1. #2141
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That's the entire fucking point, you are taxing her on something that isn't a liquid asset, so coming up with that money, means liquidating it.
    Except you keep shifting goalposts. Nothing about liquidating stock ownership in a company necessitates bankrupting that company, or affecting its operations in any way whatsoever.

    So, shall I direct you to my very first post in the entire thread, or the bridge analogy?

    Both are appropriate. Sure, you didn't drown her, you just pushed her off the bridge, and told her to fly like an eagle.
    It's more like there's one kid with 100 Happy Meals for their lunch, in a class of 30, where the other kids have nothing. So we're going to give all the kids a Happy Meal.

    And you're claiming the fat kid's gonna starve with "only" 71 Happy Meals all to himself that lunch period.

    The problem with the bridge analogy is that the bridge analogy leads to someone dying. There's no such harm in a wealth tax. It's a misleading analogy. If you want to argue the fat kid is being "harmed" by "only" having 71 Happy Meals for lunch today, go nuts, you won't find many people buying what you're trying to sell when you frame it properly.

    Your math still shows one of the best-run companies in the entire fucking country, being forced to operate in the red, as a result of your actions. You forgot about all the other taxes you still support...
    This is false. Just objectively false, and I've already explained why.

    Corporate taxes cannot drive a company from running in the red to running in the black.

    Nothing about a wealth tax would force that either; the company isn't paying any wealth tax.

    So no; you're just observably, factually wrong on this.

    Now, imagine for one fucking second, if her company had even a single bad year.
    Like already happens, all the time? That's business. It happens. What's your point?


  2. #2142
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Except you keep shifting goalposts. Nothing about liquidating stock ownership in a company necessitates bankrupting that company, or affecting its operations in any way whatsoever.



    It's more like there's one kid with 100 Happy Meals for their lunch, in a class of 30, where the other kids have nothing. So we're going to give all the kids a Happy Meal.

    And you're claiming the fat kid's gonna starve with "only" 71 Happy Meals all to himself that lunch period.

    The problem with the bridge analogy is that the bridge analogy leads to someone dying. There's no such harm in a wealth tax. It's a misleading analogy. If you want to argue the fat kid is being "harmed" by "only" having 71 Happy Meals for lunch today, go nuts, you won't find many people buying what you're trying to sell when you frame it properly.



    This is false. Just objectively false, and I've already explained why.

    Corporate taxes cannot drive a company from running in the red to running in the black.

    Nothing about a wealth tax would force that either; the company isn't paying any wealth tax.

    So no; you're just observably, factually wrong on this.



    Like already happens, all the time? That's business. It happens. What's your point?
    I was literally pointing to you and your math. That money has to come from somewhere, or the government is going to be very unhappy. She either sells the company piece by piece, or runs it into the ground.

    That's what the math says.

    Your wealth tax is the issue, not taxes solely on profits. Your wealth tax is what fucks everything up.

    Or, you can show me where else she'll get that money. I'm still waiting. Remember, it was your idea to dig through literally all of her company's profits.

  3. #2143
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I was literally pointing to you and your math. That money has to come from somewhere, or the government is going to be very unhappy. She either sells the company piece by piece, or runs it into the ground.

    That's what the math says.
    It doesn't. I already showed she could pretty nearly afford it just between profits and salary alone, and we didn't even consider other sources of income.

    And even if she did have to divest a bit, you still haven't argued that's a bad thing. You act like it's awful, but never explain why that would be. You keep pretending that this is some great tragedy, but it isn't. It's a rich person who's ever so slightly less rich.

    Your wealth tax is the issue, not taxes solely on profits. Your wealth tax is what fucks everything up.
    Fucks what up?

    Her having less ownership is just how things go sometimes. It isn't an indication that anything's wrong. Are all public offers a demonstration of corporate failure, in your eyes, or something?

    Or, you can show me where else she'll get that money. I'm still waiting. Remember, it was your idea to dig through literally all of her company's profits.
    Asked and answered. Unlike you, I'll link to the post where I did so; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53233849


  4. #2144
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It doesn't. I already showed she could pretty nearly afford it just between profits and salary alone, and we didn't even consider other sources of income.

    And even if she did have to divest a bit, you still haven't argued that's a bad thing. You act like it's awful, but never explain why that would be. You keep pretending that this is some great tragedy, but it isn't. It's a rich person who's ever so slightly less rich.



    Fucks what up?

    Her having less ownership is just how things go sometimes. It isn't an indication that anything's wrong. Are all public offers a demonstration of corporate failure, in your eyes, or something?



    Asked and answered. Unlike you, I'll link to the post where I did so; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53233849
    And you showed that money... literally coming from the company (your argument). And, that tax, combined with the other taxes, is well over 100% of all the company's profits. The numbers are there. The last time I checked, 87.5 + 29.84 > 100. Your answer is to tax it at over 117% of the total.

    "It's just how things go"

    That's right... it is how things go, and since even you are aware of the math, that is EXACTLY how you want things to go.

    Why is it a bad thing that she's able to own her own company?

  5. #2145
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And you showed that money... literally coming from the company (your argument).
    In terms of profits, which become personal wealth. Stop conflating separate things.

    And, that tax, combined with the other taxes, is well over 100% of all the company's profits. The numbers are there. The last time I checked, 87.5 + 29.84 > 100. Your answer is to tax it at over 117% of the total.
    Am I supposed to know what those numbers represent? Seriously, none of those were in my breakdown, or yours, and I don't know what you're getting at.

    And you can't pretend to know what the taxes would be, unless you've literally seen Snyder's tax records.

    Why is it a bad thing that she's able to own her own company?
    Try framing it in a non-circular way. And don't ignore important details. "Why is it potentially a bad thing for one person to be the sole owner of a megacorporation that employs thousands?" There's a lot of obvious answers to that question, and we can start with "exploitation of her staff, who don't share in the profits they create".


  6. #2146
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    In terms of profits, which become personal wealth. Stop conflating separate things.



    Am I supposed to know what those numbers represent?

    And you can't pretend to know what the taxes would be, unless you've literally seen Snyder's tax records.



    Try framing it in a non-circular way. And don't ignore important details. "Why is it potentially a bad thing for one person to be the sole owner of a megacorporation that employs thousands?" There's a lot of obvious answers to that question, and we can start with "exploitation of her staff, who don't share in the profits they create".
    It's your argument, you tried to make it, the numbers don't work for you. You chose to conflate them.

    Those are the tax rates you want to impose via Warren's plan (you wanted to have it be paid by the profits of her company), as well as the corporate rates for the United States and California.

    Nah, you don't get to re-word my question. You can either answer it, or not. You chose to not answer it.

    Ironically, if she had shared more of her profits, she'd be even more screwed, as she'd have less profits to use to pay the tax bill you want to give her. That's some peak fucking irony right there, Endus, the guy who opposes the idea of being better to your employees.

    That's fucking classic. The better she is to her employees, and the more she shares with him, the more you are punishing her.

  7. #2147
    This is always like watching someone argue with the guy wearing tin foil and claiming the world is ending on the side walk.

  8. #2148
    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    This is always like watching someone argue with the guy wearing tin foil and claiming the world is ending on the side walk.
    Feel free to address all the evidence presented.

  9. #2149
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Feel free to address all the evidence presented.
    Why? You don't discuss in good faith. It's been laid out in excruciating detail over the course of the thread. It's kind of Endus to tie you up here so you have fewer resources available to go shit on other threads or do whatever damage you do to the world in real life, but we're not all willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

  10. #2150
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Feel free to address all the evidence presented.
    Thanks for going out of your way to show how correct I am.

    It’s been done so many times already and I don’t want to get crazy spittle on me.

  11. #2151
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaktar View Post
    Why? You don't discuss in good faith. It's been laid out in excruciating detail over the course of the thread. It's kind of Endus to tie you up here so you have fewer resources available to go shit on other threads or do whatever damage you do to the world in real life, but we're not all willing to make that kind of sacrifice.
    Except.. I'm the one with the evidence.

    Then, feel free to exit.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    Thanks for going out of your way to show how correct I am.

    It’s been done so many times already and I don’t want to get crazy spittle on me.
    The math is on my side, so I'm good.

  12. #2152
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The math is on my side, so I'm good.
    This is a lie and can be summarily dismissed.

  13. #2153
    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    This is a lie and can be summarily dismissed.
    Can you refute the math?

    Even Endus ended up mired in a shit storm of taxing at 117% of a well-run company's profits.

  14. #2154
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's your argument, you tried to make it, the numbers don't work for you. You chose to conflate them.
    You're just repurposing things I said that you don't understand, at this point. It's the "NO U" level of debate.

    Those are the tax rates you want to impose via Warren's plan (you wanted to have it be paid by the profits of her company), as well as the corporate rates for the United States and California.
    Where did I endorse Warren's plan, again?

    And you're ignoring how taxes function. Essentially no one pays straight taxes on the full gross. Neither corporate nor income taxes. You can't just skip exceptions and exclusions and all that.

    Nah, you don't get to re-word my question. You can either answer it, or not. You chose to not answer it.
    Because it was a circular, dishonest question. Asking it was an insult. It's right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"

    Ironically, if she had shared more of her profits, she'd be even more screwed, as she'd have less profits to use to pay the tax bill you want to give her. That's some peak fucking irony right there, Endus, the guy who opposes the idea of being better to your employees.
    Liar. That's all this is; an empty, mean-spirited lie. You're just baiting me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Except.. I'm the one with the evidence.
    Literally no evidence. Your math was incomplete, and your criticisms of my more complete math are insufficient, since you're ignoring the limitations I admitted we were stuck with, dealing with partial information.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Can you refute the math?

    Even Endus ended up mired in a shit storm of taxing at 117% of a well-run company's profits.
    Yeah, no I didn't. It was about taxing 2% of wealth over $50m, and 6% of over $1b. No "117%", which could only exist if tax breaks didn't exist. Which we know they do. See article in the OP. Hence the point of the thread.

    Edit: Oh, and the dishonest of conflating Snyder's personal taxes and her company's taxes. Oh, and that the seemingly-high percentage is because we're applying her total tax burden to one single income source, because doing so makes the numbers look scary and for no other reason.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-06-15 at 07:51 PM.


  15. #2155
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You're just repurposing things I said that you don't understand, at this point. It's the "NO U" level of debate.



    Where did I endorse Warren's plan, again?

    And you're ignoring how taxes function. Essentially no one pays straight taxes on the full gross. Neither corporate nor income taxes. You can't just skip exceptions and exclusions and all that.



    Because it was a circular, dishonest question. Asking it was an insult. It's right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"



    Liar. That's all this is; an empty, mean-spirited lie. You're just baiting me.



    Literally no evidence. Your math was incomplete, and your criticisms of my more complete math are insufficient, since you're ignoring the limitations I admitted we were stuck with, dealing with partial information.
    You are the one who pushed the argument to go after corporate profits to pay for it. YOUR ARGUMENT.

    We've been talking about Warren's plan. Feel free to oppose it, right now. I'll wait.

    It's not a mean-spirited lie, you wanted to go after the corporate profits, for her wealth tax. That was your fucking idea. SO, if she had shared more of her profits with her employees, she would be in a much wore position, according to your own argument. That's the most ironic part of this, the Warren plan PUNISHES those who are more honest, and more successful.

    Edit to your Edit: You are the one who chose to invoke corporate profits. Don't bitch at me, because I went after your evidence, and tore it apart.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-06-15 at 07:53 PM.

  16. #2156
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are the one who pushed the argument to go after corporate profits to pay for it. YOUR ARGUMENT.
    Literally not something I ever said. Why are you lying about super basic stuff?

    We've been talking about Warren's plan. Feel free to oppose it, right now. I'll wait.
    Why would I? You claimed I was endorsing it, which I wasn't. Entertaining it as a hypothetical is not an endorsement. There's a hell of a lot of room between "endorsement" and "opposition".

    It's not a mean-spirited lie, you wanted to go after the corporate profits, for her wealth tax. That was your fucking idea.
    Nope, that's a lie. I did not ever suggest going after corporate profits.

    I pointed out that she would have income from said profits, and that this is a revenue source she'd be using to pay her taxes. Like you do, with any income source, when you owe taxes.

    You have a real problem distinguishing between the individual and the corporation. It's weird.

    SO, if she had shared more of her profits with her employees, she would be in a much wore position, according to your own argument. That's the most ironic part of this, the Warren plan PUNISHES those who are more honest, and more successful.
    Except for the whole "wealth tax" bit. She'd have much less wealth, and thus not be facing nearly the same tax burden. Because she shared so much of that wealth with her staff.

    Literally how it works. I shouldn't have to explain it.

    Seriously, if you can't just honestly deal with a simple argument levied against you, you're just demonstrating that your position has no rational basis and nobody should consider it a reasonable option for consideration. I'm trying to help you.


  17. #2157
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Literally not something I ever said. Why are you lying about super basic stuff?



    Why would I? You claimed I was endorsing it, which I wasn't. Entertaining it as a hypothetical is not an endorsement. There's a hell of a lot of room between "endorsement" and "opposition".



    Nope, that's a lie. I did not ever suggest going after corporate profits.

    I pointed out that she would have income from said profits, and that this is a revenue source she'd be using to pay her taxes. Like you do, with any income source, when you owe taxes.

    You have a real problem distinguishing between the individual and the corporation. It's weird.


    Except for the whole "wealth tax" bit. She'd have much less wealth, and thus not be facing nearly the same tax burden. Because she shared so much of that wealth with her staff.

    Literally how it works. I shouldn't have to explain it.

    Seriously, if you can't just honestly deal with a simple argument levied against you, you're just demonstrating that your position has no rational basis and nobody should consider it a reasonable option for consideration. I'm trying to help you.
    You talked about their profits of 20% off sales of $1 billion.

    Are you having selective amnesia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I shouldn't entertain this, but I'm bored. So here we go.

    Assuming the highest implementation of Warren's wealth tax at 6%.
    Assuming the figure of $3.6 billion for Snyder's net worth is accurate.

    That would put Snyder's tax obligations at $156m at 6%, and $19m at 2%, for a total of $175m/year in wealth tax.

    In&Out's revenue in 2018 was about $1b. I'm using 2018 figures because I can't find more recent; they'd have grown since so this is underselling my point, if anything, as the valuation for net worth is current. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloeso...h=7a6c7b54b9cd

    Their profit margins are around 20%, according to this; http://mastersinvest.com/newblog/201...n-n-out-burger

    That means of that $1b in revenue, $200m was profit.

    And . . . $200m is more than $175m. Snyder already takes in enough in profits (of which she is the sole beneficiary, as the sole owner) to pay her wealth tax, and still be taking in millions. And we haven't gotten to her salary, her capital gains, or any other revenue generation she might be making outside In&Out (all of which were already included in her net worth, so we're just not including her gains, here).

    So she's still be making millions and In&Out would still be expanding just as quickly and she'd be paying her wealth tax just fine. See what happens when you start including a more-thorough assessment of her finances, and don't neglect to include her income streams?

    Before you say it, there'd be taxes on that income, sure. But we can't pre-emptively assess what shenanigans her accountants could work out to protect it from being taxed, as we saw in the article in the OP. Regardless, it wouldn't be anywhere near what you were claiming.
    Seriously, just stop lying.

    That "much less wealth" means less company.

  18. #2158
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You talked about their profits of 20% off sales of $1 billion.

    Are you having selective amnesia?
    Profits are paid out to shareholders. Those profits belong to Snyder, personally.

    So no, I'm not suffering "amnesia", I'm just capable of understanding when we're talking about Snyder, and when we're talking about In&Out, because those are two separate things without overlap.

    Seriously, just stop lying.

    That "much less wealth" means less company.
    It literally can't. How do you not understand corporate taxation?

    Corporate taxes apply to profits, not gross revenue. They cannot make a company struggle to do business or cut costs, by design.

    Lynsi Snyder is not In&Out. Why can't you tell the difference between the two? Snyder having less wealth does not mean anything regarding In&Out's business endeavours.


  19. #2159
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Profits are paid out to shareholders. Those profits belong to Snyder, personally.

    So no, I'm not suffering "amnesia", I'm just capable of understanding when we're talking about Snyder, and when we're talking about In&Out, because those are two separate things without overlap.



    It literally can't. How do you not understand corporate taxation?

    Corporate taxes apply to profits, not gross revenue. They cannot make a company struggle to do business or cut costs, by design.

    Lynsi Snyder is not In&Out. Why can't you tell the difference between the two?
    So, do you at least agree you invoked company profits.

    In&Out is entirely owned by her, and that comprises over 80% of her net worth.

    Now you get it?

  20. #2160
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, do you at least agree you invoked company profits.
    This isn't a magical incantation. I referenced them in the context of where Snyder had income coming from. You're the one who then started wildly misconstruing things from there.

    In&Out is entirely owned by her, and that comprises over 80% of her net worth.

    Now you get it?
    I get that you're conflating the two, and that doing so is completely unreasonable and, if Snyder tried that on tax forms, would get her charged with tax fraud and such.

    They're separate entities. You're trying to treat them as if they're a single thing, and that's not how anything works.

    A wealth tax on Snyder does not affect In&Out in any way whatsoever.

    Snyder choosing to divest some of her ownership in the company does not mean the company's operations change in any meaningful way, nor does it even mean Snyder has less control, automatically.

    Snyder is making a lot of money, and your earlier "math" completely ignored her income entirely while fearmongering about the impact a wealth tax would have.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •