay a higher rate than the average American.

special kind of mental gymnastics to say that with this new report on top of the mount Olympus size pile of why that is not the case, expect better trolling from you.