Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[omerome]

They pay more than the average American does, based on their income.

They are paying "their fair share."

What is their "fair share"?

Someone who's worth 100 billion dollars paying and anything over a million dollars is WAY more money than someone who only makes 40K a year will probably see in their lifetime. But that doesn't mean the billionaire is paying their fair share; far from it.

[Slant]

You were the one making that goalpost about the bedrooms. I have no problem talking about In&Out.

I'm getting it just fine. You have no problem sacrificing what you know you will never have, so that you can take from others.

SO, how much more are you willing to pay of your wealth? 6% of your wealth a year, on top of what you already pay?

I wonder how far you think you'll get with this ad hominem. I mean, it's false and I actually don't give a fuck what you think about me, but do you actually think it would change anything about the argument? I'm no Bezos, I think that's not a secret. But yes, I absolutely think I can have an opinion on the matter, regardless of my personal wealth, which is none of your fucking business by the way, and I would appreciate you steering away from trying to pry personal information out of me. Maybe you can at least show that basic level of courtesy...

and I pay the appropriate amount of tax in my tax bracket, like everyone else. If I was above the "wealth level" that would be deemed so rich you'd go for wealth, yeah sure... I'm actually a sucker for following the rules and would gladly pay 6% of my wealth if that means I do my share for society and get the tax guys off my back. Actually, I probably wouldn't even notice, as my tax guy would do all that stuff anyway. Maybe I am already paying 6% of my wealth in tax. I just don't give enough of a fuck to deal with that shit. I have a life to live.

[omerome]

Don't please. Wealth worshippers will try to convince you of the opposite by lying, misrepresenting, deflecting, he'll mock, belittle, deride...

You're right. The sad thing about wealth worshipers is that they seem to think those super-rich people will somehow throw them a bone or something. Or simply with hard work and not luck, they too can be the next Bezos or Musk. And we know it's likely not going to happen.

[Endus]

No it isn't, you claim there are other ways, fucking prove it.

You're taking a general comment and applying it to a specific context.

I have no idea what proportion of Snyder's $3.6 billion net worth is specifically her ownership of In&Out. She could sell real estate, or art that she owns, stock she owns in other companies, and so on. For starters.

Even if she doesn't have enough among her other assets, why is selling stock in In&Out not an option, anyway? You still haven't made an argument for that.

[Machismo]

What is their "fair share"?

Someone who's worth 100 billion dollars paying and anything over a million dollars is WAY more money than someone who only makes 40K a year will probably see in their lifetime. But that doesn't mean the billionaire is paying their fair share; far from it.

Well, the government is saying they are paying their fair share.

What is "their fair share" to you?

We do know they are paying a higher percentage of their incomes than the average American.

- - - Updated - - -

You're taking a general comment and applying it to a specific context.

I have no idea what proportion of Snyder's $3.6 billion net worth is specifically her ownership of In&Out. She could sell real estate, or art that she owns, stock she owns in other companies, and so on. For starters.

Even if she doesn't have enough among her other assets, why is selling stock in In&Out not an option, anyway? You still haven't made an argument for that.

That's the point, you swear these things can be done, so do the work, and show it.

Otherwise, the math disagrees with you.

I have made that argument, you just don't care, because that IS EXACTLY WEHAT YOU WANT.

[Slant]

Well, the government is saying they are paying their fair share.

What is "their fair share" to you?

We do know they are paying a higher percentage of their incomes than the average American.

You know, we can change the definition of "fair share", right? Why can't we increase their share? Because it isn't fair? Well, I say it is. Now what, are you going to cry to mommy about how mean I am just changing the interpretation of fair? See how flexible this really is once you let lose of the current system and just imagine what it could be?

[Machismo]

You know, we can change the definition of "fair share", right? Why can't we increase their share? Because it isn't fair? Well, I say it is. Now what, are you going to cry to mommy about how mean I am just changing the interpretation of fair? See how flexible this really is once you let lose of the current system and just imagine what it could be?

great, I want to know HIS definition.

[Slant]

great, I want to know HIS definition.

What for? You're going to ignore or dismiss it anyway? Why force the new guy to put in the effort so you can pump out an ignorant one liner laughing at him?

[LvsRDeb]

Summary of Thread

Lefties - All rich people are greedy and should have wealth taken away until they are at the same level as poor people.

Righties - All poor people should be given the same opportunities to become as wealthy as rich people.


Does anyone else have anything to add or can we close thread?

[Shadowferal]

You're right. The sad thing about wealth worshipers is that they seem to think those super-rich people will somehow throw them a bone or something. Or simply with hard work and not luck, they too can be the next Bezos or Musk. And we know it's likely not going to happen.

Actually I believe he's one of them. One of those that will be affected by a wealth tax. That's the only reason why he was never interested in having a good argument...and convincing anyone.

[Endus]

That's the point, you swear these things can be done, so do the work, and show it.

Otherwise, the math disagrees with you.

Your napkin math just ignores that Snyder must own assets. At the very least, I saw articles about her $20m mansion. And I provided a suite of other potential assets. So that work's done, you're just ignoring it.

I have made that argument, you just don't care, because that IS EXACTLY WEHAT YOU WANT.

And now you're shouting.

You haven't made that argument. You just stamp your foot and insist it can't be allowed to happen, because reasons. You never explain why it's something that should be prevented.

[Machismo]

What for? You're going to ignore or dismiss it anyway? Why force the new guy to put in the effort so you can pump out an ignorant one liner laughing at him?

It's what he says he wants, so I want to know exactly what that means.

He called for them to pay their fair share, and I want to know exactly what he meant by that.

[LvsRDeb]

You could try getting your summary right, as a start, new account.

Leftist mentality ends with everyone being poor except for the one dictator tax collection benefactor.

That literally is the ultimate end game of looney lefty politics.

[Machismo]

Your napkin math just ignores that Snyder must own assets. At the very least, I saw articles about her $20m mansion. And I provided a suite of other potential assets. So that work's done, you're just ignoring it.



And now you're shouting.

You haven't made that argument. You just stamp your foot and insist it can't be allowed to happen, because reasons. You never explain why it's something that should be prevented.

It speaks about those assets, up to about $600 million.

That would be gone in 4 years. That math was already provided.

So, show me exactly how she keeps her company.

[Endus]

It speaks about those assets, up to about $600 million.

That would be gone in 4 years. That math was already provided.

So, show me exactly how she keeps her company.

You're presuming that she should "keep her company".

That's the bit of your argument you never rationalize.

If she can't pay her tax obligations any other way, I don't see why selling stock isn't an option.

[Slant]

It speaks about those assets, up to about $600 million.

That would be gone in 4 years. That math was already provided.

So, show me exactly how she keeps her company.

You seem to think we're saying they should be taxed until they're broke. This is you making up shit.

[Machismo]

You're presuming that she should "keep her company".

That's the bit of your argument you never rationalize.

If she can't pay her tax obligations any other way, I don't see why selling stock isn't an option.

You are playing to my argument about wanting to take her company away from her, and that being the entire intent behind all of this. You are making my point for me.

"Great, if she cannot get rid of the fetus any other way, I guess she'll have to keep it."

"If the minorities can't be bothered to jump through all those hoops, and wait in line for 8 hours to vote, then I guess they shouldn't vote."

[Zaktar]

Summary of Thread

Lefties - All rich people are greedy and should have wealth taken away until they are at the same level as poor people.

Righties - All poor people should be given the same opportunities to become as wealthy as rich people.


Does anyone else have anything to add or can we close thread?

Why close the thread? No one is making you read it, and the people involved are clearly interested in making the same points over and over again at each other. Frustrated by how thoroughly those rightwing points are getting knocked down?

[Endus]

You seem to think we're saying they should be taxed until they're broke. This is you making up shit.

It's in the term "wealth tax". It's like people who think moving to a higher income tax bracket means you lose after-tax income, because you'd be paying a higher percentage on all your income (not how tax brackets work).

[omerome]

Well, the government is saying they are paying their fair share.

What is "their fair share" to you?

We do know they are paying a higher percentage of their incomes than the average American.

Well clearly, our government is wrong and that's why this is being discussed so much.

I mean, many people in our government (local/federal) think that restricting voting rights for people of color is something worth moving forward on or still think that the previous resident of the White House only lost the election because it was stolen. The US government gets plenty of things wrong.

The issue here is, what you think is fair for the rich and powerful is clearly not. What they're paying for right now is simply not enough.

The right-wing loves to talk about deficits and how they want to balance the budget. Yet, they never talk about HOW. They want to reduce spending but shoot themselves in the foot by doing the very thing they were against (2017 Tax Cuts). Well, having the rich pay more than they currently are is ONE way for the Rs to actually have some credibility on something for once. But we all know why they won't. Because it directly affects their wallets. They don't want to be the ones responsible for fixing the mess they made. They just want to scream and complain while doing nothing and block anyone else from fixing it simply because it exposes their hypocrisy.