Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Specialka]

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.

Seems that you based your premise of the assumption that poor people are not productive ?

[ILFSTE]

Seems that you based your premise of the assumption that poor people are not productive ?

Being poor means you have no purchasing power.

If members of society don't have purchasing power, that direct society can't and doesn't prosper.

Slaves who work for free benefit other societies, but they can't and don't benefit their own.

Thus, they aren't productive members of their own society.

[Huehuecoyotl]

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).

Fucking trickledown? You still trying to sell that shit to people with more than one working braincell? And you followed that up with the old "rich means hard-working, poor is lazy" trope.

If the rich aren't paying you to try and push this shit, I've got to question why the hell you are doing it. Unless you genuinely believe it, in which case I'll chuckle to myself and stop bothering to talk to you.

[ILFSTE]

Fucking trickledown? You still trying to sell that shit to people with more than one working braincell? And you followed that up with the old "rich means hard-working, poor is lazy" trope.

If the rich aren't paying you to try and push this shit, I've got to question why the hell you are doing it. Unless you genuinely believe it, in which case I'll chuckle to myself and stop bothering to talk to you.

In context, the rich pay way more taxes than the poor.

Way more.

This thread is about forcefully making them pay even more than their current rates, and then assuming that the Government will equally give it away freely to poorer members of society.

Which is a fucking terrible idea.

Plus, you aren't even talking about taxes. You're talking about employees paying higher salaries.

[Zan15]

In context, the rich pay way more taxes than the poor.

Way more.

This thread is about forcefully making them pay even more than their current rates, and then assuming that the Government will equally give it away freely to poorer members of society.

Which is a fucking terrible idea.

Plus, you aren't even talking about taxes. You're talking about employees paying higher salaries.

it was a great idea in decades where the economy did so much better than its doing now. What's changed? Rich somehow managed to remain rich even back then and if you adjust for inflation probably richer then the top 5 right now.



P.s they also have way more wealth/income/etc. The shock they pay way more taxes than the poor...shocking!!

[Specialka]

In context, the rich pay way more taxes than the poor.

Way more.

This thread is about forcefully making them pay even more than their current rates, and then assuming that the Government will equally give it away freely to poorer members of society.

Which is a fucking terrible idea.

Plus, you aren't even talking about taxes. You're talking about employees paying higher salaries.

The issue here is that in proportion of their wealth and income, rich people pays less than poor people in taxes.

[Endus]

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).

Straw man: I never said "equal distribution".

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).

Repeating that same straw man, and then making a counter-argument I already explicitly acknowledged in my own post.

Worse, the primary tool governments have for "encouraging the rich to spend" is taxation, particularly wealth taxes, so your point doesn't even back you up.

Third, the myth that every individual should be a "productive member of society" is capitalist propaganda, not an argument. It is not true today, and it has not been true at any point in history, and worse, many of the wealthy are not productive members of society themselves. This claim is a lie that not even capitalists really believe. Just those foolish enough to fall for the lie.

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.

Yeah, this is just obvious horseshit, in the same vein as "white slavers have uplifted the black man out of savagery" racist claptrap of yesteryear. It's literally the same argument, just classist rather than racist in motive.

Rich business owners get rich by exploiting poverty. "Uplifting" their employees is directly against the interests of the business owners.

Imagine pushing trickle-down conspiracy garbage in 2021.

[ILFSTE]

Straw man: I never said "equal distribution".



Repeating that same straw man, and then making a counter-argument I already explicitly acknowledged in my own post.

Worse, the primary tool governments have for "encouraging the rich to spend" is taxation, particularly wealth taxes, so your point doesn't even back you up.

Third, the myth that every individual should be a "productive member of society" is capitalist propaganda, not an argument. It is not true today, and it has not been true at any point in history, and worse, many of the wealthy are not productive members of society themselves. This claim is a lie that not even capitalists really believe. Just those foolish enough to fall for the lie.



Yeah, this is just obvious horseshit, in the same vein as "white slavers have uplifted the black man out of savagery" racist claptrap of yesteryear. It's literally the same argument, just classist rather than racist in motive.

Rich business owners get rich by exploiting poverty. "Uplifting" their employees is directly against the interests of the business owners.

Imagine pushing trickle-down conspiracy garbage in 2021.

Name one successful society which consists of only poor people.

I mean, that sentence just blows your whole point of view out the fucking water really.

And now you are back peddling and putting forward a debate about equal distribution being a bad thing.

As always, you're ideas are full of shit, which wouldn't normally be an issue if you wasn't actually a fucking prick.

[Endus]

Name one successful society which consists of only poor people.

Did you miss my earlier statement that poverty is a demonstration of systemic failure? Try attacking my actual argument sometime.

And now you are back peddling and putting forward a debate about equal distribution being a bad thing.

Not "backpeddling" at all. Just waiting for you to actually address my argument, rather than making up a straw man.

I literally did not support any idea of "equal distribution". That's entirely in your head.

As always, you're ideas are full of shit, which wouldn't normally be an issue if you wasn't actually a fucking prick.

Theeeeere we go. Can't make your case against my position, so lie about my position and call me names.

Feel better?

[Huehuecoyotl]

Name one successful society which consists of only poor people.

I mean, that sentence just blows your whole point of view out the fucking water really.

And now you are back peddling and putting forward a debate about equal distribution being a bad thing.

As always, you're ideas are full of shit, which wouldn't normally be an issue if you wasn't actually a fucking prick.

Looks like the ban evading alt is going the same way as the banned main. You really seem to get angry when some of the reality of how ludicrous your ideas are seeps through. Maybe take some time to think about why you're getting angry that your ideas don't stand up to dissection. Did you get them drummed into you by your parents? Some role model in your life? If you could learn to let go of them, I'm pretty sure you'd become a calmer person as a result.

Leave ignoring reality to the Trumpsters and anti-vaxxers. You don't want to share attributes with those groups.

[Shadowferal]

Yeah, this is just obvious horseshit...

*sniffs*
It does indeed smell familiar.

[Bodakane]

In context, the rich pay way more taxes than the poor.

Way more.

This thread is about forcefully making them pay even more than their current rates, and then assuming that the Government will equally give it away freely to poorer members of society.

Which is a fucking terrible idea.

Plus, you aren't even talking about taxes. You're talking about employees paying higher salaries.

Get out of here with that bullshit notion the wealthy pay more taxes, they don't. They pay a smaller percentage of their yearly income than the average American does. That's literally been proven time and again, including the OP article of this thread.

[Endus]

Get out of here with that bullshit notion the wealthy pay more taxes, they don't. They pay a smaller percentage of their yearly income than the average American does. That's literally been proven time and again, including the OP article of this thread.

It's a way to play games.

They pay more in absolute individual terms.

They do not pay more in proportional terms.

They also do not pay more in collective terms; the top 1% (which is arguably too wide a category in the first place) don't pay 50% of the total income tax collected in the USA.

The latter two, of course, are the important measures. The first is just there to play stupid gotcha games like this.

[Bodakane]

It's a way to play games.

They pay more in absolute individual terms.

They do not pay more in proportional terms.

They also do not pay more in collective terms; the top 1% (which is arguably too wide a category in the first place) don't pay 50% of the total income tax collected in the USA.

The latter two, of course, are the important measures. The first is just there to play stupid gotcha games like this.

I know, I didn't want to it let go unchallenged.

Also, he wasn't banned yet as I started typing my response, and since I live in Machismo's head rent free, i figured he would out himself if i posted.

[Shadowferal]

Plan to Revive I.R.S. ‘Wealth Squad’ Puts the Richest on Notice

America's tax system is rigged to protect the rich and powerful

'These revelations make me sick' — Cramer suggests a billionaire surtax after ProPublica bombshell

[downnola]

I know, I didn't want to it let go unchallenged.

Also, he wasn't banned yet as I started typing my response, and since I live in Machismo's head rent free, i figured he would out himself if i posted.

Nah, that ain't Machismo. It's just someone with a hate boner for Endus.

[D3thray]

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

Feh, they haven’t taught home ec around here in decades. I do consider young people not knowing how to cook and basic nutrition also somewhat of a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I think you’re conflating the money supply and wealth, at least wealth as discussed in the context of the propublica article. This kind of speculative based wealth is theoretically infinite and at best ill-defined. It’s certainly not constrained by the actual number of dollars floating around. It doesn’t invalidate your argument by any means although but I think the nuance is important to point out when income tax and wealth tax is part of the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Get out of here with that bullshit notion the wealthy pay more taxes, they don't. They pay a smaller percentage of their yearly income than the average American does. That's literally been proven time and again, including the OP article of this thread.

https://taxfoundation.org/publicatio...come-tax-data/

Care to try again? The OP article is full of shit.

[Endus]

I think you’re conflating the money supply and wealth, at least wealth as discussed in the context of the propublica article. This kind of speculative based wealth is theoretically infinite and at best ill-defined. It’s certainly not constrained by the actual number of dollars floating around. It doesn’t invalidate your argument by any means although but I think the nuance is important to point out when income tax and wealth tax is part of the discussion.

That speculation fundamentally involves the growth of wealth, over time.

If you were to take any particular moment in time, you could theoretically assess the precise value of every form of wealth in the world at that moment. That value, whatever it may be, will always be finite. Hypotheticals about possible future growth do not and indeed, can not change that.

And I'm using "wealth" very specifically, not "dollars". I'm not talking about money supply; money is just a convenient medium of exchange of and quantification for wealth. That matters, obviously, but that's where we get into the problems of just adding currency to the money supply; the collective wealth in society doesn't change, and because of that, the value of a particular dollar relative to that wealth shrinks, because even fiat currencies are predicated on something. This particular action is a lot more complex than I'm making it out to be, honestly, I'm trying to summarize, but that's the root of why just printing a few hundred trillion dollars to prop up your economy never works; the economy fundamentally works off wealth, not currency, and boosting the money supply only affects currency, not wealth. This is also why we often use historical comparisons by talking about "in 2020 dollars" or whatever; assessing "how rich was Howard Hughes" is an exploration of wealth, relative to society, and you need to eliminate the variable of the value of a dollar to make those comparisons make any sense at all.

When I'm talking "wealth", I don't just mean currency, I mean land, I mean treasures (cultural, artistic, historical, bullion, what have you), I mean all forms of legitimately saleable property of any kind whatsoever. This is, by comparison, why we don't consider a poor family with 18 kids to be "wealthy" because we could consider the black market value of those children if sold as slaves/organs/whatever; that's evil as fuck and illegal, and thus it would be improper to assess those children as "wealth" to begin with. They're not legitimately saleable property. At least, not today.

Long story short; I have no interest in "theoretically infinite". I care about "finite in practice". Besides, people really need to hold off on using "infinite". The solar system's resources aren't infinite. The Milky Way's resources aren't infinite. The observable Universe's resources are not infinite. Even if we could commodify everything, that's still not "infinite wealth". And we're still stuck on this one rinky-dink planet and kind of doing an arse job of exploiting its resources without choking on the byproducts.

[Zan15]

https://taxfoundation.org/publicatio...come-tax-data/

Care to try again? The OP article is full of shit.

You miss the last 60 or so pages and fail to read the OP article where most of their income is not taxed or reported???

If ALL their "income" was reported regardless of type you would see those wonderful taxfoundtation #'s showing an entire different picture.

[Bodakane]

Care to try again? The OP article is full of shit.

Its fucking adorable, that you think Bezos only makes money from a weekly paycheck from Amazon.

Now don't try and tell us you don't think that, because the entirety of your special little argument can only make sense if it's based on you thinking all his money comes from a weekly paycheck on Friday. It really is so adorable.