Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[LvsRDeb]

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 seem to assume that private sector companies shouldn't be eligible for Government assistance.

How about we stop using tax revenue to pay public sector teachers and let them survive without Government assistance aswell?

How's about that hmmm?

[Machismo]

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

I provided the math, can you refute it?

[Bodakane]

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?

That’s not even a remotely accurate description of this thread.

[Shadowferal]

I’m not convinced he’s wealthy in any way shape or form. He just wishes he was and thinks the wealthy deserve to control society.

That'd make him delusional, as he believes that Trump's tax cuts should have been larger. And spending cuts against programs that the poor, disabled, and elderly use should have been enacted to pay for them.

[Endus]

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.

You're confusing "wants to take her company away from her" with my actual position, which is "is completely fine if she has to divest herself of ownership stakes".

"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."

I'm not responding to this lying bullshit further. I've explained how you're being dishonest, and that's all the response it deserves.

[LvsRDeb]

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?

No.

Left wing echo chamber will always fight to steal as much tax payers money as possible.

It's totally and utterly predictable.

Thankfully, i live in a country where we don't have a left wing Government that does that.

[Machismo]

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.

So, what exactly is "their fair share?"

You wanted to introduce it, so do you have a number in mind?

[Shadowferal]

Thankfully, i live in a country where we don't have a left wing Government that does that.

What country might that be?

[Machismo]

You're confusing "wants to take her company away from her" with my actual position, which is "is completely fine if she has to divest herself of ownership stakes".



I'm not responding to this lying bullshit further. I've explained how you're being dishonest, and that's all the response it deserves.

So, you spoke of other alternatives, show me the math on how she can do it.

If you force someone off a bridge, you are killing her. If your only argument is... well, she could have flown away, then it's not a good one.

So, let me know when you an show how she can do anything else.

How long am I going to need to wait?

[LvsRDeb]

What country might that be?

United Kingdom.

Where we have a right wing Government AND a socialised health care system which is a great combination.

[Slant]

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

Ha! Well said! And brave, too.

- - - Updated - - -

I provided the math, can you refute it?

What, why would I refute you making up shit? It doesn't stand on its own merit, because it's idiotic. I see no reason to refute anything. Rofl

[Endus]

So, you spoke of other alternatives, show me the math on how she can do it.

Asked and answered. I didn't provide math because it's not a mathematical question.

Neither of us has a full breakdown of Snyder's net worth, anyway. Your napkin math was wrong because you presumed her only asset was In&Out, which is categorically false.

If you force someone off a bridge, you are killing her. If your only argument is... well, she could have flown away, then it's not a good one.

Forcing someone to jump off a bridge is harmful.

Expecting a rich person to pay their taxes is not harmful.

Comparing the former to the latter is dishonest.

[Muzjhath]

United Kingdom.

Where we have a right wing Government AND a socialised health care system which is a great combination.

That said government is trying to sell to the highest bidder

[Machismo]

Asked and answered. I didn't provide math because it's not a mathematical question.

Neither of us has a full breakdown of Snyder's net worth, anyway. Your napkin math was wrong because you presumed her only asset was In&Out, which is categorically false.



Forcing someone to jump off a bridge is harmful.

Expecting a rich person to pay their taxes is not harmful.

Comparing the former to the latter is dishonest.

it is a mathematical question, which is the entire point. You cannot do it, because you're smart enough to know the math, and you don't want to be caught lying.

I'll take that as an admission you cannot do it.

[Endus]

it is a mathematical question, which is the entire point. You cannot do it, because you're smart enough to know the math, and you don't want to be caught lying.

I'll take that as an admission you cannot do it.

Do you have a detailed and itemized breakdown of Snyder's full net worth handy?

Because it's a question that's literally impossible to answer, mathematically, without such a breakdown.

I can do it, given the necessary data points. Neither of us have them. I'm just not the one trying to pretend my napkin math based on assumptions is somehow a concrete argument.

It's also pointless, since even if she would have to sell ownership shares in her company, that's not a problem to be protesting about in the first place, so you're asking me to justify how she wouldn't have to do a totally normal thing that wouldn't be objectionable if she did choose to do it. Maybe she would. I've always said that. You've never explained why that's a problem. Never even made an effort.

[Machismo]

Do you have a detailed and itemized breakdown of Snyder's full net worth handy?

Because it's a question that's literally impossible to answer, mathematically, without such a breakdown.

I can do it, given the necessary data points. Neither of us have them. I'm just not the one trying to pretend my napkin math based on assumptions is somehow a concrete argument.

It's also pointless, since even if she would have to sell ownership shares in her company, that's not a problem to be protesting about in the first place, so you're asking me to justify how she wouldn't have to do a totally normal thing that wouldn't be objectionable if she did choose to do it. Maybe she would. I've always said that. You've never explained why that's a problem. Never even made an effort.

It was provided, $3 billion estimated value of the company, $3.6 billion net assets for her.

You have Warren's plan, which taxes at 2% from $50million- $1 billion, and 6% above that, annually.

So, let's see all those other options.

I have stated why, you just don't care.

- - - Updated - - -

I’m not convinced he’s wealthy in any way shape or form. He just wishes he was and thinks the wealthy deserve to control society.

I never said I was wealthy

[Shadowferal]

I mean, he wants to privatize all infrastructure… It’s clear he hasn’t thought any of this through.

And yet you'd think the energy companies in his home state of TX might have clued him in. But nope. "It's all California's fault!"

[Slant]

It was provided, $3 billion estimated value of the company, $3.6 billion net assets for her.

You have Warren's plan, which taxes at 2% from $50million- $1 billion, and 6% above that, annually.

So, let's see all those other options.

I have stated why, you just don't care.

Read this:

It's also pointless, since even if she would have to sell ownership shares in her company, that's not a problem to be protesting about in the first place, so you're asking me to justify how she wouldn't have to do a totally normal thing that wouldn't be objectionable if she did choose to do it. Maybe she would. I've always said that. You've never explained why that's a problem. Never even made an effort.

That's what Endus said. Respond to it.

[Machismo]

And yet you'd think the energy companies in his home state of TX might have clued him in. But nope. "It's all California's fault!"

Where the fuck did you ever get that Texas is my home state?

- - - Updated - - -

Read this:



That's what Endus said. Respond to it.

I did, it means that if there's no other options, that is exactly what he wants.... so there's no point in denying it.

He wans to force people to sell their companies.

Glad you finally agree with that assertion.

[omerome]

So, what exactly is "their fair share?"

You wanted to introduce it, so do you have a number in mind?

Clearly based on the first few paragraphs of the article this thread about is obvious that they are NOT paying their fair share. And besides, I literally asked you this question already and you didn't give me an answer. But at this point, I think I know why.

In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.

Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.

Proposals like what Warren or Sanders came up with already are good starting points because they address the issues of the rising wealth gap. How is it fair that these super wealthy people can get away with paying nothing? Based on the evidence presented in the article, that literally sounds like they're the definition of a leech in which the [someone] is the government or tax payer.

A leech is also a person who gets money or support from someone, giving little or nothing in return.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/.../english/leech