THE Super Ultra Wealthy Man can see the future, he sees horror ahead

[Martinghoul]

The problem with this thread is some people are showing paranoia and are trying to trap volpunter so that they can accuse him of being antisemite.
Don't inflict misery on others if a good psy can sort out your problem.

I don't want to accuse volpunter of anything necessarily and I don't want to trap him/her any more than he/she has already trapped him/herself by making assertions that he/she cannot prove... I would just like to see some evidence and facts that volpunter offered to provide.

Since he/she is unwilling to provide such evidence (he/she probably has me conveniently on ignore now), I have to conclude he/she is full of sh1t. Moreover, I have now observed a few instances of the passive-aggressive behavior that volpunter likes to engage in. The pattern is that he/she first makes some sort of a random unsubstantiated claim. When asked directly to offer support evidence, he/she produces a lot of verbiage, accuses the other person of some sort of miscommunication and refuses to continue the discussion.

So, in summary, I must conclude that volpunter is full of sh1t and a waste of time. This concludes my involvement in this particular discussion.

 

[volpunter]

don't worry Martin, nobody puts you on ignore, I like your fixed income comments way too much to miss out. But I do not respond well to those who twist language and misquote to bend the discussion to where they like it to go. You come along as if anyone owed you a thing, and just because I offered to share links that you by the way can conveniently google does not mean I do not reserve the right to withhold them from someone who purposely misquotes others just in order to satisfy your seemingly ironic and sometimes bizarre way of steering a discussion.

Calling someone "being full of shit" just because he did not volunteer some links only speaks to your way of handling situations that do not go your way. Funny to say the least. I highly recommend you to stick to your fixed income field that you obviously feel most familiar with, so far I could not really see how you added much value to the discussion of inequality. I rather see you often descending from your heavenly chair just to question someone and then a short while later you take off after you released your poop. Do you actually have an own point in this discussion regarding inequality?

I don't want to accuse volpunter of anything necessarily and I don't want to trap him/her any more than he/she has already trapped him/herself by making assertions that he/she cannot prove... I would just like to see some evidence and facts that volpunter offered to provide.

Since he/she is unwilling to provide such evidence (he/she probably has me conveniently on ignore now), I have to conclude he/she is full of sh1t. Moreover, I have now observed a few instances of the passive-aggressive behavior that volpunter likes to engage in. The pattern is that he/she first makes some sort of a random unsubstantiated claim. When asked directly to offer support evidence, he/she produces a lot of verbiage, accuses the other person of some sort of miscommunication and refuses to continue the discussion.

So, in summary, I must conclude that volpunter is full of sh1t and a waste of time. This concludes my involvement in this particular discussion.

 

[Martinghoul]

don't worry Martin, nobody puts you on ignore, I like your fixed income comments way too much to miss out. But I do not respond well to those who twist language and misquote to bend the discussion to where they like it to go. You come along as if anyone owed you a thing, and just because I offered to share links that you by the way can conveniently google does not mean I do not reserve the right to withhold them from someone who purposely misquotes others just in order to satisfy your seemingly ironic and sometimes bizarre way of steering a discussion.

Calling someone "being full of shit" just because he did not volunteer some links only speaks to your way of handling situations that do not go your way. Funny to say the least. I highly recommend you to stick to your fixed income field that you obviously feel most familiar with, so far I could not really see how you added much value to the discussion of inequality. I rather see you often descending from your heavenly chair just to question someone and then a short while later you take off after you released your poop. Do you actually have an own point in this discussion regarding inequality?

Right, here you go again... Let me respond, although I probably shouldn't.

Firstly, I am not trying to bend the discussion, twist language and misquote. I also don't believe that you owe me anything. All I am asking is something that you have volunteered to provide yourself (pls note that you didn't suggest googling for it, you explicitly stated you will provide sources; see your posts #109 and #127). Do you agree with that or have I somehow misquoted you in this as well? Now you certainly have the right to refuse to provide what you have promised, for whatever reason, just as I have the right to describe you as "full of sh1t" when you do such a thing.

As to the situation here not having gone my way, you will have to forgive me if I disagree. I view our friendly discussion in a more positive light. Specifically, I think I have proven, at least to my own satisfaction, that the categorical statements you have made here are baseless and possess no merit whatsoever (how else could one explain your staunch refusal to provide the evidence you volunteered? Sorry, I don't buy the childish "my feelings are hurt" nonsense). Moreover, a further benefit is that I will know to treat anything you state in the future with extreme skepticism. Dunno whether that's funny, but it sure is useful.

Finally, regarding the value I add to the conversation, I do believe that critical questioning of other people's erroneous or baseless statements adds value, especially in contrast to the misleading statements themselves. So I'd rather disagree with your description of my contribution as "poop". Regarding my own point in this discussion on inequality, I would be happy to talk about it, right after we finish with your statistics and data.

 

[volpunter]

I have nothing to add to this particular subtopic given you cannot even openly admit that you misquoted me multiple times and that I called you out on it.

So, please go ahead and state your point regarding inequality and the article that was posted, I am more than curious because so far you have only picked on peoples' post rather than putting up any original (aka your OWN) content and thoughts.

Right, here you go again... Let me respond, although I probably shouldn't.

Firstly, I am not trying to bend the discussion, twist language and misquote. I also don't believe that you owe me anything. All I am asking is something that you have volunteered to provide yourself (pls note that you didn't suggest googling for it, you explicitly stated you will provide sources; see your posts #109 and #127). Do you agree with that or have I somehow misquoted you in this as well? Now you certainly have the right to refuse to provide what you have promised, for whatever reason, just as I have the right to describe you as "full of sh1t" when you do such a thing.

As to the situation here not having gone my way, you will have to forgive me if I disagree. I view our friendly discussion in a more positive light. Specifically, I think I have proven, at least to my own satisfaction, that the categorical statements you have made here are baseless and possess no merit whatsoever (how else could one explain your staunch refusal to provide the evidence you volunteered? Sorry, I don't buy the childish "my feelings are hurt" nonsense). Moreover, a further benefit is that I will know to treat anything you state in the future with extreme skepticism. Dunno whether that's funny, but it sure is useful.

Finally, regarding the value I add to the conversation, I do believe that critical questioning of other people's erroneous or baseless statements adds value, especially in contrast to the misleading statements themselves. So I'd rather disagree with your description of my contribution as "poop". Regarding my own point in this discussion on inequality, I would be happy to talk about it, right after we finish with your statistics and data.

 

[Martinghoul]

I have nothing to add to this particular subtopic given you cannot even openly admit that you misquoted me multiple times and that I called you out on it.

So, please go ahead and state your point regarding inequality and the article that was posted, I am more than curious because so far you have only picked on peoples' post rather than putting up any original (aka your OWN) content and thoughts.

Sorry, did I not express myself clearly? Didn't I say that I'll happily talk about my point(s) on the original subject right after we finish looking at your data and statistics? If you're so eager to see "my OWN original content and thoughts", you know what to do, right?

 

[jem]

I thought I answered it well by giving you a look at how the system works.

But, I will answer even more directly.

the death taxes are the catch all that makes sure that within 2 generations a family is turned back into high tax paying drones.

You either make it into the top .02% or the family money get ripped away within two generations.

What this mean in terms of income inequality is that you have the top .02% who are connected and to vacuum up all the assets.... and everyone else who gets slaughtered by health insurance, massive state and federal taxes college debt and taxes.

its really just like feudal times but with netflix hulu and the internet and better health care.
Is that so bad... no.. but is it right?
All this I could live with and channel my kids into crony type opportunities...

but... what I can't handle is when the Fed and IMF and democrats say that income inequality is a problem yet they propose taxing the 98% without control of the assets instead of the .02% with perhaps 100% control of 98% of the assets.

You haven't really answered my specific question, but never mind...

 

[Martinghoul]

I thought I answered it well by giving you a look at how the system works.

But, I will answer even more directly.

the death taxes are the catch all that makes sure that within 2 generations a family is turned back into high tax paying drones.

You either make it into the top .02% who are pretty much the cronies conntected through leveraged finance or the family money get ripped away within two generations.

What this mean in turns of income inequality is that you have the top .02% who are connected to the money creators and collect up all the assets and everyone else who gets slaughtered by health insurance, massive state and federal taxes college debt and taxes.

its really just like feudal times but with netflix hulu and the internet and better health care.

Is that so bad... no.. but is it right?

Right, so correct me if I am misinterpreting you (god forbid you might get all sensitive on me like some others here), but are you saying that death taxes are collected from wealthy families, but the really wealthy people, the 0.02%, don't pay them? Or do the ultra wealthy families turn into high tax paying drones as well, maybe not in 2, but in 3 generations?

 

[jem]

I made a typo above re percentages. but the percentages are approximations but the point is that the very wealthy and cronies are already set up...
their money can be protected from taxation for a few reasons..

Frankly although I knew some of the kids of the some of the famous cronies we spoke of on this board as this kid in greenwich... I know longer no them as I moved to San Diego.
So I have no idea what percent of the cronies lose their money after 3 or 4 generations.

But... we don't really need to know.

the point is there are those who can insulate themselves from most or all of the impacts of massive inflation and progressive taxes coupled with a death tax...
and 99% or more who cant...

So to me its absurd for chief spokes models for the cronies... buffet the pimco guys to be saying or suggesting or even being part of the idea we can fix income inequality by taxing the 99%.

Right, so correct me if I am misinterpreting you (god forbid you might get all sensitive on me like some others here), but are you saying that death taxes are collected from wealthy families, but the really wealthy people, the 0.02%, don't pay them? Or do the ultra wealthy families turn into high tax paying drones as well, maybe not in 2, but in 3 generations?

 

[Martinghoul]

the percentages are rough approximations but the point is that the very wealthy and cronies are already set up...
their money is protected from taxation for a few reasons..

1. they have control over a very large percentage of the assets in america...
so they can beat inflation
2. those assets are generally in trusts or foreign entities which help them avoid taxes.
they also take loans against their assets which allows them to pay zero taxes to support their lifestyles.
3. their assets are also themselves great at avoiding taxes like GE.
4. some very lucky few even get to essentially electronically print money because of that status of shareholders in the banks which own the Federal Reserve system.

then there are those newly super wealthy... who can use those same structures and set up their assets in trust and even aking loans against their assets to avoid paying high levels of income taxes or...
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-17/how-to-pay-no-taxes-10-strategies-used-by-the-rich

and
then there are those that don't make it to the level of wealth which can benefit form expensive asset structuring. the 99%


So to me its absurd for chief spokes models for the cronies... buffet the pimco gusy to be saying or suggesting or even being part of the idea we can fix income inequality by taxing the 99%.

Right, so let me concentrate on just the bit that's relevant to my specific question. You're saying that the ultra wealthy are able to avoid death/inheritance taxes, since they can use trusts and foreign entities, whereas the just wealthy cannot? Now let me ask you a similar question to what I asked Mav... If you could prevent all these loopholes from being used and could actually apply death/inheritance taxes equally to the ultra wealthy, would that help to reduce inequality?

 

[jem]

There are those whose families are already in the protected club and those who make it in every year.... they have the infrastructure and the wealth in place to protect themselves from the ravages of systematic inflation coupled with large taxation and death taxes. (its a pretty small group and they own a pretty massive amount of the assets in america and the word... as well as the politicians.) there have been interesting articles on the tax avoidance tactics of the super wealthy... you can google if you are not a familiar... but I am sure you are.)


Then there is the 99.__ % who don't have the advisor infrastructure and the money to set it the tax avoidance structures.

(to your point some barely make it into the club and some fall out every year and therefore I am sure you understand the ones just barely in need need better advisors or even luck to stay in past 3 generations. )


So to me its absurd for chief spokes models for the cronies... buffet the pimco guys to be saying or suggesting or even being part of the idea we can fix income inequality by taxing the 99%.
I am not calling for a wealth tax on the .02%, I call for an elimination of income and death taxes for everyone... . but the sobs with the control of the PR machine might want to back off on this inequality talk. Its crazy and will likely result in a flip the script scenario. I sense a really large part of america about to hit the reset button on the cronies... all they will need is one good leader.

Right, so correct me if I am misinterpreting you (god forbid you might get all sensitive on me like some others here), but are you saying that death taxes are collected from wealthy families, but the really wealthy people, the 0.02%, don't pay them? Or do the ultra wealthy families turn into high tax paying drones as well, maybe not in 2, but in 3 generations?