Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

Geez, well why did you go and claim that Mark Cuban was able to make good decisions if it's not true? These arguments sure are all over the place.

Once again, stop making up lies.

You made claims about "facts," where is your evidence?

[Elegiac]

Once again, stop making up lies.

Hey man, I'm just trying to figure out why you think Mark Cuban is such a bad decision maker. There's no need to be so cruel to billionaires.

[Machismo]

Here someone already did math on Warren's plan(Granted this is from 2 Years ago so I can't say if anything changed from then to now plan wise.) They basically graphed out several top billionaire's wealth from the last 9 years and how it would be today if it had been taxed with Capital Gains, Wealth Tax and all the jazz. Yes Bezos has a lot less wealth, but seems he would have still managed to gain wealth just not as sharply as he did.

Also the article writer certainly isn't fond of the politics Warren was playing calling them deceptive, but also agreed that Capital Gains should be taxed

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikshe...ax-package-is/

The issue is that she actually DOUBLED the wealth tax on everything after $1billion, after that was published.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

She also never went into how they would pay that, as the biggest issue is liquidity. According to Mark Cuban, he spoke with one of the people working with her on that, and the economist admitted they never modeled how to actually pay for it, as most billionaires have relatively lo liquidity compared to net worth.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey man, I'm just trying to figure out why you think Mark Cuban is such a bad decision maker. There's no need to be so cruel to billionaires.

I never made that claim, stop lying.

[Elegiac]

According to Mark Cuban, he spoke with one of the people working with her on that

Which we're supposed to take his word for, despite your insistence he's a bad decision maker. Curious.

[Machismo]

Which we're supposed to take his word for, despite your insistence he's a bad decision maker. Curious.

Well, you can refute it, if you prefer. By all means, prove Cuban and me wrong, by showing they did model what he said they didn't.

Stop lying about what I said. I never said that.

[Elegiac]

Well, you can refute it, if you prefer.

He's making the positive claim that he won't be able to meet the burden, it's on him to demonstrate that he can't. All he's demonstrated that he can't meet the tax burden if his wealth remains static. So congratulations on discovering that more money going out than coming in creates a deficit, Mark Cuban.

Not sure how that proves you can't just increase your revenue beyond insisting that it's really hard, you guys.

Stop lying about what I said. I never said that.

Well then why did you insist your claim that Mark Cuban made good decisions was a lie? Damn shorty get your ducks in a row.

[Machismo]

He's making the positive claim that he won't be able to meet the burden, it's on him to demonstrate that he can't. All he's demonstrated that he can't meet the tax burden if his wealth remains static. So congratulations on discovering that more money going out than coming in creates a deficit, Mark Cuban.

Not sure how that proves you can't just increase your revenue beyond insisting that it's really hard, you guys.



Well then why did you insist your claim that Mark Cuban made good decisions was a lie? Damn shorty get your ducks in a row.

Nope, not what he said. You should read what he said about liquidity, and selling assets.

https://news.yahoo.com/mark-cuban-fu...085406742.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5...xes-on-wealthy

You really should stop lying about what I say.

[Elegiac]

Nope, not what he said. You should read what he said about liquidity, and selling assets.

"I'll have to sell and so will some homeowners, trust me".

Okay? So what. That's not evidence.

[Machismo]

"I'll have to sell, trust me".

Okay? So what. That's not evidence.

Nope, not what he said. The entire interview was provided.

Hell, I even provided evidence, you ignored it.

[Elegiac]

Nope, not what he said.

It pretty much is. It's saying "well if you tax net worth then XYZ is taxable" ignoring that the vast majority of people don't have the net worth to even be eligible for the tax, and the people that do have the net worth are more than capable of securing income streams to meet said tax burden without "Losing their businesses". It's rich people pleading poverty.

And moreover, it's just his word, and he admits that he's biased. So maybe just accept that what you're toting around is an opinion piece and not in fact factual evidence of your views?

[Edge-]

Nope, not what he said. You should read what he said about liquidity, and selling assets.

https://news.yahoo.com/mark-cuban-fu...085406742.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5...xes-on-wealthy

You really should stop lying about what I say.

It's funny, because he seems to imply that Propublica is profiting off the "great headline" despite the fact that it's a not-for-profit group.

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.

He's right! And do you know what? These people would no longer be taxed if their stocks imploded in the .com bubble. Weird how this problem works itself out easily.

homeowners might have to sell their homes if local real estate values suddenly jumped

This is him dishonestly implying this kind of tax would hit regular homeowners which it wouldn't unless you own extremely expensive homes which...means you're not exactly struggling either.

The only way you’re going to benefit from that financially is if you sell it

Again, extremely dishonest. It yields additional benefits as proof of financial security or collateral for loans that non-homeowners or people who own small/cheap homes don't benefit from as much or at all.

I don’t keep cash in the bank. It’s invested. If you tax me on my net worth, I’m going to have to sell a lot — not just a little, but a lot

Where's his math? : P

The value of IRAs, pensions, mutual funds and house values could all drop if billionaires had to sell their assets to pay their tax bills

Weird that we just "accept" this without any math!

Mark Cuban sounds pretty sus.

[Machismo]

It pretty much is.

And moreover, it's just his word, and he admits that he's biased. So maybe just accept that what you're toting around is an opinion piece and not in fact factual evidence of your views?

Nope, not really. he speaks about liquidity, which is where the math comes into play. You chose to ignore the evidence.

If you cannot refute the evidence provided, then just accept that it's correct.

[Elegiac]

Nope, not really. he speaks about liquidity, which is where the math comes into play.

What math, lol?

He cites how much of his wealth isn't liquid and then insists that means he's not able to meet a higher tax burden without providing evidence that his liquid assets are insufficient to meet it, or that he can't secure other revenue streams.

"You shouldn't tax my wealth because I might lose it if I'm a shitty businessman" isn't an argument.

[Machismo]

It's funny, because he seems to imply that Propublica is profiting off the "great headline" despite the fact that it's a not-for-profit group.



He's right! And do you know what? These people would no longer be taxed if their stocks imploded in the .com bubble. Weird how this problem works itself out easily.



This is him dishonestly implying this kind of tax would hit regular homeowners which it wouldn't unless you own extremely expensive homes which...means you're not exactly struggling either.



Again, extremely dishonest. It yields additional benefits as proof of financial security or collateral for loans that non-homeowners or people who own small/cheap homes don't benefit from as much or at all.



Where's his math? : P



Weird that we just "accept" this without any math!

Mark Cuban sounds pretty sus.

They still want to generate revenue. Remember the ice-bucket challenge? That went to a non-profit, but they enjoyed the windfall.

the math was provided for you, and I think you're smart enough to know that the task to pay off siuch an absurd tax rate, is a daunting one.

Did you ever figure out how much Lynsi (or any specific billionaires) would have to generate in their other assets to continue payments?

I provided math, where is yours? That's right, you ran away. if 80% of her net worth is tied into that company, and her entire net worth is taxed at 4.3%, how much more will she have to accrue in that remaining 20%, in order to cover the tax burden? Don't forget about the increased tax burden, due to the growth. Remember, this is your argument, so if you cannot show your work, then I'll gladly accept a full retraction.

Or, to put it simply, how much would she have to gain, annually from that $600 million, to cover that $155 million extra tax burden. Don't forget to include any gains by In&Out, as well as the increased tax burden from any gains on the remaining 20%, as well as all the other income tax increases that the additional $155 million would bring.

- - - Updated - - -

What math, lol?

He cites how much of his wealth isn't liquid and then insists that means he's not able to meet a higher tax burden without providing evidence that his liquid assets are insufficient to meet it, or that he can't secure other revenue streams.

"You shouldn't tax my wealth because I might lose it if I'm a shitty businessman" isn't an argument.

The math you lied about looking at. It's still there.

[Elegiac]

the task to pay off siuch an absurd tax rate, is a daunting one.

You've not demonstrated this is the case beyond "big numbers are big", though.

[beanman12345]

600 now, just pitiful.

[Machismo]

You've not demonstrated this is the case beyond "big numbers are big", though.

I've provided the math. This was addressed.

[Mihalik]

Great, then you want double taxation, which means you must want the same for all assets.

I understand you think that "double taxation" is some bogeyman. It's not. It's a misused tautology in this context.

Now... This is an honest to God question.

Did you know that we already have to pay a capital gains tax on real estate? As a matter of fact, you pay a capital gains tax on nearly all non liquid assets when you sell them, independently of any annual obligations you might have.

The capital gains tax on those assets is determined by whether you turned a profit on that asset or not at the time of sale, independently of other tax obligations you might have had while holding that asset. You might have not realized this because you haven't sold real estate valued above a certain amount, which would have given you an exemption. The values under which your capital gains taxes are exempted vary somewhere between 250k to 500k depending on whether you're married or have kids etc.

One more time.

The double standard is in the fact that stocks are exempt from taxes, unlike other non liquid investment assets.

Hell, I'm pretty sure we can arrange an annual tax exemption on stocks for anyone holding less than 500k in stocks.

You know, like we do with real estate under a certain value or as we do with progressive tax rates.

There's an annual tax even on most commodities if you hold them as investment beyond a certain period of time.

The double standard is that stocks are not taxed.

Imagine having to give the federal government $60k when you sold your house... that would be fucking hilarious.

Capital gains are profits from the sale of a capital asset, such as shares of stock, a business, a parcel of land, or a work of art. Capital gains are generally included in taxable income, but in most cases, are taxed at a lower rate.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brie...al-gains-taxed

It's getting really hard to take seriously now.

You're literally whining that he's got collateral.

The issue is not with him having collateral.

The issue is that is that he can use his collateral and our very low interest rates that him and people like him spent decades lobbying to zero, to never have to pay taxes.

The issue is with the existence of a legal tax dodge, that he gets to benefit from.

That tax dodge needs to be eliminated.

I'm starting to get the impression you don't actually understand the things that you are saying, but you keep doubling down on the nonsense, going deeper and deeper.

[Elegiac]

I've provided the math.

You mean the math where you assume that someone can only use 20% of their wealth to pay for the other 80% and thus generate ridiculous numbers?

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Shadowferal]

That's a pipedream. There is no means of enforcing such a rule and even if there was it would be highly immoral to coerce countries into raising taxes against their will.

You claim morality for the sake of increasing the wealth gap... Try again.

G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals

About that deal

There are two parts to the deal, which will be signed by the G7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US) at a summit in Cornwall this weekend.

Firstly, multinational companies - which operate in several countries - would have to pay more tax wherever they sell products or services.

under the G7 deal, companies could be taxed in any country where they make more than 10% profit on sales.

Above that point, the company would have to pay 20% tax.