Joe Biden 2021

[Longhorn_Fan68 33695]

DC is clearly not a student of history. ~40 years things were drastically different and there was not the wealth disparity we see today. What happened? Trickle-down bullshit lies. 40+ years of bleeding the middle class dry and blaming it on the poor. All to make less than 1000 people infinitely richer. He is right about one thing: it may take bloodshed for things to change, but it's not going to be the workers that change, it'll be the CEO's - minus their heads. In reality, though, it's exceptionally naive to claim that nothing short of revolution can change the status quo. again, that's just what the elites want us to think. They don't want the general masses to know that companies can succeed by paying workers more and CEO's less. 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You've never heard of the poverty level?  It's a thing.  Although it addresses income, it's pretty useful inasmuch as anyone living near the poverty level tends to not have much in the way of valuable assets.

EDIT:  tantric edged me out at the finish line

wait, tantric is an edge lord?

[DonkeyCigars 144]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You've never heard of the poverty level?  It's a thing.  Although it addresses income, it's pretty useful inasmuch as anyone living near the poverty level tends to not have much in the way of valuable assets.

EDIT:  tantric edged me out at the finish line

He’s advocating for a “this is how much it costs to live” number that should inform a cap on how much one can have. That’s oranges to the poverty baseline apples.

Unless he saying take the poverty level and triple it and that should be good enough for most people, or something equally stupid.

Edited October 28, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 144]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

DC is clearly not a student of history. ~40 years things were drastically different and there was not the wealth disparity we see today. What happened? Trickle-down bullshit lies. 40+ years of bleeding the middle class dry and blaming it on the poor. All to make less than 1000 people infinitely richer. He is right about one thing: it may take bloodshed for things to change, but it's not going to be the workers that change, it'll be the CEO's - minus their heads. In reality, though, it's exceptionally naive to claim that nothing short of revolution can change the status quo. again, that's just what the elites want us to think. They don't want the general masses to know that companies can succeed by paying workers more and CEO's less. 

wait, tantric is an edge lord?

Tell me again how we could pass a law tomorrow to have trillion dollar companies that don’t result in billionaires (or govt confiscating businesses). Remember that was such an easy and obvious answer that you scoffed at it, but then forgot to address and answer it, so I thought I’d remind you.

Edited October 28, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[tantric superman 4667]

I'll admit, I just made a comment based on one post, but is anyone arguing that there should be a "cap on earnings or potential"?  Because that is not what a progressive tax system does.  And if anyone is arguing we should go beyond taxing a fraction, rather than the whole, of "earnings", well I am against that.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

I'll admit, I just made a comment based on one post, but is anyone arguing that there should be a "cap on earnings or potential"?  Because that is not what a progressive tax system does.  And if anyone is arguing we should go beyond taxing a fraction, rather than the whole, of "earnings", well I am against that.

Yes judge Roy beans and longhorn. It’s probably pretty dumb of me to even have addressed it because the premises are really ignorant if not romantic.

Edited October 28, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Longhorn_Fan68 33695]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

Yes judge Roy beans and longhorn. It’s probably pretty dumb of me to even have addressed it

first truth you've posted lately

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

first truth you've posted lately

Lol can’t answer the question and won’t admit you are wrong. Real big man you are.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Yes judge Roy beans and longhorn. It’s probably pretty dumb of me to even have addressed it because the premises are really ignorant if not romantic.

OK mea culpa, I don't thing you're a troll, but I do wholeheartedly think you're misguided. Tell me, what benifits do the the wealth disparity pay?   Sending captain kirk to space?  Looking at Kim Kardashian's fat ass?  I fail to see the benefit of the wealth concentration, forgive me, and I think maybe it could be better served by providing healthcare to the vast majority of Americans (USA USA!) and maybe, just fucking maybe, doing something for the huge portion of mentally ill in society.  Oh, you don't want help?

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

OK mea culpa, I don't thing you're a troll, but I do wholeheartedly think you're misguided. Tell me, what benifits do the the wealth disparity pay?   Sending captain kirk to space?  Looking at Kim Kardashian's fat ass?  I fail to see the benefit of the wealth concentration, forgive me, and I think maybe it could be better served by providing healthcare to the vast majority of Americans (USA USA!) and maybe, just fucking maybe, doing something for the huge portion of mentally ill in society.  Oh, you don't want help?

I'm not your enemy here; I'm good with taxing billionaires to fund things like health. I just think taxing people at $2m or $5m net worth (your first posts) is a huge overreaction and overcorrection and woefully ignorant, but I can see the good-heartedness and intentions (thus why I said you are a romantic).

[jimmyjazz 45055]

How much personal wealth exists above the billionaire line?  It might be nice to get a feel for what level of "property" tax would be needed to actually accumulate meaningful revenue.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I'm not your enemy here; I'm good with taxing billionaires to fund things like health. I just think taxing people at $2m or $5m net worth (your first posts) is a huge overreaction and overcorrection and woefully ignorant, but I can see the good-heartedness and intentions (thus why I said you are a romantic).

Why?   Why do you think taxing is bad?   Us poors get the shit taxed out of us.  Sales tax, income tax, property tax, on and on.  Yet If I'm a wealthy dude, I can evade the fuck out of it and my relative tax rate is jack shit.

['stache 21490]

[Longhorn_Fan68 33695]

10 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Lol can’t answer the question and won’t admit you are wrong. Real big man you are.

actually, I am well endowed, thanks for noticing

sorry man, I'm not gonna play your games and answer your stupid what-ifs. if you don't understand how a company can be profitable and successful and not pay their CEO 350x the median worker (20:1 in 1978, btw) or avoid taxes altogether and pad the pockets of their board, well, then I literally cannot help you. I'm not wasting any more time on your bullshit. Keep carrying the water for the 1%. I'm sure they find the notion that you're anywhere in the same league with them to be pretty novel and precious.

[tantric superman 4667]

7 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

He’s advocating for a “this is how much it costs to live” number that should inform a cap on how much one can have. That’s oranges to the poverty baseline apples.

I'll tell you what I'm advocating and then I'll drop out because you kids are moving to fast for me.  

I'd phase out social security. 

Every adult in the US would have a Thrift Savings Account.  It would consist of one retirement account that they can't really touch until they retire, and their payroll taxes would feed that, and the government would supplement it such that they had a minimum amount at age 70.  The second account would be an account they they could always use in certain pre-established ways and they could always use that for certain benefits related to child care, health care and education.  The government would determine how much someone needs to meet their retirement and social welfare needs and those accounts would pay for them.  If you made above a certain amount, the govenrment wouldn't supplement your retirement or put in any money into your health and welfare and education accounts.  Those supplements would be paid for by progressive taxes on earnings by the wealthier members of society. 

(Based on my income, I'd enter age 70 with a relatively small retirement Thrift Savings Account, with the expectation that I'd have a 401k that I've grown.  I would have paid for most of my kids education on my own.  On the other hand, someone who worked at a call center their entire life might have a Thrift Savings retirement account which is triple mine due to subsidies he received.  He may have also gotten subsidies for child care and subsidies for his kids college education.)  

Tax policy would be based upon 1) funding general welfare funds, 2) infrastructure including regulatory agencies and enforcment and 3) national defense.

More people with a better and more structured social welfare net will have a positive synergistic effect on the economy and society. 

[Don Johnson 4722]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Yup. If you somehow manage to accumulate that much wealth, anything over $999,999,999 is 100% taxed. Period. It's just amazing to me that anyone would defend billionaires. It's like they don't know the difference between a billion and a million. If you, like Donkey Dick, make $200k a year, you could reasonably be a millionaire in a decade or two. To reach billionaire, you'd have to work for 5,000 years. When Bernie says there should not be billionaires, that's what he is talking about. 

Then who will do all the shit they don't want to do? They don't want ALL the poors dead, just the ones that aren't useful to them

How do you tax everything over $1 billion?  We aren't talking about income.  Jeff Bezos became a billionaire in 1998.  Does he just constantly liquidate his Amazon stock everytime it goes over $1 billion in value and hand it over the IRS?  I don't know what the motivation of any of Bezos, gates, Musk, Buffett, etc to not just go to the house after they hit $1 billion.  Maybe that's a good thing for some.  Maybe we miss out on a lot of innovation.

OK.  What about the guy who owns a private company?  How does he pay this "tax" on his 33% stake in a company when the government says the company is worth $4 billion?

[tantric superman 4667]

11 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

'm not your enemy here; I'm good with taxing billionaires to fund things like health. I just think taxing people at $2m or $5m net worth (your first posts) is a huge overreaction and overcorrection and woefully ignorant, but I can see the good-heartedness and intentions (thus why I said you are a romantic).

Not to depress anyone, but assuming you have no pension and your retirement is going to be living off your nest egg, you are going to need $2million with a 5% return to make $100K (taxable if non-Roth) a year. 

So yeah, assuming we want to encourage people to be earning  (and spending) 100K (or $150 with social security) a year in retirement, and leaving some wealth to their kids, our determination about where we need to start taxing wealth needs to be a good deal north of $2 million.

[Goofyboy 2956]

How do you tax everything over $1 billion?  We aren't talking about income.  Jeff Bezos became a billionaire in 1998.  Does he just constantly liquidate his Amazon stock everytime it goes over $1 billion in value and hand it over the IRS?  I don't know what the motivation of any of Bezos, gates, Musk, Buffett, etc to not just go to the house after they hit $1 billion.  Maybe that's a good thing for some.  Maybe we miss out on a lot of innovation.
OK.  What about the guy who owns a private company?  How does he pay this "tax" on his 33% stake in a company when the government says the company is worth $4 billion?

Let his employees own shares that reduces his stake down to $1 billion. There are options out there.

[fattyflattie 4631]

11 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I don't know what the motivation of any of Bezos, gates, Musk, Buffett, etc to not just go to the house after they hit $1 billion.  Maybe that's a good thing for some.  Maybe we miss out on a lot of innovation.

 

Exactly. I could have the recipe for climate change and I’m flushing that bitch down the toilet the day you cap my wealth because reasons.  I’m talking to the fucking dollar. 

[Don Johnson 4722]

1 minute ago, Goofyboy said:

Let his employees own shares that reduces his stake down to $1 billion. There are options out there.

So he's giving it to his employees and there is no tax paid?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

16 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

How do you tax everything over $1 billion?  We aren't talking about income.  Jeff Bezos became a billionaire in 1998.  Does he just constantly liquidate his Amazon stock everytime it goes over $1 billion in value and hand it over the IRS?  I don't know what the motivation of any of Bezos, gates, Musk, Buffett, etc to not just go to the house after they hit $1 billion.  Maybe that's a good thing for some.  Maybe we miss out on a lot of innovation.

OK.  What about the guy who owns a private company?  How does he pay this "tax" on his 33% stake in a company when the government says the company is worth $4 billion?

He pays a tax on everything over a certain threshold needed for retirement.   Why should some people be able to sit on untold wealth and be able to influence policy?  You think you are going to be Bezos?  I have news for you.

[tantric superman 4667]

I think there may be only one billionaire in the world who would recognize me, and not by name.  Just because I was one of his cadre of lawyers.  The most important thing about the guy is that he employed me and probably about 250,000 people over his carrer due to his business prowess.  That's paying wages and funding retirements and insurance plans. 

I don't have any beef with billionaires and they are absolutely necessary, I think, to the functioning of our economy. 

I don't have to hate them and I can still admire them and want to tax them a whole fuck lot more than they currently are getting taxed. 

Taxing this guy more wouldn't slow him down.  It would make the game more fun and more challenging and the non-monetary rewards more sweet.  But there is a progressive rate out there that would ruin the game for him, or at least the next big score, and until the economists convince me that its what the rates are now, we need to move them up.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

2) You are admitting that a wealth tax is divisive. Okay.

Heres the other thing.  There shouldn't be the need for a wealth tax.   If a motherfucker had any scruples, he wouldn't be so wealthy that we'd be discussing this.  Instead, what you get, is this.

 

[fattyflattie 4631]

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

2) You are admitting that a wealth tax is divisive. Okay.

Heres the other thing.  There shouldn't be the need for a wealth tax.   If a motherfucker had any scruples, he wouldn't be so wealthy that we'd be discussing this.  Instead, what you get, is this.

 

I could have Musk and Bezos money and still not have a single bit of that tacky shit. 

[Don Johnson 4722]

3 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

He pays a tax on everything over a certain threshold needed for retirement.  

Y'all have said this over and over.  I asked how.  Who values a private company and, assuming the stake in the company is the primary asset, how is the tax paid?

3 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

 You think you are going to be Bezos?  I have news for you.

I do not.  Funny that y'all think that's everyone's motivation.  That they believe they will one day be a billionaire and won't want a wealth tax when they get there.

Like everyone else here, I've been around people better at certain things than me throughout my entire life.  Some made better grades.  Some more creative.  Some better athletes.  And I never wanted to cap their success just because I was never going to be them.  

A progressive tax makes sense to me.  A wealth tax does not.  A cap certainly does not.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

48 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

actually, I am well endowed, thanks for noticing

sorry man, I'm not gonna play your games and answer your stupid what-ifs. if you don't understand how a company can be profitable and successful and not pay their CEO 350x the median worker (20:1 in 1978, btw) or avoid taxes altogether and pad the pockets of their board, well, then I literally cannot help you. I'm not wasting any more time on your bullshit. Keep carrying the water for the 1%. I'm sure they find the notion that you're anywhere in the same league with them to be pretty novel and precious.

Imagine saying "I'm not going to play your games and answer stupid what if's" when asked to answer a question about a direct comment and quote made. You said it was obviously wrong and mocked the idea that a trillion dollar company will necessarily mean there are billionaires due to how organizations are both created and owned. I said "wow, that's completely wrong but in off chance I'm wrong, can you walk me through your thinking?". 

What law could be changed tomorrow that would co-exist in a world where a trillion dollar company could exist and no billionaires? Just answer the question.

You can't, because you are wrong and your understanding of business is horrendous.

These are the kinds of people who want to tell businesses and economies what is best-- people who have no experience or understanding of how things actually work. Woefully ignorant, but emotional and romantic.

Any wholesale change to American capitalism and the way America does business will be revolutionary. Literally. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

5 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Y'all have said this over and over.  I asked how.  Who values a private company and, assuming the stake in the company is the primary asset, how is the tax paid?  It should be paid on what the person put into it, minus what it is worth.   Anything else is income and should be taxed as income.

I do not.  Funny that y'all think that's everyone's motivation.  That they believe they will one day be a billionaire and won't want a wealth tax when they get there.  Strawman, anyone who thinks they will be a billionaire is a dumbass and should be treated as such.

Like everyone else here, I've been around people better at certain things than me throughout my entire life.  Some made better grades.  Some more creative.  Some better athletes.  And I never wanted to cap their success just because I was never going to be them.

Nobody is capping your success.  You can be as successful as you want.  We are saying that as part of that success, you have to pay back what got you there, you fucking dimwit.

A progressive tax makes sense to me.  A wealth tax does not.  A cap certainly does not.  I can't help you here, you appear to be a mentally handicapped person who can't grasp the fact that society enabled them,yet they shit all over that society.  Fuck you.

 

[Foosters 17624]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Imagine saying "I'm not going to play your games and answer stupid what if's" when asked to answer a question about a direct comment and quote made. You said it was obviously wrong and mocked the idea that a trillion dollar company will necessarily mean there are billionaires due to how organizations are both created and owned. I said "wow, that's completely wrong but in off chance I'm wrong, can you walk me through your thinking?". 

What law could be changed tomorrow that would co-exist in a world where a trillion dollar company could exist and no billionaires? Just answer the question.

You can't, because you are wrong and your understanding of business is horrendous.

These are the kinds of people who want to tell businesses and economies what is best-- people who have no experience or understanding of how things actually work. Woefully ignorant, but emotional and romantic.

Any wholesale change to American capitalism and the way America does business will be revolutionary. Literally. 

Its truly a shame that the only two options we have are "status quo" and "complete and violent revolution." If only we lived on a planet with more than one country to look for examples as to how to best handle inequality. Oh well.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

19 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think there may be only one billionaire in the world who would recognize me, and not by name.  Just because I was one of his cadre of lawyers.  The most important thing about the guy is that he employed me and probably about 250,000 people over his carrer due to his business prowess.  That's paying wages and funding retirements and insurance plans. 

I don't have any beef with billionaires and they are absolutely necessary, I think, to the functioning of our economy. 

I don't have to hate them and I can still admire them and want to tax them a whole fuck lot more than they currently are getting taxed. 

Taxing this guy more wouldn't slow him down.  It would make the game more fun and more challenging and the non-monetary rewards more sweet.  But there is a progressive rate out there that would ruin the game for him, or at least the next big score, and until the economists convince me that its what the rates are now, we need to move them up.

Are we doing csb billionaire stories now?

I once had a few meetings 1x1 with a billionaire. I didn't go full 'Ben Affleck in the job interview' cavalier casual, but I definitely challenged him on some things and owned the narrative and pushed my agency as an equal, or at least someone who could one day be an equal with the right lottery ticket.

Like ole Charlie Robison said, my friends still love to hear me talk about that year.

[tantric superman 4667]

 

 

12 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

A progressive tax makes sense to me. 

That's the issue for me.  Let's get to 70s progressive rates first, and then worry about a wealth tax.

[AeroHorn 730]

The argument for billionaires seems to that (i) they innovated and developed the company and you can't discourage that and (ii) their assets are not like a traditional income and it is difficult to tax something that is just sitting and growing.

Regarding the first point, there are multiple factors that have led to extreme wealth such as practically abandoning monopoly policing, BOTs being just CEOs/founders' buddies, public resources (telecom bands, natural resources, etc.) being privatized in short-sighted sales, etc. Bezos won't be so rich if Amazon was broken up into at least 3 units (Amazon.com, AWS and services such as Kindle, Ring, Alexa, etc.) and there was actual penalization on fake reviews and products that don't live up to what is advertised, collective voice for their low-wage packers and drivers, etc. Same thing with Google, Apple, etc. They in their state are stifling innovation lot more than enabling. 

Regarding BOTs, I remember in my last company where a ~1000 employee company board approved 1M shares for annual RSU distribution, and allotted 500k to the CEO, 250k to his direct reports, 150k to the various VPs and the remaining 100k for everyone else from director downwards. This is with the salary of CEO being >10x of a director and >50x of a lowest paid office employee. And that CEO was quite incompetent. 

About taxing the extremely wealthy, do what I (Muslim) have to do. Every year, I have to give 2.5% of my disposable wealth to the poor and needy. Anything outside of the things I use daily such as my house, car, clothes etc. is disposable wealth. If I have 100k in stocks, I have to sell 2.5k worth and give it away. I think 2.5% of disposable wealth (anything in a bank, in investment, in inventory, etc.) will be many times more than what is needed to provide basic necessities for not just US but the whole world.

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by AeroHorn

[tantric superman 4667]

3 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

About taxing the extremely wealthy, do what I (Muslim) have to do. Every year, I have to give 2.5% of my disposable wealth to the poor and needy.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

7 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

The argument for billionaires seems to that (i) they innovated and developed the company and you can't discourage that and (ii) their assets are not like a traditional income and it is difficult to tax something that is just sitting and growing.

Regarding the first point, there are multiple factors that have led to extreme wealth such as practically abandoning monopoly policing, BOTs being just CEOs/founders' buddies, public resources (telecom bands, natural resources, etc.) being privatized in short-sighted sales, etc. Bezos won't be so rich if Amazon was broken up into at least 3 units (Amazon.com, AWS and services such as Kindle, Ring, Alexa, etc.) and there was actual penalization on fake reviews and products that don't live up to what is advertised, collective voice for their low-wage packers and drivers, etc. Same thing with Google, Apple, etc. They in their state are stifling innovation lot more than enabling. 

Regarding BOTs, I remember in my last company where a ~1000 employee company board approved 1M shares for annual RSU distribution, and allotted 500k to the CEO, 250k to his direct reports, 150k to the various VPs and the remaining 100k for everyone else from director downwards. This is with the salary of CEO being >10x of a director and >50x of a lowest paid office employee. And that CEO was quite incompetent. 

About taxing the extremely wealthy, do what I (Muslim) have to do. Every year, I have to give 2.5% of my disposable wealth to the poor and needy. Anything outside of the things I use daily such as my house, car, clothes etc. is disposable wealth. If I have 100k in stocks, I have to sell 2.5k worth and give it away. I think 2.5% of disposable wealth (anything in a bank, in investment, in inventory, etc.) will be many times more than what is needed to provide basic necessities for not just US but the whole world.

 

I do 10% of income. I have it broken out into a separate account that I manage like a non-profit meant only for charity and help to problems that I pass along my way as a sojourner through this wicked world.

Edited October 28, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[AeroHorn 730]

🙂 My 2.5k may not impress you superman, but have seen the 2.5% of my little friend called Bezos?

[Don Johnson 4722]

Learn how to quote, "dimwit."

8 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

 It should be paid on what the person put into it, minus what it is worth.   Anything else is income and should be taxed as income.

That's not an answer.  Is the government constantly valuing private companies?  And if they determine someone owns $1.3 billion in a private company, that doesn't mean the person has $300,000,000 in cash to pay this 100% tax on all net worth over $1 billion.

How does this work?  Income is easy.  You received money, now pay a share.

14 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Nobody is capping your success. 

That's exactly what you've promoted multiple times.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

14 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Its truly a shame that the only two options we have are "status quo" and "complete and violent revolution." If only we lived on a planet with more than one country to look for examples as to how to best handle inequality. Oh well.

It is what it is. 

[AeroHorn 730]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I do 10% of income. I have it broken out into a separate account that I manage like a non-profit meant only for charity and help to problems that I pass along my way as a sojourner through this wicked world.

That's great. But the disposable wealth option addresses the billionaire problem of a small income and extremely large asset. Taking 2.5% every year from a 100B asset makes quite a difference.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

5 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

🙂 My 2.5k may not impress you superman, but have seen the 2.5% of my little friend called Bezos?

Just like how Muslims have creative ways to get around financing loans and interest with home loans, etc., I’m sure there are some “best practices” that help a bunch of Arabic-American wealth to turn that 2.5% to .025%

Edited October 28, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Just now, AeroHorn said:

That's great. But the disposable wealth option addresses the billionaire problem of a small income and extremely large asset. Taking 2.5% every year from a 100B asset makes quite a difference.

And if wealth grows by 5%, you net 2.5%. It’s almost like a hedge fund model where you pay 2.5% of AUM and reap the profit delta. Not a horrible idea and with the law of big numbers, it could make a material difference. Your and my 2.5% is not even worth tracking comparatively.

[AeroHorn 730]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Just like how Muslims have creative ways to get around financing loans and interest with home loans, etc., I’m sure there are some “best practices” that help a bunch of Arabic-American wealth to turn that 2.5% to .025%

You can't get around human nature. We like cheating even when every logical argument in your brain tells you that you are easily in the world top 1% materially and >99% of the credit for it doesn't go to you.

[tantric superman 4667]

Hat's off to you tithers. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

13 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Learn how to quote, "dimwit."

That's not an answer.  Is the government constantly valuing private companies?  And if they determine someone owns $1.3 billion in a private company, that doesn't mean the person has $300,000,000 in cash to pay this 100% tax on all net worth over $1 billion.

How does this work?  Income is easy.  You received money, now pay a share.

That's exactly what you've promoted multiple times.

Maybe so, why do you have a problem with taxing it?  You think the status quo is going to pay for itself?  Are you one of those stupid bitches that complain that someone came in their garage, that they left open because their SUV is too big to park in there, and stole their chainsaw?  This is the land of opportunity. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

Quote

  Is the government constantly valuing private companies?  

Yes, that is part of their job.  Try voting, or not.  

[Don Johnson 4722]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Maybe so, why do you have a problem with taxing it?  You think the status quo is going to pay for itself?  Are you one of those stupid bitches that complain that someone came in their garage, that they left open because their SUV is too big to park in there, and stole their chainsaw?  This is the land of opportunity. 

Every time I've asked a question on how your plan works, you've come back with a personal attack.  I don't think you can explain any of it.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

3 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Maybe so, why do you have a problem with taxing it?  You think the status quo is going to pay for itself?  Are you one of those stupid bitches that complain that someone came in their garage, that they left open because their SUV is too big to park in there, and stole their chainsaw?  This is the land of opportunity. 

If your SUV is too big to park in your garage you did a poor job of purchasing a house, a vehicle or both. Most people I know are building homes and specifying the garage be large enough for the biggest SUVs/trucks, but I did have a friend who had a contractor come out to extend his garage. The problem was his water heater was there and he couldn't do it. I hope his chainsaw is okay in the summer months.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

Every time I've asked a question on how your plan works, you've come back with a personal attack.  I don't think you can explain any of it.

This is known as the @Longhorn_Fan68 mode of posting.

[Don Johnson 4722]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yes, that is part of their job.  Try voting, or not.  

Its their job to value private companies constantly?  Since when? That's a massive, very time consuming, and expensive job.  Especially when, in most cases, there will be no pay off.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

If your SUV is too big to park in your garage you did a poor job of purchasing a house, a vehicle or both. Most people I know are building homes and specifying the garage be large enough for the biggest SUVs/trucks, but I did have a friend who had a contractor come out to extend his garage. The problem was his water heater was there and he couldn't do it. I hope his chainsaw is okay in the summer months.

If your income is too big for you to park in your garage, you should thank God (there you baptist evangelical bitches), then you should buy a bigger garage.   You are better than this, I would hope, you dumb fuck.  Are you really saying that big money is where god is?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11728]

5 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Its their job to value private companies constantly?  Since when? That's a massive, very time consuming, and expensive job.  Especially when, in most cases, there will be no pay off.

news flash, there is a thing called income tax.  It applies to private shit, along with public shit.  Keeping your shit private may make it so only you smell the  bullshit, but if you make income, the feds also smell your crap.

[F250 28380]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

If a motherfucker had any scruples, he wouldn't be so wealthy that we'd be discussing this.  Instead, what you get, is this.

 

 

[Don Johnson 4722]

Just now, Judge Roybeanbag said:

news flash, there is a thing called income tax.  It applies to private shit, along with public shit.  Keeping your shit private may make it so only you smell the  bullshit, but if you make income, the feds also smell your crap.

None of this conversation is about income.