Oh man, Johnny, he got her. Her career has absolutely tanked since that video came out in September. No way she lives that down.

lmao

"AOC is embarrassing, for proof look at this video where someone replaced everything she says with 'wah wah wah'"

AOC: "single-payer healthcare is good"
Playlive: "but but look at Jake Tapper's face!"

inb4 JTF gimmick

Moving the Disney Discussion here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/4...world-1736747/

I think it was MSNBC who had a special a few nights ago on Bezos. One point that stuck out to me was that between the beginning of last year and May of that same year he made $235,000,000. Every day.

The fact that middle and lower class people go to bat for the wealthiest among us is absolutely mindboggling to me. I really think these people have zero concept of how much money a million dollars is. And they probably think a billion is only double that.

ETA: just for funsies, let's say he paid a tax rate of 70%. I won't even worry about calculating it as a marginal rate. If he paid 70% on every dollar he earned during that time frame he'd still make $70,500,000 every single day.

No, he didn't. AMZN went up in price and he holds a ton of AMZN. He didn't actually get money.

It is amusing because Gates has pushed for much more Aggressive progressive rates. In an interview at the time he said that as the person who had paid more income tax than any other, at the time, he felt he should have had to pay much, much more. I told this to a trump supporter relative and their response was “He is free to send as much money to the IRS as he wants.” Now this is not someone who would ever be impacted by the substantial changes discussed but they live in fantasy worlds where they think this is something that would affect them AND would make any difference in their life.

Thanks, semantikes

I think it is more than semantics to point out that a tax on unrealized capital gains are different from income. It's not clear from that post if he was suggesting a 70% tax on unrealized capital gains, or just using that figure because it'd been tossed around as the top bracket for income tax.

To be clear, I agree when it comes to taxing it that the difference is not semantic.

But the context here was responding to a post talking about Bezos "making money" by saying "no he didn't, his stock went up" which is definitely a semantic nitpick.

( twitter | raw text )

If Bezos were to sell his position (he probably can't since he is required as an insider to hold the shares/ or at least a lot of them) the value of those shares would go down a lot because of the increased supply as well as the news that an insider is selling all his position.

You think if he was required by law to sell some shares the market would react the same as if he just started selling them? You don’t think it would be possible to sell those shares over time to minimize that little impact even further? Or that it wouldn’t be possible to build in price declines due to selling stocks into any unrealized capital gains tax?

This. I did not intend to suggest we tax unrealized capital gains. My apologies for it coming across that way. But the point I was trying to make in response to the quote I posted stands. The wealthiest are making unfathomable amounts of money and it should be taxed at a higher rate.

( twitter | raw text )

Sorry for the JAQing here, but I feel like it's been asked and not answered in this thread. If Amazon is going to just take this HQ and set it up somewhere else in the US, then why are the non-NY USAians so worked up? Won't it be even a slightly better benefit to the people next place on Amazon's list? Apologies if this is obvious or has already been answered.

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

Madame, we moved our Amazon posts to the another thread.

( twitter | raw text )

Their worked up because Liberals won a fight for once.. Its that simple, they can't have Liberals owning any business decisions because they must continue the Capitalist system, any threat is a major problem to be squashed.

Hey if Bernie lite with a prettier face and body is your thing more power to you. She is a dolt who hopefully will go down in a primary next cycle and you can watch her on MSNBC.

1. Bezos can borrow against the shares to pay. It's how he's paying his bills right now.
2. Bezos can sell the economic benefits of the shares and keep the voting power and extract most of the value. This is frequently done in proxy fights. This is called empty voting although it's currently mostly done in the context of proxy fights, typically by fund managers trying to get more votes without putting more money at risk. This is one of those things that's only limited by convention (it's a bit frowned upon because it's theoretically possible to get 100% of the votes while taking on almost 0% of the economic risks of ownership).