Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

im sure they can sell them whats the problem?

That's literally forcing them to sell stocks.. to have the pleasure of owning those stocks.

[Bodakane]

No question, simply pointing to just how burdensome it is.

And that is damn burdensome. That's taking away 2% of their total wealth, every single year... meaning they would have to generate that much liquidity every single year.

That happens to everyone who pays taxes. People like Bezos benefit more from things taxes pays for than 99.9% of the rest of the country. Where the fuck would Amazon be without roads, courts, international trade protections, welfare to subsidize their workforce, etc.

You and other conservatives sycophancy of the ultra wealthy is a major fucking problem in this country, and is EXACTLY why Trump happened.

[iloveplanets]

Seriously, Warren Buffett is not a "good guy".

His position is a snarky "I shouldn't be able to totally ream the economy like this" while continuing to absolutely ream the economy for every penny that he can.

It's like Thomas Jefferson writing about how awful the institution of slavery is while raping and beating his own slaves regularly and never considering ever emancipating any of them, not even his own children he fathered upon them.

People put way too much stock in the words, and not enough consideration into their actions.

He's donated way more than you ever will or have. He's donated over 37$ billion to philanthropic causes.

Saying he's not a good guy is pretty yikes.

[Machismo]

That happens to everyone who pays taxes. People like Bezos benefit more from things taxes pays for than 99.9% of the rest of the country. Where the fuck would Amazon be without roads, courts, international trade protections, welfare to subsidize their workforce, etc.

You and other conservatives sycophancy of the ultra wealthy is a major fucking problem in this country, and is EXACTLY why Trump happened.

But, that's not like taxing your income, that's like taxing your comic book collection, every single year.

[Masark]

their wealth is tied up in stocks.

Except it isn't actually. They routinely get "loans" at sub-inflation (much less sub-growth) interest rates using said stocks as collateral, giving them cash income without it legally counting as income.

[Machismo]

Except it isn't actually. They routinely get "loans" at sub-inflation (much less sub-growth) interest rates using said stocks as collateral, giving them cash income without it legally counting as income.

So, he should take out a loan, to pay for his taxes on all the shit he owns? That's like having to take out a loan, because the government wants to charge you for the comic books you bought in 1975.

When I took out a loan for my mortgage, it didn't count as income.

That's absurd

[Endus]

Once again, that punishes an entire company, not just that one person. That is making other shareholders legally liable for his wealth.

This is literally punishing people for being wealthy.

If taxation itself (rather than hardship imposed by taxation, which taxes on the wealthy can never contribute to by virtue of how tax brackets work) is a "punishment", then surely if someone is to be "punished", it's those who've exploited the economy and their workers to such an extent that they've got the lion's share of the wealth, no? Rather than those they've exploited?

I'd argue the claim that "taxation = punishment" is itself fundamentally dishonest, in the same way that "taxes are theft" is. But even if we grant that, your position still makes no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

He's donated way more than you ever will or have. He's donated over 37$ billion to philanthropic causes.

Saying he's not a good guy is pretty yikes.

Spend some time figuring out how he got that $37 billion to give away, and you'll start to get my point.

[Zaktar]

So, he should take out a loan, to pay for his taxes on all the shit he owns? That's like having to take out a loan, because the government wants to charge you for the comic books you bought in 1975.

That's absurd

No, it's acknowledging that for the ultra-wealthy, the increase of their wealth via the stock market is a genuine kind of income and should be treated as such. It is functionally income. It is nothing like comic books.

[Ripster42]

That happens to everyone who pays taxes. People like Bezos benefit more from things taxes pays for than 99.9% of the rest of the country. Where the fuck would Amazon be without roads, courts, international trade protections, welfare to subsidize their workforce, etc.

You and other conservatives sycophancy of the ultra wealthy is a major fucking problem in this country, and is EXACTLY why Trump happened.

And, don't forget, 2% is well below the avg ROI on stocks. It's less than 20% of the annualized ROI on the S&P 500.

[Machismo]

If taxation itself (rather than hardship imposed by taxation, which taxes on the wealthy can never contribute to by virtue of how tax brackets work) is a "punishment", then surely if someone is to be "punished", it's those who've exploited the economy and their workers to such an extent that they've got the lion's share of the wealth, no? Rather than those they've exploited?

I'd argue the claim that "taxation = punishment" is itself fundamentally dishonest, in the same way that "taxes are theft" is. But even if we grant that, your position still makes no sense.

- - - Updated - - -



Spend some time figuring out how he got that $37 billion to give away, and you'll start to get my point.

The issue is this is specifically a wealth tax that people are discussing. If it's just income, they are paying roughly between 20-35% based on AGI.

[Ivanstone]

So, you want them to pay more... no idea how much, but you're totes sure he's a thief, even though you admit to being ignorant on the issue.

Does that pretty much cover it?

He’s definitely a thief. You’re lashing out because you’re ignorant of his personal history.

A regular person pays a portion of their personal income as a taxation and uses the reminder for other purposes including building wealth. The wealthy effectively sidestep this and manage to further accrue wealth whilst paying out relatively little in tax. It would be great if they would pay an appropriate amount of tax. I’m not even advocating for a tax increase here just to eliminate tax evasion.

That about covers it.

[Endus]

The issue is this is specifically a wealth tax that people are discussing. If it's just income, they are paying roughly between 20-35% based on AGI.

And?

I fail to see how that affects my point. If your income won't maintain your wealth levels, you might have to downsize or sell property off. Like anyone does when they fall on harder times. There's still a scaling of where the taxation hits, here; they aren't proposing a new tax on the family home or something.

[Machismo]

No, it's acknowledging that for the ultra-wealthy, the increase of their wealth via the stock market is a genuine kind of income and should be treated as such. It is functionally income. It is nothing like comic books.

That would mean that they would be double taxed, for when they sold their stocks, they'd be taxed again. That also ties back to my original post, and it would be a direct attack on 401k plans The last year, many people's plans went up by 20+ percent, do you want to tax them all?

- - - Updated - - -

And?

I fail to see how that affects my point. If your income won't maintain your wealth levels, you might have to downsize or sell property off. Like anyone does when they fall on harder times. There's still a scaling of where the taxation hits, here; they aren't proposing a new tax on the family home or something.

Should you have to sell off assets, to to pay for the increase in your 401k?

If your income won't maintain your wealth levels, you might have to downsize, or sell off property to do so.

[Fugus]

Then you'd be part of the problem.

Loopholes aren't the government's fault, they are the fault of the people who exploit them.

While I would be "Part of the Problem", me personally not using those loopholes doesn't "Fix the problem". It just leaves me worse off while the nation is largely unchanged.

As far as your second sentence, not exactly.

It IS the governments fault for intentionally leaving those loopholes there as well as the donors who pay them to do it. If I were rich, I would also be using those loopholes as mentioned before except I would be very vocal and public about it to draw attention to them to create a bigger drive to demand them be close and unlike the donors paying to keep them there, I would be donating to politicians trying to CLOSE them and any PAC I donated to would be to go against those politicians who left them open.

I am not saying these people are nice people or anything like that. What they are doing, well, it's fucked up that it is even legal, but it is.

And as I said before, it isn't their jobs to pay more than they legally have to, it is THE GOVERNMENTS job to say they owe it to begin with. So blame the politicians for leaving the loopholes open and blame those who donate to said politicians to keep them open.

You are right that the loopholes be closed, so again to quote Franklin Roosevelt, “You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it.”

[Zaktar]

That would mean that they would be double taxed, for when they sold their stocks, they'd be taxed again. That also ties back to my original post, and it would be a direct attack on 401k plans The last year, many people's plans went up by 20+ percent, do you want to tax them all?

Where does the problem come in? Most people's plans didn't go up by millions of dollars and so wouldn't be caught in any kind of tax net cast to address this issue.

[Machismo]

He’s definitely a thief. You’re lashing out because you’re ignorant of his personal history.

A regular person pays a portion of their personal income as a taxation and uses the reminder for other purposes including building wealth. The wealthy effectively sidestep this and manage to further accrue wealth whilst paying out relatively little in tax. It would be great if they would pay an appropriate amount of tax. I’m not even advocating for a tax increase here just to eliminate tax evasion.

That about covers it.

So, how much did he "steal?"

You can't even say what is "appropriate," which is the problem.

[Endus]

That would mean that they would be double taxed, for when they sold their stocks, they'd be taxed again. That also ties back to my original post, and it would be a direct attack on 401k plans The last year, many people's plans went up by 20+ percent, do you want to tax them all?

Taxation is transactional. New transaction, new instance of taxation. That's not "double taxation". If your stocks gained value, that's a capital gains tax. If you sold them, that's an income tax. Different taxes on different things.

And I'm not seeing how it's even a problem, since we're exclusively talking about the wealthy, here, who cannot possibly be pushed into hardship by such a tax.

- - - Updated - - -

Should you have to sell off assets, to to pay for the increase in your 401k?

If your income won't maintain your wealth levels, you might have to downsize, or sell off property to do so.

I'm not sure you understand what a "wealth tax" is and how it would be applied, if you think middle-class people's retirement funds are going to be hit by this.

The Sanders/Warren proposal only targeted those with more than $20 million. Stop fearmongering about people's retirement plans.

[Corvus]

You need a consumption tax, especially on those high cost luxury items. Buying a $500 million yacht? That'll be $100 million in taxes thanks.

[Machismo]

Where does the problem come in? Most people's plans didn't go up by millions of dollars and so wouldn't be caught in any kind of tax net cast to address this issue.

So, to be clear, you think everyone should pay for any increase in the values of their 401k, every single year? And pay when they actually cash it out?

[Ripster42]

I'm not sure you understand what a "wealth tax" is and how it would be applied, if you think middle-class people's retirement funds are going to be hit by this.

They've been disingenuous the entire thread. They were talking about comic book collections earlier.

- - - Updated - - -

So, to be clear, you think everyone should pay for any increase in the values of their 401k, every single year? And pay when they actually cash it out?

Wow, seems like these words are evergreen.

You seem to misunderstand... likely on purpose. I cannot really help you with that,
.