Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Mihalik]

Bro, you're being obtuse. They pay taxes when they sell stocks, just like we do.

They are taxed on their other income, just like we are.
Dude.

BUT THEY FUCKING DON'T BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT YOU NEVER ACTUALLY HAVE TO SELL A SINGLE FUCKING DOLLAR'S WORTH OF FUCKING STOCK. EVER.

Four years later, the Supreme Court agreed. In Eisner v. Macomber, the high court ruled that income derived only from proceeds. A person needed to sell an asset — stock, bond or building — and reap some money before it could be taxed.

Since then, the concept that income comes only from proceeds — when gains are “realized” — has been the bedrock of the U.S. tax system. Wages are taxed. Cash dividends are taxed. Gains from selling assets are taxed. But if a taxpayer hasn’t sold anything, there is no income and therefore no tax.

Contemporary critics of Macomber were plentiful and prescient. Cordell Hull, the congressman known as the “father” of the income tax, assailed the decision, according to scholar Marjorie Kornhauser. Hull predicted that tax avoidance would become common. The ruling opened a gaping loophole, Hull warned, allowing industrialists to build a company and borrow against the stock to pay living expenses. Anyone could “live upon the value” of their company stock “without selling it, and of course, without ever paying” tax, he said.

Hull’s prediction would reach full flower only decades later, spurred by a series of epochal economic, legal and cultural changes that began to gather momentum in the 1970s. Antitrust enforcers increasingly accepted mergers and stopped trying to break up huge corporations. For their part, companies came to obsess over the value of their stock to the exclusion of nearly everything else.

From the article. Nowhere in the article does it even remotely suggest anyone has to actually pay those nominal tax rates.

And again, even if they did...stock swaps were fucking invented for a reason.

You can literally buy, if you want, anything using untaxable stock swaps or zero interest loans. Paying basically no fucking taxes in the entire exchange.

Well, not you but they can!

[Machismo]

Not really, I'm not asking you to nationalise everything and give up private wealth. You get to keep a billion dollars. I am actually puzzled why you keep ignoring this? It's not that difficult a concept. Wealth limit = 1 billion dollars. Anything below that you can do with as you like, anything above that literally doesn't exist for you. You're maxed out. Congratulations, no more goals for you to achieve, you have achieved demigod status.

And. Then. You. Are. Removed. From. The. Game. Put on the sidelines. Force retired. Send to paradise to live out the rest of your life with a billion dollars to spend.

And doing that, means they almost all the stock in their company, and it's now in the hands of the government.

Nah, fuck that.

- - - Updated - - -

BUT THEY FUCKING DON'T BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT YOU NEVER ACTUALLY HAVE TO SELL A SINGLE FUCKING DOLLAR'S WORTH OF FUCKING STOCK. EVER.



From the article. Nowhere in the article does it even remotely suggest anyone has to actually pay those nominal tax rates.

And again, even if they did...stock swaps were fucking invented for a reason.

You can literally buy, if you want, anything using untaxable stock swaps or zero interest loans. Paying basically no fucking taxes in the entire exchange.

Well, not you but they can!

The simple math of the matter disagrees with you.

You have their income.

You have how much they paid in taxes.

Divide. the latter from the former, multiple by 100.

As for stock swaps, that's equity-based. That's like trading one house for another.

[Mihalik]

The simple math of the matter disagrees with you.

You have their income.

You have how much they paid in taxes.

Divide. the latter from the former, multiple by 100.

Oh my fucking god.

I just finally realized what the fuck you are arguing.

What everyone here is saying, myself included, is that they should not no longer be able to get away with having no effective income. That's what the article is arguing too. THAT THE TAX CODE IS RIGGED AS SUCH THAT THEY CAN HAVE NO EFFECTIVE TAXABLE INCOME WHILE ALSO ACTUALLY REALLY HAVE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN SPENDABLE EARNINGS.

[Slant]

And doing that, means they almost all the stock in their company, and it's now in the hands of the government.

Nah, fuck that.

That is not what I proposed. Indeed fuck that. Would be nice if you actually read the words that I type. Words have meaning, we call this language. It's not me picking random shit out of a bag and slapping it in a post.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh my fucking god.

I just finally realized what the fuck you are arguing.

What everyone here is saying, myself included, is that they should not no longer be able to get away with having no effective income. That's what the article is arguing too. THAT THE TAX CODE IS RIGGED AS SUCH THAT THEY CAN HAVE NO EFFECTIVE TAXABLE INCOME WHILE ALSO ACTUALLY REALLY HAVE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN SPENDABLE EARNINGS.

Don't start talking about that private jet company X bought that is running on the company's books, but really only one guy is using it. If you ask him whose jet it is, he'll answer "Why, mine!" unless you're a tax guy... and then he'll respond with "Why, the company's of course!"

Yeah, totally not happening all over the business world. Anywhere. I remember a banker telling me he chose one company over the other because he liked the car better they offered him as part of the package. Guess what he'll not be paying tax or even insurance for? Yep, that's right...

Guess who's absolutely paying the full amount of tax? The poor schmuck that cleans his BMW for him. And he'll pay extra, too, cos he can't afford a new car and his trusty old rust bucket violates more environmental regulations than a factory in mid-1800s England.

[Machismo]

Oh my fucking god.

I just finally realized what the fuck you are arguing.

What everyone here is saying, myself included, is that they should not no longer be able to get away with having no effective income. That's what the article is arguing too. THAT THE TAX CODE IS RIGGED AS SUCH THAT THEY CAN HAVE NO EFFECTIVE TAXABLE INCOME WHILE ALSO ACTUALLY REALLY HAVE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN SPENDABLE EARNINGS.

Their income is largely tied into the stocks of the companies they built, and started.

To tax that, is to take part of that company away.

They are still taxed when they sell that stock, just like you and I are.

So, unless you want to tax me for the stocks that I own (every year I assume), then you are simply pushing a double standard... a very, very authoritarian one. If you do want to tax me for the stocks I own (and you own), then you are simply being very, very authoritarian.

It's not spendable, it's equity... just like a fucking house.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not what I proposed. Indeed fuck that. Would be nice if you actually read the words that I type. Words have meaning, we call this language. It's not me picking random shit out of a bag and slapping it in a post.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't start talking about that private jet company X bought that is running on the company's books, but really only one guy is using it. If you ask him whose jet it is, he'll answer "Why, mine!" unless you're a tax guy... and then he'll respond with "Why, the company's of course!"

Yeah, totally not happening all over the business world. Anywhere. I remember a banker telling me he chose one company over the other because he liked the car better they offered him as part of the package. Guess what he'll not be paying tax or even insurance for? Yep, that's right...

Guess who's absolutely paying the full amount of tax? The poor schmuck that cleans his BMW for him. And he'll pay extra, too, cos he can't afford a new car and his trusty old rust bucket violates more environmental regulations than a factory in mid-1800s England.

How else are you going to get Bezos below a billion dollars, when he has $170 billion in stock for just that one company... that he founded. So, you want to take what percentage of that from him?

Now, here's another fun example. Lynsi Snyder. She's the sole owner of In & Out, and is worth more than a billion dollars. her grandfather stared the company, and she owns the whole fucking thing. SO, how the hell do you propose splitting that up?

[Slant]

Their income is largely tied into the stocks of the companies they built, and started.

To tax that, is to take part of that company away.

They are still taxed when they sell that stock, just like you and I are.

So, unless you want to tax me for the stocks that I own (every year I assume), then you are simply pushing a double standard... a very, very authoritarian one. If you do want to tax me for the stocks I own (and you own), then you are simply being very, very authoritarian.

It's not spendable, it's equity... just like a fucking house.

Yes you do realise there is a concept called "property tax" right? You actually do pay tax simply for owning land. That is not new. It's beginning to dawn on me that you have zero idea about taxation and are really just holding up a flag for the rich at any cost. Want me to blow your mind? Ok, here goes:

ALL tax is authoritarian. See, all taxes are arbitrary. VAT? Who the fuck came up with that? Income tax? Why? It's all just guys in Governments sitting around going "Hey, I have a great idea, how about we build a road" and everyone agrees and it was all well but the budget guy came up and said "Yo, cool idea, but... guys, our lunch money only lasts for coffee for this week, let alone a frickin road, make more money!" And they go "But we can't, we're just doing laws so society doesn't fall apart" and he's like "Yeah, I don't care man, unless you're literally shitting bricks, we can't build that road, oh by the way, we can't afford to pay you salary either... cos we have no money."

And so on and so forth. It's like explaining tax to a child. ANYWAY.

TL;DR: We can tax whatever the fuck we want. And it's not authoritarian just because it's a new tax.

[Dontrike]

He's forced to sell it, to pay for the money you want to take from him.

I know you don't feel sorry, that's my whole point.

So he'll still end up with tens of billions? Oh poor solid gold baby.

[Machismo]

Yes you do realise there is a concept called "property tax" right? You actually do pay tax simply for owning land. That is not new. It's beginning to dawn on me that you have zero idea about taxation and are really just holding up a flag for the rich at any cost. Want me to blow your mind? Ok, here goes:

ALL tax is authoritarian. See, all taxes are arbitrary. VAT? Who the fuck came up with that? Income tax? Why? It's all just guys in Governments sitting around going "Hey, I have a great idea, how about we build a road" and everyone agrees and it was all well but the budget guy came up and said "Yo, cool idea, but... guys, our lunch money only lasts for coffee for this week, let alone a frickin road, make more money!" And they go "But we can't, we're just doing laws so society doesn't fall apart" and he's like "Yeah, I don't care man, unless you're literally shitting bricks, we can't build that road, oh by the way, we can't afford to pay you salary either... cos we have no money."

And so on and so forth. It's like explaining tax to a child. ANYWAY.

TL;DR: We can tax whatever the fuck we want. And it's not authoritarian just because it's a new tax.

yes, you want to tax their companies away from them.

We've already covered that.

[Slant]

How else are you going to get Bezos below a billion dollars, when he has $170 billion in stock for just that one company... that he founded. So, you want to take what percentage of that from him?

Now, here's another fun example. Lynsi Snyder. She's the sole owner of In & Out, and is worth more than a billion dollars. her grandfather stared the company, and she owns the whole fucking thing. SO, how the hell do you propose splitting that up?

I mean, you're only thinking in extremes of a transition period. Instead, think long term, how would Bezos act if he founded Amazon in a world where his limit was a billion bucks? He would have been taken out of business like... 20 years ago, when Amazon first crossed that billion dollar mark (or his part of it anyway).

That's the interesting discussion, how would business models change? Some might just not continue to push and cease predatory behaviour on the market. It might open up breathing room for more than one company. I mean, by all rights, Amazon should be broken up in like 50 different companies by now. It is a monopoly and I don't give a shit how many small businesses you can show me, I have spoken to publishers and authors and Amazon is a nasty bitch in negotiations. They're actually, real evil in the publishing world. Nasty, nasty business practices.

- - - Updated - - -

yes, you want to tax their companies away from them.

We've already covered that.

No, that's not what I said.

[Machismo]

I mean, you're only thinking in extremes of a transition period. Instead, think long term, how would Bezos act if he founded Amazon in a world where his limit was a billion bucks? He would have been taken out of business like... 20 years ago, when Amazon first crossed that billion dollar mark (or his part of it anyway).

That's the interesting discussion, how would business models change? Some might just not continue to push and cease predatory behaviour on the market. It might open up breathing room for more than one company. I mean, by all rights, Amazon should be broken up in like 50 different companies by now. It is a monopoly and I don't give a shit how many small businesses you can show me, I have spoken to publishers and authors and Amazon is a nasty bitch in negotiations. They're actually, real evil in the publishing world. Nasty, nasty business practices.

So, how are you going to get him below that?

You are still saying you're taking him away from the company he guilt.

[Bodakane]

What loophole, exactly?

Seriously? Sigh.

Using. Investments. As. Tax. Dodges.

Only the very wealthy can do this to create a real benefit. That is why all the stupid ass blubbering you;'re doing about "they pay taxes when they sell" shit is just proof you don't understand the topics your panties get twisted about.

[Machismo]

Seriously? Sigh.

Using. Investments. As. Tax. Dodges.

Only the very wealthy can do this to create a real benefit. That is why all the stupid ass blubbering you;'re doing about "they pay taxes when they sell" shit is just proof you don't understand the topics your panties get twisted about.

What. Loopholes. Exactly.

[Dontrike]

Their income is largely tied into the stocks of the companies they built, and started.

To tax that, is to take part of that company away.

No. Just....no.

[Machismo]

No. Just....no.

Bezos has $170 billion in stocks in his company. The other dude wants to take away all but a billion dollars of his wealth.

Do the math.

[Slant]

So, how are you going to get him below that?

You are still saying you're taking him away from the company he guilt.

Sure, if he doesn't want to do it, you would take his wealth away and redistribute it as you see fit, give it to the employees, give it to the population, heck, might as well give it to the state and put it in education, a chronically underfunded part of society.

It's not a tax. It's you outright taking his wealth from him by force if needed. But IDEALLY, he would just not let it come that far. See, it's all about legality of wealth. Basically, in terms even you would understand: I would making owning 1 billion and one dollar illegal and take that dollar away from you and do something useful with it.

[Machismo]

Sure, if he doesn't want to do it, you would take his wealth away and redistribute it as you see fit, give it to the employees, give it to the population, heck, might as well give it to the state and put it in education, a chronically underfunded part of society.

It's not a tax. It's you outright taking his wealth from him by force if needed. But IDEALLY, he would just not let it come that far. See, it's all about legality of wealth. Basically, in terms even you would understand: I would making owning 1 billion and one dollar illegal and take that dollar away from you and do something useful with it.

So, quite literally taking his company away from him.

Holy shit...

Apparently, running one of the biggest businesses on the planet, and providing a good/service to billions of people... isn't useful.

[Slant]

So, quite literally taking his company away from him.

Holy shit...

Apparently, running one of the biggest businesses on the planet, and providing a good/service to billions of people... isn't useful.

It isn't. That you don't see it is a problem. Amazon is not useful. They are not contributing. They are not good for society. Amazon is EVIL personified. If you knew anything about their business practices, you would agree. And I'm not even talking about them being modern slave owners that don't give a shit about their employees unless public shitstorms force them. I'm talking about how they treat authors, you know, the core business supposedly?

TL;DR: If Amazon ceased to exist tomorrow, tomorrow would be a brighter day and humanity would be better off for it.

[Machismo]

It isn't. That you don't see it is a problem. Amazon is not useful. They are not contributing. They are not good for society. Amazon is EVIL personified. If you knew anything about their business practices, you would agree. And I'm not even talking about them being modern slave owners that don't give a shit about their employees unless public shitstorms force them. I'm talking about how they treat authors, you know, the core business supposedly?

TL;DR: If Amazon ceased to exist tomorrow, tomorrow would be a brighter day and humanity would be better off for it.

That's your problem, billions of people find Amazon so useful, they spent hundreds of billons of dollars there.

And if they were gone tomorrow, they'd be replaced by another company to try and fill the demand. They found them so useful, they had more sales than the GDP of 80% of the nations on the planet.

Because that's what capitalism is all about.

[Bodakane]

What. Loopholes. Exactly.

Is reading not your thing?

Using investments as tax dodges.

What are you not understanding?

You think the average person with a few thousand dollars in investments is the same as a billionaire with 100s of millions in investments are the same thing and each are effected identically in regards to taxes. They aren't.

Also, we are telling you it is wrong and should be changed, and the entirety of your asinine argument is that since it this way, it is right. What you are doing is akin to us saying we should switch from fossil fuels to alternative energy and you going, nope we are currently fossil fuel based so wanting to change is wrong. Its a fucking absurd take.

[Slant]

That's your problem, billions of people find Amazon so useful, they spent hundreds of billons of dollars there.

And if they were gone tomorrow, they'd be replaced by another company to try and fill the demand. They found them so useful, they had more sales than the GDP of 80% of the nations on the planet.

Because that's what capitalism is all about.

Yes, that's the key. They would be replaced with other companies. Isn't that wonderful? That's the entire point. If you're pro-business you HAVE to be anti-monopoly. You HAVE to agree with me on this. Amazon is bad for the market. It's stagnation, it's not innovation. And no, innovation by buying smarter competition is not innovation, that's predatory market practices only a monopoly can afford. And they stifle competition and that is BAD for the consumer.

And make no mistake, THE CONSUMER is the one that wields 100% of the power in Western democracies. Or should, at any rate. Fuck the US version of turbo capitalism where people like you herald the glory of hyper exploitation as some perverted virtue to adhere to. No, fuck that. Fuck that big time.