Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Slant]

Their entire argument ts are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economic principles.

That's like someone who doesn't know what an outnor an inning is... trying to mock people for not knowing about baseball.

Its not semantics, it's ignorance.

When they were corrected, they persisted with that false information.

That made them lies.

Their argument is not actually hanging on those basic economic principles. They are not misunderstanding anything. They are QUESTIONING those basic principles themselves and maybe if they warrant a change to those principles. See, you haven't even started the discussion ON THEIR TERMS, yet. You're still at the stage where they talk to you and you don't even grasp the full weight of what it is they're saying. They've been very patient so far, despite you slinging mud in all directions for two days now... I think it's time you actually acknowledge what they are saying, or look like a fool... your choice.

[Machismo]

And I have to pay an annual tax on most of those non liquid assets.

And if I can't do so, I have to liquidate some assets to pay those taxes.

Why the fuck are stocks intrinsically exceptional? What makes them such special fucking snowflakes?




I never said they'd need to sell their stocks to get a loan.

Im just saying stocks shouldn't be an untaxable asset if you can effectively treat it as a liquid asset.

You pay an annual tax on your stocks? Nope, they are handled via capital gains, when sold.

So, are you saying you want your stocks taxed, both for holding them, and when selling them?

And yes, that would also apply to your 401k.

The federal government does not tax your assets, like your home, or your car. That's what the states and localities do. And yes, the next argument is going to be that the states and localities should tax stock assets. When that happens, all those wealthy people will simply say those are elsewhere (and you cannot argue they are not), and the only people on the hook, will be the people who don't have the knowledge to simply base their portfolios out of Texas.

- - - Updated - - -

Their argument is not actually hanging on those basic economic principles. They are not misunderstanding anything. They are QUESTIONING those basic principles themselves and maybe if they warrant a change to those principles. See, you haven't even started the discussion ON THEIR TERMS, yet. You're still at the stage where they talk to you and you don't even grasp the full weight of what it is they're saying. They've been very patient so far, despite you slinging mud in all directions for two days now... I think it's time you actually acknowledge what they are saying, or look like a fool... your choice.

Yes, they swear it's income, it is not.

They swore that Bezos was getting stocks as part of his salary. He was not.

They swore that capital gains meant how much value your stock has. It does not.

They tried to justify their actions based on those falsehoods.

[Slant]

Yes, they swear it's income, it is not.

They swore that Bezos was getting stocks as part of his salary. He was not.

They swore that capital gains meant how much value your stock has.

They tried to justify their actions based on those falsehoods.

Eeeep, wrong. Try again.

See, I told you you haven't even begun the actual discussion, yet. You're so blissfully unaware of what they are actually saying that all you have is semantics. I bet it must be confusing for you. "Why are they talking back to me? This doesn't make any sense, even a three year old understands these concepts!" and yet, here we are... you still not getting it, and most of us puzzled as to what the fuck you're on about.

Doesn't stop you from making big claims about what other people are saying, though. I literally spelled it out for you in my last post, and yet you still don't get it. It's actually pretty amusing.

[Machismo]

Eeeep, wrong. Try again.

See, I told you you haven't even begun the actual discussion, yet. You're so blissfully unaware of what they are actually saying that all you have is semantics. I bet it must be confusing for you. "Why are they talking back to me? This doesn't make any sense, even a three year old understands these concepts!" and yet, here we are... you still not getting it, and most of us puzzled as to what the fuck you're on about.

Doesn't stop you from making big claims about what other people are saying, though. I literally spelled it out for you in my last post, and yet you still don't get it. It's actually pretty amusing.

Yes, it is literally based on those falsehoods, I have provided the quotes numerous times.

Is this the part where you beg me to look at the spirit of what they say, and not what they are actually saying? You get pissed when I take them literally, and you get pissed when I take them generally. Make up your fucking mind.

Very well, the spirit is that they hate the wealthy, and they want to punish them, because they are selfish authoritarians.

Why are they trying to argue economics, when they don't understand those simple concepts? It's not my fault they are ignorant.

[jonnysensible]

You pay an annual tax on your stocks? Nope, they are handled via capital gains, when sold.

So, are you saying you want your stocks taxed, both for holding them, and when selling them?

And yes, that would also apply to your 401k.

if you have over 50 million. What part of this arent you getting. Do you have 50million in a 401k? holy fuck.

[Machismo]

if you have over 50 million. What part of this arent you getting. Do you have 50million in a 401k? holy fuck.

So, all the complaints about not wanting loopholes, double standards, and tax dodges is clearly disingenuous.

For reference, I assume you are specifically talking about Warren:

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

So, take Bezos.

He's worth 190-ish billion.

$180 billion is tied up in stock. That's right over 5%. That means he would literally have to sell every non-stock asset, just to pay for those taxes, for just one year. What happens the next year? The next?

The math is simple, he has no other option, other than to sell stock in his own company, the one he founded. It's quite literally forcing people out of their own companies.

[Hadriker]

You can take a loan against your stocks, your home, and your assets... just like them. Imagine buying a car, financing it, and having to pay the value of that loan as an income...

Should you be required to sell your house in order to get a loan?

Fuck no.

most people really can't take a loan against their stocks becasue most people don't have enough invested to be able to do so. Just a quick google can tell you most firms allow only up to half of the value of your stocks can be taken on as a loan. Many firms require a minimum of 100k in collateral to even qualify. If you look up the average amount a person has invested in non retirement accounts, most won't meet that requirement until their 50s and that is only among those that HAVE investment accounts.

So its not really accurate to say that your average US citizen has access to those types of loans, especially ones with very little or no interest. Plus this discussion is limited in scope to only loans that are made to circumvent paying capital gains on unrealized gains. That is a rich persons game. Its not something your average person has the ability to do. its a loophole the super rich have available to avoid paying taxes on income becasue it doesn't technically count as income.

Its why someone like Bezos can claim a child tax credit while his personal wealth grows by billions every year.

I don't blame people like Bezos for taking advantage of these options. I would assume most of us would do the same if we were in that situation, but it does point to a serious problem with wealth inequality and, at least in my opinion is a large reason why that disparity continues to grow. So actions should be taken to reign it in.

I don't think anyone has stated a loan should count as income, just the unrealized gains on stocks should maybe should count as income once it meets a certain level. I'm sure someone much smarter than me could come up with an equitable system for doing so.

[Bodakane]

I literally denied it. Here, I'm denying it again.

Well, since you bet, you lose that bet. Now, you can pay me.

So, why did you lie so many times in this thread? Any failure to answer that question will be taken as an admission you simply don't know what oyu're talking about, so you decided to lie your way through it.

We're going to need evidence. Until we get that, no one believes you.

[Slant]

Yes, it is literally based on those falsehoods, I have provided the quotes numerous times.

Is this the part where you beg me to look at the spirit of what they say, and not what they are actually saying? You get pissed when I take them literally, and you get pissed when I take them generally. Make up your fucking mind.

Very well, the spirit is that they hate the wealthy, and they want to punish them, because they are selfish authoritarians.

Why are they trying to argue economics, when they don't understand those simple concepts? It's not my fault they are ignorant.

Meep. Wrong again. I don't care what you do. But all your different tactics, you still fail to grasp what it is they're telling you. All those shots in the dark and you ain't got a score yet.

[Machismo]

most people really can't take a loan against their stocks becasue most people don't have enough invested to be able to do so. Just a quick google can tell you most firms allow only up to half of the value of your stocks can be taken on as a loan. Many firms require a minimum of 100k in collateral to even qualify. If you look up the average amount a person has invested in non retirement accounts, most won't meet that requirement until their 50s and that is only among those that HAVE investment accounts.

So its not really accurate to say that your average US citizen has access to those types of loans, especially ones with very little or no interest. Plus this discussion is limited in scope to only loans that are made to circumvent paying capital gains on unrealized gains. That is a rich persons game. Its not something your average person has the ability to do. its a loophole the super rich have available to avoid paying taxes on income becasue it doesn't technically count as income.

Its why someone like Bezos can claim a child tax credit while his personal wealth grows by billions every year.

I don't blame people like Bezos for taking advantage of these options. I would assume most of us would do the same if we were in that situation, but it does point to a serious problem with wealth inequality and, at least in my opinion is a large reason why that disparity continues to grow. So actions should be taken to reign it in.

I don't think anyone has stated a loan should count as income, just the unrealized gains on stocks should maybe should count as income once it meets a certain level. I'm sure someone much smarter than me could come up with an equitable system for doing so.

Normal people borrow against their homes all the time.
In the end, the stocks are just collateral.

All those loans mentioned are tax-free.

If you're going to make all those unrealized gains count as income, make it apply to everyone. Make it apply to a 401k. Otherwise, it's still pushing the bullshit double standards that people are supposedly concerned about. And there's the kicker, does that also mean that the capital gains taxes go away, since those gains were already taxed?

[jonnysensible]

So, all the complaints about not wanting loopholes, double standards, and tax dodges is clearly disingenuous.

For reference, I assume you are specifically talking about Warren:

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

So, take Bezos.

He's worth 190-ish billion.

$180 billion is tied up in stock. That's right over 5%. That means he would literally have to sell every non-stock asset, just to pay for those taxes, for just one year. What happens the next year? The next?

The math is simple, he has no other option, other than to sell stock in his own company, the one he founded. It's quite literally forcing people out of their own companies.

i absolutely dont care if someone with 190 billion is reduced to 10 billion by taxes over lots of fucking years.

[Mihalik]

You pay an annual tax on your stocks? Nope, they are handled via capital gains, when sold.

That's exactly what everyone is fucking saying here. That YES you should be paying an annual tax on your stocks.

"Fuck no!" is not an argument. It's your opinion. To which you're perfectly entitled to. But it's not an argument.

So, are you saying you want your stocks taxed, both for holding them, and when selling them?

Again. Yes. Just as you do with real estate.

And yes, that would also apply to your 401k.

Why would it? Your 401k is a specially itemized thing. It's regulated and limited. The IRS is perfectly capable of distinguishing between your 401k and your investment portfolio BECAUSE IT ALREADY DOES SO.

The federal government does not tax your assets, like your home, or your car. That's what the states and localities do. And yes, the next argument is going to be that the states and localities should tax stock assets. When that happens, all those wealthy people will simply say those are elsewhere (and you cannot argue they are not), and the only people on the hook, will be the people who don't have the knowledge to simply base their portfolios out of Texas.

That's why stocks SHOULDN'T be taxed locally. They should be taxed federally. There's no specific reason why the federal government cannot simply write a law taxing stocks federally. There's no constitutional restriction of any kind.

The federal government can levy taxes.

[Machismo]

We're going to need evidence. Until we get that, no one believes you.

I provided the evidence against you, and I'm guessing you still don't have the evidence that Jeff Bezos was paid in stocks as part of his salary.

Do you think I fucking forgot?

Dude, you walked into that one.

- - - Updated - - -

Meep. Wrong again. I don't care what you do. But all your different tactics, you still fail to grasp what it is they're telling you. All those shots in the dark and you ain't got a score yet.

Nope, i understand exactly what they are telling me, they fucking hate the wealthy, and they want to punish them.

- - - Updated - - -

i absolutely dont care if someone with 190 billion is reduced to 10 billion by taxes over lots of fucking years.

Thanks for proving my point for me. Let slant know you proved me right.

- - - Updated - - -

That's exactly what everyone is fucking saying here. That YES you should be paying an annual tax on your stocks.

"Fuck no!" is not an argument. It's your opinion. To which you're perfectly entitled to. But it's not an argument.



Again. Yes. Just as you do with real estate.



Why would it? Your 401k is a specially itemized thing. It's regulated and limited. The IRS is perfectly capable of distinguishing between your 401k and your investment portfolio BECAUSE IT ALREADY DOES SO.



That's why stocks SHOULDN'T be taxed locally. They should be taxed federally. There's no specific reason why the federal government cannot simply write a law taxing stocks federally. There's no constitutional restriction of any kind.

The federal government can levy taxes.

great, then have your city or county tax stocks, see how the wealthy respond.

The federal government can levy taxes, but they don't on those assets. So, get your local representatives to put it on the county ballot. I look forward to seeing the shit storm that ensues.

The federal government won't do it, because luckily... people who understand economics would never let it happen.

Now you guys are the ones wanting double standards and preferential treatment. The irony is unceasing.

[Slant]

I provided the evidence against you, and I'm guessing you still don't have the evidence that Jeff Bezos was paid in stocks as part of his salary.

Do you think I fucking forgot?

Dude, you walked into that one.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, i understand exactly what they are telling me, they fucking hate the wealthy, and they want to punish them.

No, nobody says that. This right here? This is you making shit up. This is why I maintain you're full of shit.

And stop it with the fucking stock salary, it doesn't matter. It's actually meaningless if you're right or not about that.

And still, you don't have the faintest idea what they are on about...

[Machismo]

No, nobody says that. This right here? This is you making shit up. This is why I maintain you're full of shit.

And stop it with the fucking stock salary, it doesn't matter. It's actually meaningless if you're right or not about that.

And still, you don't have the faintest idea what they are on about...

Nah, wat they really said, was misuse basic economic terms, and completely misrepresent the data.

You bitched at me for pointing it out.

Make up your mind.

[Slant]

Nah, wat they really said, was misuse basic economic terms, and completely misrepresent the data.

You bitched at me for pointing it out.

Make up your mind.

No, I bitched at you for not paying attention. They are not misrepresenting, you refuse to acknowledge what everyone's saying in favour of nitpicking terms and smugly trying to come across as a clever boy.

Which is funny, I'll admit, but not very helpful if you actually mean to take this discussion seriously.

The evening is young, though. So go ahead, tell me what they are saying... go back and look it up, treat this as a kind of open-book one-question exam. Score's 100 or 0, you can try as many times as you want. So far you've only got 0s...

[Machismo]

No, I bitched at you for not paying attention. They are not misrepresenting, you refuse to acknowledge what everyone's saying in favour of nitpicking terms and smugly trying to come across as a clever boy.

Which is funny, I'll admit, but not very helpful if you actually mean to take this discussion seriously.

The evening is young, though. So go ahead, tell me what they are saying... go back and look it up, treat this as a kind of open-book one-question exam. Score's 100 or 0, you can try as many times as you want. So far you've only got 0s...

They are literally using words improperly, and lying about people.

That's the very definition of the fucking word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misrepresent

"Sure, I lied... but I'm not misrepresenting. Just go by what I said, but not really by what I said, because what I said is factually wrong."

Dude, that's pathetic.

[Bodakane]

I provided the evidence against you, and I'm guessing you still don't have the evidence that Jeff Bezos was paid in stocks as part of his salary.

Do you think I fucking forgot?

Dude, you walked into that one.

What are you talking about? You did not provide evidence that you don't have a Bezos picture on your ceiling over your bed. Until you prove you don't, no one believes you don't.

Sure does seem to show you aren't really arguing with what people actually post and instead just make shit up. @Slant is right, you don't pay attention at all.

[Shadowferal]

We're going to need evidence. Until we get that, no one believes you.

Never hapoen.
All he does is quote himself as "evidence."

[Slant]

They are literally using words improperly, and lying about people.

That's the very definition of the fucking word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misrepresent

"Sure, I lied... but I'm not misrepresenting. Just go by what I said, but not really by what I said, because what I said is factually wrong."

Dude, that's pathetic.

Nope. They are not lying or misrepresenting. Nor are they misunderstanding basic economics. Here, I'm going to help you... an analogy, it's really giving you the answer, but I'll put it in a somewhat puzzle-ish manner:

Bob and Tom are discussing if a wall should be painted blue or green.

Clare comes along and says "How about we knock the wall down and make it a bigger room?"

Now, you tell me, what represents basic economics in this?