Because the interest accrued is probably less than half of what is realistic with historic trends. The tax rate assumed is unreasonably large for business as well, as he doesn't make a salary, he makes income.
What actually happens is most of it doesn't. He probably pays himself a salary out of the business, but the money being invested (i.e. "wealth") likely never leaves the business side of things.
Well, given that he makes well over a million a year, and therefore almost definitely has an accountant, what I said above is a virtual guarantee.
Unless you think he told his accountant "please maximize the taxes I pay to the federal government". Like, I agree that the house discourse is pointless, but it's also ridiculous to say that that kind of income won't convert to wealth quickly and easily.
This discussion exists in a vacuum of facts.
Yeah, that's why people are making reasonable assumptions. That's why I use words like "probably" and "likely".
This whole thread of argument started with you pointing out the distinction between income and wealth. The whole point of this argument is that with that much income, it easily becomes wealth.
But it isn't yet. And saying he's in the 0.1% is pointless if you're not talking about wealth, because then you're (not YOU I know) putting the streamer in the same category as billionaire capitalists, which only obscures things further.
You don't know that, I don't know that, no one knows that. We can only make reasonable assumptions. And the reasonable assumption is that he'd act in his own interest, talk to an accountant, and invest the money, thereby making it wealth.
This is like assuming that a soccer player who makes a few million doesn't invest the money. Of course he would, why wouldn't he?
I certainly wouldn't put him in the same category as billionaire bourgeois though, and I'm sure the person who said "0.1%" wouldn't either. But he's clearly wealthy, and that's more likely than not to affect his behavior.
Because the interest accrued is probably less than half of what is realistic with historic trends. The tax rate assumed is unreasonably large for business as well, as he doesn't make a salary, he makes income.
Please explain the difference.
Businesses get taxed at a lower rate than individuals.
What happens when the money goes from Hasan Inc. to Hasan Piker, individual?
It often never has to! If my dad can save on his taxes with a trucker's income, I'm sure the million dollar a year business can figure it out.
Oh I know! It gets taxed (again, which is actually good btw, "double taxation" is fake news) at the individual rate!
What actually happens is most of it doesn't. He probably pays himself a salary out of the business, but the money being invested (i.e. "wealth") likely never leaves the business side of things.
An assumption on your part.
This discussion exists in a vacuum of facts.
Well, given that he makes well over a million a year, and therefore almost definitely has an accountant, what I said above is a virtual guarantee.
Unless you think he told his accountant "please maximize the taxes I pay to the federal government". Like, I agree that the house discourse is pointless, but it's also ridiculous to say that that kind of income won't convert to wealth quickly and easily.
Yeah, that's why people are making reasonable assumptions. That's why I use words like "probably" and "likely".
I never said that, so that's good
This whole thread of argument started with you pointing out the distinction between income and wealth. The whole point of this argument is that with that much income, it easily becomes wealth.
But it isn't yet. And saying he's in the 0.1% is pointless if you're not talking about wealth, because then you're (not YOU I know) putting the streamer in the same category as billionaire capitalists, which only obscures things further.
You don't know that, I don't know that, no one knows that. We can only make reasonable assumptions. And the reasonable assumption is that he'd act in his own interest, talk to an accountant, and invest the money, thereby making it wealth.
This is like assuming that a soccer player who makes a few million doesn't invest the money. Of course he would, why wouldn't he?
I certainly wouldn't put him in the same category as billionaire bourgeois though, and I'm sure the person who said "0.1%" wouldn't either. But he's clearly wealthy, and that's more likely than not to affect his behavior.
Except that by saying that, they have done that. That's the crux of my issue here.
For the record, salary IS income. Both for tax purposes and just like generally.
Hexbear.net needs more people who understand how this works lmao
deleted by creator
Yes.
Lotta people in here acting like they've found certainty in this, tho.
I meant business income, whatever. Who cares about pedantic details, lol.
The IRS.
You're such a dork
Got the b school degree to prove it, too!
Being pedantic over details that barely matter seems about right with the bschool kids I tutored
The devil is in the details, as my cost accounting prof always said!
You don't need to get get every detail when looking for general trends, as I like to say to my qualitative methods for differential equations class
Lmao this is why nothing works anymore.
Do you know what qualitative means?