More incoherent nonsense, no substance, what a surprise.
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
More incoherent nonsense, no substance, what a surprise.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,455
I'm assuming he wants you to read the only WSJ article that he posted, which would be this one.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/buy-bo...icans-live-off-their-paper-wealth-11625909583
Do all these various threads turning to dowie-holes, but with different OCUK users, ever make you think: "Maybe it is me?"
Soldato
I saw it coming as soon as Buy, Borrow, Die got mentioned and then dowie ignored the articles and used his "now you're moving the goalposts" line. dowie hole inbound people! He of course failed to argue against the way billionaires avoid paying tax. Elon didn't pay a penny of federal taxes in 2017, funny I've paid taxes every single year since I was 17, did Elon take less compensation for his work than me in 2017? And Musk isn't borrowing money like how we borrow money. We borrow money because we don't have enough money to buy the thing we want, be it a house, a car etc. Musk borrows money so he can avoid paying tax, he even gets a tax break on the interest on that loan. The only reason he just paid a lot of tax was because his option to buy 23m million tesla shares at 2012 price of $6.24 a share was about to expire, they are around $1000 a share now, he could have not bought them and paid no tax but he bought them, made ridiculous amounts of money and so had to sell some to pay the tax. I would imagine he probably did borrow the money to buy the stock so he probably worked in a tax break there somewhere. Governments should look at taxing people who take their compensation in shares every year, tax them like they are $/£.
When I worked in the private sector, directors would generally pay themselves less than the minimum wage, just the personal allowance so they paid 0 income tax and then would pay the rest in dividends because the corporation tax rate was much lower. We need to fix the loopholes before we have any hope of making the tax system fairer.
Back in the 20s under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the income tax rate was obscene. When it was massively reduced by them tax revenues from the rich actually increased substantially to the point the government had a tax surplus. Shows how a libertarian philosophy towards equal tax rates actually works better than a progressive tax system.
Last edited:
Soldato
An honest debate over what the government should and shouldn't pay for is impossible when the majority can vote separate and unequal tax rates on the minority, and then use revenue generated from that discrimination to expand the size and scope of government for their own benefit.
When you can vote for someone else to cary a disproportionate portion of the burden, it's easy to argue that the government should do all manner of things "for the greater good."
Most modern societies have come to the realization that discriminating against people based on their race is wrong, (feel-good "Affirmative Action" schemes not withstanding) but it appears we have not yet addressed the seemingly envy-driven discrimination based on different economic classes.
When you can vote for someone else to cary a disproportionate portion of the burden, it's easy to argue that the government should do all manner of things "for the greater good."
Most modern societies have come to the realization that discriminating against people based on their race is wrong, (feel-good "Affirmative Action" schemes not withstanding) but it appears we have not yet addressed the seemingly envy-driven discrimination based on different economic classes.
Agreed, progressive tax systems create a divisive us vs them mentality whereas flat tax systems have a unifying affect because everyone is affected by tax changes equally.
I'm aware that loans exist thanks, why not try to make an actual point here?
They don't though, it's more when you get subjects like this that people can't seem to address the actual points being raised.
Do you honestly think that ranting about boot lickers and daddy Elon is addressing anything here?
Because he literally did move the goalposts...I don't have any issue with criticising trusts you guys can engage in ad hominem if you like but why not try to address the actual points raised?
You're guilty of this rather often, maybe not in the unhinged way of the other poster but you have a habit of attacking positions you've made up rather than what has actually been argued.
Elon didn't take a salary, would it make much difference if he took his 50k salary and paid a few grand in federal taxes for it?
You do understand that the bulk of his compensation at Tesla is from stock options which are tied directly to his performance as CEO.
Guess what happened when these needed to be exercised, Elon paid a massive tax bill.
How much money did he borrow and when?
Do you think loans should be taxed?
If I were a founder who wanted to maintain my stake in a fast-growing company I'd absolutely take out loans.
In some situations, they are borrowing in the way we are, if you're rich on paper; say you have a stake in a rapidly growing startup worth tens or hundreds of millions then, of course, you've got reason to borrow against it - you don't want to sell any equity at this point, your salary is fairly modest but you're in theory worth many millions. A loan seems like a pretty reasonable thing to use.
The options are how he's compensated as CEO, of course he's had to pay tax on them FFS!
As for your imagined arguments...
Last edited:
Soldato
To address the "Poor people need their money more." argument, I would propose a flat sales tax with a "prebate" check sent for every man woman and child to cover the taxes on the amount of money people "need".
So, if we decide individuals "need" 20k per year to live on, the government sends out a check at the beginning of the year to cover the taxes on 20k.
Now no one pays taxes on the money they "need" to live on.
With that objection off the table, and everyone paying their proportional burden of the cost of government, lets talk about the size and scope of government with the understanding that we can't just dump the bill in someone else's lap.
I like this aproach because it's self-leveling. As the prebate increases, the sales tax (on everyone) increases. -Same goes for government programs.
The urge to set the "need" level above one's own income level is counterbalanced by the resulting increase on the sales tax.
Basically a negative income tax system of sorts, I think a less radical approach that might be more readily accepted would be a large personal allowance.
Bonkers that we charge income tax on people earning minimum wage only to pay them back in tax credits imo.
Soldato
Elon just informed the SEC that he has the cash for his latest €46.1 Billion takeover bid ready and waiting.
If the Twitter BoD refuse this latest offer, he can make his offer directly to shareholders.
Stock up on earplugs folks, the Reeeeeeeing is going be immense.
If the Twitter BoD refuse this latest offer, he can make his offer directly to shareholders.
Stock up on earplugs folks, the Reeeeeeeing is going be immense.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,347
Caporegime
Thats exactly why we don't have flat rate systems... because taxes don't affect people equally. You could tax someone earning £5m/year at 90% and they would still take home £500,000/year and live a very very nice life. If you taxed someone on £100,000 at 90% they would be on the streets.
It should be an us vs them mentality when it comes to the rich vs the poor because the rich are the people that make the laws and dictate how the world is run and who it benefits. The rich cannot be trusted to do this. When you consider how much wealth there is in the world and how few people it sits with and then you consider how many people are barely surviving that should tell you something is very wrong.
America is feeling this and so are a lot of first world countries. They saw their parents live good lives on normal salaries and now they are seeing poverty even when they have far better jobs and both partners working. Something is broken and the fact that the wealthy are wealthier than ever might give you a hint as to where a lot of that money has gone.
Soldato
Take another look:
To address the "Poor people need their money more." argument, I would propose a flat sales tax with a "prebate" check sent for every man woman and child to cover the taxes on the amount of money people "need".
So, if we decide individuals "need" 20k per year to live on, the government sends out a check at the beginning of the year to cover the taxes on 20k.
Now no one pays taxes on the money they "need" to live on.
With that objection off the table, and everyone paying their proportional burden of the cost of government, lets talk about the size and scope of government with the understanding that we can't just dump the bill in someone else's lap.
I like this aproach because it's self-leveling. As the prebate increases, the sales tax (on everyone) increases. -Same goes for government programs.
The urge to set the "need" level above one's own income level is counterbalanced by the resulting increase on the sales tax
The overreaction from staff and blue check marks on Twitter has been entertaining at least. Why fear somebody who describes themselves as a free speech absolutist? What are they hiding?
But I'm not getting my hopes up, they'll probably find a away to block him. Twitter's true value is more about controlling the narrative, which I doubt they'll give up easily.
But I'm not getting my hopes up, they'll probably find a away to block him. Twitter's true value is more about controlling the narrative, which I doubt they'll give up easily.
Commissario
I can describe myself as the rightful king of the moon, that doesn't mean it's the case
Musk certainly is not a "free speech absolutist", just ask any of the employees who have done things like tried to raise concerns over safety at his car factories (including those who tried to do so to the authorities as they are not only legally entitled to, but in some cases required to).
Or indeed his reaction when the cave rescuer called him an idiot for his idea that they should wait until he had some "mini sub" built.
Soldato
Controlling which story?
Verified, rumours, evidence?
Or are we just taking some random ex employee at there word now?
He offered to help, good intentions, didn't he apologise?
Not sure what the latter point has to do with free speech, free speech doesn't negate responding to someone.
On the first point though sure, that's him acting as a CEO, it doesn't mean that someone like that would be censored on twitter per se though or that he'd have any objection in general to employees of various companies airing grievances as an owner of twitter, he would though perhaps have an issue with his company in his role as a CEO.
Though the notion that he is some free speech absolutist is a bit of a straw man, see this latest tweet re: social media, he's not some completely anti-censorship/literally anything goes type:
Creating a class divide and arguably legally discriminating against a group of people based on wealth is a terrible and unethical thing to do.
Your example is ridiculous because we would not be taxing people 90% and the personal allowance would be large enough that everyone could live a good lifestyle before being taxed, the system we have is perverse.
Caporegime
Are you serious here? You think that the current tax system is creating a class divide whereas a flat tax rate would unite the people. Thats genuinely laughable. The gap between rich and poor is getting larger by the day. While millions struggled through COVID the rich just got richer. The have are leeching off the have nots who cannot afford things like buying a house so they have to rent and fill someone elses pockets with what little money they do have.
I don't even know where to start on the idea that its discriminatory towards a group of people based on their wealth. The whole world discriminates against the poor if you want to go down that route.
It was a silly number to make the point that taxing poor people the same as rich people is in no way fair. Not even a little bit. If anything we should be taxing the rich even more than we are. We should 100% be fixing all the loopholes they use to avoid paying the amount they should be. Perhaps that would be a good start.
- Status