Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Breccia]

I'm defending him, because (irrelevant info cut)

By the way, I'm fairly sure you missed this in, like, the first page of the article that started this thread. I suppose you could say "but I didn't read it" which won't help your case.



Now, maybe you will say "Ahah! Bezos paid like 25% taxes on income! That totally backs my point!" which, well, it wouldn't, because it means he'd pay zero percent interest on 95% of his wealth growth, 95 billion dollars of it, and that's the problem. Gaining 95 billion dollars worth of wealth, and paying zero taxes on it. Real people with real problems don't get to say that. They actually get paid money, and even if they spend it on things like food and shelter, still pay taxes on it. Also, like myself, if I receive or am paid things of value (health insurance) I am taxed on that, too.

Also, there's that part about Bezos claiming to lose income while retaining wealth, also known as "bought things and kept them" which everyone else still has to pay taxes on. Oh, and then took a tax credit. Plus that 2007 bit about offsetting income with previous losses, something Trump does, and you're defending.

There is an inherent problem with very rich people becoming very richer by somehow not getting much income and therefore not paying taxes, while still accumulating value they can liquidate pretty much whenever they need/want.

Now, maybe you're clinging to that capital gains part, saying "but he shouldn't have to pay income tax when his buildings or investments grow in value over time until he sells them" and I immediately point to the article about Bezos, and previous articles about Trump, losing money and using that to cheese income tax for years afterwards, and say "my argument counters yours and we're back to the very rich getting more value and paying no taxes".

You're defending that. You're defending Trump. I still don't know why.

[Machismo]

and like that you are back to your belligerent intellectual dishonesty, if you need a refresher a good start would be the panama papers

as for exact numbers we can look at pre Reagan-omics fuckery when America had a thriving middle class for guidance, not saying we should go to the 90% rate of the age but you get the idea.

Not at all, this is the narrative you guys ant to push, and have no means in which to offer specifics.

"Just make him pay MORE!!!"

Nah, expect some critical thinking.

[Stormspellz]

Not at all, this is the narrative you guys ant to push, and have no means in which to offer specifics.

"Just make him pay MORE!!!"

Nah, expect some critical thinking.

pot kettle and all that

[Machismo]

By the way, I'm fairly sure you missed this in, like, the first page of the article that started this thread. I suppose you could say "but I didn't read it" which won't help your case.



Now, maybe you will say "Ahah! Bezos paid like 25% taxes on income! That totally backs my point!" which, well, it wouldn't, because it means he'd pay zero percent interest on 95% of his wealth growth, 95 billion dollars of it, and that's the problem. Gaining 95 billion dollars worth of wealth, and paying zero taxes on it. Real people with real problems don't get to say that. They actually get paid money, and even if they spend it on things like food and shelter, still pay taxes on it. Also, like myself, if I receive or am paid things of value (health insurance) I am taxed on that, too.

Also, there's that part about Bezos claiming to lose income while retaining wealth, also known as "bought things and kept them" which everyone else still has to pay taxes on. Oh, and then took a tax credit. Plus that 2007 bit about offsetting income with previous losses, something Trump does, and you're defending.

There is an inherent problem with very rich people becoming very richer by somehow not getting much income and therefore not paying taxes, while still accumulating value they can liquidate pretty much whenever they need/want.

Now, maybe you're clinging to that capital gains part, saying "but he shouldn't have to pay income tax when his buildings or investments grow in value over time until he sells them" and I immediately point to the article about Bezos, and previous articles about Trump, losing money and using that to cheese income tax for years afterwards, and say "my argument counters yours and we're back to the very rich getting more value and paying no taxes".

You're defending that. You're defending Trump. I still don't know why.

Wealth growth is not income.

Repeat that as many times as needed.

My 401k grew by a lot, should I have to pay interest on that? Stocks, just like your 401k, are taxed when sold. They are capital gains.

How about the value of all your property?

I'm defending people against a mass of uneducated, angry fools who have a tenuous grasp of economics, and think they actually know better. When they liquidate it, then they are taxed on it. That's how it has been for as long as we've been alive. If you want to tax people based on their wealth, I'm going to fucking fight you on that. That's literally punishing people for saving and investing money more wisely. The real issue is that people will also want to tax the sale of it, down the line.

And yes, I will keep bringing up the tens of millions of Americans who own stocks, and have 401k plans. By your logic, we should all be taxed for owning all that stuff.

Now, the next part will be you saying that you don't want to touch it for the masses, only people like Bezos.

Then that's no longer about taxing wealth, but taxing only the wealthy. And yes, I oppose that, because even the wealthy deserve liberty.

- - - Updated - - -

pot kettle and all that

Well, when you guys get together, and figure out what the fuck you want (besides to eat the rich), let me know.

[Breccia]

Wealth growth is not income.

Repeating that line won't help your argument.

I cannot go to the school I work for and say "Hey school I work for, I was going to pay $30,000 to fix up my house. But that would involve me taking out a loan or something. I have an idea: instead of you paying me $50,000 you instead pay me $20,000 and fix up my house. You pay the same, my wealth will grow the same since my house will be worth $30,000 more, but I'll only earn $20,000 in income, which is minimum wage area, and get a huge tax break. Everyone wins!"

Because real people can't do that. That's something the very rich can do, and then evade the taxes when they sell or trade the items later.

The problem you're having with your Trump-defending argument (yes you are) is that you're trying to defend the ethics while the outrage comes from the morals. Making $100 billion while paying 1% in taxes, because $95 billion was in stock or property, might be legal, but so is what happened to Treyvon Martin. People aren't outraged about the exact phrasing of the law, they're outraged that it's legal...for other people and not them.

But let's address your thoughts about taxing 401k. First of all, it'd require a rewrite and probably a massive rebalance of tax brackets and rates, which incidentally I'd be 100% okay with as long as it was still progressive like it was pre-tax-cut-for-the-rich. So I'd still win.

But let's pretend it magically didn't somehow (yeah, your idea requires magic).

Let's pretend I earned $50,000 in income and $100,000 to my 401k. Considering I actually did pay taxes on the money I earned, I'd really only worry about the marginal tax rate applied to that last $100k which means I'd need $24k. Obviously, I'd take out $24k from my 401k and use that. This is probably the issue you're talking about, even though my 401k would still grow $76k and I'd never have to pay taxes when I took it out later in life.

*ahem*

But.

Bezos would have to pay the much higher 37% rate on every single penny of that $95 billion he never paid taxes for. (He'll be comforted when he sells his properties or stocks and doesn't have to pay money at the time, because he's already paid like I have)

And we get to a situation where income tax is actually progressive. And I'd still win.

Now again, in reality it wouldn't be those numbers. I'm using your magic solution about 401k going up requires tax payments without a rebalance of the tax code -- which, again, I'm 100% for. I mean, we already have special rules and rates for capital gains so it's reasonable to assume that, if 401k growth or property values increasing was taxed, it's be at a different rate. And Cuban, Bezos and Trump would have to pay it, and this discussion would never have happened.

Until then, you're pointing out what the Bond villain is doing is legal because it's in international waters while the sexy lady is in a room filling with water.

[jonnysensible]

How about the value of all your property?

Do you not pay property tax wtf

If you want a figure anything over 50mil gets a 2% tax, that was easy.

[Machismo]

Repeating that line won't help your argument.

I cannot go to the school I work for and say "Hey school I work for, I was going to pay $30,000 to fix up my house. But that would involve me taking out a loan or something. I have an idea: instead of you paying me $50,000 you instead pay me $20,000 and fix up my house. You pay the same, my wealth will grow the same since my house will be worth $30,000 more, but I'll only earn $20,000 in income, which is minimum wage area, and get a huge tax break. Everyone wins!"

Because real people can't do that. That's something the very rich can do, and then evade the taxes when they sell or trade the items later.

The problem you're having with your Trump-defending argument (yes you are) is that you're trying to defend the ethics while the outrage comes from the morals. Making $100 billion while paying 1% in taxes, because $95 billion was in stock or property, might be legal, but so is what happened to Treyvon Martin. People aren't outraged about the exact phrasing of the law, they're outraged that it's legal...for other people and not them.

But let's address your thoughts about taxing 401k. First of all, it'd require a rewrite and probably a massive rebalance of tax brackets and rates, which incidentally I'd be 100% okay with as long as it was still progressive like it was pre-tax-cut-for-the-rich. So I'd still win.

But let's pretend it magically didn't somehow (yeah, your idea requires magic).

Let's pretend I earned $50,000 in income and $100,000 to my 401k. Considering I actually did pay taxes on the money I earned, I'd really only worry about the marginal tax rate applied to that last $100k which means I'd need $24k. Obviously, I'd take out $24k from my 401k and use that. This is probably the issue you're talking about, even though my 401k would still grow $76k and I'd never have to pay taxes when I took it out later in life.

*ahem*

But.

Bezos would have to pay the much higher 37% rate on every single penny of that $95 billion he never paid taxes for. (He'll be comforted when he sells his properties or stocks and doesn't have to pay money at the time, because he's already paid like I have)

And we get to a situation where income tax is actually progressive. And I'd still win.

Now again, in reality it wouldn't be those numbers. I'm using your magic solution about 401k going up requires tax payments without a rebalance of the tax code -- which, again, I'm 100% for. I mean, we already have special rules and rates for capital gains so it's reasonable to assume that, if 401k growth or property values increasing was taxed, it's be at a different rate. And Cuban, Bezos and Trump would have to pay it, and this discussion would never have happened.

Until then, you're pointing out what the Bond villain is doing is legal because it's in international waters while the sexy lady is in a room filling with water.

And was pointed out, Bezos didn't even do that. You pointed to Cuban, did he do that? Looking at that list, most of the people started their own companies, so the already had the stocks.

They will pay those taxes, when they sell. The same works for the rest of us.

People being outraged is largely meaningless, because as we've seen, most people don't even knw what the fuck is going on.

And yes, you'd pay taxes when you take money out of your 401k (a standard one). The money you put in is a deduction, at the time if investment. The same goes for people buying stocks, they pay when they sell.

Bezos wouldn't have to pay that rate, because it's not income, until he divests.

It's not legal, because it's in international waters. It's legal, because it's in the United States, and it has been legal for a very long time.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you not pay property tax wtf

If you want a figure anything over 50mil gets a 2% tax, that was easy.

Yep, paid to localities. Of course, I won't really have to pay when I sell my home, whereas stocks are subject to capital gains taxes.

[noidentity]

Wow, you can seriously skip to any random page in this thread and the discussion doesnt change one bit.

[downnola]

Wow, you can seriously skip to any random page in this thread and the discussion doesnt change one bit.

All because someone doesn't understand the notion that capital gains (or in another term one could google, capital income) is actual income that generates wealth and not some abstract, untaxable entity.

Pretty silly, tbh.

[Specialka]

Wealth growth is not income.

Repeat that as many times as needed.

My 401k grew by a lot, should I have to pay interest on that? Stocks, just like your 401k, are taxed when sold. They are capital gains.

How about the value of all your property?

I'm defending people against a mass of uneducated, angry fools who have a tenuous grasp of economics, and think they actually know better. When they liquidate it, then they are taxed on it. That's how it has been for as long as we've been alive. If you want to tax people based on their wealth, I'm going to fucking fight you on that. That's literally punishing people for saving and investing money more wisely. The real issue is that people will also want to tax the sale of it, down the line.

And yes, I will keep bringing up the tens of millions of Americans who own stocks, and have 401k plans. By your logic, we should all be taxed for owning all that stuff.

Now, the next part will be you saying that you don't want to touch it for the masses, only people like Bezos.

Then that's no longer about taxing wealth, but taxing only the wealthy. And yes, I oppose that, because even the wealthy deserve liberty.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, when you guys get together, and figure out what the fuck you want (besides to eat the rich), let me know.

The issue here is that capital gain is not taxed. But it will be implemented, and sooner than you think. EU is already thinking about it and will push it so US will follow.

[enigma77]

Well, when you guys get together, and figure out what the fuck you want (besides to eat the rich), let me know.

If they don't start paying their fair share soon, they will be eaten.

[Stormspellz]

Wealth growth is not income.

Repeat that as many times as needed.

My 401k grew by a lot, should I have to pay interest on that? Stocks, just like your 401k, are taxed when sold. They are capital gains.

How about the value of all your property?

I'm defending people against a mass of uneducated, angry fools who have a tenuous grasp of economics, and think they actually know better. When they liquidate it, then they are taxed on it. That's how it has been for as long as we've been alive. If you want to tax people based on their wealth, I'm going to fucking fight you on that. That's literally punishing people for saving and investing money more wisely. The real issue is that people will also want to tax the sale of it, down the line.

And yes, I will keep bringing up the tens of millions of Americans who own stocks, and have 401k plans. By your logic, we should all be taxed for owning all that stuff.

Now, the next part will be you saying that you don't want to touch it for the masses, only people like Bezos.

Then that's no longer about taxing wealth, but taxing only the wealthy. And yes, I oppose that, because even the wealthy deserve liberty.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, when you guys get together, and figure out what the fuck you want (besides to eat the rich), let me know.

we already did, you keep ignoring it, broken record the "wealth increase" rhetoric , its also worth noting that posted img goes over how Bezos was able to write of his entire income worth on "expenses" for one thing or another: something something loopholes and abuses from earlier.

[Noctiphobia]

Am I misunderstanding this entire thread, or is this whole discussion (as well as the article) about people not understanding how capital gains and losses are taxed, and therefore hating on the rich?
Have most people here never invested in anything on the stock market, or even bought meme cryptocurrencies?

This article is probably the dumbest piece of garbage I've read in a long time if you exclude obvious satire and literal fake news.

I cannot go to the school I work for and say "Hey school I work for, I was going to pay $30,000 to fix up my house. But that would involve me taking out a loan or something. I have an idea: instead of you paying me $50,000 you instead pay me $20,000 and fix up my house. You pay the same, my wealth will grow the same since my house will be worth $30,000 more, but I'll only earn $20,000 in income, which is minimum wage area, and get a huge tax break. Everyone wins!"

Because real people can't do that. That's something the very rich can do, and then evade the taxes when they sell or trade the items later.

Real people can absolutely do that if you change it to what the rich people are actually doing. You can absolutely deduct the expenses you incurred to get the income. If you replace "my house" with basically anything you did buy to earn income, like tools for a job if freelancing or something, you can deduct that. And people do that all the time, not just the extremely rich. Most people are employed by someone who provides everything they need to do the job, though (and they incur that expense).

[Stormspellz]

Am I misunderstanding this entire thread, or is this whole discussion (as well as the article) about people not understanding how capital gains and losses are taxed, and therefore hating on the rich?
Have most people here never invested in anything on the stock market, or even bought meme cryptocurrencies?

This article is probably the dumbest piece of garbage I've read in a long time if you exclude obvious satire and literal fake news.

people understand how it works, they are saying the various ways its exploitable and abused shouldn't be happening with the local trumper libertarian doing his usual belligerent intellectual dishonesty acts

[Noctiphobia]

people understand how it works, they are saying the various ways its exploitable and abused shouldn't be happening with the local trumper libertarian doing his usual belligerent intellectual dishonesty acts

How can anyone unironically use both "libertarian" and "trumper" to describe one person? Clearly one is at odds with the other.

[Stormspellz]

How can anyone unironically use both "libertarian" and "trumper" to describe one person? Clearly one is at odds with the other.

if one would use the actual definition of libertarian and not say be orange lips rand paul "libertarian"

[Shadowferal]

All because someone doesn't understand the notion that capital gains (or in another term one could google, capital income) is actual income that generates wealth and not some abstract, untaxable entity.
Pretty silly, tbh.

Nah.. He understands. Completely.

- - - Updated - - -

How can anyone unironically use both "libertarian" and "trumper" to describe one person? Clearly one is at odds with the other.

He said Trump's tax cuts should have been larger. Says it all.

[Bryntrollian]

I'm still not so sure on the merits of imposing tax on unrealized gains, this whole ordeal seems a bit perplexing.

[Shadowferal]

I'm still not so sure on the merits of imposing tax on unrealized gains, this whole ordeal seems a bit perplexing.

What perplexes is someone defending billionaires not paying any taxes.

[Slant]

I'm still not so sure on the merits of imposing tax on unrealized gains, this whole ordeal seems a bit perplexing.

The merits are a betterment of society, a visible sign of actual, real contribution instead of the charity lip service that ends up in some other billionaire's pockets somehow. A meaningful sign against the widening of the wealth gap. I used to scoff at the wealth gap discussion for a long time, but we're at a point where even conservatives have to acknowledge that capitalism went too far. There needs to be a limit on greed and if necessary it needs to be imposed top down. The current status cannot continue for much longer before people decide to take matters into their own hands.

Trump is one symptom of that sentiment. Now, the masses chose the wrong guy for their cause, clearly. But imagine Sanders being a bit smarter about his rhetoric and politics. He would absolutely wreck the existing concepts as the US knows them and they're lucky the mob decided for a dumb clown like Trump instead of someone who actually understands social economics.