Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

No you demand simple answers for complex problems and when you don't get that you pat yourself on the back for being "right". You were given an answer. It was a much better answer than you deserve and if you're very, very lucky the US will resolve its tax problems.

And tax reforms doesn't get passed because the GOP actively enables tax evasion never mind improving to the tax system.

Tax reform doesn't get passed, because most politicians understand it is a fucking death sentence if they fuck it up. Even cutting taxes is a risky political move. if they raise taxes, even on the wealthy, the wealthy will make sure the shit rolls downhill, and workers will take the hit. When they do, they will blame the government for it, even when it was someone else getting taxed. Let's face it, the GOP is way, way better when it comes to messaging on that issue.

That's the problem, an inability to answer the simple questions. All we hear is, "pay their fair share." When pressed what the fuck that even means, people cannot answer. It's like watching Trumpsters try and explain how he actually won the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again you're not understanding, the ultra wealthy use stocks as a tax dodge. Its a loophole, and people who don't worship the wealthy like you, want it closed.

And, when they sell that stock, they will be taxed.

It's the same for you and I.

If you want to tax my stocks for every year I own it, you are going to get strenuous opposition.

[gondrin]

That is a zero-sum gain. It simply means that you are taxing someone based on a stock that they may not be able to cover with liquid assets. Since the only thing taxed at the end would be the difference, instead of the entire amount, then you're not actually making any more money, you're just making some of it sooner (as the government).

You still have the issue of the person then being obligated to come up with liquid assets just to cover that stock.

- - - Updated - - -



Once again, you don't seem to be comprehending.

People pay taxes on stocks when they sell them, not when they own them. Some people want to tax them annually, just for owning stock.

Much like an independent contractor that has to put aside X amount from each job, this would be the same thing. If a contractor gets equipment in return for doing a job, he has to pay tax on the fair market value of that item as income as he received it as part of his compensation. Hell, if a drug dealer sells drugs, he has to pay taxes(not saying he will) on said sale of drugs. If he gets drugs in return as payment instead of cash, he has to pay tax on the fair market value of said transaction. This is the same thing as those. If we want to treat stock as property, then it should be taxed as such. If you receive it as compensation for working for someone, it should be treated as income and taxed appropriately.

[Ivanstone]

Tax reform doesn't get passed, because most politicians understand it is a fucking death sentence if they fuck it up. Even cutting taxes is a risky political move. if they raise taxes, even on the wealthy, the wealthy will make sure the shit rolls downhill, and workers will take the hit. When they do, they will blame the government for it, even when it was someone else getting taxed. Let's face it, the GOP is way, way better when it comes to messaging on that issue.

That's the problem, an inability to answer the simple questions. All we hear is, "pay their fair share." When pressed what the fuck that even means, people cannot answer. It's like watching Trumpsters try and explain how he actually won the election.

No the problem is that the questions and solutions are not simple. "Pay their fair share" is the only simple answer because its at least accurate. Details are hard work and you've never shown the desire to do the hard work.

The GOP is only "better" at messaging because its much, much easier to be the liar.

[Bodakane]

And, when they sell that stock, they will be taxed.

It's the same for you and I.

If you want to tax my stocks for every year I own it, you are going to get strenuous opposition.

Oh I see the problem, you don't understand what a loophole is.

Ok do some research then talk to me, because until then you don;t come across well.

[Machismo]

Much like an independent contractor that has to put aside X amount from each job, this would be the same thing. If a contractor gets equipment in return for doing a job, he has to pay tax on the fair market value of that item as income as he received it as part of his compensation. Hell, if a drug dealer sells drugs, he has to pay taxes(not saying he will) on said sale of drugs. If he gets drugs in return as payment instead of cash, he has to pay tax on the fair market value of said transaction. This is the same thing as those. If we want to treat stock as property, then it should be taxed as such. If you receive it as compensation for working for someone, it should be treated as income and taxed appropriately.

That's the point, it's based on when he sells it. The same goes for stocks. I pay taxes on the stocks I sell, not on the stocks I own.

You do know that your plan doesn't actually get you any more money, right? It just changes WHEN you get your money... and puts a significant financial burden on people. Many companies offer stock purchase programs, including offering stocks at a discount. people would be on the hook to pay taxes on that discount. Then, when they sold, it would mean trying to figure out how that discount comes into play, and how much to deduct from their tax burden, since they were taxed upon receipt.
So, let's look at an example.

A company is offering their employees stock options every 6 months, and a person decided to buy some each time it is offered. The company will sell it to them at 85% of the current cost at the end of the lockout period.

The employee always pays 10% of their income on these stocks. To make it easy, he starts at 100k a year.

So, the first 6 months, he buys $5k worth of stock at $85, because the stock is $100

The next 6 months, be buys $5k worth at 87.50, because the tock went up in price a bit.

How much does he pay in taxes?

The next 6 months, be buys $5k worth at 89.95, because the stock continues to go up.

The next 6 months, he gets a promotion, and is making more. He now spends $5,500 at 88.25, bad time for stocks.

The next 6 months, he buys $5,500 at 94.67, because it had a good 3rd quarter.

How much does he pay in taxes?

Now, continue this for 20 years.

One day, he's set to retire, and sells all his stock at a price of $247.35. How much does he pay in taxes?

Obviously, I don't expect you to be able to answer these questions, which is the point. It becomes extremely convoluted, and in the end, means no more actual money for the government... as they would have simply gotten it all on the sale.

- - - Updated - - -

No the problem is that the questions and solutions are not simple. "Pay their fair share" is the only simple answer because its at least accurate. Details are hard work and you've never shown the desire to do the hard work.

The GOP is only "better" at messaging because its much, much easier to be the liar.

It's a shitty answer, because it collapses under even the lightest scrutiny. That's the problem with slogans, they don't stand up to resistance.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I see the problem, you don't understand what a loophole is.

Ok do some research then talk to me, because until then you don;t come across well.

What loophole, exactly?

[Ivanstone]

It's a shitty answer, because it collapses under even the lightest scrutiny. That's the problem with slogans, they don't stand up to resistance.

Scrutiny you've never bothered to provide. The only thing you rabble on about is how this could effect the "little guy". Well guess what? Your 401k, your baseball cards, your car, your house? All of its irrelevant. They're not the issue here because they don't distort the system. Any solution that will be employed isn't going to touch you.

The very wealthy have access to means you'll never have. If you don't like what a politician does what do you do? Change your vote. Maybe an angry phone call. What does the very wealthy do? Lobbying, financing, bribery and they have friends that will do the same. That's on top of the exotic accounting measures that you technically have access to but in practice are incapable of using.

[Machismo]

Scrutiny you've never bothered to provide. The only thing you rabble on about is how this could effect the "little guy". Well guess what? Your 401k, your baseball cards, your car, your house? All of its irrelevant. They're not the issue here because they don't distort the system. Any solution that will be employed isn't going to touch you.

The very wealthy have access to means you'll never have. If you don't like what a politician does what do you do? Change your vote. Maybe an angry phone call. What does the very wealthy do? Lobbying, financing, bribery and they have friends that will do the same. That's on top of the exotic accounting measures that you technically have access to but in practice are incapable of using.

I literally asked... and you said you had no idea.

What I have been "rabbling" on about, is that this is just an attempt to punish the wealthy, which it is.

You claimed Bezos to be a thief, yet when pressed, couldn't back that up... either.

[Machismo]

Well, you are conflating what I am saying. The person isn't purchasing the stock in question that I am talking about. I am talking about receiving it as part of a pay package, NOT purchasing it himself. Purchasing it himself is different as he is using post tax income to do so. If they don't want to pay the federal income tax rate on it, then they can defer it to another form of compensation.

This is why they put in the AMT as a stock option is generally not taxed but it is considered part of their pay.

And I pointed to other companies who also offer it as part of a pay package to everyday employees.


That's because stocks are taxed when they are sold. Your plan simply taxes a portion of it up front, then the rest later. But, it is revenue neutral. The only difference is that it puts a strain on liquid assets in the short term for the employee.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s an attempt to get the wealthy to contribute to society instead of harming it by hoarding wealth.

They do contribute.

(looking forward to "fair share" comment next)

[Mihalik]

That's the problem, an inability to answer the simple questions. All we hear is, "pay their fair share." When pressed what the fuck that even means, people cannot answer. It's like watching Trumpsters try and explain how he actually won the election.

A fundamental issue is that it's too easy to effectively hide your wealth in near perpetuity in stocks.

There's a good reason why stock options have become the preferred form of remuneration in corporate.

This behavior in turn feeds into the incentives of CEOs to engage in behaviors like stock buybacks.

It creates a closed wealth loop of non liquid assets that are effectively tax exempt and which also feeds into the limited purchasing power of the lower echelons of the economy.

Corporations paying no taxes, paying their CEOs in stocks, using swaps and low to non existent capital gains taxes to reward their shareholders, increasing profitability through low wages and questionable business practices to use those profits to buy back their own stocks inflating its value.

Having them pay their fair share would simply mean sticking a tax somewhere into that loop to channel some money back into the "real" economy.

A real capital gains tax would be a good first step.

And, when they sell that stock, they will be taxed.

That's the problem. They won't. There are plenty of ways to dodge those obligations.

Zero interest borrowing helps there for example.

Jeff Bezos didn't buy his 500m yacht out of liquidating some of his stocks. He bought it by having half a dozen banks line up and extending him some sub 1% credit line backed by his gazillions in Amazon stocks.

And as I said earlier, there are a plethora of other mechanisms the truly wealthy can use to never actually have to pay their "fair share".

And yes "fair share" is an elusive and subjective value. But whatever it might be, it's more than whatever they are paying now, where most of the global wealth is tied up in a closed loop of multi millionaires and billionaires passing around stock options and buying things out of zero interest loans backed by the taxes of the middle class.

[jonnysensible]

bill and melinda buy 269,000 acres of farmland across 18 states, more than the entire acreage of New York City, and charge rent to farmers like feudal lords.

Machismo : puh puh puh please dont punish the billionaires who own everything, how will they get by?

[ati87]

A fundamental issue is that it's too easy to effectively hide your wealth in near perpetuity in stocks.

There's a good reason why stock options have become the preferred form of remuneration in corporate.

This behavior in turn feeds into the incentives of CEOs to engage in behaviors like stock buybacks.

It creates a closed wealth loop of non liquid assets that are effectively tax exempt and which also feeds into the limited purchasing power of the lower echelons of the economy.

Corporations paying no taxes, paying their CEOs in stocks, using swaps and low to non existent capital gains taxes to reward their shareholders, increasing profitability through low wages and questionable business practices to use those profits to buy back their own stocks inflating its value.

Having them pay their fair share would simply mean sticking a tax somewhere into that loop to channel some money back into the "real" economy.

A real capital gains tax would be a good first step.



That's the problem. They won't. There are plenty of ways to dodge those obligations.

Zero interest borrowing helps there for example.

Jeff Bezos didn't buy his 500m yacht out of liquidating some of his stocks. He bought it by having half a dozen banks line up and extending him some sub 1% credit line backed by his gazillions in Amazon stocks.

And as I said earlier, there are a plethora of other mechanisms the truly wealthy can use to never actually have to pay their "fair share".

And yes "fair share" is an elusive and subjective value. But whatever it might be, it's more than whatever they are paying now, where most of the global wealth is tied up in a closed loop of multi millionaires and billionaires passing around stock options and buying things out of zero interest loans backed by the taxes of the middle class.

TO clarify your point
https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkir...a-billionaire/

More important, Musk, 48, owes more than $500 million in debts, according to financial documents published earlier this year. That includes $208.9 million in liabilities owed to Morgan Stanley and $213 million borrowed from an affiliate of Goldman Sachs. Musk has pledged nearly half of his Tesla stake as collateral for those loans.

Chances are that at some point when Musk has to pay his debt he will just go to another bank and get more debt to pay this his original debt. Maybe when Musk passes away that he will be debt free but then he really wouldn't care at that point and then he would have enjoyed a long time without ever paying his faire share of taxes.

[Machismo]

They don’t contribute in many, many cases. And when you look at how much more benefit they derive from publicly funded projects it’s laughable you still don’t get it. Then again, you think Bezos should own all the roads. So I’m not surprised.

Great, you make this claim, let's break down those numbers. The people listed tended to pay between 20-35% in taxes. That doesn't seem absurdly low to me. Can you quantify all those "benefits" they are getting from publicly-funded projects?

I get that you guys want to use this talking point, but if you cannot quantify it, then you really cannot back it up.

- - - Updated - - -

A fundamental issue is that it's too easy to effectively hide your wealth in near perpetuity in stocks.

There's a good reason why stock options have become the preferred form of remuneration in corporate.

This behavior in turn feeds into the incentives of CEOs to engage in behaviors like stock buybacks.

It creates a closed wealth loop of non liquid assets that are effectively tax exempt and which also feeds into the limited purchasing power of the lower echelons of the economy.

Corporations paying no taxes, paying their CEOs in stocks, using swaps and low to non existent capital gains taxes to reward their shareholders, increasing profitability through low wages and questionable business practices to use those profits to buy back their own stocks inflating its value.

Having them pay their fair share would simply mean sticking a tax somewhere into that loop to channel some money back into the "real" economy.

A real capital gains tax would be a good first step.



That's the problem. They won't. There are plenty of ways to dodge those obligations.

Zero interest borrowing helps there for example.

Jeff Bezos didn't buy his 500m yacht out of liquidating some of his stocks. He bought it by having half a dozen banks line up and extending him some sub 1% credit line backed by his gazillions in Amazon stocks.

And as I said earlier, there are a plethora of other mechanisms the truly wealthy can use to never actually have to pay their "fair share".

And yes "fair share" is an elusive and subjective value. But whatever it might be, it's more than whatever they are paying now, where most of the global wealth is tied up in a closed loop of multi millionaires and billionaires passing around stock options and buying things out of zero interest loans backed by the taxes of the middle class.

Everyone with a 401k is "hiding their wealth."

What are all the ways to dodge those obligations? I know I'll have to pay when I sell my stocks and pull out of my 401k, so how will they dodge it?

Bezos can easily get loans, because banks know he's good for the money. He's got the collateral, and isn't much of a risk.

We keep running into the same problem, people are making these nebulous claims, but don't have the numbers to actually back them up. Propublica tried, but when you look at it, their tax numbers really aren't out of the norm. Paying 20-35% seems fairly acceptable to me.

- - - Updated - - -

bill and melinda buy 269,000 acres of farmland across 18 states, more than the entire acreage of New York City, and charge rent to farmers like feudal lords.

Machismo : puh puh puh please dont punish the billionaires who own everything, how will they get by?

Once again, you are making my point for me. You're now pissed that owning land, and renting it out, are a thing.

https://landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/

Oh, and the Gates' are barely in the top 50.

- - - Updated - - -

TO clarify your point
https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkir...a-billionaire/



Chances are that at some point when Musk has to pay his debt he will just go to another bank and get more debt to pay this his original debt. Maybe when Musk passes away that he will be debt free but then he really wouldn't care at that point and then he would have enjoyed a long time without ever paying his faire share of taxes.

I'm glad you brought Musk up. Musk was a very big risk for a while, which is why lenders weren't giving to him, and why he made appeals to investors the way he did. It's why he is pushing the cryptocurrency, and why he's cheering on shorting stocks. He's leveraged out the ass.

I believe I have talked about this exact issue with Musk in the past.

[Shadowferal]

A fundamental issue is that it's too easy to effectively hide your wealth in near perpetuity in stocks.

Take every asset including stocks, bonds...everything owned and assess a hard value. Then hit them for 50% federal tax.

[Machismo]

Take every asset including stocks, bonds...everything owned and assess a hard value. Then hit them for 50% federal tax.

A 50% tax on my 401k?

Is that every year, or just when you feel like it?

[Dontrike]

A 50% tax on my 401k?

Is that every year, or just when you feel like it?

Are you a millionaire/billionaire? If not then don't worry about it.

[ati87]

I'm glad you brought Musk up. Musk was a very big risk for a while, which is why lenders weren't giving to him, and why he made appeals to investors the way he did. It's why he is pushing the cryptocurrency, and why he's cheering on shorting stocks. He's leveraged out the ass.

I believe I have talked about this exact issue with Musk in the past.

Sure he is a risky lender now but the fact that it could come so far is telling isnt it.

[Machismo]

Are you a millionaire/billionaire? If not then don't worry about it.

That's the problem... Unlike you, I actually give a shit about other people's liberty.

Most of their assets are in stocks, so that means literally forcing them to sell the companies they started, because their companies are valuable.

This is exactly why it's so fucking insane.

[Machismo]

Sure he is a risky lender now but the fact that it could come so far is telling isnt it.

He came that far, by pandering to people, and selling the shit out of ideas. It's why Gamestop is worth obscene amounts of money right now, when we all know it's a dying company.

He's worth so much now, because investors got caught shorting his stock, and he convinced others to squeeze those investors.

[Shadowferal]

Are you a millionaire/billionaire? If not then don't worry about it.

He's like every libertarian; either a 1 percenter, or acts like one.
He's exactly like Rand Paul, with zero substance in every argument. Unlike Paul he should be ignored.

[Machismo]

He's like every libertarian; either a 1 percenter, or acts like one.
He's exactly like Rand Paul, with zero substance in every argument. Unlike Paul he should be ignored.

You literally just called to take half their wealth.

So, you want them to be forced to sell their companies. To whom?