Originally Posted by
D3thray
I've explained stocks, the concept of leverage, some basic money theory concepts... that we're coming at this from different angles doesn't mean I haven't refuted what they've stated
Well, you haven't. A lot of your counter arguments don't hold up. The idea that you can't just sell stocks, for instance. That's just bafflingly wrong on its face.
The selling of millions of Amazon stocks to cover billions in a tax bill that is actually 20% larger than it appears on its face because it doesn't factor in capital gains... and they want to double capital gains... that doesn't have an effect on its valuation or anyone else who might own Amazon stock?
That depends.
Do you only see the value of stock as a tax-free play chit you can trade around with others to try and build wealth without having to pay taxes on it? Then I can see why you might have an issue with this, but your attitude is the exploitative problem that needs to be fixed; as a counter argument, this is kind of in the "laws against pedophilia make it harder for pedophiles to fuck 8 year olds" category of complaints. Yes. That's the intended outcome.
If you see the value of stock as an investment into the company and the ability to share in its profits? Not much change, really.
And given that we're talking about a wealth tax, this is only affecting the uber-rich to begin with. If that means a shift in stock trading to the average consumers rather than the uber-rich, how is that a negative, again?
see above, but multiply it by many companies at once and everyone else in the market knowing that too... not hard to imagine a crash...
If the stock market is a game played by the rich to make themselves all more rich at the expense of everyone else, then the stock market should crash, because it's an exploitative system which only serves the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
If it isn't, then I disagree it could turn out that way, and really don't see the argument.
I was under the impression that 25 was a small number of samples from a scientific stand-point, or am I wrong.
ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.
Yes, you're wrong. You wouldn't even have had to dig; that's the start of the third paragraph in.
Like I said; you're knee-jerking about an article regarding a study, and condemning its findings, and you didn't even read the article, let alone the study itself, to know if you actually had an argument first.