Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

And? You are forgetting that they were originally intended to have that burden as part of the program till they dodged it. And increasing the burden doesn't mean its a bad thing with as broadly you are painting that brush on it. Increasing that burden can also be a good thing if we are going as broadly as you are.

If you are going to go with "Increasing the burden" you need the thought process to continue past that point to try and argue how that increased cost is a bad thing compared to what it gives and what the alternatives are. Something you have failed to even attempt to do.

Does it increase the burden on those at the bottom who are paying it like they have this entire time? No. Should it? Again no.

Does it increase the burden on those making 130k+ yes, but not any appreciable amount to the money they are bringing in and will have no real impact on their standard of living short of a drug addiction. Should it? Debatable but likely needed to balance the issue given how long it has been neglected and how far it has fallen behind, maybe it can be phased out again later but these people will still benefit from it more if they paid more than if they don't and the programs end up scrapped or cut to useless because they refused to pay the funding.

Does it increase the burden on those making millions and using tax dodging strategies where they pay ZERO or near it, you bet your ass as they were intended to contribute to the programs as well, should it be? Again, you bet your ass.

So saying, "It increases the burden" doesn't make it bad if you are being honest about it and thinking beyond the scary words.


And they are benefiting from the government more than those at any other pay levels as has been explained to you countless times for you to ignore it.


You are calling for fantasies that ignore reality. You want personal responsibility on this, you will have to MANDATE it because a statistically large group won't do it willingly either from being too poor to, too stupid to, or just flat out too short sighted, and you will still have to deal with them when the time comes which will makes things worse and more expensive to handle.

And you also pretend that getting rid of the government will magically make things better without their presence while ignoring the fact that they are REQUIRED in many areas to prevent other bigger players from coming in and becoming the effective government in those areas and the fact that some things just won't work in any free market, not to mention that the free market takes lots of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS to keep it functioning and going off the rails.

And again, if you actually have any WORKABLE alternatives, I am still waiting to hear it because the closest thing you gave to a solution would do nothing but cause damage by itself virtually across the board. For your solution to be workable, it needs to address things like funding, quality of service, availability, and how to prevent people from falling through the cracks and how to handle them better if they do.

What are your REAL alternatives, not your fantasy alternatives that cling to ideological purity.

People say they are "benefiting more from the government." How exactly do we determine that? This is another common selling point, yet I have no idea exactly how it's based. I'm especially confounded when people (not you) declare it as an absolute fact.

No, I don't need to mandate personal responsibility. I am allowed to let people fail on their own. I can only take someone to rehab so many times, before I stop trying to get them to kick their meth habit. If someone chooses to fail, and chooses to not take care of himself, then let him.

My alternative is workable, it's simply one you don't like. That's fine. We want different things out of our government. You want government to provide more and more, I do not.

[Bodakane]

1# Some do, just like you do by taking deductions of your own. They still pay more on average than you or I do.

2# By what metric are you basing this on? Is it compared to how much they pay in, or as a percentage of their income, or is it a percentage of how much they produce? Please, let me know how you quantify this.

No, they all do.

Any metric you want. How much of the infrastructure does it take to deliver 3.5 billion packages? More than say a family of four?
Courts. Police. Government agencies. All get used more but he wealthy than they do by the average citizen.

Can't help but notice you ignored the article that literally destroys everything you've been lying about for fucking months.

[Fugus]

People say they are "benefiting more from the government." How exactly do we determine that? This is another common selling point, yet I have no idea exactly how it's based. I'm especially confounded when people (not you) declare it as an absolute fact.

As the business owners, they benefit from a more educated and healthy workforce, they benefit from public roads to fuel their businesses and so on. And while you can call that very subjective, they also benefit from protections our government provides to their companies and themselves, there is a reason why the wealthiest of us don't flee to more libertarian places.

No, I don't need to mandate personal responsibility. I am allowed to let people fail on their own. I can only take someone to rehab so many times, before I stop trying to get them to kick their meth habit. If someone chooses to fail, and chooses to not take care of himself, then let him.

Well, let me know when the Elysium starts boarding so I can flee the consequences of that with you.

What do you intend to do to those who didn't make enough to save because living wages are a sin that takes away the freedom of the company as well, something I believe I recall you also preaching before and telling us just not to work there or shop there while ignoring all the problems with it as well.

What do you intend to do to those who were too dumb or short sighted to think that far ahead until it was too late?

After they are too old and broken to work and survive doing it, what do you intend to have happen to them then? And what about all the violence from those poor and starving old people who worked only to be tossed aside because they didn't make the choice you said should be optional when they were younger? How do you plan on handling those masses? Because those communal rest homes to cover them won't be free either and where do you think that will come from? Or do you just plan on killing them to save money?

I am serious here, what do you intend to do with those TENS OF MILLIONS who will fall into that category?

My alternative is workable, it's simply one you don't like. That's fine. We want different things out of our government. You want government to provide more and more, I do not.

Your solution is about as workable as a colander soup bowl. If it was workable, I wouldn't have called out the issues that make it so unworkable so easily.

Your solution is a government that is UNWORKABLE and all the abuses that such a solution would cause. So again, what is a WORKABLE solution that is an alternative to what we have said here because what you are trying to pawn off isn't.

[Endus]

Great, then you want to burden the wealthy by increasing their tax burden. Glad we have that qualifiable thing covered.

You're conflating two different meanings of "burden".

If you want to insist on using the same meaning as is entailed within the phrase "tax burden", then it's not a negative at all, and you have no grounds for opposing it for being a "burden" in the first place.

I never said the wealthy don't have more capacity to pay. I'm saying that the people who want to push the wealthy to pay for all those things, and when it comes for them to chip in... they clearly don't want to pay their fair share (snark intended).

And this is a lie. You engage in character assassination like this because you cannot actually defend and support your own arguments properly, so you try and make it about your opponents' character instead.

It's dishonest and abusive malarkey, and demonstrates how little even you actually believe in the merits of what you're saying.

There's no need for hypotheticals about if you were a fucking multi-milionaire. This is about you, and them... right now. It's easy to say that you'd totes be super generous, if you had all that money, but when pressed with where you are right now... fucking crickets.

Then you're just being unreasonable and refusing to understand that there are obvious contextual differences, namely that below a certain level of income, money is absolutely necessary to pay to maintain a comfortable standard of living. And that above that level, additional income provides only additional luxuries, not meeting of basic standards.

[Machismo]

No, they all do.

Any metric you want. How much of the infrastructure does it take to deliver 3.5 billion packages? More than say a family of four?
Courts. Police. Government agencies. All get used more but he wealthy than they do by the average citizen.

Can't help but notice you ignored the article that literally destroys everything you've been lying about for fucking months.

They all don't pay enough? By what metric? Or, is this just according to your feels?

This is your claim, you are saying it's an indisputable fact, I want to see the quantifiable numbers (you opted to quantify it when you said "more" in regards to it). I own Amazon stock, so I also benefit... right? I am the one who orders packages, so I also benefit that way, correct?

I didn't ignore anything, I'm calling it no question your ramblings, just like with salary and wealth.

So, exactly how do you want to quantify it?

[Glorious Leader]

This is a silly argument:

A tax of $10 on a person who makes $100 in a week is a burden. A tax of $1000 on a person who makes $10,000 in a week is not a burden

A burden is defined specifically as a heavy load

Particularly when we consider how much benefit the person making 10k derives from living in a state.

[Bodakane]

They all don't pay enough? By what metric? Or, is this just according to your feels?

This is your claim, you are saying it's an indisputable fact, I want to see the quantifiable numbers (you opted to quantify it when you said "more" in regards to it). I own Amazon stock, so I also benefit... right? I am the one who orders packages, so I also benefit that way, correct?

I didn't ignore anything, I'm calling it no question your ramblings, just like with salary and wealth.

So, exactly how do you want to quantify it?

You absolutely ignored it, because you know it destroys your garbage ass argument. They make actual income off their stocks without selling them. Apologize to everyone you argued with about this.

[Machismo]

As the business owners, they benefit from a more educated and healthy workforce, they benefit from public roads to fuel their businesses and so on. And while you can call that very subjective, they also benefit from protections our government provides to their companies and themselves, there is a reason why the wealthiest of us don't flee to more libertarian places.


Well, let me know when the Elysium starts boarding so I can flee the consequences of that with you.

What do you intend to do to those who didn't make enough to save because living wages are a sin that takes away the freedom of the company as well, something I believe I recall you also preaching before and telling us just not to work there or shop there while ignoring all the problems with it as well.

What do you intend to do to those who were too dumb or short sighted to think that far ahead until it was too late?

After they are too old and broken to work and survive doing it, what do you intend to have happen to them then? And what about all the violence from those poor and starving old people who worked only to be tossed aside because they didn't make the choice you said should be optional when they were younger? How do you plan on handling those masses? Because those communal rest homes to cover them won't be free either and where do you think that will come from? Or do you just plan on killing them to save money?

I am serious here, what do you intend to do with those TENS OF MILLIONS who will fall into that category?



Your solution is about as workable as a colander soup bowl. If it was workable, I wouldn't have called out the issues that make it so unworkable so easily.

Your solution is a government that is UNWORKABLE and all the abuses that such a solution would cause. So again, what is a WORKABLE solution that is an alternative to what we have said here because what you are trying to pawn off isn't.

And those people benefit as they are the ones getting the education. They get healthcare, which means they benefit, as well. Commuters also benefit from those things.

It is very, very subjective, which is why I question why people insist on using it as a talking point, and declare it to be an indisputable fact (the other dude).

Like I said, start slow, just stop increasing spending. It's not dropping them off a cliff, just weaning people down slowly.

People are going to make their own choices. All you can do, is try and educate them. I'm tired of treating 50-year-old adults like pre-pubescent children who don't have a fucking clue.

For the people who are actually unable to help themselves, then help them.

Those tens of millions have years and years to get their shit together.

- - - Updated - - -

You're conflating two different meanings of "burden".

If you want to insist on using the same meaning as is entailed within the phrase "tax burden", then it's not a negative at all, and you have no grounds for opposing it for being a "burden" in the first place.



And this is a lie. You engage in character assassination like this because you cannot actually defend and support your own arguments properly, so you try and make it about your opponents' character instead.

It's dishonest and abusive malarkey, and demonstrates how little even you actually believe in the merits of what you're saying.



Then you're just being unreasonable and refusing to understand that there are obvious contextual differences, namely that below a certain level of income, money is absolutely necessary to pay to maintain a comfortable standard of living. And that above that level, additional income provides only additional luxuries, not meeting of basic standards.

You claimed it's qualifiable, so I went with it. If you want to take it back, be my guest. Just let me know.

It's not a lie, I literally challenged someone to do it, and they couldn't. You jumped in with your armor on, and still couldn't do it.

I'm not being unreasonable, because my argument is that you people, as you are right now, are want others to pay for the shit you want, and don't want to shoulder any additional burden.

- - - Updated - - -

You absolutely ignored it, because you know it destroys your garbage ass argument. They make actual income off their stocks without selling them. Apologize to everyone you argued with about this.

Ha, that's pathetic.

You keep claiming something as an indisputable fact, and still cannot even quantify what you said was was more.

Meanwhile, you literally lied about what a salary is, and lied about a dude being paid in stock, when that literally never fucking happened. So, according to you, I expect an apology. Or, you can simply stop with that utter nonsense.

[Fugus]

And those people benefit as they are the ones getting the education. They get healthcare, which means they benefit, as well. Commuters also benefit from those things.

It is very, very subjective, which is why I question why people insist on using it as a talking point, and declare it to be an indisputable fact (the other dude).

Will leave this part alone because it wasn't really the part I was wanting to get at and even I said it was subjective.

Like I said, start slow, just stop increasing spending. It's not dropping them off a cliff, just weaning people down slowly.

And locking the funding on something that is already so chronically UNDERFUNDED to the point it is going to collapse in the near future doesn't help stuff, it makes it WORSE.

And how the hell are you going to "Wean" people who are retired and on a fixed income that isn't even enough to make ends meet without major sacrifices off and onto LESS or NOTHING? Sorry, not workable, try again.

People are going to make their own choices. All you can do, is try and educate them. I'm tired of treating 50-year-old adults like pre-pubescent children who don't have a fucking clue.

For the people who are actually unable to help themselves, then help them.

Those tens of millions have years and years to get their shit together.

So you are saying you have no answer to that failing in your plan and instead want to hand wave it away. So intend to kill those tens of millions of people because you took something that shouldn't be optional and made it optional when they were young and stupid and it was too late to change their mind before they got smart enough to think that far ahead?

You just made a post where you said nothing and hand waved away everything.

TRY AGAIN.

[Bodakane]

Ha, that's pathetic.

You keep claiming something as an indisputable fact, and still cannot even quantify what you said was was more.

Meanwhile, you literally lied about what a salary is, and lied about a dude being paid in stock, when that literally never fucking happened. So, according to you, I expect an apology. Or, you can simply stop with that utter nonsense.

Address the article.

[unfilteredJW]

Can’t imagine being this uniformed and awful and being smug about it.

[Endus]

You claimed it's qualifiable, so I went with it. If you want to take it back, be my guest. Just let me know.

You didn't "go with it", you just chose to lie by conflating two different meanings of "burden". That's not "qualifying" anything. There's nothing for me to "take back", just you lying.

It's not a lie, I literally challenged someone to do it, and they couldn't. You jumped in with your armor on, and still couldn't do it.

To "do" what?

You're lying, because you think character attacks are a solid replacement for having an actual point. They aren't, but I'm not expecting to convince you, just make sure everyone else here sees what you're up to.

I'm not being unreasonable, because my argument is that you people, as you are right now, are want others to pay for the shit you want, and don't want to shoulder any additional burden.

And, I will repeat; this claim you are making here is a lie. It's deliberately malicious, and an attempt to deflect the conversation so your opponents play defense. It's a "tactic" straight out of the Alt-Right Playbook; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA

You are completely unreasonable, and you're spending the bulk of your time throwing out character attacks rather than just explaining your position openly and honestly.

- - - Updated - - -

Can’t imagine being this uniformed and awful and being smug about it.

While I linked to one chapter of Innuendo Studios' "The Alt-Right Playbook" in that last post, the whole set is really solid, and breaks down not just what a lot of these types are doing, but why they use these tactics, what their intent is behind it.

Hint; it's nothing positive. And before out local Randy Savage throws a fit about the affiliation; I'm talking about the "tactics" in play, not making a case for ideological affiliations.

[Bodakane]

Can’t imagine being this uniformed and awful and being smug about it.

It is EXACTLY like every Trump supporter.

[Machismo]

Will leave this part alone because it wasn't really the part I was wanting to get at and even I said it was subjective.


And locking the funding on something that is already so chronically UNDERFUNDED to the point it is going to collapse in the near future doesn't help stuff, it makes it WORSE.

And how the hell are you going to "Wean" people who are retired and on a fixed income that isn't even enough to make ends meet without major sacrifices off and onto LESS or NOTHING? Sorry, not workable, try again.



So you are saying you have no answer to that failing in your plan and instead want to hand wave it away. So intend to kill those tens of millions of people because you took something that shouldn't be optional and made it optional when they were young and stupid and it was too late to change their mind before they got smart enough to think that far ahead?

You just made a post where you said nothing and hand waved away everything.

TRY AGAIN.

We've known about the solvency of Medicare and SS for decades. This shouldn't be taking anyone by surprise. But hey, we still have 15 years, warn them, and let them know that things are going to be different in the future.

They have can make cuts. They have been told about this for a long time, and that's on them.

"You will need to buy a new stove in 40 years, plan accordingly."

"You'll need to replace this in 39 years."

"38 years."

"37 years, make sure to have a plan."

"36..."

Them: "We never saw this coming!!!"

I'm not killing off anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Address the article.

I did, they pay a higher percentage of their income, than the average American.

Address why you lied about Bezos' salary.

[Bodakane]

WI did, they pay a higher percentage of their income, than the average American.

Address why you lied about Bezos' salary.

You did not address the article at all, Liar.

I have addressed that many times, Liar.

The article I posted even addresses it, Liar.

[Machismo]

You didn't "go with it", you just chose to lie by conflating two different meanings of "burden". That's not "qualifying" anything. There's nothing for me to "take back", just you lying.



To "do" what?

You're lying, because you think character attacks are a solid replacement for having an actual point. They aren't, but I'm not expecting to convince you, just make sure everyone else here sees what you're up to.



And, I will repeat; this claim you are making here is a lie. It's deliberately malicious, and an attempt to deflect the conversation so your opponents play defense. It's a "tactic" straight out of the Alt-Right Playbook; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA

You are completely unreasonable, and you're spending the bulk of your time throwing out character attacks rather than just explaining your position openly and honestly.

- - - Updated - - -



While I linked to one chapter of Innuendo Studios' "The Alt-Right Playbook" in that last post, the whole set is really solid, and breaks down not just what a lot of these types are doing, but why they use these tactics, what their intent is behind it.

Hint; it's nothing positive. And before out local Randy Savage throws a fit about the affiliation; I'm talking about the "tactics" in play, not making a case for ideological affiliations.

You mean conflating literally the same word... that you said I couldn't use? Nah, that's not how it works.

It's demonstrating my point perfectly, that people want others to shoulder the burden, but cannot be bothered to do it themselves. Meanwhile, these are the same people who lie to themselves about others being the selfish ones.

Just because you don't like my argument, doesn't mean I have to give a damn. "It's an alt-right attack!!!" No, it's calling you guys out on your blatant hypocrisy and lack of responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -

You did not address the article at all, Liar.

I have addressed that many times, Liar.

The article I posted even addresses it, Liar.

You said he was paid stock from his Amazon as part of his salary.

That is an objective falsehood, that was refuted by Amazon.

Luckily, I long ago provided the tax numbers, and showed their tax rates.

[Endus]

You mean conflating literally the same word... that you said I couldn't use? Nah, that's not how it works.

The same word but not the same meaning.

It's like if I talked about my "new addition to my house", and you kept pestering me asking what mathematics has to do with my house. It's deliberate dishonesty about what words actually mean, in context.

It's demonstrating my point perfectly, that people want others to shoulder the burden, but cannot be bothered to do it themselves. Meanwhile, these are the same people who lie to themselves about others being the selfish ones.

Again, all of this is just an unadulterated, bald-faced lie. You have no basis for any of this. You're literally making it all up to engage in character assassination.

Just because you don't like my argument, doesn't mean I have to give a damn. "It's an alt-right attack!!!" No, it's calling you guys out on your blatant hypocrisy and lack of responsibility.

Honey, I'm under zero obligation to convince you of anything.

This is a forum.

We have an audience.

They are the ones I'm looking to convince. I couldn't care less whether you get convinced. You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into, after all.

[Bodakane]

You said he was paid stock from his Amazon as part of his salary.

That is an objective falsehood, that was refuted by Amazon.

Luckily, I long ago provided the tax numbers, and showed their tax rates.

It is his salary. He takes a small paycheck to avoid income tax and uses his stocks to borrow against and pays an interest rate smaller than his tax burden would be if he took an actual paycheck from the company that was commiserate to the value of being the CEO of Amazon. Your ignorance doesn't mean I'm a liar.

These things are explained in the article. Address the fucking article, or you are once again not only proving you know literally nothing about any of this but that you are also a bad faith poster. Don't be a coward just address the article.

[Fugus]

We've known about the solvency of Medicare and SS for decades. This shouldn't be taking anyone by surprise. But hey, we still have 15 years, warn them, and let them know that things are going to be different in the future.

They have can make cuts. They have been told about this for a long time, and that's on them.

"You will need to buy a new stove in 40 years, plan accordingly."

"You'll need to replace this in 39 years."

"38 years."

"37 years, make sure to have a plan."

"36..."

Them: "We never saw this coming!!!"

I'm not killing off anyone.

We have known about the solvency of them for decades, correct. But we also have refused to do anything about them because of people making the same excuses you are and kicking the can so they don't have to pay for it themselves. Which is how we got here.

Your "Solution" it to just like it die with nothing workable to replace it and those who paid into their whole lives are up shit creek and the ways to fix it so that those people are taken care of while making sure it is there and workable for others you want to hand wave away because you don't like the thought of taxes.

And again, you basically say we need to kill off or let those who didn't or couldn't pay into the services DIE because you said they were optional when they aren't and you KNOW they aren't.


So, you basically are saying
1) Fuck those who paid into there whole lives. They refused to RAISE rates when they were growing up to cover it because they were thinking like you are now. They need to just fuck off and die or whatever so long as they don't rely on the services they paid into their entire life because it won't pay enough to live on now matter how long or much they paid.

2) Fuck making people pay into it knowing they are going to get old one day unless they die or something. At which point they will require it.

3) If people don't think that far ahead and don't prepare, because you made it optional, fuck them. They need to go die somewhere and not bother your freedoms just for their survival.

4) If those people who were smart enough to pay into the system actually want to collect, fuck them too because much of that money will be spend dealing with numbers 1-3 so their funding will be cut just like #1 unless we start outright killing these people whom can't have their children take care of them their entire lives.


And you have zero ideas on how to address the issues in your system so let the shit hit the fan if they get passed because then it won't be your problem hopefully.


TRY AGAIN and come up with a WORKABLE alternative.....

[Machismo]

The same word but not the same meaning.

It's like if I talked about my "new addition to my house", and you kept pestering me asking what mathematics has to do with my house. It's deliberate dishonesty about what words actually mean, in context.



Again, all of this is just an unadulterated, bald-faced lie. You have no basis for any of this. You're literally making it all up to engage in character assassination.



Honey, I'm under zero obligation to convince you of anything.

This is a forum.

We have an audience.

They are the ones I'm looking to convince. I couldn't care less whether you get convinced. You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into, after all.

But, the word is qualifiable, right? I'd hate to offend you.

Now, if you wat to quantify, let's do it.

I have plenty of basis for this, a complete and total refusal to offer to give more of what you actually have. Sure, there's all sorts of calls for others to give more, but nary a whisper when called out. I'm not here to convince you either, honey. I have no problem if you and the legion of sycophants want to bond together. I expect nothing less. Shit, the more you guys do it, the more it makes my point for me. You mean to tell me that socialists love socialism? what a shocking concept!!!

Meanwhile, the people who demand selflessness, cannot be fucking bothered.

The people who swear we need to give more, cannot be fucking bothered.

The people who want society to pitch in, and help everyone else, cannot be bothered.

- - - Updated - - -

We have known about the solvency of them for decades, correct. But we also have refused to do anything about them because of people making the same excuses you are and kicking the can so they don't have to pay for it themselves. Which is how we got here.

Your "Solution" it to just like it die with nothing workable to replace it and those who paid into their whole lives are up shit creek and the ways to fix it so that those people are taken care of while making sure it is there and workable for others you want to hand wave away because you don't like the thought of taxes.

And again, you basically say we need to kill off or let those who didn't or couldn't pay into the services DIE because you said they were optional when they aren't and you KNOW they aren't.


So, you basically are saying
1) Fuck those who paid into there whole lives. They refused to RAISE rates when they were growing up to cover it because they were thinking like you are now. They need to just fuck off and die or whatever so long as they don't rely on the services they paid into their entire life because it won't pay enough to live on now matter how long or much they paid.

2) Fuck making people pay into it knowing they are going to get old one day unless they die or something. At which point they will require it.

3) If people don't think that far ahead and don't prepare, because you made it optional, fuck them. They need to go die somewhere and not bother your freedoms just for their survival.

4) If those people who were smart enough to pay into the system actually want to collect, fuck them too because much of that money will be spend dealing with numbers 1-3 so their funding will be cut just like #1 unless we start outright killing these people whom can't have their children take care of them their entire lives.


And you have zero ideas on how to address the issues in your system so let the shit hit the fan if they get passed because then it won't be your problem hopefully.


TRY AGAIN and come up with a WORKABLE alternative.....

Nope, slow and incremental decrease.

Once again, I don't give a shit if you don't like it, it's not my problem. WORKABLE. Please, repeat it seven more times.

It is workable, but it demands a level of personal responsibility. I have no problem letting people who choose to fail, follow that path. it's quite literally what they decided to do, every day of their lives.

35 years...

- - - Updated - - -

It is his salary. He takes a small paycheck to avoid income tax and uses his stocks to borrow against and pays an interest rate smaller than his tax burden would be if he took an actual paycheck from the company that was commiserate to the value of being the CEO of Amazon. Your ignorance doesn't mean I'm a liar.

These things are explained in the article. Address the fucking article, or you are once again not only proving you know literally nothing about any of this but that you are also a bad faith poster. Don't be a coward just address the article.

Nope, this is still wrong.

Again.

If I sold my chipotle stock, that would not be my salary. That would be realized gains, and play into my INCOME.

If I don't sell that stock, it's wealth.

What my employer pays me for working and doing my job, that's a salary. What I pay my employees for the work they do, that's a salary.

Your article is paywalled, I only saw the first two paragraphs.