Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Zan15]

That's the point, the sale on most houses is far, far lower of a tax burden. Most people pay no federal taxes when they sell.


Now, imagine it were 20+ percent.

Oh, and regarding the property taxes, that's levied by local governments.

OK good then we will levy taxes at the local level on stocks, done deal. thanks for the compromise.




"most"? Just the fact that people do pay it means you can build a wealth tax on stocks using the same principals and standards so we end up with "most people paying no federal taxes" on stocks/wealth they have.

That's the whole point of the plans proposed, MOST people would NOT pay federal taxes on stocks/wealth.



Did you just accidently compromise after 70 pages?

Now, imagine it were 20+ percent.

If you sell a big enough home you most likely already fall into the category where you are going to pay that much and more on the sale of the house.

[Machismo]

I've pointed this out in a previous post in this thread that a wealth tax that is being proposed is the same as a property tax that every homeowner has to pay. If you own physical property, you pay property tax. That is a wealth tax as it is based on the value of a property. If you refuse to pay it, the locality can forcefully foreclose on your home and sell it for basically what tax is owed. It is up to the homeowner to come up with said money to pay for it. If they have to sell the possessions in the house to do so, that is up to them. So, no, it isn't a reach.

Stocks should be treated the same as they are generally considered property. The only exemption that I have put in the past(in this very thread) are investments that are designed specifically(and have specific rules attached to them) for retirement purposes. If a stock holder has to sell stock to come up with a "Stock tax", that is up to them.

If homeowners have to pay a tax on their property, why don't stock holders have to on theirs?

This would put double taxation on that same home.

Of course, the real crux of the wealth taxes being proposed, is that people only want them for the very wealthy, and not themselves.

As I pointed out in my very first comment in the thread,this would be disastrous for people with 401k plans.

And yes, they are stocks and other capital assets.

[Shadowferal]

Wow, so the billionaire who gets virtually none of his increase in personal wealth from income, thinks that income taxes are the way to go. Colour me surprised. Doesn't explain why you are so gung-ho against a wealth tax, mind you. But 50 odd pages of you saying literally nothing haven't given us much to go on as far as that's concerned.

Well, he's exemplary of libertarianism. And in that we can easily equate that with the insanity of the creed "greed is good" and knowing this we can safely tune out anyone claiming to be such as they have no business making public policy decisions.

[Machismo]

OK good then we will levy taxes at the local level on stocks, done deal. thanks for the compromise.




"most"? Just the fact that people do pay it means you can build a wealth tax on stocks using the same principals and standards so we end up with "most people paying no federal taxes" on stocks/wealth they have.

That's the whole point of the plans proposed, MOST people would NOT pay federal taxes on stocks/wealth.



Did you just accidently compromise after 70 pages?



If you sell a big enough home you most likely already fall into the category where you are going to pay that much and more on the sale of the house.

I asked about you, how much would you pay in taxes if you sold your home?

[Zan15]

This would put double taxation on that same home.

Of course, the real crux of the wealth taxes being proposed, is that people only want them for the very wealthy, and not themselves.

As I pointed out in my very first comment in the thread,this would be disastrous for people with 401k plans.

And yes, they are stocks and other capital assets.

no it wouldn't because like capital gains on houses the floor would be set high enough that the vast majority of 401k plans would not be touched. most plans have these limits in place

- - - Updated - - -

I asked about you, how much would you pay in taxes if you sold your home?

and I already told you it would depend on a lot of factors. Do you want me to go out and get my house appraised and try to value the additions to the house. Then hire an accountant to figure out the dynamic of two home owners whom are not married and calculate the liabilities based on a couple years of improvements to the kitchen and a fence that just got finished yesterday in 95 degree heat?

if we took the raw value of the home it would be capital gains on about 40,000 in value. the same 40,000 in value that i was already taxed 1/2 of $5600 in property taxes so far for the year. Or as you call it double taxation.

I am sure a good accountant/tax professional could cut that 40k down a bunch way better than i could if i could just find the money to hire one.

Of course i could wait a few more months and hope the housing market cools off and save another few grandy

[Bodakane]

SO, did Jeff Bezos get paid in stock, or not?

You claimed he did, so did he?

Yes. His income comes from stocks. His income comes from investments. You think I'm saying he gets a check every week from Amazon that says you've been paid in X number of stocks for this amount of hours. I'm not and its a stupid, stupid, stupid, take on your part.

His yearly intake is income. He doesn't pay fair share of taxes on it because he uses tax shelters and loopholes. Read that how many ever times you need to so you understand it, because eI'm sick to fucking death of saying it over and over.

[Machismo]

no it wouldn't because like capital gains on houses the floor would be set high enough that the vast majority of 401k plans would not be touched. most plans have these limits in place

- - - Updated - - -



and I already told you it would depend on a lot of factors. Do you want me to go out and get my house appraised and try to value the additions to the house. Then hire an accountant to figure out the dynamic of two home owners whom are not married and calculate the liabilities based on a couple years of improvements to the kitchen and a fence that just got finished yesterday in 95 degree heat?

if we took the raw value of the home it would be capital gains on about 40,000 in value. the same 40,000 in value that i was already taxed 1/2 of $5600 in property taxes so far for the year. Or as you call it double taxation.

I am sure a good accountant/tax professional could cut that 40k down a bunch way better than i could if i could just find the money to hire one.

Of course i could wait a few more months and hope the housing market cools off and save another few grandy

That creates those loopholes and dodges that people seem to hate so much.

It's no longer a wealth tax, but as was pointed out, nothing but an attempt to tax only the wealthy.

See the problem? Of course you don't, that's the entire intent...

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. His income comes from stocks. His income comes from investments. You think I'm saying he gets a check every week from Amazon that says you've been paid in X number of stocks for this amount of hours. I'm not and its a stupid, stupid, stupid, take on your part.

His yearly intake is income. He doesn't pay fair share of taxes on it because he uses tax shelters and loopholes. Read that how many ever times you need to so you understand it, because eI'm sick to fucking death of saying it over and over.

Great, let's see your evidence.

How many shares of stocks was he given for his salary?

Jesus fucking christ.

He did not. His actual salary includes stocks. that is the loophole you pretend doesn't exist.

I know how taxes are taken out of stocks. I am saying that should be changed for people in that bracket. And not because of hate o punishment but because it is fair, since they use more of government services than anyone and only people of their wealth can afford to dodge taxes by using stocks as a tax shelter. You can't do it. I can't do it. We would starve and we use less than they do.

Its wrong, it needs to be changed. So stop telling me how it is as justification. I know how it is and it should changed.

Your entire argument is predicated on the lie you keep telling. That's why you cannot actually show any loopholes, because you'd have to put another lie on top of the previous lie.

https://www.investopedia.com/article...aws-differ.asp

You said he received it as his salary.

Are you saying you don't understand what a salary is, on top of not knowing what capital gains were?

This is why you have not managed to provide a single source, not a single fucking law that points to the loophole.

[Bodakane]

That creates those loopholes and dodges that people seem to hate so much.

It's no longer a wealth tax, but as was pointed out, nothing but an attempt to tax only the wealthy.

See the problem? Of course you don't, that's the entire intent...

- - - Updated - - -



Great, let's see your evidence.

How many shares of stocks was he given for his salary?



Your entire argument is predicated on the lie you keep telling. That's why you cannot actually show any loopholes, because you'd have to put another lie on top of the previous lie.

https://www.investopedia.com/article...aws-differ.asp

You said he received it as his salary.

Are you saying you don't understand what a salary is, on top of not knowing what capital gains were?

This is why you have not managed to provide a single source, not a single fucking law that points to the loophole.

I cannot find stupider words to explain this so you get it. I am limited by the English language.

The proof was provided in Post #1 of this thread. No matter how many times you ask for it then ignore the simple answer given to you.

Ask yourself this, where does his money come from then? Rub your lonely two brain cells together and explain that.

[Machismo]

I cannot find stupider words to explain this so you get it. I am limited by the English language.

The proof was provided in Post #1 of this thread. No matter how many times you ask for it then ignore the simple answer given to you.

Ask yourself this, where does his money come from then? Rub your lonely two brain cells together and explain that.

You called it a salary, which my evidence showed he has literally never received stock as art of his salary.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...pay-2020-04-16

"“We believe that all company-incurred security costs are reasonable and necessary and for the company’s benefit, and that the amount of the reported security expenses for Mr. Bezos is especially reasonable in light of his low salary and the fact that he has never received any stock-based compensation,” the company stated in the proxy statement."

This is a fact you simply cannot get around.

That's like saying I receive Chipotle stock as part of my salary for the company I work for (which isn't Chipotle), because I already own Chipotle stock.

What money, his income, or his wealth? His income comes from his salary, which was provided for you, and contains no Amazon stock. It also comes from the sale of capital investments, just like what happens to me when I sell my stocks. His wealth, is based almost entirely on the increase in value of the stocks he's owned for years, and which were never part of his salary, contrary to your refuted claims. Wealth is not taxed, income is.

I'm having a hard time trying to track down all these loopholes. Am I using that loophole, because I own stock?

[Breccia]

Cuban lays it out perfectly. He even points to a lack of liquidity, and a complete misunderstanding ding of the difference between wealth and income.

I could just stand back and watch the Airplane-like line of people slapping your point down, but I won't.

Instead, I'll put it this way:
1) I earned income in 2020.
2) I used it to buy things.
3) I still paid tax on the money, even though I did not have the money.
4) I also paid tax on health care, which was never money and I had no option not to take it.
5) There's an alternative minimum tax -- well there was -- for exactly this bullshit.

Mark Cuban, any billionaire CEO who is given stock or other assets to grow wealth without cash and therefore pay fewer taxes than I do, is complaining about having to pay fewer taxes than I do and is a big fucking dick. I don't know why you're defending him.

[Machismo]

I could just stand back and watch the Airplane-like line of people slapping your point down, but I won't.

Instead, I'll put it this way:
1) I earned income in 2020.
2) I used it to buy things.
3) I still paid tax on the money, even though I did not have the money.
4) I also paid tax on health care, which was never money and I had no option not to take it.
5) There's an alternative minimum tax -- well there was -- for exactly this bullshit.

Mark Cuban, any billionaire CEO who is given stock or other assets to grow wealth without cash and therefore pay fewer taxes than I do, is complaining about having to pay fewer taxes than I do and is a big fucking dick. I don't know why you're defending him.

I'm defending him, because people are pushing a bullshit narrative.

Look at Bodakane, he cannot stop lying. Honestly, I think he's in so deep, he cannot stop himself at this point. he claimed Bezos was given stock as part of his salary, but that is simply false.

The person giving the interview even makes the same mistake, by calling wealth, income. I have a 401k, that has gone up considerably in the past several years. That's not income. It's not taxed as income, because it's not income. It doesn't become income, until I sell it. mark Cuban also points this out, by saying he actually has relatively little liquid assets, and it's all investments. This is the part people never want to accept (I praise @Fugus for realizing this, even when his liberal brethren are woefully ignorant); all that stock isn't income, not until it's sold.

So, I have no problem with people lining up to try and slap the shit out of me, because I'm the one providing evidence to show just how fucking wrong they all are.

I get that people are pissed about wealth inequality. I get that they want to tax the wealthy to "make it right." But, most of them are simply ignorant on simple terms like "capital gains," or even what a "salary" or "income" actually is.

Cuban covers this, and does his very best to be nice in correcting the reporter... who was simply out of her depth.

So, what stock was mark Cuban given?

[Santti]

I could just stand back and watch the Airplane-like line of people slapping your point down, but I won't.

That's a good one.

I see this whole thing as the "It's got electrolytes" line from Idocracy. No matter how hard you to try to pry for reasons, you just get "It's got electrolytes. They are good for you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAqIJZeeXEc

And that's where we are now. After at least 200 pages, spread around in multiple threads. Machismo's got what people crave.

[Machismo]

That's a good one.

I see this whole thing as the "It's got electrolytes" line from Idocracy. No matter how hard you to try to pry for reasons, you just get "It's got electrolytes. They are good for you.".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAqIJZeeXEc

One problem, I'm the dude providing all the evidence.

[gondrin]

I cannot find stupider words to explain this so you get it. I am limited by the English language.

The proof was provided in Post #1 of this thread. No matter how many times you ask for it then ignore the simple answer given to you.

Ask yourself this, where does his money come from then? Rub your lonely two brain cells together and explain that.

The problem with the Propublica article is that it was stating that those people didn't pay much in income taxes(you know, getting a salary or some other compensation from a business) and using what they paid(or didn't pay) in income taxes, they then compared it to what their worth went up(usually through stock valuation increases) and stated they paid a "true tax rate" of whatever it is. It took until the end of the article for them to stop conflating wealth(the accumulation of property or anything of value) with income. I stated this in the very first post that I made on this thread.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the extremely wealthy use a lot of loopholes to deduct or outright remove their tax liability. But the article was disingenuous as it continued to think because a stock price goes up that it is considered income and used that as a measurement of what their tax rate was. To claim it otherwise either means that someone didn't either read the article or are conflating the two terms together.

Remember, until a stock is sold, under current US law, it isn't income. It is considered property. The moment it is sold is when you can consider it to be income.

[Machismo]

You’ve yet to provide any that actually supports your position while ALSO comporting with reality. You keep pretending millions, if not billions, of miles driven by Amazon workers to benefit Bezos’s wealth doesn’t equal Bezos benefitting from public infrastructure more than the average worker. It’s just sad at this point. Very Trumpy.

Nah, dawg.

I've provided plenty of evidence, and even backup from mark Cuban.

I'm not pretending anything, i simply believe such narratives being pushed by people are very difficult to quantify, so I challenged them to do it.

So far, none of you have. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't know exactly how it will all look when it is quantified, but it seems damn difficult to do... and you guys swore it would be easy.

[Machismo]

Dude, you refuse to acknowledge that Bezos benefits from public infrastructure more than any average individual when a fucking 7-year old can grasp it. Good luck with your delusions.

nah, dawg.

I simply called for evidence for people to back up the narratives they were pushing. Considering this started from a guy who was proven to be lying in this very thread, I definitely want him to provide that evidence.

[Bodakane]

You called it a salary, which my evidence showed he has literally never received stock as art of his salary.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...pay-2020-04-16

"“We believe that all company-incurred security costs are reasonable and necessary and for the company’s benefit, and that the amount of the reported security expenses for Mr. Bezos is especially reasonable in light of his low salary and the fact that he has never received any stock-based compensation,” the company stated in the proxy statement."

This is a fact you simply cannot get around.

That's like saying I receive Chipotle stock as part of my salary for the company I work for (which isn't Chipotle), because I already own Chipotle stock.

What money, his income, or his wealth? His income comes from his salary, which was provided for you, and contains no Amazon stock. It also comes from the sale of capital investments, just like what happens to me when I sell my stocks. His wealth, is based almost entirely on the increase in value of the stocks he's owned for years, and which were never part of his salary, contrary to your refuted claims. Wealth is not taxed, income is.

I'm having a hard time trying to track down all these loopholes. Am I using that loophole, because I own stock?

Because it is a salary. You are framing salary as one specific thing, a paycheck from Amazon. What I'm trying to get through your thick ass head is that he doesn't take a traditional salary like that, because he'd rather generate different income housed in tax shelters so he can loophole himself into little taxes.

And because you worship these people, you think you're scoring an internet gotcha by harping on this when all you've done is highlight your own absurdity and ignorance.

Call it salary, call it income, call it a fucking blueberry...it doesn't matter, its money he made in a year that he's not paying taxes on because of stupid fucking loopholes that let your Jesus use more government services and get a higher benefit from while paying a smaller percentage...than YOU! Yes you. You pay a higher percentage of your yearly income than Bezos pays on his yearly income.

And again for the hundredth time, being wealthy enough to use stocks/investments to limit your tax burden from an actual literal yearly salary is the fucking loophole. How else can I say that you? Seriously, do I need to write it in fucking crayon with backwards "r"s?

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with the Propublica article is that it was stating that those people didn't pay much in income taxes(you know, getting a salary or some other compensation from a business) and using what they paid(or didn't pay) in income taxes, they then compared it to what their worth went up(usually through stock valuation increases) and stated they paid a "true tax rate" of whatever it is. It took until the end of the article for them to stop conflating wealth(the accumulation of property or anything of value) with income. I stated this in the very first post that I made on this thread.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the extremely wealthy use a lot of loopholes to deduct or outright remove their tax liability. But the article was disingenuous as it continued to think because a stock price goes up that it is considered income and used that as a measurement of what their tax rate was. To claim it otherwise either means that someone didn't either read the article or are conflating the two terms together.

Remember, until a stock is sold, under current US law, it isn't income. It is considered property. The moment it is sold is when you can consider it to be income.

There's no problem with the article. They didn't;t confuse or conflate anything.

They cannot flat out say Bezos got all that money as a literal salary, because Drax-ish beings like @Machismo can literally only comprehend things....literally.

There's another link in the article where they clearly explain their reasoning for counting what they counted.

[Machismo]

Because it is a salary. You are framing salary as one specific thing, a paycheck from Amazon. What I'm trying to get through your thick ass head is that he doesn't take a traditional salary like that, because he'd rather generate different income housed in tax shelters so he can loophole himself into little taxes.

And because you worship these people, you think you're scoring an internet gotcha by harping on this when all you've done is highlight your own absurdity and ignorance.

Call it salary, call it income, call it a fucking blueberry...it doesn't matter, its money he made in a year that he's not paying taxes on because of stupid fucking loopholes that let your Jesus use more government services and get a higher benefit from while paying a smaller percentage...than YOU! Yes you. You pay a higher percentage of your yearly income than Bezos pays on his yearly income.

And again for the hundredth time, being wealthy enough to use stocks/investments to limit your tax burden from an actual literal yearly salary is the fucking loophole. How else can I say that you? Seriously, do I need to write it in fucking crayon with backwards "r"s?

- - - Updated - - -



There's no problem with the article. They didn't;t confuse or conflate anything.

They cannot flat out say Bezos got all that money as a literal salary, because Drax-ish beings like @Machismo can literally only comprehend things....literally.

There's another link in the article where they clearly explain their reasoning for counting what they counted.

I'm using the literal definition of the word, and you keep choosing to using it wrongly.

You keep mentioning tax shelters and loopholes, give me some actual citations as examples. Buzzwords predicated on your lies are not an argument, it's demagoguery.

It's like you are regurgitating progressive talking points, but passed through a grapevine of 6 different people before the message got to you. It's clear you cannot back it up, because these aren't even your own words.

He's paying taxes on his income. What he's not paying taxes on, is his wealth. The exact same applies to you and I. So, what tax shelters and loopholes are we using?

"the loophole is that he has stocks." Fuck that, I have stocks. Literally tens of millions of Americans have stocks.

You are now bitching, because you don't understand the definitions of words, and you want to blame me, for actually knowing them.

By the way, you also just demonstrated you don't know what income is.

[Shadowferal]

You’ve yet to provide any that actually supports your position while ALSO comporting with reality. You keep pretending millions, if not billions, of miles driven by Amazon workers to benefit Bezos’s wealth doesn’t equal Bezos benefitting from public infrastructure more than the average worker. It’s just sad at this point. Very Trumpy.

He is that...a Trump supporter.

...*chuckles* airplane...

[Bodakane]

I'm using the literal definition of the word, and you keep choosing to using it wrongly.

You keep mentioning tax shelters and loopholes, give me some actual citations as examples. Buzzwords predicated on your lies are not an argument, it's demagoguery.

It's like you are regurgitating progressive talking points, but passed through a grapevine of 6 different people before the message got to you. It's clear you cannot back it up, because these aren't even your own words.

He's paying taxes on his income. What he's not paying taxes on, is his wealth. The exact same applies to you and I. So, what tax shelters and loopholes are we using?

"the loophole is that he has stocks." Fuck that, I have stocks. Literally tens of millions of Americans have stocks.

You are now bitching, because you don't understand the definitions of words, and you want to blame me, for actually knowing them.

By the way, you also just demonstrated you don't know what income is.

Yes, we all know you're using the literal definition of the word. I also just said you were.

The examples you seek are in the article from the OP. You posted an article talking about all his shares. You have argued that he shouldn't pay taxes on actual yearly earnings until he sells the....go ahead, Ill let you finish your own argument.........

Ok, you are bad faith poster. There is no doubt. I have said multiple times it is not that he has stocks. No one is coming for you, so get off the fucking cross. I have said repeatedly, it is because he uses stocks and other investments as his salary so he can minimize his income tax and that is something only people of his wealth can do.

So please, misrepresent my argument again....eventually it will get you banned.