Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Elegiac]

Umm, the math disagrees with you, because you still haven't figured out the issue of liquidity

Math which is based on fictional numbers and fictional trends can disagree with me all it likes. You've not demonstrated your premises are rooted in reality, lol.

and that her taxes go up, as the value of her company goes up.

That's the idea behind progressive taxes, dude. Your income taxes also go up as the value of your income increases.

[Machismo]

Math which is based on fictional numbers and fictional trends can disagree with me all it likes. You've not demonstrated your premises are rooted in reality, lol.



That's the idea behind progressive taxes, dude. Your income taxes also go up as the value of your income increases.

Can you refute the math?

the numbers are real, because I used her net worth, the value of the company, and the proposal set forth by Warren.

I'll take any failure to address it as an admission that you cannot, and that you agree with the numbers provided.

Oh, and we're not talking about income, we're talking about the Warren wealth tax she is proposing. The link was provided.

[Elegiac]

Can you refute the math?

Yes. The fact that the rate is nowhere near high enough to put someone at a deficit if they have sources of income.

Your issue seems to be more that rich people will no longer be able to just passively sit there and "have" money and would have to continue to try and obtain income to meet their tax burden, which - boo hoo, welcome to the ranks of everyone else that owns a house.

And reminder that even if she were to lose half of her money today it would entail exactly fuck all in actual impact to her personal welfare. We're not exactly talking about taxing someone into destitution or homelessness, so you can put those comparisons away.

[Machismo]

Yes. The fact that the rate is nowhere near high enough to put someone at a deficit if they have sources of income.

Your issue seems to be more that rich people will no longer be able to just passively sit there and "have" money and would have to continue to try and obtain income to meet their tax burden, which - boo hoo, welcome to the ranks of everyone else that owns a house.

And reminder that even if she were to lose half of her money today it would entail exactly fuck all in actual impact to her personal welfare. We're not exactly talking about taxing someone into destitution or homelessness.

You cannot address the math, that's the problem. My guess is that you didn't even bother to look at the math.

Well, that's sad for you. Looks like my numbers stand. If Warren and Edge have their way, Lynsi Snyder loses control of her company in 17 years.

Do you support Warren's plan?

[Elegiac]

You cannot address the math

Fairly sure I just did. Not my problem you or rich people can't figure a way to translate pretend money into actual income to meet your tax burden. :shrug:

If Warren and Edge have their way, Lynsi Snyder loses control of her company in 17 years.

1) Only if she's a shitty capitalist and doesn't have sufficient real income to pay for the tax burden, which isn't our concern.

2) Who cares besides you and Lynsi Snyder? Lol.

Do you support Warren's plan?

Yes, wholeheartedly.

[Machismo]

Fairly sure I just did. Not my problem you or rich people can't figure a way to translate pretend money into actual income to meet your tax burden. shrug



1) Only if she's a shitty capitalist and doesn't have sufficient real income to pay for the tax burden, which isn't our concern.

2) Who cares besides you and Lynsi Snyder? Lol.



Yes, wholeheartedly.

Nope, the math disagrees with you.

Thank you for admitting you want to take her company from her, and force her to sell.

[Elegiac]

Nope, the math disagrees with you.

Nah, it doesn't. Sorry to you.

Thank you for admitting you want to take her company from her, and force her to sell.

Her incompetence would be taking her company from her. Which, again, is not our problem.

Why do you support propping up shitty business owners?

[Machismo]

Nah, it doesn't. Sorry to you.



Her incompetence would be taking her company from her. Which, again, is not our problem.

Why do you support propping up shitty business owners?

Great, refute my math with your own.

How long am I going to have to wait?

You want to force her to sell her business, because it's successful. That's why Warren's plan is so terrible.

You have one last chance to refute my math, with math of your own.

[Elegiac]

Great, refute my math with your own.

I did a few posts ago. If her business is actually as healthy and profitable as she claims then she should have no issue setting aside enough funds every year to meet her tax burden like every other corporation and human being.

You want to force her to sell her business, because it's successful.

No, I want her to pay higher tax. How she meets that burden is incidental.

[Machismo]

I did a few posts ago. If her business is actually as healthy and profitable as she claims then she should have no issue setting aside enough funds every year to meet her tax burden like every other corporation and human being.



No, I want her to pay higher tax. How she meets that burden is incidental.

You've shown no math.

the math is clear, it's an inevitability what would happen. Since you support it, you want to force her to sell off her company, piece by piece.

The numbers don't lie.

[Elegiac]

Since you support it, you want to force her to sell off her company, piece by piece.

Don't tell me what my argument is, lol.

The numbers don't lie, indeed - the proposed rates aren't high enough to negate the means of rich people to meet that burden unless rich people generate no real income to meet it.

That isn't a problem. Everyone would be at a tax deficit on their home (i.e. their wealth) if they have no income - you seem to want an exception for the wealthy.

[Machismo]

Don't tell me what my argument is, lol.

The math said it, where's your math?

Either you want to force her to sell her company, or you're too dumb to realize that's what you're supporting.

There really is no way around it.

[Elegiac]

The math said it, where's your math?

Where's your evidence that selling shares in her company is the ONLY way she's going to be able to meet that tax burden?

[Machismo]

Where's your evidence that selling shares are the ONLY way she's going to be able to meet that tax burden?

That was already provided, with the math.

You'd know that, if you had bothered to read.

Here's the problem, some of the people were smart enough to realize that the numbers weren't in their favor, so they just disappeared. Edge is an intelligent person, and I doubt he/she is going to try and assail those numbers, unless he/she can back it up.

I don't think you're capable of doing that, so you'll continue to shitpost.

[Elegiac]

That was already provided

Nah, it wasn't. "Well where else are they gonna get the money from? Just trust me" isn't evidence.

Are you gonna apologise for being a massive fuckin' hypocrite and telling other people what their arguments are, by the way?

[Machismo]

Nah, it wasn't. "Well where else are they gonna get the money from? Just trust me" isn't evidence.

Are you gonna apologise for being a massive fuckin' hypocrite and telling other people what their arguments are, by the way?

it starts right here.

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.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/ar...-16-8-million/

I do apologize for making your argument for you. I assumed you understood the math, and liked the idea of taking the company from her. It could be that you're not capable of understanding the numbers, and therefore, have no idea that's what the outcome would be. It may not be malice, it may just be overwhelming cognitive dissonance.

There, I apologized.

[Elegiac]

it starts right here.

Not seeing any evidence that the only way she'll be able to meet the burden is selling shares besides your insistence.

And even if it is, sucks to be her for not diversifying her income portfolio. Why is that our problem?

[Machismo]

Not seeing any evidence that the only way she'll be able to meet the burden is selling shares.

Once again, the math has been provided.

I have yet to see any of your math.

[Shadowferal]

. Are you gonna apologise for being a massive fuckin' hypocrite and telling other people what their arguments are, by the way?

How else can he change the narrative?

For amusement; The question libertarians just can't answer

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

[Machismo]

How else can he change the narrative?

For amusement; The question libertarians just can't answer

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

Can you refute the evidence and math provide?