Question for leftists: How do you feel about being lied to about Trump's taxes?

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785

So, he's been a business success by failing spectacularly for 10 years?

Where did his money come from, his net worth of "tens of billions", if he didn't make any money?

Total net worth is different than liquid net worth.

Many billionaires don’t have billions sitting around in cash. A) because if you have cash idling it’s not working for you and B) it’s likely locked up in a business or hard asset (RE, PPE, etc.).

Said another way, many very wealthy people have their assets locked up in a business that’s worth some multiple of TTM revenue (typically) if the business is privately held. Different businesses have different multiples for what they’re worth - and those numbers ebb and flow. But that’s how they arrive at “billionaire” status.

Also, being illiquid is common for RE guys. They might have a net worth of 50-100 million but only have a few million liquid (stocks/bonds/cash). Still wealthy, but not like folks might think - it also means that come tax time they might not be paying a lot in tax. The goal is to look at broke as possible on paper and run everything through the business or LLC.

Also, to the point of taxes, this is another reason the wealthy like art/jewelry/etc. - easier to transfer that wealth undetected to the next generation. I.e. they buy a 50k painting and then give it to their kid to hang on their wall. The kid doesn’t have 50k in cold hard cash, but they do have a 50k asset that isn’t “titled” - and their net worth is still increased by 50k.

I could go on but suffice to say, this kind of thing can get complicated.

You don’t even have to be rich to understand. It’s just basic money managing. If your money isn’t invested, it isn’t working for you and you are losing money. Trump very well might not have a million dollars, but if he wanted a million dollars he could produce it by selling an asset. It’s not Trumps fault the common person doesn’t understand money, taxes, and investing.

Bingo.

But if the school systems taught financial literacy it’d be real hard to push the liberal agenda along.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785

So, he's been a business success by failing spectacularly for 10 years?

Where did his money come from, his net worth of "tens of billions", if he didn't make any money?

Total net worth is different than liquid net worth.

Many billionaires don’t have billions sitting around in cash. A) because if you have cash idling it’s not working for you and B) it’s likely locked up in a business or hard asset (RE, PPE, etc.).

Said another way, many very wealthy people have their assets locked up in a business that’s worth some multiple of TTM revenue (typically) if the business is privately held. Different businesses have different multiples for what they’re worth - and those numbers ebb and flow. But that’s how they arrive at “billionaire” status.

Also, being illiquid is common for RE guys. They might have a net worth of 50-100 million but only have a few million liquid (stocks/bonds/cash). Still wealthy, but not like folks might think - it also means that come tax time they might not be paying a lot in tax. The goal is to look at broke as possible on paper and run everything through the business or LLC.

Also, to the point of taxes, this is another reason the wealthy like art/jewelry/etc. - easier to transfer that wealth undetected to the next generation. I.e. they buy a 50k painting and then give it to their kid to hang on their wall. The kid doesn’t have 50k in cold hard cash, but they do have a 50k asset that isn’t “titled” - and their net worth is still increased by 50k.

I could go on but suffice to say, this kind of thing can get complicated.

While I understand and agree that capital growth can be tied up in investment, and also that in real-estate the term of 25 years is not excessive at all, still the question arises as to the net worth of a business venture that never seems to turn a profit on one hand, and yet makes claims of both liquidity and viability for recieving investment on the other?

Are they there to fish, or cut bait?

Neither, in many cases.

In a way, your point is conflating profitability and taxation. There’s many profitable businesses that pay zilch in tax. This goes to the point of my other post - they spend that money to get as revenue neutral as possible. Again, a huge tax bill tied to large profits is a business nono. How do they get their money out then? Pay themselves a salary, stock options, business expenses, etc.

Said another way, say you started and own a large privately held business. You pay yourself a 1mm salary. If you’ve done your budgeting right, the business already pays for your golf club, the private jet, possibly some cars, dinners, the second or third vacation home, etc. - which goes against revenue from the business. Those assets are also owned by the business which shields your liability. Win win win.

But then you have a banner year in are bringing in 20 million over your projected revenue. Yikes! Not a bad problem to have, but a problem none the less. So maybe you spend that on advertising, acquiring a second plane, buying more RE for expansion, etc. basically, you just have to spend money. The rules around a “business expense” aren’t exactly Swiss cheese but they’re not airtight either - and what’s deemed reasonable varies by business.

For instance, I had a friend who had a huge year at their business. Had to spend money. Went out and bought their family high-end snowmobiles and slapped a company logo on the side. Boom - advertising. Kept those vehicles in a garage at the business and there you go - you just got 100k+ in snowmobiles instead of giving that to the Feds.

The net effect of all of that spending is a bunch of economic activity. Which is a good thing!

This is also why none of you should fear higher corporate tax rates. All it does is incentivize business to spend more of their money. If they’re doing it right, it’ll just compound and grow their business - and supports a lot of jobs or ancillary services in the process (note, I am not endorsing higher taxes - just don’t sweat them like the media would suggest at the corporate level).

I can’t speak for Trump obviously, but I can tell you it’s hard to make money with a golf course. Much harder than one might think.

It is business activity, but it only actually profits the business owner/s.

The government doesn't get the money through taxation, despite the administrative costs expended to enable the environment for business profitability.

The purchasing public on the whole is also poorer because their money goes to the business owner in terms of the profit made.

It is the case of money flowing away from many, towards a small number of highly aquisitive recipients. They make the country poorer for their own gain.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785

So, he's been a business success by failing spectacularly for 10 years?

Where did his money come from, his net worth of "tens of billions", if he didn't make any money?

Total net worth is different than liquid net worth.

Many billionaires don’t have billions sitting around in cash. A) because if you have cash idling it’s not working for you and B) it’s likely locked up in a business or hard asset (RE, PPE, etc.).

Said another way, many very wealthy people have their assets locked up in a business that’s worth some multiple of TTM revenue (typically) if the business is privately held. Different businesses have different multiples for what they’re worth - and those numbers ebb and flow. But that’s how they arrive at “billionaire” status.

Also, being illiquid is common for RE guys. They might have a net worth of 50-100 million but only have a few million liquid (stocks/bonds/cash). Still wealthy, but not like folks might think - it also means that come tax time they might not be paying a lot in tax. The goal is to look at broke as possible on paper and run everything through the business or LLC.

Also, to the point of taxes, this is another reason the wealthy like art/jewelry/etc. - easier to transfer that wealth undetected to the next generation. I.e. they buy a 50k painting and then give it to their kid to hang on their wall. The kid doesn’t have 50k in cold hard cash, but they do have a 50k asset that isn’t “titled” - and their net worth is still increased by 50k.

I could go on but suffice to say, this kind of thing can get complicated.

You don’t even have to be rich to understand. It’s just basic money managing. If your money isn’t invested, it isn’t working for you and you are losing money. Trump very well might not have a million dollars, but if he wanted a million dollars he could produce it by selling an asset. It’s not Trumps fault the common person doesn’t understand money, taxes, and investing.

Bingo.

But if the school systems taught financial literacy it’d be real hard to push the liberal agenda along.

It would also be hard to sell crap products and services.

People would demand better.

Thankfully were not taught any of that and only told to obey the tv. Thats all you need to know, tv knows it all for you.

a reply to: chr0naut

Who polluted the ocean the last few centuries for profits?

What was the value of the ocean? What is the value of earth life forms?

They are creating an extinction level event and many species are already gone forever.

Just a few days ago like 400 whales beached down under. It's unacceptable.

What is value of a whale?
Nothing apparently to these soulless husks.

I know that Earth life is > corporate justifications for profits.

Corporate? Corpse?
Exactly. It's a ghoul that only coldly devours flesh with an insatiable hunger.

The only direction we are headed is mass death.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: chr0naut

Who polluted the ocean the last few centuries for profits?

What was the value of the ocean? What is the value of earth life forms?

They are creating an extinction level event and many species are already gone forever.

Just a few days ago like 400 whales beached down under. It's unacceptable.

What is value of a whale?
Nothing apparently to these soulless husks.

I know that Earth life is > corporate justifications for profits.

Corporate? Corpse?
Exactly. It's a ghoul that only coldly devours flesh with an insatiable hunger.

The only direction we are headed is mass death.

I have to agree with you, there.

We cannot simply use a profit motive as the only justification for what we do. Even at the level of a consumer, there are choices we can make to reduce negative impacts, but that requires education and also some sort of government legislation to place limits on resources that are not specifically owned (like the environment and the biosphere).

To a certain extent, taxation has been applied to continually develop and enforce government regulations which grant us a less destructive footprint. There are also charitable concerns raising awareness of what we need to do to ensure a stable, safe, and comfortable future for everyone.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's too little too late.
Extinction is right around the corner.

It is completely obvious.

And there's not really anything that can be done to stop it except a planet wide initiative that conscripts all humans to help.

And that isnt possible so...
Get used to dead zones in the ocean and rapid desertification.

Remember the Amazon rain forest?
What a nice memory that was...

I am on topic - I'm reminding everyone of reality. We're #d and about to see our demise and all these ppl care about is a stupid piece of paper.

Typical humanity I guess.
Sigh...

How do I feel about Trumps taxes or the media lying or whatever? I don't feel anything anymore.

How can I care when I know the harsh truth? We are screwed. All of this has become irrelevant.

It might take 50 more years to put the final nails in our coffins but mark my words it's coming and cannot be stopped.

And good rittens humans, you only taught me disappointment and disgust. We deserve to sleep in the bed we made. Tough # huh?

I have been hearing this crap about how the world is about to end in the next few years since 1990 at least. 1990 was when I first heard it. That's 30 years now. It got old about 15 years ago.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785

So, he's been a business success by failing spectacularly for 10 years?

Where did his money come from, his net worth of "tens of billions", if he didn't make any money?

Total net worth is different than liquid net worth.

Many billionaires don’t have billions sitting around in cash. A) because if you have cash idling it’s not working for you and B) it’s likely locked up in a business or hard asset (RE, PPE, etc.).

Said another way, many very wealthy people have their assets locked up in a business that’s worth some multiple of TTM revenue (typically) if the business is privately held. Different businesses have different multiples for what they’re worth - and those numbers ebb and flow. But that’s how they arrive at “billionaire” status.

Also, being illiquid is common for RE guys. They might have a net worth of 50-100 million but only have a few million liquid (stocks/bonds/cash). Still wealthy, but not like folks might think - it also means that come tax time they might not be paying a lot in tax. The goal is to look at broke as possible on paper and run everything through the business or LLC.

Also, to the point of taxes, this is another reason the wealthy like art/jewelry/etc. - easier to transfer that wealth undetected to the next generation. I.e. they buy a 50k painting and then give it to their kid to hang on their wall. The kid doesn’t have 50k in cold hard cash, but they do have a 50k asset that isn’t “titled” - and their net worth is still increased by 50k.

I could go on but suffice to say, this kind of thing can get complicated.

While I understand and agree that capital growth can be tied up in investment, and also that in real-estate the term of 25 years is not excessive at all, still the question arises as to the net worth of a business venture that never seems to turn a profit on one hand, and yet makes claims of both liquidity and viability for recieving investment on the other?

Are they there to fish, or cut bait?

Neither, in many cases.

In a way, your point is conflating profitability and taxation. There’s many profitable businesses that pay zilch in tax. This goes to the point of my other post - they spend that money to get as revenue neutral as possible. Again, a huge tax bill tied to large profits is a business nono. How do they get their money out then? Pay themselves a salary, stock options, business expenses, etc.

Said another way, say you started and own a large privately held business. You pay yourself a 1mm salary. If you’ve done your budgeting right, the business already pays for your golf club, the private jet, possibly some cars, dinners, the second or third vacation home, etc. - which goes against revenue from the business. Those assets are also owned by the business which shields your liability. Win win win.

But then you have a banner year in are bringing in 20 million over your projected revenue. Yikes! Not a bad problem to have, but a problem none the less. So maybe you spend that on advertising, acquiring a second plane, buying more RE for expansion, etc. basically, you just have to spend money. The rules around a “business expense” aren’t exactly Swiss cheese but they’re not airtight either - and what’s deemed reasonable varies by business.

For instance, I had a friend who had a huge year at their business. Had to spend money. Went out and bought their family high-end snowmobiles and slapped a company logo on the side. Boom - advertising. Kept those vehicles in a garage at the business and there you go - you just got 100k+ in snowmobiles instead of giving that to the Feds.

The net effect of all of that spending is a bunch of economic activity. Which is a good thing!

This is also why none of you should fear higher corporate tax rates. All it does is incentivize business to spend more of their money. If they’re doing it right, it’ll just compound and grow their business - and supports a lot of jobs or ancillary services in the process (note, I am not endorsing higher taxes - just don’t sweat them like the media would suggest at the corporate level).

I can’t speak for Trump obviously, but I can tell you it’s hard to make money with a golf course. Much harder than one might think.

It is business activity, but it only actually profits the business owner/s.

The government doesn't get the money through taxation, despite the administrative costs expended to enable the environment for business profitability.

The purchasing public on the whole is also poorer because their money goes to the business owner in terms of the profit made.

It is the case of money flowing away from many, towards a small number of highly aquisitive recipients. They make the country poorer for their own gain.

Who is John Gault?

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785

So, he's been a business success by failing spectacularly for 10 years?

Where did his money come from, his net worth of "tens of billions", if he didn't make any money?

Total net worth is different than liquid net worth.

Many billionaires don’t have billions sitting around in cash. A) because if you have cash idling it’s not working for you and B) it’s likely locked up in a business or hard asset (RE, PPE, etc.).

Said another way, many very wealthy people have their assets locked up in a business that’s worth some multiple of TTM revenue (typically) if the business is privately held. Different businesses have different multiples for what they’re worth - and those numbers ebb and flow. But that’s how they arrive at “billionaire” status.

Also, being illiquid is common for RE guys. They might have a net worth of 50-100 million but only have a few million liquid (stocks/bonds/cash). Still wealthy, but not like folks might think - it also means that come tax time they might not be paying a lot in tax. The goal is to look at broke as possible on paper and run everything through the business or LLC.

Also, to the point of taxes, this is another reason the wealthy like art/jewelry/etc. - easier to transfer that wealth undetected to the next generation. I.e. they buy a 50k painting and then give it to their kid to hang on their wall. The kid doesn’t have 50k in cold hard cash, but they do have a 50k asset that isn’t “titled” - and their net worth is still increased by 50k.

I could go on but suffice to say, this kind of thing can get complicated.

You don’t even have to be rich to understand. It’s just basic money managing. If your money isn’t invested, it isn’t working for you and you are losing money. Trump very well might not have a million dollars, but if he wanted a million dollars he could produce it by selling an asset. It’s not Trumps fault the common person doesn’t understand money, taxes, and investing.

Bingo.

But if the school systems taught financial literacy it’d be real hard to push the liberal agenda along.

It would also be hard to sell crap products and services.

People would demand better.

Thankfully were not taught any of that and only told to obey the tv. Thats all you need to know, tv knows it all for you.

No it wouldn’t.

It would flow capital to the place that manufacturing is the cheapest - e.g. poor countries. Those people would then make more money than they would have working for a domestic business.

Want proof? Seems to have worked out for China... they are building an economic machine that will overtake the US nearly without question if we follow the “business only benefits the wealthy” BS.

People do demand better. It’s called the free market. You can buy whatever you want. Want better? Go buy it.

I’m starting to hope that business leaders, owners and execs go Atlas Shrugged and bounce. A bunch of people would cheer, right until everything they thought would happen doesn’t once they figure out the state isn’t the answer to their problems.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
Im no leftist but I ask this in addition to you're OP....



So how is this different than all the other tax evaders?


And a final point:

- When you go after all the other tax evasion issues that you've never said peep about, I'll consider going after Trump and his tax evasion.


Now that we're at it... Let's check all the taxes from every political leader in office today... Dems included.


No?



Case and point. Don't say squat because you don't have a leg to stand on. When you go after yours... I'll go after mine. Hows that? Fair?

FFS people - paying no tax doesn’t mean you’re a tax evader!

Has it ever dawned on you that taxes INCENTIVIZE BUSINESSES TO SPEND MONEY!

That makes more jobs. That “spreads the wealth around”. It does all of those things.

Or, you think it’s better to hand the money to .gov so they can waste it?

Private sector finance the government - not the other way around.

Private sector drives the economy.

Why are so many of you in love with having the government run and fund your life?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: chr0naut

It's too little too late.
Extinction is right around the corner.

It is completely obvious.

And there's not really anything that can be done to stop it except a planet wide initiative that conscripts all humans to help.

And that isnt possible so...
Get used to dead zones in the ocean and rapid desertification.

Remember the Amazon rain forest?
What a nice memory that was...

Possibly it is too late.

However, the planet and biosphere has several times in the past changed so as to correct against a life destructive spiral.

What I feel is more likely is that the planetary ecology will reach a tipping point where it will course-correct back towards a sustainable biosphere, however, it will no longer be as comfortable or as fit for humans as this one, and instead will favour extremophiles of the sort that originally arose before we had the chemical atmospheric balance we have had for the last few millions of years.

It won't neccesarily be unlivable for humans, but it won't sustain the present populations.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785

So, he's been a business success by failing spectacularly for 10 years?

Where did his money come from, his net worth of "tens of billions", if he didn't make any money?

Total net worth is different than liquid net worth.

Many billionaires don’t have billions sitting around in cash. A) because if you have cash idling it’s not working for you and B) it’s likely locked up in a business or hard asset (RE, PPE, etc.).

Said another way, many very wealthy people have their assets locked up in a business that’s worth some multiple of TTM revenue (typically) if the business is privately held. Different businesses have different multiples for what they’re worth - and those numbers ebb and flow. But that’s how they arrive at “billionaire” status.

Also, being illiquid is common for RE guys. They might have a net worth of 50-100 million but only have a few million liquid (stocks/bonds/cash). Still wealthy, but not like folks might think - it also means that come tax time they might not be paying a lot in tax. The goal is to look at broke as possible on paper and run everything through the business or LLC.

Also, to the point of taxes, this is another reason the wealthy like art/jewelry/etc. - easier to transfer that wealth undetected to the next generation. I.e. they buy a 50k painting and then give it to their kid to hang on their wall. The kid doesn’t have 50k in cold hard cash, but they do have a 50k asset that isn’t “titled” - and their net worth is still increased by 50k.

I could go on but suffice to say, this kind of thing can get complicated.

While I understand and agree that capital growth can be tied up in investment, and also that in real-estate the term of 25 years is not excessive at all, still the question arises as to the net worth of a business venture that never seems to turn a profit on one hand, and yet makes claims of both liquidity and viability for recieving investment on the other?

Are they there to fish, or cut bait?

Neither, in many cases.

In a way, your point is conflating profitability and taxation. There’s many profitable businesses that pay zilch in tax. This goes to the point of my other post - they spend that money to get as revenue neutral as possible. Again, a huge tax bill tied to large profits is a business nono. How do they get their money out then? Pay themselves a salary, stock options, business expenses, etc.

Said another way, say you started and own a large privately held business. You pay yourself a 1mm salary. If you’ve done your budgeting right, the business already pays for your golf club, the private jet, possibly some cars, dinners, the second or third vacation home, etc. - which goes against revenue from the business. Those assets are also owned by the business which shields your liability. Win win win.

But then you have a banner year in are bringing in 20 million over your projected revenue. Yikes! Not a bad problem to have, but a problem none the less. So maybe you spend that on advertising, acquiring a second plane, buying more RE for expansion, etc. basically, you just have to spend money. The rules around a “business expense” aren’t exactly Swiss cheese but they’re not airtight either - and what’s deemed reasonable varies by business.

For instance, I had a friend who had a huge year at their business. Had to spend money. Went out and bought their family high-end snowmobiles and slapped a company logo on the side. Boom - advertising. Kept those vehicles in a garage at the business and there you go - you just got 100k+ in snowmobiles instead of giving that to the Feds.

The net effect of all of that spending is a bunch of economic activity. Which is a good thing!

This is also why none of you should fear higher corporate tax rates. All it does is incentivize business to spend more of their money. If they’re doing it right, it’ll just compound and grow their business - and supports a lot of jobs or ancillary services in the process (note, I am not endorsing higher taxes - just don’t sweat them like the media would suggest at the corporate level).

I can’t speak for Trump obviously, but I can tell you it’s hard to make money with a golf course. Much harder than one might think.

It is business activity, but it only actually profits the business owner/s.

The government doesn't get the money through taxation, despite the administrative costs expended to enable the environment for business profitability.

The purchasing public on the whole is also poorer because their money goes to the business owner in terms of the profit made.

It is the case of money flowing away from many, towards a small number of highly aquisitive recipients. They make the country poorer for their own gain.

Who is John Gault?

Dagny's counter, an unassailable and unreachable ideologue, the center of his own fanciful realm.

... or, more metaphorically, we are.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785

So, he's been a business success by failing spectacularly for 10 years?

Where did his money come from, his net worth of "tens of billions", if he didn't make any money?

Total net worth is different than liquid net worth.

Many billionaires don’t have billions sitting around in cash. A) because if you have cash idling it’s not working for you and B) it’s likely locked up in a business or hard asset (RE, PPE, etc.).

Said another way, many very wealthy people have their assets locked up in a business that’s worth some multiple of TTM revenue (typically) if the business is privately held. Different businesses have different multiples for what they’re worth - and those numbers ebb and flow. But that’s how they arrive at “billionaire” status.

Also, being illiquid is common for RE guys. They might have a net worth of 50-100 million but only have a few million liquid (stocks/bonds/cash). Still wealthy, but not like folks might think - it also means that come tax time they might not be paying a lot in tax. The goal is to look at broke as possible on paper and run everything through the business or LLC.

Also, to the point of taxes, this is another reason the wealthy like art/jewelry/etc. - easier to transfer that wealth undetected to the next generation. I.e. they buy a 50k painting and then give it to their kid to hang on their wall. The kid doesn’t have 50k in cold hard cash, but they do have a 50k asset that isn’t “titled” - and their net worth is still increased by 50k.

I could go on but suffice to say, this kind of thing can get complicated.

While I understand and agree that capital growth can be tied up in investment, and also that in real-estate the term of 25 years is not excessive at all, still the question arises as to the net worth of a business venture that never seems to turn a profit on one hand, and yet makes claims of both liquidity and viability for recieving investment on the other?

Are they there to fish, or cut bait?

Neither, in many cases.

In a way, your point is conflating profitability and taxation. There’s many profitable businesses that pay zilch in tax. This goes to the point of my other post - they spend that money to get as revenue neutral as possible. Again, a huge tax bill tied to large profits is a business nono. How do they get their money out then? Pay themselves a salary, stock options, business expenses, etc.

Said another way, say you started and own a large privately held business. You pay yourself a 1mm salary. If you’ve done your budgeting right, the business already pays for your golf club, the private jet, possibly some cars, dinners, the second or third vacation home, etc. - which goes against revenue from the business. Those assets are also owned by the business which shields your liability. Win win win.

But then you have a banner year in are bringing in 20 million over your projected revenue. Yikes! Not a bad problem to have, but a problem none the less. So maybe you spend that on advertising, acquiring a second plane, buying more RE for expansion, etc. basically, you just have to spend money. The rules around a “business expense” aren’t exactly Swiss cheese but they’re not airtight either - and what’s deemed reasonable varies by business.

For instance, I had a friend who had a huge year at their business. Had to spend money. Went out and bought their family high-end snowmobiles and slapped a company logo on the side. Boom - advertising. Kept those vehicles in a garage at the business and there you go - you just got 100k+ in snowmobiles instead of giving that to the Feds.

The net effect of all of that spending is a bunch of economic activity. Which is a good thing!

This is also why none of you should fear higher corporate tax rates. All it does is incentivize business to spend more of their money. If they’re doing it right, it’ll just compound and grow their business - and supports a lot of jobs or ancillary services in the process (note, I am not endorsing higher taxes - just don’t sweat them like the media would suggest at the corporate level).

I can’t speak for Trump obviously, but I can tell you it’s hard to make money with a golf course. Much harder than one might think.

It is business activity, but it only actually profits the business owner/s.

The government doesn't get the money through taxation, despite the administrative costs expended to enable the environment for business profitability.

The purchasing public on the whole is also poorer because their money goes to the business owner in terms of the profit made.

It is the case of money flowing away from many, towards a small number of highly aquisitive recipients. They make the country poorer for their own gain.

Who is John Gault?

Dagny's counter, an unassailable and unreachable ideologue, the center of his own fanciful realm.

... or, more metaphorically, we are.

We are absolutely living Atlas Shrugged.

And it will play out just like the movie at this rate - and that isn’t the fault of corporations.

But you’ll probably vote in the “anti-dog-eat-dog” rules... ya?

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785

So, he's been a business success by failing spectacularly for 10 years?

Where did his money come from, his net worth of "tens of billions", if he didn't make any money?

Total net worth is different than liquid net worth.

Many billionaires don’t have billions sitting around in cash. A) because if you have cash idling it’s not working for you and B) it’s likely locked up in a business or hard asset (RE, PPE, etc.).

Said another way, many very wealthy people have their assets locked up in a business that’s worth some multiple of TTM revenue (typically) if the business is privately held. Different businesses have different multiples for what they’re worth - and those numbers ebb and flow. But that’s how they arrive at “billionaire” status.

Also, being illiquid is common for RE guys. They might have a net worth of 50-100 million but only have a few million liquid (stocks/bonds/cash). Still wealthy, but not like folks might think - it also means that come tax time they might not be paying a lot in tax. The goal is to look at broke as possible on paper and run everything through the business or LLC.

Also, to the point of taxes, this is another reason the wealthy like art/jewelry/etc. - easier to transfer that wealth undetected to the next generation. I.e. they buy a 50k painting and then give it to their kid to hang on their wall. The kid doesn’t have 50k in cold hard cash, but they do have a 50k asset that isn’t “titled” - and their net worth is still increased by 50k.

I could go on but suffice to say, this kind of thing can get complicated.

While I understand and agree that capital growth can be tied up in investment, and also that in real-estate the term of 25 years is not excessive at all, still the question arises as to the net worth of a business venture that never seems to turn a profit on one hand, and yet makes claims of both liquidity and viability for recieving investment on the other?

Are they there to fish, or cut bait?

Neither, in many cases.

In a way, your point is conflating profitability and taxation. There’s many profitable businesses that pay zilch in tax. This goes to the point of my other post - they spend that money to get as revenue neutral as possible. Again, a huge tax bill tied to large profits is a business nono. How do they get their money out then? Pay themselves a salary, stock options, business expenses, etc.

Said another way, say you started and own a large privately held business. You pay yourself a 1mm salary. If you’ve done your budgeting right, the business already pays for your golf club, the private jet, possibly some cars, dinners, the second or third vacation home, etc. - which goes against revenue from the business. Those assets are also owned by the business which shields your liability. Win win win.

But then you have a banner year in are bringing in 20 million over your projected revenue. Yikes! Not a bad problem to have, but a problem none the less. So maybe you spend that on advertising, acquiring a second plane, buying more RE for expansion, etc. basically, you just have to spend money. The rules around a “business expense” aren’t exactly Swiss cheese but they’re not airtight either - and what’s deemed reasonable varies by business.

For instance, I had a friend who had a huge year at their business. Had to spend money. Went out and bought their family high-end snowmobiles and slapped a company logo on the side. Boom - advertising. Kept those vehicles in a garage at the business and there you go - you just got 100k+ in snowmobiles instead of giving that to the Feds.

The net effect of all of that spending is a bunch of economic activity. Which is a good thing!

This is also why none of you should fear higher corporate tax rates. All it does is incentivize business to spend more of their money. If they’re doing it right, it’ll just compound and grow their business - and supports a lot of jobs or ancillary services in the process (note, I am not endorsing higher taxes - just don’t sweat them like the media would suggest at the corporate level).

I can’t speak for Trump obviously, but I can tell you it’s hard to make money with a golf course. Much harder than one might think.

It is business activity, but it only actually profits the business owner/s.

The government doesn't get the money through taxation, despite the administrative costs expended to enable the environment for business profitability.

The purchasing public on the whole is also poorer because their money goes to the business owner in terms of the profit made.

It is the case of money flowing away from many, towards a small number of highly aquisitive recipients. They make the country poorer for their own gain.

Who is John Gault?

Dagny's counter, an unassailable and unreachable ideologue, the center of his own fanciful realm.

... or, more metaphorically, we are.

We are absolutely living Atlas Shrugged.

And it will play out just like the movie at this rate - and that isn’t the fault of corporations.

But you’ll probably vote in the “anti-dog-eat-dog” rules... ya?

Not in your world.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Atlas Shrugged is an book promoting selfish evil written by a psychopath based on their traumas under Soviet oppression. She went extreme.

It's pure evil and just as bad as Stalin was.

I consider that # one of the greatest enemies of humanity.

Selfish evil ppl steal all the world's wealth and use their media to dumb everyone down then turn them all against each other to "justify" withholding all wealth to make them all die.

That's pretty psycho selfish #.

That garbage book isnt even philosophically consistent. It represents hate and death just like Stalin who taught her how to act.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

There's no problem per say.

Just like the record debt ( before covid) isn't a problem. Though I'm unsure why a nation would borrow so heavily whilst it's slashing services, has record employment and a super successful economy.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos



I'll give you one very good reason. It's the historic reason "elitists" fail. Greed.

Capitalism and exploitation go hand in hand. Most people want an honest wage and find satisfaction in living a comfortable life.

Ahhh the words no taxation without representation rang out in my head...

There's only so long you can rob people and call it a game. Economics is a topic we could have 1000 pages on and not scratch the surface and I wish to save you the eye-ache. Nobody in their right mind wants to stifle prosperity. They want systems in place that affords them a reasonable chance to live long and prosper. Seems logical.

Further more you call for a global authority to enforce this slavery... Ya, no thanks.

Probably a bad idea... Offshore accounting (yay for the UK) in it's prime happened whilst their was plenty of national and international laws to regulate or stop it. I guess it's difficult when the biggest players are supported by nations.

Does your nation regulate exploitive loans to the poor? Nah mine neither. Point being don't say people aren't being crapped on. It's interesting to me that a lot of people have died in the past due to loan interest.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's the mentality of needless excess that has the world in a throw away culture.

Resources are finite, energy production is finite. But that's all for another topic. Not that I wouldn't be pissing in the wind these parts anyways lol.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: chr0naut

It's the mentality of needless excess that has the world in a throw away culture.

Resources are finite, energy production is finite. But that's all for another topic. Not that I wouldn't be pissing in the wind these parts anyways lol.

The Earth receives about 340 Watts per square meter of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere. Nearly all of which is radiated back into space.

There's plenty of energy to allow for some future expansion in energy usage, if someone actually captured it.