Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

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.



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.



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

And as pointed out, that would mean Lynsi Snyder would be forced to sell In&Out Burger. To be clear, that is what you want to force, right?

I guess that makes all the people paying no income taxes, or less than the average... leeches.

You words.

As for what they pay, they pay a higher percentage of their income than the average person.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...ta-2020-update

[Endus]

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.

That's not an itemized and detailed list. Particularly as there are options beyond selling shares in the company, directly. Selling properties within the company, moving to a franchise model and selling franchises to current managers, all kinds of options you're unwilling to acknowledge.

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

You have not once, ever, made an actual argument as to why someone shouldn't be entitled to sell their ownership in a company to pay what they owe.

You've just said "but it's their company" or the equivalent, which isn't an argument, it's a demand we accept the position by fiat. And the only required response to that is "nah".

[Slant]

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.

That's not the point. He wants people to pay their dues. If they have to sell parts of their company to accomplish that, that is fine, but it's not the ultimate goal. Repeat what I just said in your own words so I know you understand it.

[Machismo]

That's not an itemized and detailed list. Particularly as there are options beyond selling shares in the company, directly. Selling properties within the company, moving to a franchise model and selling franchises to current managers, all kinds of options you're unwilling to acknowledge.



You have not once, ever, made an actual argument as to why someone shouldn't be entitled to sell their ownership in a company to pay what they owe.

You've just said "but it's their company" or the equivalent, which isn't an argument, it's a demand we accept the position by fiat. And the only required response to that is "nah".

You are moving goalposts. Do you want to know how much her clown figuring question is worth?

Let's see all of these options, I want the math.

Once again, I did... you just didn't care. Asked and answered.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not the point. He wants people to pay their dues. If they have to sell parts of their company to accomplish that, that is fine, but it's not the ultimate goal. Repeat what I just said in your own words so I know you understand it.

Once again, what are "their dues."

It's his argument, and I want a number.

Thanks for agreeing that this is all about forcing people to lose their companies. "They could just give it all away!!!"

[Endus]

You are moving goalposts. Do you want to know how much her clown figuring question is worth?

Let's see all of these options, I want the math.

No. I'm not jumping through arbitrary hoops you set. Particularly as you haven't "run the math", you made up some rough figures with no specifics. This is a complex bit of accounting and I wouldn't waste people's time making an effort without actual data to work from, which we don't have. That you chose to regardless is . . . not a mark in your favor.

Once again, I did... you just didn't care. Asked and answered.

If you really did, you could link to a post where you'd done so and refute me.

You can't, because you haven't.

Thanks for agreeing that this is all about forcing people to lose their companies. "They could just give it all away!!!"

No "forcing". You're inserting that based on nothing. If they can pay their obligations without losing ownership, they're free to do so. If we wanted to force them to lose ownership, there are far more direct ways to go about that.

And even then, "force" just literally means "the law exists and rich people have to abide by the law". You're using emotional language in place of a reasoned argument.

And if they can't retain ownership of their companies over time, so what? You still have never made an argument why that's even a problem.

[Machismo]

No. I'm not jumping through arbitrary hoops you set. Particularly as you haven't "run the math", you made up some rough figures with no specifics.



If you really did, you could link to a post where you'd done so and refute me.

You can't, because you haven't.

It's your argument. I don't expect you to jump through hoops, because I knew you wouldn't. I knew you wouldn't want to do the math, because it would reveal your true motives, which I already laid out

Asked, answered, provided, beaten dead.

[Slant]

Once again, what are "their dues."

It's his argument, and I want a number.

Thanks for agreeing that this is all about forcing people to lose their companies. "They could just give it all away!!!"

That number is exactly 12349834.2324 and two thirds.

I am making fun of you, btw. It's not the number. The number is "higher than now" and possibly "whatever is considered a fair contribution to society based on their wealth."

It's not about making them lose their companies. It's about making them contribute appropriately to society. The actual "how much" is up for debate, but it's certainly higher than it is now.

[omerome]

And as pointed out, that would mean Lynsi Snyder would be forced to sell In&Out Burger. To be clear, that is what you want to force, right?

I guess that makes all the people paying no income taxes, or less than the average... leeches.

Your words.

See now if you're insinuating that the poor are leeches when in fact they are most likely poor because of the exploitation from the rich and powerful, you don't understand the situation. Leeches mostly just suck the life out of something for its own benefit. How exactly are people in poverty who work two+ jobs (no benefits/part-time) and are still barely making ends meet equivalent to this? They are the ones whose lives are being sucked dry here. As for the case of anyone else, if they are not paying what they owe in the same way the Bezos and Musks are, then yes, they are leeches, too.

If Lynsi Snyder has to sell what she has to sell to pay what she owes, so be it. Why should it be any different than me, for example, emptying my savings account to pay my debts?

[Machismo]

That number is exactly 12349834.2324 and two thirds.

I am making fun of you, btw. It's not the number. The number is "higher than now" and possibly "whatever is considered a fair contribution to society based on their wealth."

It's not about making them lose their companies. It's about making them contribute appropriately to society. The actual "how much" is up for debate, but it's certainly higher than it is now.

And that's the problem, you guys don't want to deal with actual numbers.. because the actual numbers are a fucking nightmare. The actual numbers were given, and you guys can't defend them... only saying, "Fuck em."

You have called for taking their companies from them, multiple times.

They do contribute appropriately, just not as much s the socialists and communists want.

[Endus]

It's your argument. I don't expect you to jump through hoops, because I knew you wouldn't. I knew you wouldn't want to do the math, because it would reveal your true motives, which I already laid out

Asked, answered, provided, beaten dead.

All you've done about my "motives" is lie, unrepentingly and egregiously.

And you've never explained why rich people have to retain ownership in companies "or else".

[Machismo]

See now if you're insinuating that the poor are leeches when in fact they are most likely poor because of the exploitation from the rich and powerful, you don't understand the situation. Leeches mostly just suck the life out of something for their own benefit. How exactly are people in poverty who work two+ jobs (no benefits/part-time) and are still barely making ends meet equivalent to this? They are the ones whose lives are being sucked dry here. As for the case of anyone else, if they are not paying what they owe in the same way the Bezos and Musks are, then yes, they are leeches, too.

If Lynsi Snyder has to sell what she has to sell to pay what she owes, so be it. Why should it be any different than me, for example, emptying my savings account to pay my debts?

Once again, this is your argument. If you want to call people leeches, then at least be consistent in the methodology.

Thanks for making my point for me... let them sell their shit, so be it.

You want to push a ton of burden on them, then don't give a shit if it impacts their lives. So, how much more should we tax you?

[LvsRDeb]

That said government is trying to sell to the highest bidder

Yea, no.

That's some left wing boogey man in operation right there.

The current right wing UK government has pumped more money into the NHS than any government in history.

You know who HAS privatised the NHS most in the last 25 years though?

Left wing Labour has, that's who.

They can't manage the NHS properly, so they outsource everything to the private sector because they are incompetent fools.

[Machismo]

All you've done about my "motives" is lie, unrepentingly and egregiously.

And you've never explained why rich people have to retain ownership in companies "or else".

Nope, the math is on my side. You refuse to even deal with it.

Asked, answered, beaten dead. We have a hundred pages of it.

[Endus]

And that's the problem, you guys don't want to deal with actual numbers.. because the actual numbers are a fucking nightmare. The actual numbers were given, and you guys can't defend them... only saying, "Fuck em."

I asked you where I could find the actual numbers. You hand-waved and said they didn't matter. I'm the one asking for an itemized assessment of her net worth, so I have the basic actual numbers to operate from. I don't believe they're publicly available, but you sure seem to think you have them.

Don't lie and pretend we "don't want to deal with actual numbers", when I at least am asking you to provide those numbers, since I can't find them online and don't think they're even public information.

You have called for taking their companies from them, multiple times.

Not "taking their companies from them". "Letting them divest themselves of ownership in those companies to bay their tax obligations". Not the same thing.

They do contribute appropriately, just not as much s the socialists and communists want.

COMMIES!

That was a dumb argument in the '50s, McCarthy.

[Slant]

And that's the problem, you guys don't want to deal with actual numbers.. because the actual numbers are a fucking nightmare. The actual numbers were given, and you guys can't defend them... only saying, "Fuck em."

You have called for taking their companies from them, multiple times.

They do contribute appropriately, just not as much s the socialists and communists want.

Uh, buddy... WE can't even get to debating actual numbers, because you're not joined the discussion, yet. I'm very certain Endus' numbers would deviate from my numbers by possibly quite a lot. And why not? That's not what we're really interested in, we're interested in establishing... hey, why not tax their total wealth instead of just the annual income? To which degree? I don't know, we're not that far, yet. We're still discussing if we should do it.

Now, given your time wasting strategy for 100 pages or so, we're clear that you think taxing wealth of rich people is a stupid idea. But we'd still like you to join the conversation and say why. I mean, beyond "those poor rich people, they only exploit everyone and contribute to the destabilisation of society for personal gains, they do not deserve this extra attention!"

Which, honestly, is a fair point to have, just not one many here agree with.

[Specialka]

And that's the problem, you guys don't want to deal with actual numbers.. because the actual numbers are a fucking nightmare. The actual numbers were given, and you guys can't defend them... only saying, "Fuck em."

You have called for taking their companies from them, multiple times.

They do contribute appropriately, just not as much s the socialists and communists want.

Well, no, they do not. In proportion of their income and wealth, they are far from that.

[LvsRDeb]

All you've done about my "motives" is lie, unrepentingly and egregiously.

And you've never explained why rich people have to retain ownership in companies "or else".

That's some dumb debating right there.

The bigger question is why should ownership be transferred to those that didn't create or manage said business.

You just want the private sector to do all the work and the ownership of said work be transferred to public management.

You are a typical "do as i say, not as i do" baffoon type of person.

Little understanding of pragmatic approaches and probably work in a public sector bubble, or been a welfare recipient your whole life.

[Endus]

Nope, the math is on my side. You refuse to even deal with it.

Where you scrabbled some rough figures on a napkin?

Where you didn't even consider Snyder's income over the same period?

Your "math" was nonsense.

Asked, answered, beaten dead. We have a hundred pages of it.

Literally one post. That's all I'm asking. One post, where you actually explain it. Just link to a prior post, you don't have to repeat it.

I keep asking, you keep refusing. I have to assume it's because you can't, and know it.

[Machismo]

I asked you where I could find the actual numbers. You hand-waved and said they didn't matter. I'm the one asking for an itemized assessment of her net worth, so I have the basic actual numbers to operate from. I don't believe they're publicly available, but you sure seem to think you have them.

Don't lie and pretend we "don't want to deal with actual numbers", when I at least am asking you to provide those numbers, since I can't find them online and don't think they're even public information.



Not "taking their companies from them". "Letting them divest themselves of ownership in those companies to bay their tax obligations". Not the same thing.



COMMIES!

That was a dumb argument in the '50s, McCarthy.

I gave them to you, and provided them previously.

"Let them divest to pay what we are forcing them to pay" is taking their fucking companies from them.

That's no different than the government deciding they want to jack up your taxes, leading you to sell your biggest asset... your house. Well, they didn't take it from you, you just divested from ownership.

Once again, the avowed communists have called for just that. if you don't like it, take it up with the communists and socialists asking to do just that.

The numbers have been provided.

Enjoy!!!

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

[Slant]

Where you scrabbled some rough figures on a napkin?

Where you didn't even consider Snyder's income over the same period?

Your "math" was nonsense.



Literally one post. That's all I'm asking. One post, where you actually explain it. Just link to a prior post, you don't have to repeat it.

I keep asking, you keep refusing. I have to assume it's because you can't, and know it.

To be brutally fair, if you asked me to dig up one of my posts in this thread I'd refuse to do so because fuck if I know when I posted the exact thing you're asking for.

I would rewrite it, but that whole "quote" thing is not really feasible hehe.