Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Shadowferal]

Nope, we established that the trump fascist authoritarian is you. The evidence has been provided. Enjoy!

He whined that Trump's tax cut weren't enough for him....

[Machismo]

He whined that Trump's tax cut weren't enough for him....

You whined that Biden beat Trump. You wanted Trump to win.

[Shadowferal]

Nah, he's gone full Machismo Taylor Greene and is now trying to equate taxing the rich with episodes of the Holocaust.

Well that sounds more...honest?
More in line with crazy and deranged but...

[Elegiac]

Well that sounds more...honest?
More in line with crazy and deranged but...

Pretty much. To boil it down:

Q: What happens if someone super wealthy needs liquid assets to pay for taxes, won't that force them to break up their companies or punish their success by having to sell shares off?
A: They can always keep the shares in-house by disbursing them to their employees in the unlikely event they have no other way of generating liquid funds for this specific model of a wealth tax.
Q: That is literally equivalent to ethnic cleansing.

:shrug:

[Shadowferal]

"Machismo Taylor Greene" that's...yeah that's going to linger.

[Machismo]

Holy shit, you really don’t know shit about Nazis either? I may have to expand my ignore list beyond zero…

Holy shit, my evidence has been provided.

[beanman12345]

"Machismo Taylor Greene" that's...yeah that's going to linger.

It's too good to be buried by the 200 posts in this thread he does tomorrow. So signature time.

[Mihalik]

I'm saying you're bitching that these people aren't being taxed on their stocks, then you clutch at pearls at the idea of stocks being taxed.

English. Do you speak it?

Progressive taxation. It's a thing.

Meanwhile, this plan... right here:

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

Would cause the sole owner of In&Out to start to sell part of her family-owned company, just to pay for the success of that family-owned company. In 17 years, she would lose majority share of that company she owned entirely, before Warren's plan were put in place. The simple reason is, she wouldn't have enough liquid assets to keep paying for the tax that Warren, and her ghoulish zealots want to force.

So, how do you justify that?

I don't actually need to. Because I know that's horsheshit. Let me clarify. I know that its exaggerated bullshit. The problem here is that you have Gish Galloped so far in this thread that I got to the junction where I'm no longer interested in actually going through that and finding out in which way your claims are complete horseshit. I actually might make an effort an look into it tomorrow.

But so far, every single thing you've said in this thread has been abysmally stupid.

I'll give you this much, you have managed to push out so much bullshit that you broke my will down.

But even without making any effort. Has it occured to you that her company could be wildly overvalued if she doesn't actually have a decent enough income stream from which to meet her tax obligations? And perhaps if the company's value would be adjusted to something representing reality and if her company had actually decent earnings she wouldn't have any issues paying that tax?

That has never occured to you, has it? Remember when in earlier post I told you about exaggerated stock valuations coupled with low earnings being incentivized by the current state of affairs?

How do you tell yourself that such an action is acceptable?

It wouldn't be. But I know for an absolute fact that you are either lying, misrepresenting something, or quoting some horrible dumbass cherry picked crap. Just as you did with the whole Mark Cuban shit.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out, I never said that the wealth tax on stocks should be 6%. You are very fixated on that number for some reason. I've said repeatedly that perhaps that number needs adjusting. Stop attacking a strawman.

[Machismo]

Screaming into the wind is fun for Trumpsters.

Yep, you cannot help the ignorant.

https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax/

https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-tax/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/b...x-economy.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/persp...ake/index.html

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...onomic-effects

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...h=4212651452ba

https://theweek.com/articles/878489/...s-worse-policy

[Zan15]

English. Do you speak it?

Progressive taxation. It's a thing.

I don't actually need to. Because I know that's horsheshit. Let me clarify. I know that its exaggerated bullshit. The problem here is that you have Gish Galloped so far in this thread that I got to the junction where I'm no longer interested in actually going through that and finding out in which way your claims are complete horseshit. I actually might make an effort an look into it tomorrow.

But so far, every single thing you've said in this thread has been abysmally stupid.

I'll give you this much, you have managed to push out so much bullshit that you broke my will down.


It wouldn't be. But I know for an absolute fact that you are either lying, misrepresenting something, or quoting some horrible dumbass cherry picked crap. Just as you did with the whole Mark Cuban shit.

Its odd how if you inherit your families house, like the sole owner of In&Out, you might have to sell it to afford property tax on the house that has been in the family for decades!!!!!

But its not ok that you might have to sell "some" of your shares to pay taxes. Paying a tax on your home even though you haven't sold it yet seems to be A-OK.


Besides the fact that the growth of wealth historically has always exceeded the amount of taxes expected/suggested under these plans so i am not sure how that poor sour owner of IN&Out would lose the company. Besides the fact that they could always borrow against the value of those shares at very insanely low interest rates and still not lose any shares/ownership in IN&Out.

Also since they are a private company we do not even know what amount of "dividends/payouts" per year are paid out to the owners. Could be way more than enough to pay any tax bill.

[Machismo]

English. Do you speak it?

Progressive taxation. It's a thing.



I don't actually need to. Because I know that's horsheshit. Let me clarify. I know that its exaggerated bullshit. The problem here is that you have Gish Galloped so far in this thread that I got to the junction where I'm no longer interested in actually going through that and finding out in which way your claims are complete horseshit. I actually might make an effort an look into it tomorrow.

But so far, every single thing you've said in this thread has been abysmally stupid.

I'll give you this much, you have managed to push out so much bullshit that you broke my will down.

But even without making any effort. Has it occured to you that her company could be wildly overvalued if she doesn't actually have a decent enough income stream from which to meet her tax obligations? And perhaps if the company's value would be adjusted to something representing reality and if her company had actually decent earnings she wouldn't have any issues paying that tax?

That has never occured to you, has it? Remember when in earlier post I told you about exaggerated stock valuations coupled with low earnings being incentivized by the current state of affairs?



It wouldn't be. But I know for an absolute fact that you are either lying, misrepresenting something, or quoting some horrible dumbass cherry picked crap. Just as you did with the whole Mark Cuban shit.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out, I never said that the wealth tax on stocks should be 6%. You are very fixated on that number for some reason. I've said repeatedly that perhaps that number needs adjusting. Stop attacking a strawman.

It's not exaggerated bullshit, i provided the fucking data and statistics. It's simply a matter of liquidity, specifically when most of these people are heavily linked to a single company. I pointed to Lynsi Snyder, because 80% of her net worth is with the company she owns, all by herself. If you take 4.3% from her total worth, per year, you will be cutting into that other 80%, which is her company, very quickly.

That's simply a statistical reality.

That is a shitty argument:

"Clearly, her company isn't that good, if we push heavy taxes on her, and she cannot pay it without selling her company."

Once again, that is a terrible fucking argument.

Her company has great earnings, sales of $900 million a year, of which she takes a relatively small cut. So, if you are going to tax her more heavily, that means she either sells her company, or pays her employees less. Mind you, this is a company that is famous for being great to their employees.

If you know for an absolute fact, then refute my evidence. Refute the data, and refute the math.

She's worth $3.6 billion, the company is estimated at $3 billion. Show me how she manages to keep her company with Warren's plan, which is 6% after $1billion, and 2% between $50-950 million. Oh, and the math is already done, she would lose half her company within 17 years.

Show me the numbers, how she can make it work. Mind you, she's 39 years old, so show me how she can stay the sole owner of her company for life.

I fucking dare you.

Warren's plan, for reference:

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

[Bodakane]

Its odd how if you inherit your families house, like the sole owner of In&Out, you might have to sell it to afford property tax on the house that has been in the family for decades!!!!!

But its not ok that you might have to sell "some" of your shares to pay taxes. Paying a tax on your home even though you haven't sold it yet seems to be A-OK.


Besides the fact that the growth of wealth historically has always exceeded the amount of taxes expected/suggested under these plans so i am not sure how that poor sour owner of IN&Out would lose the company. Besides the fact that they could always borrow against the value of those shares at very insanely low interest rates and still not lose any shares/ownership in IN&Out.

Also since they are a private company we do not even know what amount of "dividends/payouts" per year are paid out to the owners. Could be way more than enough to pay any tax bill.

Don't you understand that 14% of your yearly income instead of <1% equals 100% of your assets in the world of dipshits and wealth sycophancy?

[Machismo]

Its odd how if you inherit your families house, like the sole owner of In&Out, you might have to sell it to afford property tax on the house that has been in the family for decades!!!!!

But its not ok that you might have to sell "some" of your shares to pay taxes. Paying a tax on your home even though you haven't sold it yet seems to be A-OK.


Besides the fact that the growth of wealth historically has always exceeded the amount of taxes expected/suggested under these plans so i am not sure how that poor sour owner of IN&Out would lose the company. Besides the fact that they could always borrow against the value of those shares at very insanely low interest rates and still not lose any shares/ownership in IN&Out.

Also since they are a private company we do not even know what amount of "dividends/payouts" per year are paid out to the owners. Could be way more than enough to pay any tax bill.

You want to force someone to sell a company, because it's successful.

It's not about wealth growth, which is what you people cannot fucking figure out. It's about liquidity. If they don't have the liquidity, because it's tied up in their burger chain, then you are taxing them into selling that company. There really is no way around it, the math simply isn't viable to do it.

[D3thray]

One more time. I'm going to repeat this until you get it.



Did something break inside your brain? Or you just chose not to acknowledge the existence of the problem?

Loans are not free money. They have to be serviced. YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM BACK WITH REAL MONEY. Meaning you might sell some stocks and pay tax plus the interest on the loan. It’s not infinite free money you don’t understand how banking works. Yes you get to defer payment to a later date. I don’t see why when a billionaire takes out a loan it suddenly isn’t fair when everyone else does it all the time. You can take out a margin loan using your brokerage account too, nothing is stopping you.

[Machismo]

Don't you understand that 14% of your yearly income instead of <1% equals 100% of your assets in the world of dipshits and wealth sycophancy?

You don't even know what income is. We literally demonstrated that, when you swore that net worth was income, and that Bezos was paid stocks as part of his salary.

What are capital gains?

Yeah, dipshits and sycophants...

[Iliena]

You don't even know wat income is.

We literally demonstrated that, when you swore that net worth was income, and that Bezos was paid stocks as part of his salary.

Yeah, dipshits and sycophants...

The sun is getting real low big guy, go rest from carrying water for Billionaires all day.

[Mihalik]

Yep, you cannot help the ignorant.

I can spam articles and essays and books by economists who think the wealth tax is the greatest idea since the wheel. Like Edward Wolff, Joseph Stiglitz, Krugman, Thomas Picketty and on the list goes.

What is the point you are trying to make with that?

Is it another Gish Gallop where I'd have to write an essay refuting or offering counter arguments to same fucking horrible arguments you've been making, just written by people who are eloquent enough to lobby on behalf of billionaires?

[PC2]

So, if you are going to tax her more heavily, that means she either sells her company, or pays her employees less.

Show me the numbers, how she can make it work. Mind you, she's 39 years old, so show me how she can stay the sole owner of her company for life.

Okay but do progressives even care if she has to sell ownership of her business? It seems like they don't care and what you're describing is actually a bonus to the people who support high taxes and wealth taxes.

[Machismo]

The sun is getting real low big guy, go rest from carrying water for Billionaires all day.

I've provided the data, can you refute any of it, or are you just going to shitpost?

- - - Updated - - -

Okay but do progressives even care if she has to sell ownership of her business? It seems like they don't care and what you're describing is actually a bonus to the people who support high taxes and wealth taxes.

That's the point, I just want them to finally admit the goal, out in the open. Just like you Trumpsters had your goal, to push your fascist, shitty legislation long after he's gone.

- - - Updated - - -

I can spam articles and essays and books by economists who think the wealth tax is the greatest idea since the wheel. Like Edward Wolff, Joseph Stiglitz, Krugman, Thomas Picketty and on the list goes.

What is the point you are trying to make with that?

Is it another Gish Gallop where I'd have to write an essay refuting or offering counter arguments to same fucking horrible arguments you've been making, just written by people who are eloquent enough to lobby on behalf of billionaires?

Have you crunched those numbers yet, and can show me how she gets to keep all her company?

Nah, I didn't fucking think so.

[Mihalik]

Loans are not free money. They have to be serviced. YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM BACK WITH REAL MONEY. Meaning you might sell some stocks and pay tax plus the interest on the loan. It’s not infinite free money you don’t understand how banking works. Yes you get to defer payment to a later date. I don’t see why when a billionaire takes out a loan it suddenly isn’t fair when everyone else does it all the time. You can take out a margin loan using your brokerage account too, nothing is stopping you.

It is actually free money. Because paying off that debt allows you to write off your earnings. The actual cost of borrowing is the interest rate. Which for people like Bezos is almost effectively zero.

It's a tax dodge. For fuck sake.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you crunched those numbers yet, and can show me how she gets to keep all her company?

Nah, I didn't fucking think so.

I told you. I don't need to.

But even without making any effort. Has it occured to you that her company could be wildly overvalued if she doesn't actually have a decent enough income stream from which to meet her tax obligations? And perhaps if the company's value would be adjusted to something representing reality and if her company had actually decent earnings she wouldn't have any issues paying that tax?

That has never occured to you, has it? Remember when in earlier post I told you about exaggerated stock valuations coupled with low earnings being incentivized by the current state of affairs?

English. Do you speak it?

Also for emphasis because I know you'll fucking circle back to this one.

The 6% number is not set in stone. It's just a strawman you like bashing.