Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Noctiphobia]

You can.

But there is a massive difference between "you can deduct expenses mandatory for your job, that your job makes you pay for" vs "CEOs get paid in stock and properties so they don't pay taxes".

If you get paid in stock and properties, you absolutely have to pay taxes on it. Normal income tax, the same as on cash. Plenty of people who aren't billionaires get paid at least part of their salary in stock, e.g. pretty much everyone working in Silicon Valley. If salary is taxed at X%, and capital gains are taxed at Y%, you get taxed at X% at the moment you receive the stock (the entire value; regardless of how much it was worth at the time you were promised the stock), and then at Y% on the difference between the value at the time you received the stock and the time you sell it. If you know a legal way in which I can stop paying 51% tax on the stock part of my salary, I'd love to know, though.

Unless you mean already holding stock that increases in value, i.e. not getting paid at all. In this case, you pay capital gains tax when you actually sell that stock. If you never sell the stock, you don't pay the tax, but if you never sell the stock, you also never get any cash and it could be monopoly money.

So there’s this concept called proportionality. Pretty much anyone whose liquidity is on the same par as those stated in the original article paid a similar tax rate if you do the same calculations, myself included. That we choose to participate in the stock market and not spend our money frivolously does not make us tax evaders. Propublica are lying or incompetent or both when they say billionaires take advantage of the system in a way others cannot.

I’ll also add that due to the inflationary policy pursued by the US government, the ONLY way to get ahead is the stock market for most people realistically speaking due to its naturally protecting effects against inflation. You WILL fall behind if you don’t play the game and because of the way exponential functions work even a little bit saved at a time makes a big difference in the long run.

Beyond the scope of this debate I really encourage anyone to put a little money in when you can.

The fact that so many people don't invest their money and just let it sit in their bank accounts is the worst tragedy. Taking the average savings rate (7% of disposable income pre-COVID; increased during COVID, but that's a temporary anomaly) and the median household income in US ($68,703 in 2019), you get around $400 monthly savings. If you put that into the stock market and just let it sit there in a S&P500 fund, you'll have a nice inflation-adjusted $1,000,000 in 40 years (actually slightly more than that). Alternatively, if you just let it sit in the bank account, you'll end up with inflation-adjusted $54,523 ($192,000 pre-inflation). Slightly more if you put it into a shitty deposit, like the 0.5%/year that my bank is trying to sell to me.
Of course, if you start trying to time the market, you'll just end up buying high and selling low, and losing most of your money.

[Slant]

The fact that so many people don't invest their money and just let it sit in their bank accounts is the worst tragedy. Taking the average savings rate (7% of disposable income pre-COVID; increased during COVID, but that's a temporary anomaly) and the median household income in US ($68,703 in 2019), you get around $400 monthly savings. If you put that into the stock market and just let it sit there in a S&P500 fund, you'll have a nice inflation-adjusted $1,000,000 in 40 years (actually slightly more than that). Alternatively, if you just let it sit in the bank account, you'll end up with inflation-adjusted $54,523 ($192,000 pre-inflation). Slightly more if you put it into a shitty deposit, like the 0.5%/year that my bank is trying to sell to me.
Of course, if you start trying to time the market, you'll just end up buying high and selling low, and losing most of your money.

So, while I like the way you're thinking... here's what breaks your argument. Wall St.

As sure as a swiss clock, every 10-20 years, Wall St. comes along and fucks all your savings. Sure, you say, but the smart guy leaves his money in because Wall St. recuperates. Yes, but only at the mercy of the Government. So, what happens the next time? I guess it'll depend on the Government to bail Wall St. out again, won't it? If you're part of the package that does get bailed out, and not the part that people just let go bust, cos it's cheaper to take the hit than make it work...

Wall St. is full of criminals habitually embezzling people's savings for their own profit. Or whatever it is they're doing. How many billions of small families incomes have to be destroyed before people like you realise that it's not that easy? Oh put it all in Wall St. They'll make you rich!

There is no working get rich quick scheme that doesn't reek of fraud. It's as simple as that.

[Noctiphobia]

So, while I like the way you're thinking... here's what breaks your argument. Wall St.

As sure as a swiss clock, every 10-20 years, Wall St. comes along and fucks all your savings. Sure, you say, but the smart guy leaves his money in because Wall St. recuperates. Yes, but only at the mercy of the Government. So, what happens the next time? I guess it'll depend on the Government to bail Wall St. out again, won't it? If you're part of the package that does get bailed out, and not the part that people just let go bust, cos it's cheaper to take the hit than make it work...

Wall St. is full of criminals habitually embezzling people's savings for their own profit. Or whatever it is they're doing. How many billions of small families incomes have to be destroyed before people like you realise that it's not that easy? Oh put it all in Wall St. They'll make you rich!

There is no working get rich quick scheme that doesn't reek of fraud. It's as simple as that.

The problem here is that if the whole market fails so horribly that it can't recover, your savings in a bank account aren't necessarily safe either, so if it gets to that point, you lose regardless of what you do. And obviously, I'm talking only about the whole market, because I'm not suggesting that anyone should actually invest in individual stocks, unless it's their full time job and they're experts (and even then, most likely they're not going to beat the market). I'm talking about a wide index fund/ETF tracking something like S&P500 (or something even wider than that like VTSAX/VTI). So if that fails, that means everything around you is burning down, or something like that. Plus if you think that the "rich elite" is controlling the governments etc., do you think they're going to let the entire market go bust?

And the return rate in my post (7% annualized, corrected for inflation) is the average return rate throughout S&P500's existence, which included quite a few of the crises you mention. So at least assuming that future crises are going to be about as severe as the ones before, you're going to be fine. If not, see above.

And of course, 40 years of savings is not really a "get rich quick scheme".

[Shadowferal]

In related news; House unveils antitrust package to rein in tech giants

A bill sponsored by subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) would prohibit tech giants from self-preferencing their own products on their platforms, targeting alleged anti-competitive behavior from Apple in its App Store and Amazon on its digital marketplace.
----
Another bill, sponsored by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Gooden, would eliminate the ability of dominant platforms to use their control over multiple businesses to self-preference or disadvantage competitors in ways that undermine free and fair competition.
----
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and ranking member Ken Buck (R-Colo.) are sponsoring a bill that would prohibit platforms from acquiring competitive threats by dominant platforms.
----
Another bill sponsored by Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) and Burgess Owens (R-Utah) would require online platforms to lower barriers for users and businesses to switch data to other services.
----
The final bill introduced Friday by Reps. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) would increase the filing fees paid to antitrust agencies for merger reviews. It’s a companion bill to one introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that was added to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act that the upper chamber passed Tuesday.
-----
In a statement announcing the legislation Friday, Buck underscored the need for immediacy on the issue.
“These companies have maintained monopoly power in the online marketplace by using a variety of anticompetitive behaviors to stifle competition. This legislation breaks up Big Tech’s monopoly power to control what Americans see and say online, and fosters an online market that encourages innovation and provides American small businesses with a fair playing field. Doing nothing is not an option, we must act now,” Buck said.

[JohnBrown1917]

Everyone agrees with you so therefore you’re right eh? Ever heard of a bandwagon?

Yeah, turns out the majority do not benefit from a world where big corporations hold 100% of the power.

[Slant]

The problem here is that if the whole market fails so horribly that it can't recover, your savings in a bank account aren't necessarily safe either, so if it gets to that point, you lose regardless of what you do. And obviously, I'm talking only about the whole market, because I'm not suggesting that anyone should actually invest in individual stocks, unless it's their full time job and they're experts (and even then, most likely they're not going to beat the market). I'm talking about a wide index fund/ETF tracking something like S&P500 (or something even wider than that like VTSAX/VTI). So if that fails, that means everything around you is burning down, or something like that. Plus if you think that the "rich elite" is controlling the governments etc., do you think they're going to let the entire market go bust?

And the return rate in my post (7% annualized, corrected for inflation) is the average return rate throughout S&P500's existence, which included quite a few of the crises you mention. So at least assuming that future crises are going to be about as severe as the ones before, you're going to be fine. If not, see above.

And of course, 40 years of savings is not really a "get rich quick scheme".

I know, you've got a point. But many people get antsy when the market goes south and want to liquidate. Not many have the strength of will to just sit it all out.

[D3thray]

Oh right so if you avoid paying taxes now you will get ahead in the long run?
It sounds a bit like a pyramid scheme to me tbh, which is fine and dandy for those at the top.

Ever heard of a Roth? Taxes have been paid my dood. Look I’m not trying to be mean or bust your balls but learn some things about taxes and basic financial instruments. I really think this country is sorely lacking in financial literacy for most people and that it’s a problem we should be tackling.

- - - Updated - - -

So, while I like the way you're thinking... here's what breaks your argument. Wall St.

As sure as a swiss clock, every 10-20 years, Wall St. comes along and fucks all your savings. Sure, you say, but the smart guy leaves his money in because Wall St. recuperates. Yes, but only at the mercy of the Government. So, what happens the next time? I guess it'll depend on the Government to bail Wall St. out again, won't it? If you're part of the package that does get bailed out, and not the part that people just let go bust, cos it's cheaper to take the hit than make it work...

Wall St. is full of criminals habitually embezzling people's savings for their own profit. Or whatever it is they're doing. How many billions of small families incomes have to be destroyed before people like you realise that it's not that easy? Oh put it all in Wall St. They'll make you rich!

There is no working get rich quick scheme that doesn't reek of fraud. It's as simple as that.

I’m not sure what your definition of quick is but 40 years isn’t quick in my book. Also we’ve just had another bailout, several in fact larger than the one in ‘08 and it was one that went directly to the American people. Wall Street didn’t need one, they were doing gang busters. You don’t get rich because of Wall Street per de but mostly because you’re protecting the value of your money against inflation. Inflation always hits the ones at the bottom the worst because typically they are the ones who aren’t participating in the market. They just keep running on a treadmill they can’t get off of because their money is worth less and less every year, heck every month. I mean for godsakes the CPI just rose 4.2% and 5% the last two months respectively. And don’t give me any of this ‘but they aren’t paid a living wage’ bull crap I do not make a lot of money, but I get by just fine because I’m not frivolous with my money. That’s not to say that there aren’t other factors keeping some people down but someone working full time in this country does make a living wage. There are far too many entry level jobs these days offering $15/hr plus for the living wage argument to hold any water.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, turns out the majority do not benefit from a world where big corporations hold 100% of the power.

You just have to play the game my dude, just play the game. Nobody is stopping you. Is it ideal? Maybe not. Is there something better? Probably. Is it something we could achieve without completely burning society to the ground around us? Not likely and an assload of people would be hurt in the process, mostly the little guy.

I just have a pragmatic attitude, if you can’t beat them, join them. This is not to say we shouldn’t keep trying to make things better for everyone but at some point people have to help themselves for any real change to happen. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink as the saying goes.

[ILFSTE]

I'd love for somebody here to attempt to explain why this situation is a bad one.

I'd bet money it can't be done.

[unfilteredJW]

I'd love for somebody here to attempt to explain why this situation is a bad one.

I'd bet money it can't be done.

Looks at the hundreds of posts prior to this.

Looks at camera.

[Masark]

Looks at the hundreds of posts prior to this.

Looks at camera.

They're a troll with a burner account. Explaining anything to them is an impossibility.

[Endus]

I'd love for somebody here to attempt to explain why this situation is a bad one.

I'd bet money it can't be done.

Total wealth is a limited, finite resource. Its an amount that may change, over time, at any given moment, there's a pretty clear, finite figure.

Distribution of that wealth within society affects a great many things.

When wealth becomes attenuated to as high a degree as it currently is, leaving such a disproportionate amount of society's wealth in the hands of just a few individuals, that necessarily means that those at lower income levels are divvying up an even smaller proportion of society's wealth among them.

When that fraction of wealth is so small that it cannot cover basic living expenses and support for a modicum of comfort for the poorest in society, that's what systemic poverty is. Systemic poverty has a whole wide range of negative factors associated; crime, health, happiness, you name it.

When wealth inequality is this disparate, those at the top have a wildly disproportionate impact on policy-making, through both lobbying and less legitimate forms of pressure. This means new tax policies tend to reinforce this paradigm, accentuating and affirming these disparities as a "feature", not a "bug", making them far more difficult to change.

So there you go; rich people like Bezos existing means that human suffering is practically a necessity to support their position. And not by accident, but by deliberate, willful design.

Some of us have a problem with the expansion and protection of human misery so that the wealthy can capitalize upon it. This isn't that complicated.

[Shadowferal]

They're a troll with a burner account. Explaining anything to them is an impossibility.

Sounds like MTG on both points.

[Captain N]

Sounds like MTG on both points.

I support both your "liberty and freedom" to make such an assessment.

[Iliena]

Ever heard of a Roth? Taxes have been paid my dood. Look I’m not trying to be mean or bust your balls but learn some things about taxes and basic financial instruments. I really think this country is sorely lacking in financial literacy for most people and that it’s a problem we should be tackling.

I was pretty drunk last night my attempt at humour was off the mark I apologise, I'm from the UK and pay 40% feel free to bust my balls about it.

What I should have said is that I a don't consider the stock market to be a sensible choice for the average person, yes you can make a lot of money, but you can also loose the lot in a blink of an eye if there is a crash.

Personally I invest in gold with any spare money, I was left some gold Sovereign's by my Grandfather, which I have added to over the last 15 years, I check the price most days and buy when it dip's, I bought quite a lot early last year when it was really cheap, while it doesn't offer the same returns shares can I feel it is a safer choice in the long run and will always have a intrinsic value, you also need to take into account storage and insurance costs with gold.

[Noctiphobia]

What I should have said is that I a don't consider the stock market to be a sensible choice for the average person, yes you can make a lot of money, but you can also loose the lot in a blink of an eye if there is a crash.

If you invest in the whole market (rather than hand-picking stocks) and don't actually sell when there's a crash, you're going to be fine.

Personally I invest in gold with any spare money, I was left some gold Sovereign's by my Grandfather, which I have added to over the last 15 years, I check the price most days and buy when it dip's, I bought quite a lot early last year when it was really cheap, while it doesn't offer the same returns shares can I feel it is a safer choice in the long run and will always have a intrinsic value, you also need to take into account storage and insurance costs with gold.

On the other hand, gold is barely even an investment, it's mostly a way to protect your money from inflation and not much more, unless we're in a gold bubble.

[Zan15]

Ever heard of a Roth? Taxes have been paid my dood. Look I’m not trying to be mean or bust your balls but learn some things about taxes and basic financial instruments. I really think this country is sorely lacking in financial literacy for most people and that it’s a problem we should be tackling.

.

They have been trying for decades to get this stuff taught throughout k-12 but a particular party wants no part of it or any real education reform, cause you know an educated voter.......

But hey Home Economics teaches you how to cook, clean and do laundry still

[ILFSTE]

Total wealth is a limited, finite resource. Its an amount that may change, over time, at any given moment, there's a pretty clear, finite figure.

Distribution of that wealth within society affects a great many things.

When wealth becomes attenuated to as high a degree as it currently is, leaving such a disproportionate amount of society's wealth in the hands of just a few individuals, that necessarily means that those at lower income levels are divvying up an even smaller proportion of society's wealth among them.

When that fraction of wealth is so small that it cannot cover basic living expenses and support for a modicum of comfort for the poorest in society, that's what systemic poverty is. Systemic poverty has a whole wide range of negative factors associated; crime, health, happiness, you name it.

When wealth inequality is this disparate, those at the top have a wildly disproportionate impact on policy-making, through both lobbying and less legitimate forms of pressure. This means new tax policies tend to reinforce this paradigm, accentuating and affirming these disparities as a "feature", not a "bug", making them far more difficult to change.

So there you go; rich people like Bezos existing means that human suffering is practically a necessity to support their position. And not by accident, but by deliberate, willful design.

Some of us have a problem with the expansion and protection of human misery so that the wealthy can capitalize upon it. This isn't that complicated.

You haven't explained how taxxing Bezos more would prevent suffering humans from not suffering anymore.

Considering this, I would love for you to explain exactly how this would function.

[Endus]

You haven't explained how taxxing Bezos more would prevent suffering humans from not suffering anymore.

Considering this, I would love for you to explain exactly how this would function.

Should've been pretty obvious.

If you can't establish rules to prevent the garnering of such wealth in the first place, you implement taxes to pull that wealth from the wealthy, and provide support programs (such as a basic income) for everyone, to bring up that floor above the level of undue hardship.

The money you collect in taxes doesn't just vanish into the ether, y'know.

[Zan15]

You haven't explained how taxxing Bezos more would prevent suffering humans from not suffering anymore.

Considering this, I would love for you to explain exactly how this would function.

macho are you ban evading??

[ILFSTE]

Should've been pretty obvious.

If you can't establish rules to prevent the garnering of such wealth in the first place, you implement taxes to pull that wealth from the wealthy, and provide support programs (such as a basic income) for everyone, to bring up that floor above the level of undue hardship.

The money you collect in taxes doesn't just vanish into the ether, y'know.

I'm going to introduce you to some mind blowing ideas.

1. The assumption that equally distributing all means of purchasing power creates a better society is wrong. (You seem to assume it does).

2. Even if we assume equal distribution of purchasing power does create a better society, taxing the rich to give to the poor isn't actually the best way to do it. (A much better way would be to encourage the rich to spend, which means the poor need to become productive members of society, not freeloaders).

3. The third and final wrong assumption you make is that rich members of society are directly responsible for creating poor members of society. They aren't. It's the complete opposite. Rich members of society actually uplift all members of society in nearly all cases of the modern World.