Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Glorious Leader]

Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.

It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw it away just to be a failed revolutionary.

Yes of course. "Let them eat cake" wasnt referring to starving peasants with no bread but rather Marie Antoinette was just on her rag. Could you be any more ignorant of history?

[Shadowferal]

Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.
It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw their life away just to be a failed revolutionary.

Well, we always knew you were ignorant of history. But I personally believed it was lack of study. It turns out it's because you attempt to rewrite it.
And you think they failed? omg..

[Endus]

Yes of course. "Let them eat cake" wasnt referring to starving peasants with no bread but rather Marie Antoinette was just on her rag. Could you be any more ignorant of history?

I mean, the claim comes from a book written around 1765, when Antoinette would've been all of 9 years old, and only referenced it as coming from a "great princess", which she assuredly would not have been, at age 9. That book is also not considered to be entirely factual to begin with. And the claim flies in the face of Antoinette's compassion towards the plight of the poor elsewhere.

Bringing up that non-quote as a condemnation of Marie Antoinette is not the angle you want to take if you're attacking people's grasp of history.

[Glorious Leader]

I'm not sure this has been brought up beforehand, but even the wealthiest members of society have a compelling economic interest in ensuring a fair and efficient distribution of wealth. A more egalitarian distribution means higher rates of return on ALL asset classes, lower incidences of criminal activity, higher overall happiness, more social mobility, which all creates a better society to live in.

The issue is that the wealthy are just as irrational and prone to heuristical information, meaning we cannot rely on their goodwill nor potential change in their behavior to make sure the global economic system is running at top efficiency.

We live in a time of advanced AI algorithms that would be able to quantify the ideal distribution to maximize returns at higher rates than currently reality and also increasing the QOL of all persons.

The problem with this reasoning is that greater economic equiality does in fact ultimately lead to greater freedom so for all the benefits you tout the ultimate end would result in less power for the wealthy and elite.

[Spectral]

The issue is that the wealthy are just as irrational and prone to heuristical information, meaning we cannot rely on their goodwill nor potential change in their behavior to make sure the global economic system is running at top efficiency.

Aside from rationality, there's also a fundamental coordination problem. This is the same basic issue with the libertarian framing of "anyone could choose to pay more if they think it's a good idea". Even if one individual thinks it's a good collective idea, it doesn't actually do all that much to personally act on it. This is the core purpose of good governance - solving coordination problems.

[Shadowferal]

In my opinion, Marie Antoinette was pretty much a scapegoat. When a revolution happens, things can get way out of hand. Chaos and bloodlust turn into atrocities before law and order can be reestablished.

[Glorious Leader]

I mean, the claim comes from a book written around 1765, when Antoinette would've been all of 9 years old, and only referenced it as coming from a "great princess", which she assuredly would not have been, at age 9. That book is also not considered to be entirely factual to begin with. And the claim flies in the face of Antoinette's compassion towards the plight of the poor elsewhere.

Bringing up that non-quote as a condemnation of Marie Antoinette is not the angle you want to take if you're attacking people's grasp of history.

Yes its apocryphal thank you. The point wasn't the alleged historic veracity of the statement but rather how stupid it was to suggest that inequality was not the key factor in the revolution when peasants were literally starving in the streets while the noblesse were literally shrugging their shoulders.

[Shadowferal]

Aside from rationality, there's also a fundamental coordination problem. This is the same basic issue with the libertarian framing of "anyone could choose to pay more if they think it's a good idea". Even if one individual thinks it's a good collective idea, it doesn't actually do all that much to personally act on it. This is the core purpose of good governance - solving coordination problems.

Well, libertarians insist charity should do the work of caring for the indigent, disabled, and elderly, and sick.

[Ivanstone]

Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.

It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw their life away just to be a failed revolutionary.

People are more complacent because certain luxuries are readily available now. Having something like a fridge would've been the height of decadence 100 years ago. Now its common place.

However you can only treat people like shit for so long. I think the George Floyd murder would've sparked controversy in any event. Taking away sports for most of last year created some additional agitation on both sides of the issue. The US is slowly making life harder for people and modern life's conveniences don't work very good if you can't afford or, in Texas's case obtain, electricity.

[D3thray]

I mean, your argument there is begging the question. You've assumed that it being "his company" is a natural or desirable circumstance to begin with; that's the conclusion you're trying to arrive at.

It fails due to basic logical structure, not just because I disagree with the premises (though I do).



Stock purchase plans are not even remotely close to what I'm talking about. They are not tied to labor, at all. And those who most need it can't afford to buy those stocks in the first place, even with a discount.

It's like telling a prisoner he can have maggot-filled gruel, or he can buy a meal from a five-star Michelin chef who's on staff. The proper meal just costs more than the prisoner makes in a month doing work throughout the prison. Pointing to the chef option and claiming your prisoners are well-fed is just a lie, at that point.

I’m just wondering who you think this hypothetical person who being gainfully employed cannot afford to save money is. Like in your mind what are their circumstances and what is their job paying them? Maybe my city and state are just way more affordable than average, but I have a hard time seeing how a person making $15/hr with full-time employment cannot manage that. Because as of the time of writing that’s basically the going rate around here for unskilled labor with no experience.

Outside of that we’re talking disability or just outright refusal to work and that’s an entirely different conversation. Do you think so little of the work these people do you consider it slave wages? In my experience you’re talking about a person who doesn’t exist except in theory.

[Bodakane]

I’m just wondering who you think this hypothetical person who being gainfully employed cannot afford to save money is. Like in your mind what are their circumstances and what is their job paying them? Maybe my city and state are just way more affordable than average, but I have a hard time seeing how a person making $15/hr with full-time employment cannot manage that. Because as of the time of writing that’s basically the going rate around here for unskilled labor with no experience.

Outside of that we’re talking disability or just outright refusal to work and that’s an entirely different conversation. Do you think so little of the work these people do you consider it slave wages? In my experience you’re talking about a person who doesn’t exist except in theory.

Wow. The ignorance is so strong.

[D3thray]

Did he build all his warehouses? Write all the software his website uses? Manage and work in all those warehouses? Deliver all those parcels? Do all the metric crapton of other things that a company that size needs to do?

You seem to think that because he "started" this company that every penny it makes from the hard work of thousands upon thousands of people should automatically belong to him. And to suggest that he share it with the workers in that company (or the society that the company operates in) is tantamount to stealing.

No. Just fucking no. Nobody operates in a vacuum. His billions have come from the hard work of all those Amazon employees, and from tax payers who are paying to subsidise the shitty wages he pays them. He doesn't deserve those billions, and if karma were a thing he would have suffered withering in the genital region by now. Tax them, take the money back from billionaires and put it in the pockets of ordinary people. Nobody should have that much money, because as well as indicating a severe flaw in the way society is functioning, it also CAUSES more problems in that society.

So Amazon’s existence is due to Jeff Bezos stealing from society and forcing people to work for him for free? I don’t understand your angle. I didn’t build my house, but I own it. There was a contract, money exchanged hands, it was agreed upon, etc. that’s typically how things work. The people I hire to maintenance my A/C or repair my roof don’t own my house just because I didn’t do the work myself. I mean if you think that’s the case, I’d be happy to exchange some capital for an owning stake in your house. I think it really would do nicely with a new coat of paint. Oh and maybe we could knock out that wall and make the space more open. Just remember we have dinner with the neighbors next Friday.

Your concept of ownership is not one I’d say is widespread, at least in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow. The ignorance is so strong.

Really? Maybe you’d like to enlighten me about how poor I am not to be able to invest in myself. You’re all presumption and condescension Bodakane, but no substance.

[Bodakane]

Really? Maybe you’d like to enlighten me about how poor I am not to be able to invest in myself. You’re all presumption and condescension Bodakane, but no substance.

Substance hasn't changed your bullshit opinion yet. Are you saying there's a chance?

For fuck's sake you've been arguing from the point that we can't have the country's richest people pay a fair percentage of their income in taxes since they use loopholes to lessen their tax burden. Its like having video of a murder throwing away the murder weapon, and you coming in and saying we can convict them of murder because there's no murder weapon.

[D3thray]

The big problem is that, generally, those with the compassion, self-awareness, and ethical sense to contribute back to their workers and community in concrete ways, those people never become wealthy. They're the Mom & Pops that everyone loves and which cannot possibly compete with Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart doesn't give a shit and will nickel and dime their staff to save $0.02 on the price point of Kraft Dinner, because they know it'll drive sales to their stores and away from that Mom & Pop.

You find a few exceptions. The folks behind Costco are apparently pretty decent, and I haven't heard nightmare stories from Costco staff. There's Dan Price, the guy who decided to pay all his staff at least $70k/year at his payment company. But in general, particularly at the lower end where pennies matter, the big boys use economies of scale to flatten anyone less cutthroat than they are.

Didn’t we just have a discussion a little bit ago where you were excoriating mom & pops who I said might not be able to afford higher wages due precisely to economies of scale and you said something to the effect of ‘then they shouldn’t exist’ and backed the corporations? I’m almost positive that exchange happened.

Hmm…

[Glorious Leader]

I’m just wondering who you think this hypothetical person who being gainfully employed cannot afford to save money is. .

Anybody working at or even slightly above the federal minimum wage while trying to support themselves (never mind if they have dependants)

[Shadowferal]

I’m just wondering who you think this hypothetical person who being gainfully employed cannot afford to save money is.

Oh...so you believe that there isn't anyone living paycheck-to-paycheck... You might consider doing a little research on the subject beyond sucking up to the wealthy.

[Bodakane]

Anybody working at or even slightly above the federal minimum wage while trying to support themselves (never mind if they have dependants)

Also, where are these full-time minimum wage jobs again?

[Endus]

I’m just wondering who you think this hypothetical person who being gainfully employed cannot afford to save money is.

A pretty significant chunk of American workers, and the trend's similar in other developed nations.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/14/here...nt-at-all.html
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/94129...merica-adds-up

Y'know, data, rather than ass-pulled feels.

Like in your mind what are their circumstances and what is their job paying them? Maybe my city and state are just way more affordable than average, but I have a hard time seeing how a person making $15/hr with full-time employment cannot manage that. Because as of the time of writing that’s basically the going rate around here for unskilled labor with no experience.

$15/hour isn't enough to hit a living wage, which would be enough for a basic standard of comfort, without considering saving for the future. Not anywhere in the USA.

Maybe if you're a single adult splitting bills with roommates, but not if you want to have a family.

Outside of that we’re talking disability or just outright refusal to work and that’s an entirely different conversation. Do you think so little of the work these people do you consider it slave wages? In my experience you’re talking about a person who doesn’t exist except in theory.

Then your "experience" is limited and does not line up with reality. Like I said; you're arguing based on your personal "feels", I'm pulling from data.

Didn’t we just have a discussion a little bit ago where you were excoriating mom & pops who I said might not be able to afford higher wages due precisely to economies of scale and you said something to the effect of ‘then they shouldn’t exist’ and backed the corporations? I’m almost positive that exchange happened.

Hmm…

Two completely different points that you've somehow conflated.

1> Small businesses should not use their size as an argument for why they have to exploit their employees to succeed.
2> Megabusinesses will abuse economies of scale to out-compete small businesses on price points (which suggests smaller businesses should focus on something different to attract customers in the first place).

There's no conflict there. You confused my attacking a shitty business practice used by some hypothetical small business with some kind of fantasized antagonism towards all small businesses, in your head. It's not anything I ever said.

[D3thray]

Substance hasn't changed your bullshit opinion yet. Are you saying there's a chance?

For fuck's sake you've been arguing from the point that we can't have the country's richest people pay a fair percentage of their income in taxes since they use loopholes to lessen their tax burden. Its like having video of a murder throwing away the murder weapon, and you coming in and saying we can convict them of murder because there's no murder weapon.

And I’ve replied with the counter argument that anyone sufficiently invested in non-liquid assets as a percentage of overall net worth pays similar or less ‘tax’ than they do if you do propublica’s silly calculation. I did it for myself and came up with an effective rate of 2.6%. Weren’t the ‘headlines’ telling me I pay less than Elon Musk? His ‘rate’ was like 3.2%.

The actual fact of the matter is no one is taxed on net worth as of yet and Elon Musk pays WAY more in federal income tax than I do. The top 5% of wage earners pay over 40% of federal tax income and the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% combined. And that’s actually an increase over their proportion of tax income from before the Trump tax cut.

If you wanted more to go to the bottom half of society, you’d just cut income tax for them altogether because it only makes up about 3%. But instead you’d rather double down and tax people’s assets as well but only certain people. Nevermind the fact that charitable donations from these same individuals make up a very large portion of the ‘taxes’ you say they’re dodging. I suppose if you trust the government with that money more then I’ll never persuade you but do you know what happens when a donation is made? Money, real money, exits your bank account and goes into the account of someone else. Redistribution. Just like you want.

But sure make up hand wavy arguments that don’t exist in reality so you can claim superiority.

[Endus]

And I’ve replied with the counter argument that anyone sufficiently invested in non-liquid assets as a percentage of overall net worth pays similar or less ‘tax’ than they do if you do propublica’s silly calculation. I did it for myself and came up with an effective rate of 2.6%. Weren’t the ‘headlines’ telling me I pay less than Elon Musk? His ‘rate’ was like 3.2%.

The actual fact of the matter is no one is taxed on net worth as of yet and Elon Musk pays WAY more in federal income tax than I do. The top 5% of wage earners pay over 40% of federal tax income and the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% combined. And that’s actually an increase over their proportion of tax income from before the Trump tax cut.

If you wanted more to go to the bottom half of society, you’d just cut income tax for them altogether because it only makes up about 3%. But instead you’d rather double down and tax people’s assets as well but only certain people. Nevermind the fact that charitable donations from these same individuals make up a very large portion of the ‘taxes’ you say they’re dodging. I suppose if you trust the government with that money more then I’ll never persuade you but do you know what happens when a donation is made? Money, real money, exits your bank account and goes into the account of someone else. Redistribution. Just like you want.

But sure make up hand wavy arguments that don’t exist in reality so you can claim superiority.

I mean, at this point you're complaining that you don't like what the study shows to be true, and you want your dislike of their conclusion to count for more than their analysis and data. Why should we take your claims seriously? You claim you got a tiny figure when you did the same analysis, but their study clearly demonstrated that for the average middle-class American, the "true tax" rate would've been almost exactly what they actually paid in income tax. So; either you did your napkin math wrong, or you're so outside the norm that you're either part of the problem or you make so little you don't pay taxes in the first place, either way demonstrating your results to not be near the median.