Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Slant]

She's worth more than a billion, and you made it clear what you wat to happen.

And again... NO CONNECTION to what I said whatsoever. You read one sentence and that's it. After that your attention seems to falter and you think that was my main point. You're even fucking proving my main point by doing what you just did... lol

[Machismo]

And again... NO CONNECTION to what I said whatsoever. You read one sentence and that's it. After that your attention seems to falter and you think that was my main point. You're even fucking proving my main point by doing what you just did... lol

But, you did say you wanted to stop everyone at a billion. Did you not?

She wins, game over... now she loses her company.

[Lochton]

TLDR
*Unrealized gains are the devil.
*Low interest loans are probably making things worse and the rich borrow a lot of money. Not all of it for useful purposes.
*Yes, it’s worse than you think.
*Yes, it’s really long.
https://www.propublica.org/article/t...oid-income-tax

It is because they are protected by a bullshit law.

[Edge-]

So, let's look at Lynsi Snyder, she's worth $3.6 billion, with HER company amounting to over 80% of that.

You mean the company she inherited from her father/uncle?

So, would you like to do the math to figure out how long she has, before you want to force her to sell her company?

Selling shares isn't "selling the company", it's selling a small part of owning it. Let's do the math then shall we?

If we presume a 6% tax on $3.6B, that's $216M the first year, so she's down to $3.4B assuming she somehow doesn't increase her wealth in any way, shape, or form (which is damned hard and nigh impossible). Year two would take that $3.4B and tax it at $204M, bringing it down to $3.2B, which would be taxed at $192M bringing it down to $3B (let's round up), which would be taxed at $180M (again we're rounding up here) so year 4 would leave her with a paltry $2.8B, year 5 would be taxed at $168M (let's round to $150 since we rounded up before), bringing her down to $2.75B, and in year 6 when you claim she'd have to "sell her company" she'd be taxed at $165M leaving her with a roughly $2.6B stake.

Still well over 50% ownership and still fabulously wealthy despite having done nothing outside of inhereting a multi-billion dollar company that she's growing.

And again, I'm being extremely charitable and presuming that she doesn't increase her wealth AT ALL in those 6 years, not by increased share value, not by outside investments, not by property increasing in value etc. etc.

TLDR: Your math is bad.

[Machismo]

It is because they are protected by a bullshit law.

What law, exactly?

[Slant]

But, you did say you wanted to stop everyone at a billion. Did you not?

She wins, game over... now she loses her company.

I'm not discussing politics with you anymore, sorry. Find someone else to play, I am watching football and while this has been amusing, I'm done entertaining you.

[Edge-]

It's a shame you want to force Lynsi Snyder to sell In&Out Burger.

She literally doesn't, check the math that you didn't apparently want to do before making this patently incorrect claim.

[Lochton]

What law, exactly?

What is it now, no taxes on income, and apparently, investments do not count as that.. Honestly, I can't recall what it was called, I just know that these names hardly have to pay tax because, on paper, they don't pull enough in.

[Machismo]

You mean the company she inherited from her father/uncle?



Selling shares isn't "selling the company", it's selling a small part of owning it. Let's do the math then shall we?

If we presume a 6% tax on $3.6B, that's $216M the first year, so she's down to $3.4B assuming she somehow doesn't increase her wealth in any way, shape, or form (which is damned hard and nigh impossible). Year two would take that $3.4B and tax it at $204M, bringing it down to $3.2B, which would be taxed at $192M bringing it down to $3B (let's round up), which would be taxed at $180M (again we're rounding up here) so year 4 would leave her with a paltry $2.8B, year 5 would be taxed at $168M (let's round to $150 since we rounded up before), bringing her down to $2.75B, and in year 6 when you claim she'd have to "sell her company" she'd be taxed at $165M leaving her with a roughly $2.6B stake.

Still well over 50% ownership and still fabulously wealthy despite having done nothing outside of inhereting a multi-billion dollar company that she's growing.

And again, I'm being extremely charitable and presuming that she doesn't increase her wealth AT ALL in those 6 years, not by increased share value, not by outside investments, not by property increasing in value etc. etc.

TLDR: Your math is bad.

So, is it her father's company? Nah, he died over 20 years ago. is it her grandfather's, because he founded it? Well, I would hope not, because that would have implications on your arguments about Zuck and Bezos.

And in your math, it's in year 4 that she would be forced to sell part of her company, that she has a 100% stake in. It only took 4 years for you to tear it apart (drop below the market cap of the company).

Given enough time, she wouldn't even have a majority stake in her privately-owned company.

Again, that is fucking evil. It's rather disgusting that you are even trying to defend it.

You do realize that increasing her wealthy doesn't change it, right? It means you tax her even more, and you take more of the company.... because that's where her wealth is tied to. The more successful she is, the faster you punish her.

- - - Updated - - -

She literally doesn't, check the math that you didn't apparently want to do before making this patently incorrect claim.

The math shows she would be forced to sell.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not discussing politics with you anymore, sorry. Find someone else to play, I am watching football and while this has been amusing, I'm done entertaining you.

It's a shame so many people want to tear these companies apart.

- - - Updated - - -

What is it now, no taxes on income, and apparently, investments do not count as that.. Honestly, I can't recall what it was called, I just know that these names hardly have to pay tax because, on paper, they don't pull enough in.

So, what law?

Stocks are taxed upon sale, as it has been for a long, long time.

- - - Updated - - -

She literally doesn't, check the math that you didn't apparently want to do before making this patently incorrect claim.

I want to to make sure you acknowledge that she will be forced to break up the sole-ownership of her company, and sell it to outsiders, because she's successful.

Can you admit that?

[Bodakane]

Us: Its wrong the ultra wealthy use stocks and other investments to dodge income tax. That should be changed so they end up with actual salaries that can be taxed at a rate commiserate with the average American.

Trumpy Machisray: YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM PAY TAX ON THEIR STOCKS UNTIL THEY SELL THEM AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

US: Yes, we know, we are saying that is the problem, its a loophole that only the wealthiest of Americans can take advantage of to the degree they do.

Trumpy Machisray: DEFINE LOOPHOLE AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

US: The loophole is taking stocks and stakes in other investments instead of a real paycheck to avoid paying income tax.

Trumpy Machisray: YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM PAY TAX ON THEIR STOCKS UNTIL THEY SELL THEM AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

[Edge-]

So, is it her father's company? Nah, he died over 20 years ago. is it her grandfather's, because he founded it? Well, I would hope not, because that would have implications on your arguments about Zuck and Bezos.

I'm pointing out that your arguments rest on "THEY BUILT THIS!" when she, in fact, very much had no role in building the company of any sorts. She inherited it. That she's growing it is great and a credit to her, but your arguments don't work when you have someone that inherits a business they did not accept any risk in starting or have any role to play in the success of.

And in your math, it's in year 4 that she would be forced to sell part of her company, that she has a 100% stake in. It only took 4 years for you to tear it apart (drop below the market cap of the company).

Tear what apart? By year 6 she still retains around 70% of all stock, meaning she still controls the company completely.

Do you not understand how minority/majority shares work?

Edit: You realize when she sells the stock to pay the tax in this hypothetical...the stock still exists and retains its value, right? It doesn't "disappear" and lower the market cap.

Given enough time, she wouldn't even have a majority stake in her privately-owned company.

Not within 5-6 years as you claimed, which was a huge part of why I did the math that you didn't want to do.

Also, and again, this presumes she is not making any income or growing her wealth anywhere than that 100% of her net-worth is tied up in her companies stock. Which is pure, unadulterated fantasy of the highest order.

You do realize that increasing her wealthy doesn't change it, right? It means you tax her even more, and you take more of the company.... because that's where her wealth is tied to. The more successful she is, the faster you punish her.

It allows her to use other wealth channels to pay the tax without necessarily needing to even touch her In & Out stock, thanks for confirming that rich people aren't rich purely off of a single investment and that they can absolutely afford to pay wealth taxes without giving up ownership of a company as you claim.

[Machismo]

Us: Its wrong the ultra wealthy use stocks and other investments to dodge income tax. That should be changed so they end up with actual salaries that can be taxed at a rate commiserate with the average American.

Trumpy Machisray: YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM PAY TAX ON THEIR STOCKS UNTIL THEY SELL THEM AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

US: Yes, we know, we are saying that is the problem, its a loophole that only the wealthiest of Americans can take advantage of to the degree they do.

Trumpy Machisray: DEFINE LOOPHOLE AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

US: The loophole is taking stocks and stakes in other investments instead of a real paycheck to avoid paying income tax.

Trumpy Machisray: YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM PAY TAX ON THEIR STOCKS UNTIL THEY SELL THEM AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Here's the problem, you got caught lying about that very first part.

[Lochton]

So, what law?

Stocks are taxed upon sale, as it has been for a long, long time.

As I said, I just recall previous articles barely, and I recall that they were not required to hardly pay tax because on paper, their income is so low that christ, even Bozo could abuse the child support system to get help, yet the person sits on millions of outcome a year but does hardly pay taxes or support the society. They are not doing their part.

[Machismo]

I'm pointing out that your arguments rest on "THEY BUILT THIS!" when she, in fact, very much had no role in building the company of any sorts. She inherited it. That she's growing it is great and a credit to her, but your arguments don't work when you have someone that inherits a business they did not accept any risk in starting or have any role to play in the success of.



Tear what apart? By year 6 she still retains around 70% of all stock, meaning she still controls the company completely.

Do you not understand how minority/majority shares work?



Not within 5-6 years as you claimed, which was a huge part of why I did the math that you didn't want to do.

Also, and again, this presumes she is not making any income or growing her wealth anywhere than that 100% of her net-worth is tied up in her companies stock. Which is pure, unadulterated fantasy of the highest order.



It allows her to use other wealth channels to pay the tax without necessarily needing to even touch her In & Out stock, thanks for confirming that rich people aren't rich purely off of a single investment and that they can absolutely afford to pay wealth taxes without giving up ownership of a company as you claim.

So, is it her company, or not?

Let's get this settled, is it her company? If not, whose company is it?

So, what percentage will she own by year 40? She's only 40 years old, and has plenty of life left.

What exact "wealth channels" are you talking about? Are you talking about her other assets? Sorry, those went away in the first 3 years.

80% of her net worth is tied into the company, this was already covered.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said, I just recall previous articles barely, and I recall that they were not required to hardly pay tax because on paper, their income is so low that christ, even Bozo could abuse the child support system to get help, yet the person sits on millions of outcome a year but does hardly pay taxes or support the society. They are not doing their part.

And that's the problem, nobody can seem to point to these laws.

They are not required to pay taxes on that, because it's not income. It's only income when you sell the stock, just like the rest of us.

[Edge-]

So, is it her company, or not?

She owns it, but she did not create it. She did not "found" or "start" the company as you've pivoted towards in discussing others, so if we're being consistent let's use those consistent terms.

So, what percentage will she own by year 40? She's only 40 years old, and has plenty of life left.

I'm not gonna do 40 years of this, especially off the back of assuming 100% of her wealth is tied up in In & Out shares and that would be the only way she could pay a hypothetical wealth tax.

What exact "wealth channels" are you talking about? Are you talking about her other assets? Sorry, those went away in the first 3 years.

First three years? What? Does she not make income? Does she not have property? Does she not have other investments? Is she incapable of making other investments so that she can rely on those to pay for taxes if she wants to preserve 100% ownership of the company?

[Machismo]

She owns it, but she did not create it. She did not "found" or "start" the company as you've pivoted towards in discussing others, so if we're being consistent let's use those consistent terms.



I'm not gonna do 40 years of this, especially off the back of assuming 100% of her wealth is tied up in In & Out shares and that would be the only way she could pay a hypothetical wealth tax.



First three years? What? Does she not make income? Does she not have property? Does she not have other investments? Is she incapable of making other investments so that she can rely on those to pay for taxes if she wants to preserve 100% ownership of the company?

Whose company is it? She's literally the only "shareholder." Whose company is it?

I'll address the rest after you stop dodging.

[Lochton]

And that's the problem, nobody can seem to point to these laws.

They are not required to pay taxes on that, because it's not income. It's only income when you sell the stock, just like the rest of us.

But in the books of business, income is well, a flow of currency going to your account, whether it is cast-off from investment or sales.

I could understand the hardly non-existing tax if you had cut off their bank accounts and they had to live on what they had now for the rest of their lives, so no cast-off, no further income, no government support, or anything. That makes sense.

But what these names basically do is to go along with it because the system permits them, and by permitting them, you show that the big names don't really need to support the United State societies.

[Edge-]

Whose company is it?

Did you miss that in both of my posts I said she inherited and owns the company? What the fuck are you even on about other than apparently being persistent in showing that you don't even read the posts you're responding to?

[Machismo]

But in the books of business, income is well, a flow of currency going to your account, whether it is cast-off from investment or sales.

I could understand the hardly non-existing tax if you had cut off their bank accounts and they had to live on what they had now for the rest of their lives, so no cast-off, no further income, no government support, or anything. That makes sense.

But what these names basically do is to go along with it because the system permits them, and by permitting them, you show that the big names don't really need to support the United State societies.

That's the problem, people mention these "laws" but don't show those laws.

the issue is that they don't have very much liquidity in those "accounts" those accounts are simply stocks.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you miss that in both of my posts I said she inherited and owns the company? What the fuck are you even on about other than apparently being persistent in showing that you don't even read the posts you're responding to?

I want to you admit it's her company, or say whose company it is.

Then I'm going to address the rest. But, until you do that, I know you'll just dodge. You were harping about it not being Bezos' or Zuckerberg's companies, but what about her.

Is it her company? yes, or no

[Edge-]

I want to you admit it's her company, or say whose company it is.

She owns it, but she did not create it.

She inherited it.

You mean the company she inherited from her father/uncle?

Wat? Again, do you even bother reading posts before responding?