Archy1221

And an index fund would have returned 65% more wealth in that same time period So billionaires are doing 2% better than us schmucks.

I don’t care if he gets investigated.

The article seems upset those fortunes grew 70%. However, the Russell 2000 grew what 100 plus %, NASDAQ some 80%, DOW about the same form the time points listed.

Ok just checking because for some reason your link discusses their gain from when the pandemic started as March 18 baseline. Odd they would pick the low point in the market vs a baseline of just prior to the crash. Me guesses they want to show the biggest gain possible to make their point instead of a truer pre/Covid vs post Covid gain.

Horse s#!t

Not really

Hopefully you understand how their wealth is growing so fast.

yes, yes it is….You are just being disingenuous and not engaging in honest discourse at this point so there isn’t any reason to go forward with after this. You should be smart enough to understand there is a difference between THE POINT OF LEGISLATION AND THE DETAILS OF SAID LEGISLATION TO MAKE THAT POINT HAPPEN. I will go slow for you this time. The point is to catch people not paying the full amount of income taxes that should be paid. No one here said POINT is a bad thing. The MAIN DETAIL in the legislation was the $600 transaction amount. Hopefully you can now engage in honest discourse. I agreed multiple times Good for you at trying to distract and equivocate instead of engaging in the main point of the discussion. But wait….now it’s NOT the main point and just a distraction????

Hoping Jesus did good work and it turned out the way you wanted.

That minor detail is a pretty MAJOR point. I’m sorry you understand this. The main point is they don’t want high income people skirting the tax laws. I’ve never disagreed here and you can’t show otherwise. Why would you make the quite disingenuous statement? Once again teach is spot on!

Unless there is more to the story I tend to agree here

Not good

Oh I don’t know, maybe sarcasm/rhetorical question

That’s a funny deflection. True statement but funny deflection.

That’s up to you decide. Either you do or don’t based on what you read. I’m fine either way.

I’ve answered it. Why ask that question again? To make believe you didn’t read it the first time? It’s onerous and assumes guilt with normal day to day societal transactions. The right number is the current number. I’m glad we agree there is no logic to your way of thinking on this or your only rich people own banks nonsense.

The public knows now. Did you know this contemporaneously?

I can at least appreciate this statement. You don’t seem in favor of some nonsensical arbitrary number. I am inferring that you agree there is no arguments or it.

Actually millions. tens of millions.

It’s not a red herring or blue herring or even purple herring. It’s just you not realizing that when one carries your argument to it’s logical conclusion, your argument isn’t very smart. So do I. Pension holders, 401k holders, credit union members. Lots who are middle income citizens.

What about the middle income people who own banks?

This is at least a decent argument. But as the fact check @Scarletlinked points out, it won't be individual transactions that are sent to the IRS but instead annual aggregations. If that’s the argument then why not aggregate the entirety of transactions?

Onerous on who? The bank computers that will automatically submit the reports? Banks are saying it will be onerous.

No, you specifically said something about asking am I not wanting wanting to catch tax cheats. If that’s the verbiage that you are relying on to make your point then what’s wrong with going way farther to catch more tax cheats? I find it interesting you don’t want to confront that, and instead just try and blow it off.

Not sure. No. Why $600 limit? Are you saying you don’t want to catch the tax cheats that use lesser transaction amounts? No answers to the other questions posed to help catch tax cheats?