Old McDonald said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

Just for the sake of conversation - what do you define as "rich"?

---

people who make millions a year but evade taxes through accounting loopholes. the net worth >$100mm crowd.

---

You think no one that posts here has that kinda wealth or income? And define these "loopholes" you speak of...

It's always folks that don't have **** worrying about the people that do.

---

i have a hard time believing someone with $100mm would waste their time here

---

I know for a fact there are at least 5 individuals worth more than $100mm that waste their time on Texags. I also know they aren't tax evading criminals and employ a lot of individuals that people like you pretend to be an advocate for. You , lot y, and your ilk are nothing but trolls here and never have any real evidence to support the "facts" you spout all the time.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

Just for the sake of conversation - what do you define as "rich"?

---

people who make millions a year but evade taxes through accounting loopholes. the net worth >$100mm crowd.

---

Should poor people be allowed to exploit tax loopholes?

---

they do. you think the lawn care people that get cash payments report it to the IRS?

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How is borrowing money income?

But let's play out your logic. If I borrow $300k for a house, My income should be taxed at $300k plus my salary? In addition to the property taxes?

---

good example actually. on a mortgage, your house is the collateral and you pay property taxes on it. in the billionaire's case, the collateral is unrealized gains from equities and no taxes are paid.

---

The billionaire's collateral is the investments made into business etc. What happens when billionaires lose their borrowing power?

Hint: Less and lower paying jobs for YOU.

---

in this scenario, they wouldn't lose any borrowing power. they would just be taxed when borrowing against their own unrealized gains for the purpose of paying themself an income (and in doing so avoiding income and capital gains taxes).

Old McDonald said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How is borrowing money income?

But let's play out your logic. If I borrow $300k for a house, My income should be taxed at $300k plus my salary? In addition to the property taxes?

---

good example actually. on a mortgage, your house is the collateral and you pay property taxes on it. in the billionaire's case, the collateral is unrealized gains from equities and no taxes are paid.

---

What you just said makes literally no sense. You're conflating income tax, capital gains tax, and ad valorem property taxes.

A middle class person who uses a loan to buy a house doesn't pay any tax on the unrealized gains if the house appreciates. A middle class person who uses a loan to buy traded equities likewise doesn't pay any tax on the unrealized gains if the equities appreciate.

Old McDonald said:

---

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How is borrowing money income?

But let's play out your logic. If I borrow $300k for a house, My income should be taxed at $300k plus my salary? In addition to the property taxes?

---

good example actually. on a mortgage, your house is the collateral and you pay property taxes on it. in the billionaire's case, the collateral is unrealized gains from equities and no taxes are paid.

---

The billionaire's collateral is the investments made into business etc. What happens when billionaires lose their borrowing power?

Hint: Less and lower paying jobs for YOU.

---

in this scenario, they wouldn't lose any borrowing power. they would just be taxed when borrowing against their own unrealized gains for the purpose of paying themself an income (and in doing so avoiding income and capital gains taxes).

---

Sooo....you are saying that if somebody is taxed on their unrealized gains and their net worth must drop as a result.....they aren't losing borrowing power?

Are you sure you understand how things work? Don't answer that, you don't.

Old McDonald said:

---

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How is borrowing money income?

But let's play out your logic. If I borrow $300k for a house, My income should be taxed at $300k plus my salary? In addition to the property taxes?

---

good example actually. on a mortgage, your house is the collateral and you pay property taxes on it. in the billionaire's case, the collateral is unrealized gains from equities and no taxes are paid.

---

The billionaire's collateral is the investments made into business etc. What happens when billionaires lose their borrowing power?

Hint: Less and lower paying jobs for YOU.

---

in this scenario, they wouldn't lose any borrowing power. they would just be taxed when borrowing against their own unrealized gains for the purpose of paying themself an income (and in doing so avoiding income and capital gains taxes).

---

Yes they would.

RafterAg223 said:

---

I know for a fact there are at least 5 individuals worth more than $100mm that waste their time on Texags. I also know they aren't tax evading criminals and employ a lot of individuals that people like you pretend to be an advocate for. You , lot y, and your ilk are nothing but trolls here and never have any real evidence to support the "facts" you spout all the time.

---

that's the thing, they aren't criminals. they follow the laws. it's just that tax laws are set up in such a way that they're exploitable if you have the means to do so, and the people with these means are usually the uber wealthy.

but as we all know, just because it's legal doesn't mean it should be.

So we should get rid of the standard deduction? What about deductions for dependents?

Sounds like you support a flat tax.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

So we should get rid of the standard deduction? What about deductions for dependents?

Sounds like you support a flat tax.

---

He supports a tax on evil rich people, but only if they are republicans or not democrat lackeys. Because feelings and what not.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

So we should get rid of the standard deduction? What about deductions for dependents?

Sounds like you support a flat tax.

---

.

He supports whatever his leftist overlords tell him to. The same individuals that are the biggest offenders when it comes to "tax evasion" and "moving money around". The same people who also want zero middle class in this country.

Oh I know. It's telling he won't answer how to tax wealth if it's invested in something like a classic painting.

Another piece of the Constitution of whatever this country is called now just fell into place

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Still waiting for our Lefty to answer the question of what specific laws do they think the wealthy are breaking and how they would tax 90% of wealth that isn't income

They talk a big game but then disappear when it's time to answer specifics

---

Let's specify the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax evasion is a crime. Tax avoidance is codified rules generated by the wealthy class to get out of paying taxes in exchange for campaign contributions. Carried interest being taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income is the most glaring example of this.

schmellba99 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How is borrowing money income?

But let's play out your logic. If I borrow $300k for a house, My income should be taxed at $300k plus my salary? In addition to the property taxes?

---

good example actually. on a mortgage, your house is the collateral and you pay property taxes on it. in the billionaire's case, the collateral is unrealized gains from equities and no taxes are paid.

---

The billionaire's collateral is the investments made into business etc. What happens when billionaires lose their borrowing power?

Hint: Less and lower paying jobs for YOU.

---

in this scenario, they wouldn't lose any borrowing power. they would just be taxed when borrowing against their own unrealized gains for the purpose of paying themself an income (and in doing so avoiding income and capital gains taxes).

---

Sooo....you are saying that if somebody is taxed on their unrealized gains and their net worth must drop as a result.....they aren't losing borrowing power?

Are you sure you understand how things work? Don't answer that, you don't.

---

not taxing unrealized gains. taxing borrowing against unrealized gains as a substitute for income.

Anyone that thinks congress, a collection of some of the most wealthy people in the country, are going to create laws to tax wealthy people for the benefit of the middle class is a moron and likely 1/1024 Cherokee Indian.

schmellba99 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

So we should get rid of the standard deduction? What about deductions for dependents?

Sounds like you support a flat tax.

---

He supports a tax on evil rich people, but only if they are republicans or not democrat lackeys. Because feelings and what not.

---

they're not evil, they're just taking advantage of a system that's rigged in their favor. i support dismantling that advantage, whether it's soros, thiel, musk, or zuck.

It's not income if you borrow money. You pay the taxes already when you pay property taxes. It's a dumb argument. I expect you to keep making it.

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

Eventually it does since you run out of "rich" people to steal from.

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Anyone that thinks congress, a collection of some of the most wealthy people in the country, are going to create laws to tax wealthy people for the benefit of the middle class is a moron and likely 1/1024 Cherokee Indian.

---

this is the unfortunate reality. politicians will never bite the hand that feeds them.

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

This simple minded mentality is why this country is in so much trouble.

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

Translation:

I'm unsuccessful, and i'm greedy.

But i'm going to pretend that i'm righteous

deddog said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

This simple minded mentality is why this country is in so much trouble.

---

I'll start with a first principle that those who make more income in this country and have more wealth should contribute more as a percentage of their income / wealth to funding of our country than those who have less. The devil is always in the details and a bias towards progressive taxation does not mean one hates the rich and thinks all their money should be taken.

schmellba99 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

Just for the sake of conversation - what do you define as "rich"?

---

This is the million dollar question...excuse the pun.

The ultimate goalpost moving...defining "rich". And I promise you that definition will evolve to have layers and sliding scales.

No kids? You make $400,000? You don't need that extra money...you are "rich".

Single, living in a low cost city/state, making $300,000? Well, comparatively speaking you are "rich" compared to that person in San Francisco with 4 kids making $400,000. So you need to pay up!

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's not income if you borrow money. You pay the taxes already when you pay property taxes. It's a dumb argument. I expect you to keep making it.

---

right, this is why the ultra wealthy do it. what i'm arguing is if someone wants to borrow against their unrealized gains as a substitute for income, that should be taxed.

Old McDonald said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's not income if you borrow money. You pay the taxes already when you pay property taxes. It's a dumb argument. I expect you to keep making it.

---

right, this is why the ultra wealthy do it. what i'm arguing is if someone wants to borrow against their unrealized gains as a substitute for income, that should be taxed.

---

How do you tax a Picasso painting?

not hedge said:

---

They also reap more benefits than everyone else, tax them at 90% for all i care

---

And to think I got a 3 day ban for telling you to sit at the kiddie table.

Just look at your posts. Good grief.

Do you understand how loans work?

Not sure why so many of you are bothering to argue with a college freshman who is just regurgitating the nonsense some naive academic spewed at him last semester in econ101. This kid is clearly clueless. My only addition to this thread is old McDonald,make sure you major in something that gives you a marketable skill set. Otherwise you'll forever hold these misinformed opinions while thinking success is something you never could have achieved because of structural barriers. World doesn't actually work that way.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Do you understand how loans work?

---

i do. and the ultra wealthy use them cleverly to collect income while avoiding income/capital gains taxes. i don't think they should be able to do that.

Admiral Adama said:

---

deddog said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

This simple minded mentality is why this country is in so much trouble.

---

I'll start with a first principle that those who make more income in this country and have more wealth should contribute more as a percentage of their income / wealth to funding of our country than those who have less. The devil is always in the details and a bias towards progressive taxation does not mean one hates the rich and thinks all their money should be taken.

---

Agreed besides the percentage of your income. Another good principle is that everyone should pay taxes in this country. A flat tax allows this for both of these. It massively simplifies the process, and allows everyone to contribute to society equally, eliminating growing divisions caused by a progressive taxation system.

It will never happen because lobbyists and politicians don't want a simplified tax code. They want to cause division and make the process complicated so that their buddies can hide money easier. Case in point, this thread.

I think the wealth tax is a terrible idea. I am more OK with estate taxes that can't be shielded by trusts or other novel legal vehicles for golden sperm recipients. I will allow for some exceptions to be made for business interests and businesses that the heir is still meaningfully participating at a high level; things like family farms or even Henry Ford III taking over a CEO for II.

I also thought the Amazon second headquarters thing was one of the most disgraceful things ever. Which county is going to drop their pants and bend over in ways that they would never do for a small business so that you can grace us with your presence and not have to do the little things that the rest of us do like funding the schools, roads, or police.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

You should stop while you're ahead.... you don't have a clue about what you're spewing.

---

When has that ever stopped them?

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

Bull***** All the f16 regs make multiple millions a year, are swinging massive hogs, with their 12/10 wives who are under 35.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

good, tax the rich (if you're reading this, by definition this doesn't apply to you)

---

Bull***** All the f16 regs make multiple millions a year, are swinging massive hogs, with their 12/10 wives who are under 35.

---

I do not make multiple millions a year but I pay six figures in income taxes which is absurd when most pay nothing.

I am almost 50 and the wife is just under 35, but I've had her since she was 21.

Old McDonald said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

I know for a fact there are at least 5 individuals worth more than $100mm that waste their time on Texags. I also know they aren't tax evading criminals and employ a lot of individuals that people like you pretend to be an advocate for. You , lot y, and your ilk are nothing but trolls here and never have any real evidence to support the "facts" you spout all the time.

---

that's the thing, they aren't criminals. they follow the laws. it's just that tax laws are set up in such a way that they're exploitable if you have the means to do so, and the people with these means are usually the uber wealthy.

but as we all know, just because it's legal doesn't mean it should be.

---

Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt!