1. #1961
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,077
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I don’t know how many other ways to explain how stocks, money, and taxes work. But you’re wrong. And I’ll never convince you of that over the internet in one afternoon. The least you could do is stop
    condescending.
    Bodakane should stop being condescending?

  2. #1962
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Legal. Cheating. How does that make sense?

    I don’t know how many other ways to explain how stocks, money, and taxes work. But you’re wrong. And I’ll never convince you of that over the internet in one afternoon. The least you could do is stop
    condescending.
    You act like they don't do everything they can to lessen their income tax burden. Telling you a simple truth that has been proven over a 1000 posts and countless links, that you refuse to accept, doesn't mean I'm being condescending.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  3. #1963
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    And if I’m making too little to matter then doesn’t my mere existence act as a direct counter example?
    Your problem is you think “Me” is a synonym for “Everyone”. Your life isn’t a counter example to anything.

    I live on a very low monthly wage but I don’t presume that what I do would work for everyone.

  4. #1964
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    No, your complete lack of any supporting and verifiable data of any kind whatsoever is what matters, here. You're unwilling to quantify your own circumstances in any way to make those figures verifiable (and I understand why; I'm fairly cautious about what I put on the Internet myself, so this isn't me saying you should), and you're flatly rejecting what verifiable and quantifiable data and analysis we do have, solely on the basis of "you'll have to trust me". And we have literally no reason to. Particularly when we have all this data that contradicts you, and you're unwilling to provide any counter evidence.

    And no, your feelings about what you think your own situation is don't count as "evidence". For all we know, you're making it all up. You need verifiability if you want us to take it seriously. Or at least, another data source that is verifiable.
    I’m not going to provide that for all the very good reasons you stated so I guess we’re just an an impasse here. But on the topic of a wealth tax I understand visceral feeling looking at those sky high wealth valuations. But how is this anything but a direct tax on the value of a publicly traded company? Because that’s what we’re talking about here. Nobody barring Saudi princes or the Sultunate of Brunei has this kind of wealth outside of the stock market. And the stock market is just a different kind of beast when it comes to assets because it’s kind of like fiat currency in that it’s value is not tied to anything physical. Just look at GameStop stonks.

    I don’t like the ramifications of a tax like this on the market and the economy at large. And practically speaking money that isn’t spent doesn’t exist. I think there are better ways that are less of a gamble to address poverty and outsized corporate influence.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Your problem is you think “Me” is a synonym for “Everyone”. Your life isn’t a counter example to anything.

    I live on a very low monthly wage but I don’t presume that what I do would work for everyone.
    But that’s kind of the argument Propublica is making isn’t it? A small number of examples chosen to prove their argument?

  5. #1965
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,077
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I’m not going to provide that for all the very good reasons you stated so I guess we’re just an an impasse here.
    We're at an "impasse" because on the one hand we have this solid ProPublica report and analysis, and on your hand we've got "jack shit".

    If you want to make a counter argument, you need evidence, and all you've pulled up so far is your personal dislike for their conclusions. Literally not one thing more.

    But on the topic of a wealth tax I understand visceral feeling looking at those sky high wealth valuations. But how is this anything but a direct tax on the value of a publicly traded company? Because that’s what we’re talking about here.
    Because it doesn't tax the company, in the first place. That should be obvious. If we were talking about that, we'd be talking corporate taxes, and that's a different kettle of fish.

    Taxing someone like Jeff Bezos does precisely nothing to the value of Amazon as a company.

    I don’t like the ramifications of a tax like this on the market and the economy at large. And practically speaking money that isn’t spent doesn’t exist. I think there are better ways that are less of a gamble to address poverty and outsized corporate influence.
    What "ramifications"? You haven't made a case that holds up on that front.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    But that’s kind of the argument Propublica is making isn’t it? A small number of examples chosen to prove their argument?
    Well, at least it's clear you didn't read the article, let alone the study. They clearly stated they got access to data on thousands of the richest Americans (not a "small number", and not ones they "chose"), and they contrasted that analysis against average Americans in the process of that analysis.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-06-13 at 08:46 PM.

  6. #1966
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Berenstein Timeline
    Posts
    54,802
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    But how is this anything but a direct tax on the value of a publicly traded company?
    Gee, maybe so much of said value being concentrated into the hands of a few individuals is still you describing the problem.

    And again, if the concern is impact to the company they can always disburse those shares to their employees. Unless you can think of some reason the company isn't the result of their efforts as well?

    Because that’s what we’re talking about here Nobody barring Saudi princes or the Sultunate of Brunei has this kind of wealth outside of the stock market.
    A nonsense statement since the wealthy seem to manage to find sufficient liquidity to do corporate buyouts and stock buybacks.

    I don’t like the ramifications of a tax like this on the market and the economy at large.
    Cool, you've not demonstrated that the ramifications you dislike are actually rooted in reality.
    Every heartwarming human interest story in America is like "he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine" and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you'd need to pay to prevent it from being used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    so ? Teacher is about teaching, not education.

  7. #1967
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Bodakane should stop being condescending?
    Excuse my venom, he’s been very disrespectful this entire thread and it’s worn thin.

  8. #1968
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Legal. Cheating. How does that make sense?
    Pick a game. Let’s say Ticket to Ride.

    If I wanted to change the rules of the game I would have to petition Days of Wonder and ask for a change. Maybe I could convince them but they would probably wouldn’t do it since millions of people enjoy the game as it is. If I play in a tournament and tried my rule change I would get booted.

    If a wealthy person wanted to do it they could buy the company, advertise their rule change to the player base, bribe developers or something else. In a tournament they could much more easily create their own tournament or use their money to have their cheating being ignored.

    Legal. Cheating.

    Having money means you get to more easily make the rules (fair or not) and escape consequence when you break the rules.

  9. #1969
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,077
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Excuse my venom, he’s been very disrespectful this entire thread and it’s worn thin.
    You literally spent that entire post telling him how you knew more than he did and couldn't be arsed to explain it, and then accused him of being condescending.

    You're not coming off any less condescending, is my point.

  10. #1970
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Leverage. It’s a term with a specific meaning in the context of loans. Quite literally speaking Jeff Bezos has 144 billion or whatever the exact amount is in un-leveraged assets, meaning assets not used as collateral for a loan by definition of net worth. If he WERE to leverage even a significant fraction of that amount then controlling interest of that portion would pass to the banks. Unless you’re arguing he’s hidden all that and is secretly a pauper. You are the one making up fairytales in your head.

    And by the way this is not an amount of money that Bezos has just being hoarded by him and not spent. He quite literally doesn’t have that amount of money.
    What are you arguing exactly? because what I posted was illustrating how easy it would be for Bezos to go liquid and hide it from pretty much everyone. You are the one living in fantasy land who thinks there's no way he can convert his holding without everyone knowing about it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw their life away just to be a failed revolutionary.
    OMFG your side just tried to overthrow the US government to establish Trump as dictator and yet you make that statement.

  11. #1971
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    But that’s kind of the argument Propublica is making isn’t it? A small number of examples chosen to prove their argument?
    Unless your one of those people your personal example isn’t relevant. It’s distinctly possible that an extremely wealthy person is paying tax proportional to their wealth but it doesn’t appear to be the case.

  12. #1972
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    We're at an "impasse" because on the one hand we have this solid ProPublica report and analysis, and on your hand we've got "jack shit".

    If you want to make a counter argument, you need evidence, and all you've pulled up so far is your personal dislike for their conclusions. Literally not one thing more.
    I've explained stocks, the concept of leverage, some basic money theory concepts... that we're coming at this from different angles doesn't mean I haven't refuted what they've stated

    Because it doesn't tax the company, in the first place. That should be obvious. If we were talking about that, we'd be talking corporate taxes, and that's a different kettle of fish.

    Taxing someone like Jeff Bezos does precisely nothing to the value of Amazon as a company.
    The selling of millions of Amazon stocks to cover billions in a tax bill that is actually 20% larger than it appears on its face because it doesn't factor in capital gains... and they want to double capital gains... that doesn't have an effect on its valuation or anyone else who might own Amazon stock?[/quote]

    What "ramifications"? You haven't made a case that holds up on that front.
    see above, but multiply it by many companies at once and everyone else in the market knowing that too... not hard to imagine a crash...

    Well, at least it's clear you didn't read the article, let alone the study. They clearly stated they got access to data on thousands of the richest Americans (not a "small number", and not ones they "chose"), and they contrasted that analysis against average Americans in the process of that analysis.
    I was under the impression that 25 was a small number of samples from a scientific stand-point, or am I wrong.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You literally spent that entire post telling him how you knew more than he did and couldn't be arsed to explain it, and then accused him of being condescending.

    You're not coming off any less condescending, is my point.
    point taken

  13. #1973
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Excuse my venom, he’s been very disrespectful this entire thread and it’s worn thin.
    Your bad faith arguing is disrespectful.

    You didn't read the OP article.
    You haven't provided evidence.
    You ignore the points literally everyone is making.
    You ignore the links everyone has provided.
    You constantly misrepresent everyone's argument as "yOu JuSt HatE RicH PEOpleS!!!!!"
    You are arguing against facts with nothing but feelings.

    If you want to be taken seriously, make a cogent fact filled argument based on hard data or facts, not your myopic and limited personal experience (that you don't even provide a stitch of verifiable data for either).

    So I'll ask you again, do these ultra wealthy take advantage of every method they can to pay less income tax, yes or no?
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  14. #1974
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,224
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I’m not going to provide that for all the very good reasons you stated so I guess we’re just an an impasse here.
    Thats not an impass thats youve lost the argument and credibility you might have.
    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.

  15. #1975
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Pick a game. Let’s say Ticket to Ride.

    If I wanted to change the rules of the game I would have to petition Days of Wonder and ask for a change. Maybe I could convince them but they would probably wouldn’t do it since millions of people enjoy the game as it is. If I play in a tournament and tried my rule change I would get booted.

    If a wealthy person wanted to do it they could buy the company, advertise their rule change to the player base, bribe developers or something else. In a tournament they could much more easily create their own tournament or use their money to have their cheating being ignored.

    Legal. Cheating.

    Having money means you get to more easily make the rules (fair or not) and escape consequence when you break the rules.
    Bribery isn't legal typically first off. Secondly arguing that having money gives you an outsized influence, yes I'd agree, which is exactly why campaign finance, the revolving door of lobbyists, and the hand in glove relationship with many politicians and the corporations they worked for (or will). Are all problems. That Trump rescinded the ban on lobbying for government employees 5 years after leaving really pissed me off. That Biden didn't immediately re-enact it is also telling. My question to you is how does a wealth tax fix any of that?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    Thats not an impass thats youve lost the argument and credibility you might have.
    Because I won't share details of my personal finances on a public forum... ok, sure I lose

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Your bad faith arguing is disrespectful.

    You didn't read the OP article.
    You haven't provided evidence.
    You ignore the points literally everyone is making.
    You ignore the links everyone has provided.
    You constantly misrepresent everyone's argument as "yOu JuSt HatE RicH PEOpleS!!!!!"
    You are arguing against facts with nothing but feelings.

    If you want to be taken seriously, make a cogent fact filled argument based on hard data or facts, not your myopic and limited personal experience (that you don't even provide a stitch of verifiable data for either).

    So I'll ask you again, do these ultra wealthy take advantage of every method they can to pay less income tax, yes or no?
    Everything they're allowed sure. I do too. Do you just make unsolicited donations to the government? I don't see how that's an argument.

  16. #1976
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,077
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I've explained stocks, the concept of leverage, some basic money theory concepts... that we're coming at this from different angles doesn't mean I haven't refuted what they've stated
    Well, you haven't. A lot of your counter arguments don't hold up. The idea that you can't just sell stocks, for instance. That's just bafflingly wrong on its face.

    The selling of millions of Amazon stocks to cover billions in a tax bill that is actually 20% larger than it appears on its face because it doesn't factor in capital gains... and they want to double capital gains... that doesn't have an effect on its valuation or anyone else who might own Amazon stock?
    That depends.

    Do you only see the value of stock as a tax-free play chit you can trade around with others to try and build wealth without having to pay taxes on it? Then I can see why you might have an issue with this, but your attitude is the exploitative problem that needs to be fixed; as a counter argument, this is kind of in the "laws against pedophilia make it harder for pedophiles to fuck 8 year olds" category of complaints. Yes. That's the intended outcome.

    If you see the value of stock as an investment into the company and the ability to share in its profits? Not much change, really.

    And given that we're talking about a wealth tax, this is only affecting the uber-rich to begin with. If that means a shift in stock trading to the average consumers rather than the uber-rich, how is that a negative, again?

    see above, but multiply it by many companies at once and everyone else in the market knowing that too... not hard to imagine a crash...
    If the stock market is a game played by the rich to make themselves all more rich at the expense of everyone else, then the stock market should crash, because it's an exploitative system which only serves the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

    If it isn't, then I disagree it could turn out that way, and really don't see the argument.

    I was under the impression that 25 was a small number of samples from a scientific stand-point, or am I wrong.
    ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.

    Yes, you're wrong. You wouldn't even have had to dig; that's the start of the third paragraph in.

    Like I said; you're knee-jerking about an article regarding a study, and condemning its findings, and you didn't even read the article, let alone the study itself, to know if you actually had an argument first.

  17. #1977
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,224
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post



    Because I won't share details of my personal finances on a public forum... ok, sure I lose
    because you won't produce evidence to back your arguments
    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.

  18. #1978
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    The selling of millions of Amazon stocks to cover billions in a tax bill that is actually 20% larger than it appears on its face because it doesn't factor in capital gains... and they want to double capital gains... that doesn't have an effect on its valuation or anyone else who might own Amazon stock?
    It would have zero effect because it is for tax purposes not because it is an exit strategy or because the company is failing nor is it a new issuance of stocks. The CEOs of companies sell large portions of their holdings all the time especially when they are fired or move onto another company.

  19. #1979
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Everything they're allowed sure. I do too. Do you just make unsolicited donations to the government? I don't see how that's an argument.
    Ok.

    1. Doing everything you can to lessen your income tax burden is not the same thing as making unsolicited donations to the government.

    2. If you understand they are doing this, then you've proven you don't understand our argument at all, which is that we believe people of that kind of wealth should not be allowed to circumvent income taxes to the degree they do. So when you drone on and on about how stocks work, you should stop because the issue isn't about how stocks work, but how the the ultra billionaires who benefit more from government services than literally anyone should even be allowed to use those loopholes in the first place.

    3. If you understand they are using these loopholes, then your entire argument falls apart. So does your non-researched critique of the ProPublica article.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  20. #1980
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,077
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Bribery isn't legal typically first off.
    If we're talking "bribery" of a game developer, then it wouldn't legally be called "bribery" in the first place. Those laws only cover public officials.

    There's a few laws that might cover a bribe offered to a private individual, but it's more about that individual's conduct and how it violates contractual obligations to their employer, not the briber's intent, who likely isn't guilty of anything.

    Because I won't share details of my personal finances on a public forum... ok, sure I lose
    No, because you offered no evidence whatsoever, and demanded that we accept your "nothing" as debunking the large amount of evidence ProPublica offered.

    That's why it's not an "impasse". You offered no counter-evidence. It isn't about why you chose to keep your personal details private, it's that you had no other evidence to call on and refused to provide what you did have. Sure, by all means, keep your personal details secret, but gather actual evidence. Your personal finances can't possibly be that special, and would only be anecdotal anyway even if you did provide details, so I'm not even suggesting that changing your mind would be all you need. It would be shitty, incomplete evidence that would fail to back up your claims. But it's also all you've even implied that you're working off of.

Posting Permissions

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