1. #1561
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Wat? Again, do you even bother reading posts before responding?
    God damn, you cannot fucking stop dodging.

    Fine, I'll take tat as an admission that you recognize it is her company.

    Now, since you agree that it is her company, as she is the sole owner of that company (a metric you laid down for Amazon not being Bezos' company, since he only owned a minority stake).

    By that recognition, it is her company.

    Since you wish to force her to sell part of her company every single year, it's literally only a matter of time that she loses out majority shareholder of that company. Seriously, it's simply a degrading asymptotic curve that ends just above 0%.

    By your own metric, you have just stated you want to take her company away from her.

    Well, there you have it.

    if she keeps the same ratio of assets to ownership of her company, She loses majority ownership in less than 20 years. It stops being HER COMPANY by the standard you set.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-06-11 at 07:38 PM.

  2. #1562
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I provided you with the fucking links to back up my fucking math.

    Can you refute the fucking math? Please, do so.

    So, let's look at Lynsi Snyder, she's worth $3.6 billion, with HER company amounting to over 80% of that. She is the sole owner of her company. She easily has 40 years of life left. 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?

    Here's a hint, it's about 5-6 years, at best.
    If her company coninues growing and she personally reaps benefits of that growth then she should be taxed you are arguing that taxes are unfair. A person who spends their entire career working a single job earning wages pay 30% in taxes when a person ownig a business only pay 3% in taxes?
    Last edited by Kryctos; 2021-06-11 at 07:41 PM.

  3. #1563
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Fine, I'll take tat as an admission that you recognize it is her company.
    Again, do you even read? Because I literally said she owns the company three separate times. Inheriting something means you own it dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Since you wish to force her to sell part of her company every single year
    Again, there's no requirement in a hypothetical wealth tax that they sell shares in their company. They can use money from anywhere, and no billionaire has 100% of their net-worth tied exclusively to their shares in their company.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    it's literally only a matter of time that she loses out majority shareholder of that company.
    In the nonsense hypothetical where she makes 0 income, has zero other investments and assets, and is relying 100% on her stock for her net-worth.

    i.e. pure fucking fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    By your own metric, you have just stated you want to take her company away from her.

    Well, there you have it.
    I'm not responsible for the fantasy world you create in your head. I've shown my work, show me how she'll be forced to sell her company, with math, and how she has/will have no additional assets or investments that could be used to pay a hypothetical 6% wealth tax without losing control of her company.

  4. #1564
    Quote Originally Posted by Kryctos View Post
    If her company coninues growing and she personally reaps benefits of that growth then she should be taxed
    She is taxed on her income.

    This is a tax that Warren wants to push, that is in addition to that income tax:

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

    and since 80%of her wealth is tied up in the company in which she's the sole owner, she'd have to sell some of that company, just to pay the wealth tax. In less than 20 years, she would be a minority owner, instead of the sole owner.

  5. #1565
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    In less than 20 years, she would be a minority owner, instead of the sole owner.
    Remember when it was "5-6 years"?

    Ah, those were the good old days, weren't they?

  6. #1566
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Again, do you even read? Because I literally said she owns the company three separate times. Inheriting something means you own it dude.



    Again, there's no requirement in a hypothetical wealth tax that they sell shares in their company. They can use money from anywhere, and no billionaire has 100% of their net-worth tied exclusively to their shares in their company.



    In the nonsense hypothetical where she makes 0 income, has zero other investments and assets, and is relying 100% on her stock for her net-worth.

    i.e. pure fucking fantasy.



    I'm not responsible for the fantasy world you create in your head. I've shown my work, show me how she'll be forced to sell her company, with math, and how she has/will have no additional assets or investments that could be used to pay a hypothetical 6% wealth tax without losing control of her company.
    You are ignoring the inevitable math of the matter, which was laid out for you.

    She has 80% of her net worth tied into her company, as was pointed out at the beginning. In just a few years, if she spent that other wealth and assets first, she's only have her company (and no house, she sold that to pay taxes on the company) in a few years. She has a total otf $600 million that is not tied up in her company. That includes houses, cars, other investments, her drag cars, and her doll Chucky doll collection. You did the math, how fast did she fly past $600 million?

    That's the shit you don't get, those other assets and income is gone, she had to sell it the first few years to avoid selling part of the company.

    This is why Warren's plan is not only economically idiotic, it's also fucking evil.

    But hey... eat the rich, amirite?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Remember when it was "5-6 years"?

    Ah, those were the good old days, weren't they?
    It's 5-6 years, is when she would be required to sell part of it, if she blew through all her other assets, first. That's taking into account that $2.6 billion is taxed at 6%, and $950 million at 1%. So, if she sells literally all her other shit, in 5-6 years, she's literally only got the company left... and still has to sell it... piece by piece. the first year alone means she has to pony up $165.5 million. That's more than 1/4 of her non-In&Out assets.

    This is what Warren's wealth tax plan calls for.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-06-11 at 07:48 PM.

  7. #1567
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    She has 80% of her net worth tied into her company, as was pointed out at the beginning.
    Will that 20% of her remaining net worth remains static for the rest of her life? It has to for your hypothetical to work.

    And that's not how reality works so...yeah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    In just a few years, if she spent that other wealth and assets first, she's only have her company (and no house, she sold that to pay taxes on the company) in a few years.
    Again, presuming she's incapable of increasing her income or wealth through other channels, which is pure fantasy.

  8. #1568
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Will that 20% of her remaining net worth remains static for the rest of her life? It has to for your hypothetical to work.

    And that's not how reality works so...yeah.



    Again, presuming she's incapable of increasing her income or wealth through other channels, which is pure fantasy.
    Like what channels, exactly?

    The math is not in your favor. Of the $600 million that isn't in In&Out, $165 million is gone in the first year alone. That means that in 4 years, it's right near that $600 million mark. So, either she gives up all her worldly possessions that are not In&Out, or she starts selling part of her company earlier. Either way, she's digging into her company by the time she hits 45 years old.

    Oh, and I did the math, assuming she maintains the same percentage of wealth, she loses majority ownership in 17 years, which makes her 56. If she gives up all her worldly possessions that are not her company, she loses majority ownership at 60. Here's the kicker, if her company is extra successful, it happens faster.

    Now, if you want to know how the math was done, it was this:

    First, I found the average percentage taken, which is 4.3% (the first billion is .95%, the second is 6%, the third is 6%). Take the average, and you have 4.31666%. Round it to 4.3.

    Second, just take that much out ever single year. Or, 100 (percentage of wealth, assuming a constant 80/20 split), and divide it by the amount taken out. 100/1.043. Now, the answer you get is the amount after one year. Just keep dividing by 1.043 as many times as it takes to get below 50%. That's your number of years it would be, before you have officially taken her company from her.


    According to you, that means it's no longer her company. So, by all reasonable logic., that means you want to forcefully take her company from her.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-06-11 at 08:06 PM.

  9. #1569
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Us: Its wrong that the ultra wealthy can use tax shelters and loopholes to pay less income tax.
    You: We can't expect them to pay income tax on the things they're using as tax shelters.
    No, I never stated that. Please find anything post where I state this. Someone asked what a tax shelter is. I stated what it is. Webster agrees with me.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../tax%20shelter
    a strategy, investment, or tax code provision that reduces tax liability
    I also stated multiple times in this thread that they need to change how stocks are taxed(remove capital gains outright). I've also stated that if someone gets stock as a form of compensation, they should be taxed at the time of receipt. I've also stated that they need to remove all deductions tied to taxes.

    But much like your car, house and other things you own, you do not pay taxes on it until you sell it. If it increases in value, you also pay capital gains taxes(except for the car unless it is used only for a business). If your house, stocks, example car, you can then deduct said loss.

    So, once again, and I am going to quote myself.

    Should someone have to pay an income tax on their house going up in value? Lets say someone has a $100k home they bought a few years back and it is now worth $200k. Should they have to pay an income tax just from it going up in value? I'm not talking about capital gains from selling it or property taxes. I'm talking about an income tax because its value went up as the person who owns it wealth went up.
    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ax-man-at-bay/
    "With a big enough spread between the actual performance and the IRS rate, a Jackie O. trust can save so much tax that it leaves a family richer than if it hadn’t given a dime to charity."

    I'm sure anyone can do this! Yep.
    Well, I know I talked about it before but one of the bigger changes that needs to be done is dealing with offshore accounts and trusts for charities. That is a continuing issue with Apple.

    https://itep.org/fact-sheet-apple-and-tax-avoidance/

    If you are a US business(or any business that does business with the US), any money you make within the country should be taxed at whatever current rate it is at in the US, no matter where you are headquartered at in the world or whatever country to decide to store it at. This is one of the larger issues with US businesses.

    On the subject of charities, any trust setup for charity should fully go to that charity. If it gains value, great, that also all goes to charity. The person that originally set it up shouldn't see a dime of it.
    Last edited by gondrin; 2021-06-11 at 08:21 PM.

  10. #1570
    The Undying Lochton's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FEEL THE WRATH OF MY SPANNER!!
    Posts
    37,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    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.
    Whelp, been snooping around, and apparently Bezo could, somehow, be permitted to make tax deductions on company expenses used by himself, not to mention that Amazon has used this heavily as well, among them also tax deductions on trading property, you can also get a tax deduction on future investments (such as the production of games, movies, and the likes), you can also get a tax deduction if you foresee your stocks dropping, not to mention the flat out deduction of 12000 dollars as the base, he apparently was also able to get tax credit after his divorce. Then there is a tax deduction of 10% of your healthcare, and a tax deduction of travel expenses,

    So, that is some of the things at least.

    Though, with his net worth, he shouldn't even be permitted half of those deductions.
    FOMO: "Fear Of Missing Out", also commonly known as people with a mental issue of managing time and activities, many expecting others to fit into their schedule so they don't miss out on things to come. If FOMO becomes a problem for you, do seek help, it can be a very unhealthy lifestyle..

  11. #1571
    Quote Originally Posted by Gehco View Post
    Whelp, been snooping around, and apparently Bezo was, somehow, permitted to make tax deductions on company expenses used by himself, not to mention that Amazon has used this heavily as well, among them also tax deductions on trading property, you can also get a tax deduction on future investments (such as the production of games, movies, and the likes), you can also get a tax deduction if you foresee your stocks dropping, not to mention the flat out deduction of 12000 dollars as the base, he apparently was also able to get tax credit after his divorce. Then there is a tax deduction of 10% of your healthcare, and a tax deduction of travel expenses,

    So, that is some of the things at least.

    Though, with his net worth, he shouldn't even be permitted half of those deductions.
    Do you have a citation for all of this?

  12. #1572
    The Undying Lochton's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FEEL THE WRATH OF MY SPANNER!!
    Posts
    37,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Do you have a citation for all of this?
    Those are some of the many deductibles within the US Tax law.
    FOMO: "Fear Of Missing Out", also commonly known as people with a mental issue of managing time and activities, many expecting others to fit into their schedule so they don't miss out on things to come. If FOMO becomes a problem for you, do seek help, it can be a very unhealthy lifestyle..

  13. #1573
    Quote Originally Posted by Gehco View Post
    Those are some of the many deductibles within the US Tax law.
    So, where exactly did you get this information?

    Do you have a link?

    It's not that I don't trust you, but I've seen far too many people in this thread who wanted me to take them at their word, and they were lying, or simply reading wrong.

  14. #1574
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Like what channels, exactly?

    The math is not in your favor. Of the $600 million that isn't in In&Out, $165 million is gone in the first year alone.
    Okay. So what?

    If she can't run her company profitably enough to retain control of it, it's not anyone's problem but herself. It's not like she's at risk of destitution or even hardship if she doesn't get to run a business, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  15. #1575
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Okay. So what?

    If she can't run her company profitably enough to retain control of it, it's not anyone's problem but herself.
    That's the problem, the better she runs her company, the faster she'd lose it.

    Because that plan is fucking evil.

  16. #1576
    The Undying Lochton's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FEEL THE WRATH OF MY SPANNER!!
    Posts
    37,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, where exactly did you get this information?

    Do you have a link?

    It's not that I don't trust you, but I've seen far too many people in this thread who wanted me to take them at their word, and they were lying, or simply reading wrong.
    I've had to go through a few Wiki's as well because many of the US government website layouts are atrocious.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income..._United_States
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxati..._United_States
    https://www.irs.gov/
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/income_tax
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-deduction.asp
    FOMO: "Fear Of Missing Out", also commonly known as people with a mental issue of managing time and activities, many expecting others to fit into their schedule so they don't miss out on things to come. If FOMO becomes a problem for you, do seek help, it can be a very unhealthy lifestyle..

  17. #1577
    Ummm, you cited specific laws...

    Everyone has deductions, they can either itemize, or do the standard deduction. I'm not saying deductions don't exist, I'm questioning those specific deductions you mentioned, particularly your wording of them.

  18. #1578
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That's the problem, the better she runs her company, the faster she'd lose it.
    No? It's' not mathematically possible unless the tax rate outweighs the net gains, which you've yet to prove beyond a slippery slope fallacy.

    And again: it's not our problem she's a shitty business owner and can't meet the minimum operating costs of doing business, which includes taxes. Living is a right, owning a business is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  19. #1579
    The Undying Lochton's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FEEL THE WRATH OF MY SPANNER!!
    Posts
    37,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Ummm, you cited specific laws...

    Everyone has deductions, they can either itemize, or do the standard deduction. I'm not saying deductions don't exist, I'm questioning those specific deductions you mentioned, particularly your wording of them.
    I cited specific deductions that people can get. I cannot, as I'm not the top 25 wealthy people in the US, see if they pick itemized or standard.
    FOMO: "Fear Of Missing Out", also commonly known as people with a mental issue of managing time and activities, many expecting others to fit into their schedule so they don't miss out on things to come. If FOMO becomes a problem for you, do seek help, it can be a very unhealthy lifestyle..

  20. #1580
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    No? It's' not mathematically possible unless the tax rate outweighs the net gains, which you've yet to prove beyond a slippery slope fallacy.

    And again: it's not our problem she's a shitty business owner and can't meet the minimum operating costs of doing business, which includes taxes.
    Umm, the math disagrees with you, because you still haven't figured out the issue of liquidity, and that her taxes go up, as the value of her company goes up.

    The math was laid out for you. If you can refute the math, I wish you luck.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gehco View Post
    I cited specific deductions that people can get. I cannot, as I'm not the top 25 wealthy people in the US, see if they pick itemized or standard.
    Once again, did you just know those off the top of your head, or did you get them somewhere?

    You said you were snooping around, so what site were you snooping on? You literally just found it, but cannot provide it. None of those sites mention Bezos.

Posting Permissions

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