Three very rich guys talk about Trump, taxes, and the 'vilified' 1%

[Sunseeker]

Then you should tax wealthy people (who had nothing to do with it) more in order to justify paying for it.

Considering they are more than likely the business operators who are most likely to put others at risk with dangerous business strategies, yes. Consider it paying it forward. We provide them with a clean country, they provide us with a security deposit for cleanup after they leave.

[The Stormbringer]

'Change' candidate, huh? So what, change for the sake of change? As if change is always a good thing. Change could be changing back to worse ways, changing to less open and more hostile ways, and so on and so forth. Trump is change, there's no doubt about it, but it's the worst sort you could imagine happening.

[Thedweller]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/news...man/index.html



So, who is at fault, the government for not creating a simple and easily applied tax code, or these men for utilizing the law and being successful?

You make it sound like these rich guys are just following the tax code as it's written, so it's not their fault if they are entitled to write this stuff off. They are just being smart.

The reality is they are indeed being smart, but they are doing a hell of a lot more than just following the tax code. They are using their money to lobby to get changes made in their favor, and lobby to prevent the tax code from being simplified, because this complex, convoluted tax code serves them best.

They are doing their best to play innocent. "Golly, Uncle Sam said I could have three cookies, so I took them. It's not my fault Uncle Sam didn't leave any cookies for you." When rich men made it so it benefits them, and pitch a tantrum when it looks like someone might take away a little of their advantage (remember all those threats certain large business owners made to try to scare people out of voting for Obama?).

So yeah, these guys ARE just being smart, taking every advantage they can, and they are being smart to keep the tax code so it favors them. So when are WE going to be equally smart and rewrite it to favor the lower and middle class more?

[Machismo]

Considering they are more than likely the business operators who are most likely to put others at risk with dangerous business strategies, yes. Consider it paying it forward. We provide them with a clean country, they provide us with a security deposit for cleanup after they leave.

You want to punish people, because they are like others who have caused harm... got it.

So, you have no problem punishing people via profiling and generalizations and stereotypes? If that's the case, should we arrest all young, black males, since they are more likely to commit crimes? If it's about mitigating risk, then arresting them all makes sense to you, right? You can even call it a "security deposit."

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's kinda funny how the wealthy people in the OP are bragging about paying zero taxes, and wanting to change it so that they're actually paying the rates everyone else is paying, 20-30%, is still considered punishment by @Machismo, lol.

[Saucexorzski]

How human of these men to find a flaw in a man made system and prey upon it. How very human of those unable to do the same to claim those men to be vile and not allowed them to keep their gains...well that is, unless they give some % of those gains away to the very folks who think them vile.

[Jinpachi]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation and the economy. Higher taxation of the wealthiest can only bring higher GDP growth and consumption/investment. The multiplicative effect of redistributing funds back into the economy will make the wealthiest portfolios grow at a much higher rate.

Sigh. Show me the paper trail where the income taxes are redistributed back into the economy, and not used to pay back the debt owed to the federal reserve.

[Machismo]

No, money is a completely faith based construct that only works if you have governments in place. You don't want any governments so why would you want their monopoly money. Practice what you preach.

I never said I don't want any government, did I?

[Deleted]

How human of these men to find a flaw in a man made system and prey upon it. How very human of those unable to do the same to claim those men to be vile and not allowed them to keep their gains...well that is, unless they give some % of those gains away to the very folks who think them vile.

Its pretty much the basics of running a country, you need taxes to keep it running. I guess when someone shows up at their door with a gun and they call the police karma would be the police saying: sorry you didn't pay for this service.

[Kezotar]

The wealth will trickle down, DUH. Millionaires are totally going to create jobs from their personal incomes!

Personal? What they put in their pockets after all their investments? Nah. I wouldn't. Why would they.

They're already creating thousands of jobs, which those thousands of jobs they're creating an economy. Those who get their jobs, also have income to use which will create more jobs, which again creates more jobs. And they're not avoiding any more taxes than other richies that try to keep competitive within allowable margins.

So my question is - How many jobs have YOU created?

[Machismo]

When you make statements like


you are advocating for no government. To have government at all taxation is necessary. Soooo, go practice what you preach and live in the middle of nowhere with no internet or electricity and no money.

Also, our currency only has value because of the entire nation. If you broke it down into smaller nations(you claim having 300M+ people in a nation is too many) our current currency would 1) have no value and 2) those nations' currency would have little to no value. We're no longer on the gold standard. Money is an entirely faith-based construct that requires the nations we have to continue to hold value.

No, I'm not advertising for no government, merely one that is voluntary. I'm advocating for as little government as possible, which means reduced taxation for everyone.

[Canpinter]

No, I'm not advertising for no government, merely one that is voluntary. I'm advocating for as little government as possible, which means reduced taxation for everyone.

how do you have a voluntary government, if the rules and laws don't apply to everyone they are useless

[Machismo]

how do you have a voluntary government, if the rules and laws don't apply to everyone they are useless

Not at all. The rules don't apply to everyone, nor do they protect everyone. If someone wants the protection and security afforded by government, they can have it. If they do not, then they are on their own.

[thilicen]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/news...man/index.html



So, who is at fault, the government for not creating a simple and easily applied tax code, or these men for utilizing the law and being successful?

If by "utilizing the laws" you mean "created through intense lobbying", then yeah, it's them.

[Varaben]

On the one hand, they are correct regarding tax write-offs. I'd be a fool not to take the deductions I'm able to take such as mortgage interest or student loan interest; likewise, they would be foolish not to carry interest over 18 years.

Because of how complicated our tax system is, the incentives are skewed very much. I'm an advocate for a system like Fairtax.org where you tax based on consumption, which ends up being WAY WAY less complicated than our current income tax system. Not sure how realistic that is, but it would be nice.

[Deletedaccount1]

No, I'm not advertising for no government, merely one that is voluntary. I'm advocating for as little government as possible, which means reduced taxation for everyone.

Good luck trying to talk anyone here into taking voluntarism seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

So, who is at fault, the government for not creating a simple and easily applied tax code, or these men for utilizing the law and being successful?

It depends on how you approach the question. If you hold that people need to pay taxes and a progressive tax system is absolutely necessary and everyone should know that then yes it would probably be immoral on the part of those wealthy individuals for not going out of their way to pay taxes. My ideal situation is no one pays taxes or that they are so cheap and unavoidable that they fund bare bones institutions that every person regardless of income needs to pay.

The moral position from what is currently legal is that these men did nothing wrong because they did nothing that was strictly speaking illegal. I can't fault someone for going out of their way to save their own money especially when that money goes towards wasteful programs that actively make the world a worse place. I also can't see why someone would say these people don't pay taxes therefore they contribute nothing to society when in reality, they are employers and businessmen who can create capital and jobs which to me, is far more valuable than putting money into a bottomless pit of welfare programs and wasted government spending.

[TwistedSkull]

Just gonna leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgicDQHbV3M

[wheresmywoft]

Quite the opposite. In fact, I don't want to harm people. Those who support forced wealth redistribution are the ones causing harm. They just don't seem to care, because their victims are a minority.

Just stating 'quite the opposite' does not make it so. You were okay with the actions of a few creating a 'slow economy'. This directly translates to you being okay with their actions harming others.

[Theinquisition]

Good luck trying to talk anyone here into taking voluntarism seriously.

- - - Updated - - -



It depends on how you approach the question. If you hold that people need to pay taxes and a progressive tax system is absolutely necessary and everyone should know that then yes it would probably be immoral on the part of those wealthy individuals for not going out of their way to pay taxes. My ideal situation is no one pays taxes or that they are so cheap and unavoidable that they fund bare bones institutions that every person regardless of income needs to pay.

The moral position from what is currently legal is that these men did nothing wrong because they did nothing that was strictly speaking illegal. I can't fault someone for going out of their way to save their own money especially when that money goes towards wasteful programs that actively make the world a worse place. I also can't see why someone would say these people don't pay taxes therefore they contribute nothing to society when in reality, they are employers and businessmen who can create capital and jobs which to me, is far more valuable than putting money into a bottomless pit of welfare programs and wasted government spending.

Generally I agree. I don't understand why people are whining about someone not paying more taxes than they have to. If the tax code is made that way, then change the tax code.

The problem I have with many folks, including many on this site, is that they want to raise taxes out of sheer jealousy.

These are the same folks who also advocate economic slavery by demanding taxes in excess of 50% of someone's income.

[Daelak]

Generally I agree. I don't understand why people are whining about someone not paying more taxes than they have to. If the tax code is made that way, then change the tax code.

The problem I have with many folks, including many on this site, is that they want to raise taxes out of sheer jealousy.

These are the same folks who also advocate economic slavery by demanding taxes in excess of 50% of someone's income.

It's not about jealousy, it's about economic literacy. If you redistribute via public funds you make a stronger economy, which leads to stronger GDP growth, more participation in the consumer economy, and more private investment due to higher consumer and investor confidence in an active economy. This isn't rocket surgery.