Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Shadowferal]

He received paychecks of about $81k/yr. Either the stocks allowed him to take a small salary or being CEO of Amazon is worth only $81k/yr. If he didn't have the stocks, he either would have taken a larger paycheck or been compensated in another way. Since he had the stock, and new they wouldn't incur income tax, he opted for small paychecks.

I believe the real argument can be better shown by replacing Bezos with Trump.

[Endus]

So, how much more are you wiling to pay? That's right, this has no impact on you whatsoever. But, assuming you were an American, how much?

Or, is it just about making someone else pay more?

I'll answer questions once they're asked in good faith. You're still just engaging in "when did you stop beating your wife?" type dishonest bullshit, to try and attack my character rather than the point.

Because you can't back up your point rationally. This is all you've got, which is why you keep returning to the character-attack well.

[Shadowferal]

And every time you say this, you're lying. Deliberately, intentionally lying. You can't make your case, so you lie.

He has to. He's got to do all that he can to deflect against the fact that he's in complete agreement with the GOP. The question is why is he hiding that fact...

[Bodakane]

Of course it allows him to take a smaller paycheck, because he has other forms of income.

Not just other forms of income. Amazon income specifically.

So, if you know the owning of Amazon stocks, allows him to take less Amazon paychecks, then you finally fucking understand, the Amazon stocks are fucking compensation for his work at Amazon. Taking less income that is subject to income taxes by taking a large amount of income that isn't subject to income taxes is dodging income taxes. Therefore, he is not paying his fair share since he is dodging income tax.

You have been arguing that tax shelters work, when no one argued they didn't. All we;'ve been saying is that since these people can use tax shelters to higher degree than anyone else, they should be taxed more since using those tax shelters, allows them to pay less income tax than they should.

Nothing you say going forward changes this simple fact of life that everyone from this thread to the Wall Street Journal all agree on. Your next post will either be a lie, circular or narrow in semantics.

[Machismo]

I'll answer questions once they're asked in good faith. You're still just engaging in "when did you stop beating your wife?" type dishonest bullshit, to try and attack my character rather than the point.

Because you can't back up your point rationally. This is all you've got, which is why you keep returning to the character-attack well.

That dodge is my point. You have no problem standing up and saying other people should pay more. But, when you get challenges, you pretend to be the victim of a vicious attack.

I can, and have backed it up.

This has always been about people wanting others to pay for shit.

[Fugus]

Guys, just to give you an idea of what level of monster Machismo is arguing from.

Again, your ideology gets in the way of your ability to see reality.

Last house I lived in, I let someone stay with me for a bit and ended up kicking them out for bringing drugs to my house after I repeatedly warned them not to.

Well, after about a month, at about 1am, I saw some bug and moved the fridge to find they had split a huge amount of flower by my fridge and didn’t bother to clean up what was under it and when I moved it HUNDREDS of bugs scattered around the place.

Now, I don’t support Walmart but at 1:00am, my choices where to either go to them for bug sprays or deal with the now hundreds of bugs I just disturbed running though my whole house with children staying that night.

So I was FORCED to give business to a place I don’t support or risk the health hazards of leaving them on a child.

Then you got issues where your alternative to Walmart is an hour away or more or Amazon and a few days wait.

Stop being so ignorantly short sighted on this.

Also, I noticed how you ignored that last post showing how dividends weren’t taxed the same as income.

Link: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53372045

Was met with as a respond:

Machismo:The reality is that you are supporting them, whether you want to admit it, or not. If you give them money, and shop there, that is support.

No, you were not FORCED, that is simply not what the word means.

As for dividends, the only thing I have seen, is from Investopedia, and it says they are taxed as income. If you have something else that shows otherwise, I'm all for looking at it. I even said I wasn't sure, so correct me if I'm wrong.

https://www.fool.com/investing/stock...vidends-taxed/

Either way, it's got nothing to do with payrolls and SS at all.

Link: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53372053

He said I was choosing to support Walmart when the alternative was to endanger the health of a child.

Having the choice between endangering a child and giving Walmart business, he thinks willingly endangering a child is acceptable and to do otherwise to CHOOSE to support Walmart.

[Machismo]

Not just other forms of income. Amazon income specifically.

So, if you know the owning of Amazon stocks, allows him to take less Amazon paychecks, then you finally fucking understand, the Amazon stocks are fucking compensation for his work at Amazon. Taking less income that is subject to income taxes by taking a large amount of income that isn't subject to income taxes is dodging income taxes. Therefore, he is not paying his fair share since he is dodging income tax.

You have been arguing that tax shelters work, when no one argued they didn't. All we;'ve been saying is that since these people can use tax shelters to higher degree than anyone else, they should be taxed more since using those tax shelters, allows them to pay less income tax than they should.

Nothing you say going forward changes this simple fact of life that everyone from this thread to the Wall Street Journal all agree on. Your next post will either be a lie, circular or narrow in semantics.

Now, apply that to the Washington Post.

No, you don't understand, because you don't seem to know what an income is. I know this, because you still refuse to even say how much you think Bezos' income is.

And there you go with the "compensation" lie, again. At least you're not trying to call it a salary, so that goalpost is firmly moved.

So, if you cannot answer how much you think his income is, I will take it that you agree that his income is exactly what his tax records show, and you agree with Bezos himself.

[Mayhem]

I'm saying your plan is terrible.

Ok, why? What's terrible about it? She's paying fewer in taxes and her employees have a larger investment in the company growing. Which of these is terrible in your world?

"If she doesn't comply with these burdensome taxes I decided to force on her, she could always just give her company away!!!"

She doesn't need to give her company away, just divest and make more money, why is that a terrible approach in your world?

[Machismo]

Guys, just to give you an idea of what level of monster Machismo is arguing from.



Link: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53372045

Was met with as a respond:



Link: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53372053

He said I was choosing to support Walmart when the alternative was to endanger the health of a child.

Having the choice between endangering a child and giving Walmart business, he thinks willingly endangering a child is acceptable and to do otherwise to CHOOSE to support Walmart.

To confirm, I'm a monster, because your roommate left food out, and bugs got in your house? Or, am I monster, because I didn't bring bug killer to your house, because you had none on hand? Or, am I a monster, because I said you chose to go buy bug killer?

I want to know which aspect makes me a monster.

[Fugus]

To confirm, I'm a monster, because your roommate left food out, and bugs got in your house? Or, am I monster, because I didn't bring bug killer to your house, because you had none on hand? Or, am I a monster, because I said you chose to go buy bug killer?

No because you think endangering the health of a child is an viable option to giving Walmart business. Pretending that is a real choice and not one under duress which is the opposite of a choice.

[Machismo]

Ok, why? What's terrible about it? She's paying fewer in taxes and her employees have a larger investment in the company growing. Which of these is terrible in your world?



She doesn't need to give her company away, just divest and make more money, why is that a terrible approach in your world?

it's terrible, because it forces to sell the company she owns outright... because you want more of her money.

It's terrible, because it's selfish on your part.

It's terrible, because it directly attacks her freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

No because you think endangering the health of a child is an viable option to giving Walmart business. Pretending that is a real choice and not one under duress which is the opposite of a choice.

No, You had options. You could have had some fucking bug killer in your house.

I'm not a monster, because I'm not in your story. Don't blame me, because you feel guilty for supporting Wal-Mart.

[Mihalik]

No because you think endangering the health of a child is an viable option to giving Walmart business. Pretending that is a real choice and not one under duress which is the opposite of a choice.

This entire thread is 175 pages of people saying "billionaires need to stop using their billions to rig up a tax and financial system where they can perpetually avoid paying taxes", then Machismo coming in and saying if we even consider making the billionaires pay taxes, poor Lindsey Snyder (or the poor Waltons) will have to sell their entire business, Walmart will shut down and before we know what happened we are all starving to death in communist Gulags.

Then people waste another 25 pages explaining again how that's all hyperbolic bullshit despite the same thing having been already done roughly 7 to 10 times already.

To which Machismo will reply...What about Lindsey Snyder and the poor Waltons?

[Fugus]

No, You had options. You could have had some fucking bug killer in your house.

I'm not a monster, because I'm not in your story. Don't blame me, because you feel guilty for supporting Wal-Mart.

I had some, not enough to cover that. It wasn't a choice at that moment, it was endanger the kid or go to Walmart.

I blame you for acting like Monster and pretending that being put into a situation in duress where you HAVE to make that choice for the safety of a child is a legit actual choice and not just something you HAD to do because there was no real other option.

[Endus]

That dodge is my point. You have no problem standing up and saying other people should pay more. But, when you get challenges, you pretend to be the victim of a vicious attack.

There's no "dodge".

You're asking a bullshit, leading question, to attack my character, and I'm not playing your game.

[Mayhem]

it's terrible, because it forces to sell the company she owns outright... because you want more of her money.

I won't get any of her money. I'm not from the US, remember?

She doesn't need to sell the company. I thought you knew math and look at you stumbling again.

It's terrible, because it's selfish on your part.

It's terrible, because it directly attacks her freedom.

What freedom is directly attacked?

[Machismo]

I had some, not enough to cover that. It wasn't a choice at that moment, it was endanger the kid or go to Walmart.

I blame you for acting like Monster and pretending that being put into a situation in duress where you HAVE to make that choice for the safety of a child is a legit actual choice and not just something you HAD to do because there was no real other option.

So, your lack of planning, meant you felt compelled to go to Wal-Mart. Now, you couldn't go elsewhere, because it was in the middle of the night, and Wal-Mart is conveniently opened 24/7, something the average local hardware store doesn't do.

I'm not a monster, because you didn't have bug killer.

I'm not a monster, because you chose convenience.

- - - Updated - - -

There's no "dodge".

You're asking a bullshit, leading question, to attack my character, and I'm not playing your game.

It's a clear dodge, and shows you're not willing to pay more, just have others pay more.

[Themius]

This entire thread is 175 pages of people saying "billionaires need to stop using their billions to rig up a tax and financial system where they can perpetually avoid paying taxes", then Machismo coming in and saying if we even consider making the billionaires pay taxes, poor Lindsey Snyder (or the poor Waltons) will have to sell their entire business, Walmart will shut down and before we know what happened we are all starving to death in communist Gulags.

Then people waste another 25 pages explaining again how that's all hyperbolic bullshit despite the same thing having been already done roughly 7 to 10 times already.

To which Machismo will reply...What about Lindsey Snyder and the poor Waltons?

It is utterly hopeless isn’t it.

[Machismo]

I won't get any of her money. I'm not from the US, remember?

She doesn't need to sell the company. I thought you knew math and look at you stumbling again.







What freedom is directly attacked?

Which is even more absurd, because you have no skin in the game, at all.

For you, it's simply a matter of morbid sadism.

[Shadowferal]

This thread is a good reason for internet anonymity.

[Endus]

It's a clear dodge, and shows you're not willing to pay more, just have others pay more.

I mean, that's a lie. You have no basis for that. You're literally inventing it out of nothing but your desperate need to present me as immoral or some such thing.

We're discussing a wealth tax in the USA. I have no possibility of benefiting from that in any way. Which should have been obvious from the start.

Even in general terms, I've never suggested I'm unwilling to pay more than I am. I have, in fact, stated the opposite. But you can't accept the truth, so you lie.

Worse, we're talking about addressing societal imbalances, and presenting that as an individual issue is itself dishonest.

You're lying about me, because you can't address the point.