|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 18, 2012 21:30:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 19, 2012 3:38:39 GMT -8
The State of California just made $1.5 Billion from taxes generated by the IPO. Zuckerberg paid ~$200 Million.
Leach?
He just knocked down 9% of California's debt. (~16B)
I think he rates a big thanks.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards
|
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on May 19, 2012 6:53:26 GMT -8
Moonbeam just spent another $3.2 billion after hearing of the IPO tax collected...
STOP SPENDING, nimrods.
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 19, 2012 8:38:52 GMT -8
The State of California just made $1.5 Billion from taxes generated by the IPO. Zuckerberg paid ~$200 Million. Leach? He just knocked down 9% of California's debt. (~16B) I think he rates a big thanks. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards You miss the point of the article, and my post, Stu. The article's point was that after he exercises his options, and pays the tax, he will have enough assets to arrange his life so that he never pays income taxes again. The point of my post was to ascertain if his not paying income taxes in the future made him not have "skin in the game" in the future. I certainly think he does. Do the cons? |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 19, 2012 10:57:31 GMT -8
The State of California just made $1.5 Billion from taxes generated by the IPO. Zuckerberg paid ~$200 Million. Leach? He just knocked down 9% of California's debt. (~16B) I think he rates a big thanks. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards You miss the point of the article, and my post, Stu. The article's point was that after he exercises his options, and pays the tax, he will have enough assets to arrange his life so that he never pays income taxes again. The point of my post was to ascertain if his not paying income taxes in the future made him not have "skin in the game" in the future. I certainly think he does. Do the cons? I was responding to the comment that he'd perhaps be one of those leaches who won't be paying income taxes. I responded as such and added my appreciation for his contribution. I failed to add that his property tax bill will fund a lot of municipal activities. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 19, 2012 11:55:13 GMT -8
You miss the point of the article, and my post, Stu. The article's point was that after he exercises his options, and pays the tax, he will have enough assets to arrange his life so that he never pays income taxes again. The point of my post was to ascertain if his not paying income taxes in the future made him not have "skin in the game" in the future. I certainly think he does. Do the cons? I was responding to the comment that he'd perhaps be one of those leaches who won't be paying income taxes. I responded as such and added my appreciation for his contribution. I failed to add that his property tax bill will fund a lot of municipal activities. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards If you do not want to respond to the question, fine. Don't pretend you have. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 19, 2012 14:53:00 GMT -8
I have no idea what your question was. I merely commented on the "Leach" reference.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 19, 2012 16:52:20 GMT -8
The article was all speculation. The author said he had no idea what Zuckerberg had planned. It does point out how complicated the tax code has become.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 19, 2012 19:14:44 GMT -8
It is so much fun to watch cons squirm. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 19, 2012 20:40:42 GMT -8
 Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 19, 2012 21:06:24 GMT -8
Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards Should not have posted in manner that appears to include you, Stu. You have not been involved in bashing people who are not subject to income tax. I have been pointing out how wealthy people can not be subject to income tax even though they have substantial assets and cash flow. It seems many of the cons assume only poor people do not pay income tax. Nothing personal to you. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 20, 2012 4:13:02 GMT -8
Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards Should not have posted in manner that appears to include you, Stu. You have not been involved in bashing people who are not subject to income tax. I have been pointing out how wealthy people can not be subject to income tax even though they have substantial assets and cash flow. It seems many of the cons assume only poor people do not pay income tax. Nothing personal to you. But he paid (personal and company) enough tax this year to pay down 10% of California's entire debt. Hardly "not" paying taxes. If he never makes any more income, he won't pay income tax but he'll certainly pay many other taxes to include a substantial property tax. He is paying taxes, huge taxes. I don't understand your argument. He is hardly going to become a "leach." Again, he deserves our appreciation rather than used as a strawman in a fallacious argument. The rich pay the bulk of the taxes, there is no argument as the numbers are widely available. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 20, 2012 6:43:10 GMT -8
Zuckerberg paid the biggest tax of all by getting married this weekend. I am not talking about the huge tax on the rings.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 20, 2012 8:16:59 GMT -8
Should not have posted in manner that appears to include you, Stu. You have not been involved in bashing people who are not subject to income tax. I have been pointing out how wealthy people can not be subject to income tax even though they have substantial assets and cash flow. It seems many of the cons assume only poor people do not pay income tax. Nothing personal to you. But he paid (personal and company) enough tax this year to pay down 10% of California's entire debt. Hardly "not" paying taxes. If he never makes any more income, he won't pay income tax but he'll certainly pay many other taxes to include a substantial property tax. He is paying taxes, huge taxes. I don't understand your argument. He is hardly going to become a "leach." Again, he deserves our appreciation rather than used as a strawman in a fallacious argument. The rich pay the bulk of the taxes, there is no argument as the numbers are widely available. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards Stu, I don't think you are here enough to follow all the threads. We have had threads where examples were posted of people who paid taxes in the past, but were not now, they were labeled "leaches" as they were not paying taxes now. They had " no skin in the game" now. Furthermore, the cons had defined property taxes and sales taxes out of the discussion. The only tax in play was federal income tax. You make my point, from older posts of mine, regarding property tax. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 20, 2012 8:18:16 GMT -8
Zuckerberg paid the biggest tax of all by getting married this weekend. I am not talking about the huge tax on the rings. Yeah, but if this Facebook thing falls apart she can support on her doctor's salary. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 20, 2012 12:41:18 GMT -8
But he paid (personal and company) enough tax this year to pay down 10% of California's entire debt. Hardly "not" paying taxes. If he never makes any more income, he won't pay income tax but he'll certainly pay many other taxes to include a substantial property tax. He is paying taxes, huge taxes. I don't understand your argument. He is hardly going to become a "leach." Again, he deserves our appreciation rather than used as a strawman in a fallacious argument. The rich pay the bulk of the taxes, there is no argument as the numbers are widely available. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards Stu, I don't think you are here enough to follow all the threads. We have had threads where examples were posted of people who paid taxes in the past, but were not now, they were labeled "leaches" as they were not paying taxes now. They had " no skin in the game" now. Furthermore, the cons had defined property taxes and sales taxes out of the discussion. The only tax in play was federal income tax. You make my point, from older posts of mine, regarding property tax. The discussions have been far more complicated than that. You are painting a distorted picture. Dig those threads up again in you want. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 20, 2012 16:15:52 GMT -8
Stu, I don't think you are here enough to follow all the threads. We have had threads where examples were posted of people who paid taxes in the past, but were not now, they were labeled "leaches" as they were not paying taxes now. They had " no skin in the game" now. Furthermore, the cons had defined property taxes and sales taxes out of the discussion. The only tax in play was federal income tax. You make my point, from older posts of mine, regarding property tax. The discussions have been far more complicated than that. You are painting a distorted picture. Dig those threads up again in you want. If you want to say I am distorting the discussion you should post the threads proving your point. You should be able to do it in 30 seconds. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 20, 2012 18:32:05 GMT -8
The discussions have been far more complicated than that. You are painting a distorted picture. Dig those threads up again in you want. If you want to say I am distorting the discussion you should post the threads proving your point. You should be able to do it in 30 seconds. I hate to show up the handicapped. You started it so show your stuff. There is a feature on this board to do just that. Want to look at a serious proposal? This would put you out of business, but save billions in expenses to individuals and corporations and be much flatter and of course fairer. xrl.us/bm8qkrOr would you prefer to continue the class warfare discussion and system that keeps beans and franks on your table. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 20, 2012 19:57:33 GMT -8
If you want to say I am distorting the discussion you should post the threads proving your point. You should be able to do it in 30 seconds. I hate to show up the handicapped. You started it so show your stuff. There is a feature on this board to do just that. Want to look at a serious proposal? This would put you out of business, but save billions in expenses to individuals and corporations and be much flatter and of course fairer. xrl.us/bm8qkrOr would you prefer to continue the class warfare discussion and system that keeps beans and franks on your table. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 22, 2012 10:52:14 GMT -8
I hate to show up the handicapped. You started it so show your stuff. There is a feature on this board to do just that. Want to look at a serious proposal? This would put you out of business, but save billions in expenses to individuals and corporations and be much flatter and of course fairer. xrl.us/bm8qkrOr would you prefer to continue the class warfare discussion and system that keeps beans and franks on your table. LOL Well, I guess a serious common sense idea about simple fair taxes has shut you up. |
|
