Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Endus]

First of all you know damn well in Canada you’re talking 1% not 3% and it’s only a proposal, not implemented.

BC has a wealth-based tax implemented. I clearly specified the province.

Furthermore, in terms of a progressive income tax, the US already has a more progressive income tax than our maple leaf neighbors.

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

vs

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...-in-canada.pdf

"More progressive" is meaningless. It's basically impossible to directly compare tax brackets between countries, since it ignores the rest of the framework of taxation that they're set within.

I'm also not going to give the Fraser Institute's recommendations a lot of credence, because they're a right-wing think tank and of course they're gonna go to bat for rich people's interests.

Plus you don’t even have estate or gift taxes at the federal level to prevent passing off assets to others to avoid just such a tax.

This is really not the case. Capital gains tax of 50% applies in a lot of cases. Giving your kids your second home, for instance, would cause you to get taxed for 50% of any capital gains between what you paid for the home originally, and the current fair market value for the property.

This is what I meant by a wide difference in tax policy.

[D3thray]

You're presuming that she should "keep her company".

That's the bit of your argument you never rationalize.

If she can't pay her tax obligations any other way, I don't see why selling stock isn't an option.

Its a private company, far as I know, there is no stock

- - - Updated - - -

Well clearly, our government is wrong and that's why this is being discussed so much.

I mean, many people in our government (local/federal) think that restricting voting rights for people of color is something worth moving forward on or still think that the previous resident of the White House only lost the election because it was stolen. The US government gets plenty of things wrong.

The issue here is, what you think is fair for the rich and powerful is clearly not. What they're paying for right now is simply not enough.

The right-wing loves to talk about deficits and how they want to balance the budget. Yet, they never talk about HOW. They want to reduce spending but shoot themselves in the foot by doing the very thing they were against (2017 Tax Cuts). Well, having the rich pay more than they currently are is ONE way for the Rs to actually have some credibility on something for once. But we all know why they won't. Because it directly affects their wallets. They don't want to be the ones responsible for fixing the mess they made. They just want to scream and complain while doing nothing and block anyone else from fixing it simply because it exposes their hypocrisy.

Wait who is in favor of restricting voting rights of non-whites? Did I miss something?

- - - Updated - - -

Clearly based on the first few paragraphs of the article this thread about is obvious that they are NOT paying their fair share. And besides, I literally asked you this question already and you didn't give me an answer. But at this point, I think I know why.



Proposals like what Warren or Sanders came up with already are good starting points because they address the issues of the rising wealth gap. How is it fair that these super wealthy people can get away with paying nothing? Based on the evidence presented in the article, that literally sounds like they're the definition of a leech in which the [someone] is the government or tax payer.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/.../english/leech

How are they not paying what they've been asked to pay. Tax avoidance in legitimately taxable income is a crime, why isn't the IRS taking action on this?

[Endus]

Its a private company, far as I know, there is no stock

Are you under the impression there couldn't be any stock? She can go public any time she wants; she'll have tons of buyers.

Wait who is in favor of restricting voting rights of non-whites? Did I miss something?

Have you seriously missed the multitude of voting rights restriction laws that Republican state governments have tried to implement that last decade or two? Some of which were shut down by the Supreme Court for being deliberately racist?

[D3thray]

Are you under the impression there couldn't be any stock? She can go public any time she wants; she'll have tons of buyers.



Have you seriously missed the multitude of voting rights restriction laws that Republican state governments have tried to implement that last decade or two? Some of which were shut down by the Supreme Court for being deliberately racist?

Ok let me clarify, who currently advocates for removing voting rights for non-whites? I thought we were discussing current events.

But on topic I have a question that I hope will help me better understand where your concept of ownership lies because that's really at the heart of this discussion.

I build my home with my own two hands, but I purchase the materials from Home Depot. Does Home Depot retain part ownership of my home? What about their suppliers? Their employees?

I decide to hire the neighbor's son to mow my yard. Does the neighbor's son own part of my home now? Do his parents? His grandparents?

I decide some renovations need to be done and hire a contractor to redo my master bathroom. Does the contractor own part of my home now? The sub-contractors? Their employees?

I die and leave my home to my children. I'm wealthy enough that I trigger estate tax, and they must now pay taxes on the home. Does the government now own my home? The general population?

Not asking to be snarky or try to trick you, but I'm sitting here claiming Bezos, Snyder et al own their companies and you're saying they don't and I don't know where the dividing line is for you.


Edit: oh and I've been looking for information on a wealth tax in BC but I can't find any good information so if you wouldn't mind pointing me to a source

[Edge-]

Ok let me clarify, who currently advocates for removing voting rights for non-whites? I thought we were discussing current events.

We are. Because Republicans sometimes forget that's supposed to be a secret and admit it in public - https://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/1277406...id-laws-racist

[Endus]

Ok let me clarify, who currently advocates for removing voting rights for non-whites? I thought we were discussing current events.

Republicans. See Georgia, ongoing right now. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...fiasco/618537/

But on topic I have a question that I hope will help me better understand where your concept of ownership lies because that's really at the heart of this discussion.

I build my home with my own two hands, but I purchase the materials from Home Depot. Does Home Depot retain part ownership of my home? What about their suppliers? Their employees?

This is private ownership. So no. I can tell where you're going, but let's let it play out.

I decide to hire the neighbor's son to mow my yard. Does the neighbor's son own part of my home now? Do his parents? His grandparents?

I decide some renovations need to be done and hire a contractor to redo my master bathroom. Does the contractor own part of my home now? The sub-contractors? Their employees?

No to all of these.

I die and leave my home to my children. I'm wealthy enough that I trigger estate tax, and they must now pay taxes on the home. Does the government now own my home? The general population?

They don't "own your home". You may have to sell that home to another buyer to afford the estate tax. But that's different.

Not asking to be snarky or try to trick you, but I'm sitting here claiming Bezos, Snyder et al own their companies and you're saying they don't and I don't know where the dividing line is for you.

See, the bit you're missing is that we're talking about the means of production, not private property.

You've only talked about private property. And then you subbed in the means of production right at the end as if it were the same thing.

It is not. You can't just interchange someone's primary residence, and a business they run.

Edit: oh and I've been looking for information on a wealth tax in BC but I can't find any good information so if you wouldn't mind pointing me to a source

It's limited and it's not called a "wealth tax", but it's an additional property tax on properties valued north of $3m CAD; https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...chool-tax-rate

[D3thray]

We are. Because Republicans sometimes forget that's supposed to be a secret and admit it in public - https://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/1277406...id-laws-racist

I mean that affected everybody and I'd oppose some of those changes on that basis alone. But I don't see how you're going to argue convincingly that black people especially can't get ID's or drive without coming off as pretty racist. It reinforces my dislike of North Carolina politics I'll give you that.

[postman1782]

I mean that affected everybody and I'd oppose some of those changes on that basis alone. But I don't see how you're going to argue convincingly that black people especially can't get ID's or drive without coming off as pretty racist. It reinforces my dislike of North Carolina politics I'll give you that.

Well, since Republicans have done everything they can to defund DMVs in the inner cities, that they have to take a day off work to take a bus or multiple buses to the DMV that is like 3 hours away from where they are, and when they are already living paycheck to paycheck, they can't afford that day off of work, only to get an ID that they don't drive with because they live and work in the city already. And if they only use that ID for voting, and they have to pay for it, that is a poll tax, which is explicitly against the constitution.

I don't have a car, have a non-driver's ID card, but the nearest DMV or ID place to me is over 15 miles away from me, and we don't have buses, uber, lyft, or cabs here, so I had to wait til someone else had the day off to take me to get my ID card, so that I had it to vote, and I didn't even have to show it.

[D3thray]

Republicans. See Georgia, ongoing right now. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...fiasco/618537/

I'm very familiar with that one, I'll refer to my response to Edge, I don't see how you convincingly argue that black people especially cannot get ID's or drive without coming off pretty racist.

See, the bit you're missing is that we're talking about the means of production, not private property.

You've only talked about private property. And then you subbed in the means of production right at the end as if it were the same thing.

See I don't even recognize where I did that. You're seeing something I'm not seeing and I don't even know what you're referring to.

It is not. You can't just interchange someone's primary residence, and a business they run.

Why not? I employ people, the value of my home increases (wealth), they get money (income). How is this different?

It's limited and it's not called a "wealth tax", but it's an additional property tax on properties valued north of $3m CAD; https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...chool-tax-rate

So quite a bit different from the tax on all assets we're discussing wouldn't you say?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since Republicans have done everything they can to defund DMVs in the inner cities, that they have to take a day off work to take a bus or multiple buses to the DMV that is like 3 hours away from where they are, and when they are already living paycheck to paycheck, they can't afford that day off of work, only to get an ID that they don't drive with because they live and work in the city already. And if they only use that ID for voting, and they have to pay for it, that is a poll tax, which is explicitly against the constitution.

I don't have a car, have a non-driver's ID card, but the nearest DMV or ID place to me is over 15 miles away from me, and we don't have buses, uber, lyft, or cabs here, so I had to wait til someone else had the day off to take me to get my ID card, so that I had it to vote, and I didn't even have to show it.

Right, but how does that translate into voter suppression by race? You're telling me rural counties all have DMV's in their backyard?

[Endus]

I'm very familiar with that one, I'll refer to my response to Edge, I don't see how you convincingly argue that black people especially cannot get ID's or drive without coming off pretty racist.

Willful ignorance as to intent behind the law is still willful ignorance. There has been a constant pattern of this for nearly two decades now.

See I don't even recognize where I did that. You're seeing something I'm not seeing and I don't even know what you're referring to.

You don't understand what "the means of production" is, and how it's not the same as private property?

You have, like, a good 200+ years of economic theory to start digging through, then, since this is one of the core fundamental bases of all economic theory written within that period.

Why not? I employ people, the value of my home increases (wealth), they get money (income). How is this different?

Like I said; willfully refusing to acknowledge the difference between the means of production and private property is just willful ignorance. It isn't an argument. Stop playing silly buggers.

So quite a bit different from the tax on all assets we're discussing wouldn't you say?

Sure. But I was giving examples of wealth taxes. They're all a little bit different.

Right, but how does that translate into voter suppression by race? You're telling me rural counties all have DMV's in their backyard?

You're not this dense and ignorant of recent history. Stop pretending.

[postman1782]

Right, but how does that translate into voter suppression by race? You're telling me rural counties all have DMV's in their backyard?

Well, I believe it was 2012 or 2016, where it was Alabama or Mississippi, that literally shut them all down in cities, where primarily most of the minorities live, and they also closed down most of the polling locations in the cities, and a federal judge had to specifically overturn those laws, because they were targeting minorities, specifically.

Here is an article from 2012, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...identification that should explain everything, and since then it has only gotten WORSE.

And here is one that was struck down in 2020 in North Carolina where you apparently hate their stuff: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...discriminatory

Here is the story about Alabama closing DMVs in areas with 75% black population: https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/ala...stered-voters/ That was reversed after the story came out, but they have closed DMVs anyway.

And they have closed over 1200 polling places in southern states since 2013, to force lines of 8-12 hours, which is more voter suppression. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1VV09J

[D3thray]

Willful ignorance as to intent behind the law is still willful ignorance. There has been a constant pattern of this for nearly two decades now.

You're not this dense and ignorant of recent history. Stop pretending.

From a certain viewpoint you get there, except I don't ascribe to it. The viewpoint that says if there are disparities in racial outcomes from a policy, then that policy is racist, is the same that calls these kinds of laws voter suppression based on race. That doesn't necessarily follow however because it ignores all the other variables as if they're controlled for, socioeconomic status being a big one. Personal choice is another. I disagree with the base assumptions one has to make in order to conclude such a law as the one enacted in Georgia is black voter suppression on the order of old Jim Crow. I'll refrain from elaborating because its not on topic and would lead to a long off topic discussion.

You don't understand what "the means of production" is, and how it's not the same as private property?

You have, like, a good 200+ years of economic theory to start digging through, then, since this is one of the core fundamental bases of all economic theory written within that period.

Like I said; willfully refusing to acknowledge the difference between the means of production and private property is just willful ignorance. It isn't an argument. Stop playing silly buggers.

200 years of theory doesn't mean it has to be correct firstly, just see medical theory based on the humors as an example. Secondly, pretend I'm absolutely baffled at where I switch between talking about private property and the means of production and point it out to me if you wouldn't mind.

[Endus]

200 years of theory doesn't mean it has to be correct firstly, just see medical theory based on the humors as an example.

It's standard economic base principles. If you don't understand the difference between the means of production, and private property, you fail to grasp the most basic elements of economic theory as studied by every single living economist today.

Secondly, pretend I'm absolutely baffled at where I switch between talking about private property and the means of production and point it out to me if you wouldn't mind.

You can't be fucking serious.

It's when you stop talking about personal private property, and start talking about the means of production. This is like you arguing that an iguana and a puppy are the same thing, and when I say "one's a reptile and one's a mammal", you're like "what? Which is which? I am uncapable of telling the two apart!" It's that level of nonsense.

Learn what basic terminology means. Google is your friend. Stop wasting people's time.

[D3thray]

Well, I believe it was 2012 or 2016, where it was Alabama or Mississippi, that literally shut them all down in cities, where primarily most of the minorities live, and they also closed down most of the polling locations in the cities, and a federal judge had to specifically overturn those laws, because they were targeting minorities, specifically.

Here is an article from 2012, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...identification that should explain everything, and since then it has only gotten WORSE.

And here is one that was struck down in 2020 in North Carolina where you apparently hate their stuff: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...discriminatory

Here is the story about Alabama closing DMVs in areas with 75% black population: https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/ala...stered-voters/ That was reversed after the story came out, but they have closed DMVs anyway.

And they have closed over 1200 polling places in southern states since 2013, to force lines of 8-12 hours, which is more voter suppression. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1VV09J

Too much context missing from most of these sources for me to form an opinion. As for the Brennan article, the ratios of poor, black and Hispanic voters living over 10 miles from ID-issuing locations open more than 2 days a week is actually less than the country at large. 12% for blacks who make up 13.4% of the population at large, 5% for Hispanics who make up 18.4% of the population at large, and 10% for those living below the federal poverty line who make up 13.7% (1 in 7, ouch) of the population at large. If a conclusion could be drawn from that (not sure it can) you might say that non-black, non-Hispanic voters in the US who live above the poverty line are more disadvantaged at obtain voter ID than you might otherwise think given their representation in the population at large. I don't know that that conclusion has merit but you certainly couldn't say from the Brennan article that the poor and minorities are over represented in the population demographic that lives more than 10 miles from an ID-issuing location open more than 2 days per week.

[postman1782]

Too much context missing from most of these sources for me to form an opinion. As for the Brennan article, the ratios of poor, black and Hispanic voters living over 10 miles from ID-issuing locations open more than 2 days a week is actually less than the country at large. 12% for blacks who make up 13.4% of the population at large, 5% for Hispanics who make up 18.4% of the population at large, and 10% for those living below the federal poverty line who make up 13.7% (1 in 7, ouch) of the population at large. If a conclusion could be drawn from that (not sure it can) you might say that non-black, non-Hispanic voters in the US who live above the poverty line are more disadvantaged at obtain voter ID than you might otherwise think given their representation in the population at large. I don't know that that conclusion has merit but you certainly couldn't say from the Brennan article that the poor and minorities are over represented in the population demographic that lives more than 10 miles from an ID-issuing location open more than 2 days per week.

You said a lot of words, just to be fucking wrong.

[Endus]

Too much context missing from most of these sources for me to form an opinion. As for the Brennan article, the ratios of poor, black and Hispanic voters living over 10 miles from ID-issuing locations open more than 2 days a week is actually less than the country at large. 12% for blacks who make up 13.4% of the population at large, 5% for Hispanics who make up 18.4% of the population at large, and 10% for those living below the federal poverty line who make up 13.7% (1 in 7, ouch) of the population at large. If a conclusion could be drawn from that (not sure it can) you might say that non-black, non-Hispanic voters in the US who live above the poverty line are more disadvantaged at obtain voter ID than you might otherwise think given their representation in the population at large. I don't know that that conclusion has merit but you certainly couldn't say from the Brennan article that the poor and minorities are over represented in the population demographic that lives more than 10 miles from an ID-issuing location open more than 2 days per week.

I'm really not sure why you've chosen to cherry-pick and misrepresent analyses regarding racist Republican voter suppression measures. Like, you're cherry-picking out of the article, not even the study proper.

I mean, there are obvious reasons. But it seems like a roundabout way to go about admitting that.

[Edge-]

I mean that affected everybody and I'd oppose some of those changes on that basis alone. But I don't see how you're going to argue convincingly that black people especially can't get ID's or drive without coming off as pretty racist. It reinforces my dislike of North Carolina politics I'll give you that.

So Republicans can literally say they're designing these laws to target people of color and lower turnout, and your response is, "Yeah, well we just can't believe them because clearly it doesn't only affect people of color."

What a fuckin take, dude.

[PC2]

we were going off two proposals of 3% and 6%.

sure lets not call it a wealth tax, lets call it a property tax shall we since they take other assets such as your home and call it property, so lets call stocks property.

There everything is fixed now.

3-6% isn't happening unless there is a corresponding 3-6% increase in net worth growth that cancels it out. If there's a bad year where economic growth and net worth growth is only 1-2% then rich people would being paying more in taxes than they gained overall which is unreasonable and wouldn't be tolerated.

You always claim this bullshit denial...and when you're wrong yet again you'll lack the grace to admit it. The wealth gap is getting larger. But I'm damn certain your response is

The wealth gap and inequality can go up infinitely and it wouldn't matter because like I said before the only thing that matters is absolute metrics of improvement and not relative/inequality metrics. As long as my life is getting better then why should I care if the top 1% grew their wealth by a larger amount than I did during that same time period? I'm not a jealous person so I don't see why I should care. It's not like they're harming me or anyone else.

[Endus]

3-6% isn't happening unless there is a corresponding 3-6% increase in net worth growth that cancels it out. If there's a bad year where economic growth and net worth growth is only 1-2% then rich people would being paying more in taxes than they gained overall which is unreasonable and wouldn't be tolerated.

Why not?

And why would they get a meaningful say? We're talking about a fraction of a percent of the population. Less than 90,000 people in the entire USA. They don't get any more votes than anyone else.

And if you're gonna say "lobbying", you're explaining why they are a problem.

The wealth gap and inequality can go up infinitely and it wouldn't matter because like I said before the only thing that matters is absolute metrics of improvement and not relative/inequality metrics. As long as my life is getting better then why should I care if the top 1% grew their wealth by a larger amount than I did during that same time period? I'm not a jealous person so I don't see why I should care. It's not like they're harming me or anyone else.

This is just objectively false, on its face. Steep inequality is harm. This also has nothing to do with "jealousy", and it makes it clear you're unable to consider anything but a personal vendetta in establishing policy if that's what you think this is about; you're projecting your own issues.

[PC2]

Why not?

Because it's unethical to confiscate people's wealth.

And why would they get a meaningful say?

Because we're talking about their stuff, it belongs to them.

Steep inequality is harm.

No it is not. The idea that billionaires are causing harm to homeless people is utterly absurd.

This also has nothing to do with "jealousy", and it makes it clear you're unable to consider anything but a personal vendetta in establishing policy if that's what you think this is about; you're projecting your own issues.

I don't know what that means. I'm just talking about economic philosophy here, I don't have any "personal vendetta" against anyone.