Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Rustedsaint]

Kinda a shame how the genre of gritty comic books missed out on how to portray billionaires as villain's.

Do billionaire heroes avoid going after billionaires out of class solidarity? Or is it more banal reasons, like not wanting to spoil Tony Stark Jr's playdates?


Such a missed opportunity for an EngelsCut of the Justice League.

Depends on the comic, sometimes tony is all for the common man, then sometimes he your typical selfish rich guy.
I recall a storyline from the “ultimate” series where Tony choose not to go after a group of billionaires(that he was a part) that nuked a city with one of his own bombs, the resulting destruction made them all a ton of money

[cubby]

Propublica does a really good job with visualizations, their charts and the whole section on wealth growth/taxes for Bezos vs. the normal person are great.

Man, it's gonna be interesting to see the Propublica pieces on Buffett. For a guy who constantly talks about wanting to pay more taxes it sure seems like he abuses and exploits literally every loophole in existence to avoid paying taxes instead of just like, paying his fuckin taxes.

I cringe that I pay more proportional taxes than all of these fucks, and that's including guestimates about my overall wealth rather than just my income. .1%? 3.2%? Fuckin joke.

and @Endus

I believe his position is that he wants those loopholes removed so that he will have to pay his fair share. The overall point being those loopholes shouldn't be there in the first place, but at the same time he's not going to not use them if they do exist.


EDIT

Sorry - responded not looking at the date or thread size. I know I'm responding to your initial posts rather than anything more recent.

[Endus]

and @Endus

I believe his position is that he wants those loopholes removed so that he will have to pay his fair share. The overall point being those loopholes shouldn't be there in the first place, but at the same time he's not going to not use them if they do exist.

I still stand by what I said back then. That Buffett is not a good guy, and that his actions are pretty indefensible. He's deliberately taking advantage for personal gain, and just because he doesn't think he should be able to, that doesn't justify his doing so.

He's like Thomas Jefferson, who'd speak publicly about how awful slavery was, and then go back home to rape some of the slaves he owned and made heavy use of his entire life to maintain his fortune. He didn't even provide a deathbed emancipation for his own children that he'd fathered on one of his slaves, which was absolutely legally permissible at the time.

Talking about how terrible it is to fuck a chicken, while you're fucking every chicken you can lay your hands on, calls into question how against chicken-fucking you really are.

[cubby]

I still stand by what I said back then. That Buffett is not a good guy, and that his actions are pretty indefensible. He's deliberately taking advantage for personal gain, and just because he doesn't think he should be able to, that doesn't justify his doing so.

He's like Thomas Jefferson, who'd speak publicly about how awful slavery was, and then go back home to rape some of the slaves he owned and made heavy use of his entire life to maintain his fortune. He didn't even provide a deathbed emancipation for his own children that he'd fathered on one of his slaves, which was absolutely legally permissible at the time.

Talking about how terrible it is to fuck a chicken, while you're fucking every chicken you can lay your hands on, calls into question how against chicken-fucking you really are.

Ok, I see what you're saying.

In your opinion, how much should he pay in taxes? Like, specifically, how much and why?

[Endus]

Ok, I see what you're saying.

In your opinion, how much should he pay in taxes? Like, specifically, how much and why?

I mean, there's a lot of sliding factors to consider.

But, hypothetically, for those making north of $50 million/year, 90% or more with limited exceptions allowed (charity yes, to encourage charity, but not much else, most tax exemptions should become ineligible above a certain tax bracket). Billionaires should likely be closer to 99%.

[Ivanstone]

Sorry - responded not looking at the date or thread size. I know I'm responding to your initial posts rather than anything more recent.

Sorry but its still related so I didn't see the point in starting a new thread.

PS Did you know that Ron Johnson is a huge piece of shit?

https://www.propublica.org/article/s...utiful-tax-cut

Yes, there's a fancy infographic showing how Brenden Bechtel specifically managed to lobby for a specific benefit for engineering firms inserting a last minute amendment into Cheeto's tax bill.

[cubby]

I mean, there's a lot of sliding factors to consider.

But, hypothetically, for those making north of $50 million/year, 90% or more with limited exceptions allowed (charity yes, to encourage charity, but not much else, most tax exemptions should become ineligible above a certain tax bracket). Billionaires should likely be closer to 99%.

So anyone over $50MM in earnings essentially loses all that income to taxes, in one way or another, unless they are donating it or encouraging donating. Hypothetically, I would agree. So would Kim Stanley Robinson. An ideal world would have a cap on income, such as a 99% tax rate, at such an amount as you suggest.

I just don't know how we get there with the wealthy running the laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but its still related so I didn't see the point in starting a new thread.

PS Did you know that Ron Johnson is a huge piece of shit?

https://www.propublica.org/article/s...utiful-tax-cut

Yes, there's a fancy infographic showing how Brenden Bechtel specifically managed to lobby for a specific benefit for engineering firms inserting a last minute amendment into Cheeto's tax bill.

I was just apologizing for the late reply to the other two - I'm glad you posted here rather than a new thread.

Trump was a huge win for the Conservative and the Rich. 3 SCOTUS seats and a tax break for the wealthy that people are still trying to fully understand.

[Endus]

So anyone over $50MM in earnings essentially loses all that income to taxes, in one way or another, unless they are donating it or encouraging donating. Hypothetically, I would agree. So would Kim Stanley Robinson. An ideal world would have a cap on income, such as a 99% tax rate, at such an amount as you suggest.

I just don't know how we get there with the wealthy running the laws.

I'm fine with there not being a hard cap, just a steadily-increasing percentage. As income approaches infinite, tax rate approaches 100%, kind of thing, but you're always earning something. If that still leads to vast inequality, the market's broken more deeply for unrelated reasons, IMO.

The market explanation is that as you disincentivize personal wealth increasingly at high incomes means you change the focus of those making such incomes; how could the revenue of their company be better spent? Do you take dividends for fractions of a penny on the dollar, or do you re-invest for full value back into the company itself, in better wages, R&D, etc? Company growth provides value beyond just the fiscal, in terms of capacity and market prevalence. And increased success means higher revenues meaning more money to invest. That's the point of high income tax rates, in the end; it's less about actually trying to get those tax revenues, and more about trying to change the cultural approach to wealth entirely, and make investment back into society more efficient and effective than personal aggrandization.

Same kind of reason government provides subsidies to products they want citizens to adopt; make electric cars cheaper by providing subsidies and grants, and more people will adopt electric, and you can effect societal change on that front. The market still churns, and still produces value, we're talking about adjusting how that value is distributed and how that affects the growth of society.

Maybe it wouldn't be "enough", but I'm not convinced market systems aren't a potentially viable method which can help maximize personal freedoms in the process.

[Glorious Leader]

Maybe it wouldn't be "enough", but I'm not convinced market systems aren't a potentially viable method which can help maximize personal freedoms in the process.

That's not really why they exist and the conservative libertarian reduction of all freedoms to market transactions is really awful but not really surprising. Capital wants to commodofy everything so it just makes sense that they would have this incredible narrow view of human liberty.

[Fugus]

Trump was a huge win for the Conservative and the Rich. 3 SCOTUS seats and a tax break for the wealthy that people are still trying to fully understand.

Hate to say it, but I agree. Unless the Democrats actually grow some balls and start pushing for stuff when they are able to instead of just being paper tigers, this will continue to damage us as a nation for decades to come while the conservatives will lie and pretend its helping.

But for Democrats to show balls would go against what essentially defines modern Democrats.

If they stopped being an illusion of choice and actually started becoming an actual alternative beyond a slower decent, would it be like that scene from the Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy when Mandy smiled, violating the natural order of things, and the fabric of space and time opened up with them waking up becoming the Power Puff Girls?

All joking aside, I really wish they would start growing balls except when it comes to fighting against others within their own party and primaries who actually want to address the problems.

Edit: Part of me wonders if Joe Manchin didn't act as their block, would the Democrats actually push for some of their stuff like HR1 and the such, but they got him willing to stand in the way so they can be like the kid who is only tough so long as he has someone else holding him back from what he is pretending to go for.

[Endus]

That's not really why they exist and the conservative libertarian reduction of all freedoms to market transactions is really awful but not really surprising. Capital wants to commodofy everything so it just makes sense that they would have this incredible narrow view of human liberty.

Markets exist to figure out how to distribute goods.

Nothing I said was "conservative libertarian" in origin. I'm not talking about anarcho-capitalism, here, or any commodification of liberties. However, in a controlled market (as distinct from a "managed market"; I'm not talking about normal market management), there is necessarily less freedom of choice for consumers. You can't tell me that we can maximize personal liberties by having the government control what products a citizen is entitled to be allowed to purchase.

When I start using terms like "free market", the only "free" action I give any shits about is the freedoms of consumers, not corporations. You're kneejerking about the wrong things.

[Glorious Leader]

You can't tell me that we can maximize personal liberties by having the government control what products a citizen is entitled to be allowed to purchase.

The government does this all the time. We control for example the purchase of weaponry usually intended for military conflict. In Ontario we heavily control and regulate the sale of alcohol, tobacco and now Marijuana. We don't allow for the purchase of child pornography. We don't allow for the purchase of snuf films. Like we do these things because they in the end result in maximizing personal liberty.

I can't believe I'm having this argument with you of all people. Fuck it you win ill pass.

[Endus]

The government does this all the time. We control for example the purchase of weaponry usually intended for military conflict. In Ontario we heavily control and regulate the sale of alcohol, tobacco and now Marijuana. We don't allow for the purchase of child pornography. We don't allow for the purchase of snuf films. Like we do these things because they in the end result in maximizing personal liberty.

I can't believe I'm having this argument with you of all people. Fuck it you win ill pass.

You're attacking a straw man, after I just explained to you it was a straw man, and I have no idea what the hell you think I was arguing, because it isn't anything like what you're talking about.

You're attacking me as if I'm an anti-government anarcho-capitalist. Literally nothing I said suggested or implied that.

[GreenJesus]

How are "Unrealized gains are the devil." The owner of those shares hasn't realized the gains/losses so they haven't actually made any profit yet.. Do you really want people to be forced to liquidate assets in order pay taxes on shares that they haven't sold?

Tesla can go up to $1000 and back down to $600. If you didn't sell it at $1000, then you never made that money. I swear.. Some of these people crying about "more taxes" just don't understand how shit works.

[JohnBrown1917]

How are "Unrealized gains are the devil." The owner of those shares hasn't realized the gains/losses so they haven't actually made any profit yet.. Do you really want people to be forced to liquidate assets in order pay taxes on shares that they haven't sold?

Tesla can go up to $1000 and back down to $600. If you didn't sell it at $1000, then you never made that money. I swear.. Some of these people crying about "more taxes" just don't understand how shit works.

Don't care, do it anyway.

[Deianeira]

So anyone over $50MM in earnings essentially loses all that income to taxes, in one way or another, unless they are donating it or encouraging donating. Hypothetically, I would agree. So would Kim Stanley Robinson. An ideal world would have a cap on income, such as a 99% tax rate, at such an amount as you suggest.

I just don't know how we get there with the wealthy running the laws.

- - - Updated - - -



I was just apologizing for the late reply to the other two - I'm glad you posted here rather than a new thread.

Trump was a huge win for the Conservative and the Rich. 3 SCOTUS seats and a tax break for the wealthy that people are still trying to fully understand.

Not sure if Endus meant you get taxed 90% for everything OVER $50mill ? Or the whole amount?

[Shadowferal]

Not sure if Endus meant you get taxed 90% for everything OVER $50mill ? Or the whole amount?

Hm..anything over that would be in line with something similar decades earlier.
Of course if a person can't eke out a meager existence on $50 million/yr then I dare say that person never deserved that money to begin with, let alone earned it.

[cubby]

Not sure if Endus meant you get taxed 90% for everything OVER $50mill ? Or the whole amount?

I believe Endus meant a progressive tax rate; so as your income approaches $50M you pay an increased percentage on the new amount. And then everything you earn over $50M would be taxed at 99%.

It's how our current tax system works, and it's a great. Minus the loop holes.

Interestingly - we used to have a high tax rate on high income way back in the '70's and earlier. Thanks to the GQP though...not so much any more.

[bladeXcrasher]

Interestingly - we used to have a high tax rate on high income way back in the '70's and earlier. Thanks to the GQP though...not so much any more.

Well, it grew the middle class, and as we know based on 40+ years of wage stagnation, a growing middle class isn't the Republican way.

[Ivanstone]

How are "Unrealized gains are the devil." The owner of those shares hasn't realized the gains/losses so they haven't actually made any profit yet.. Do you really want people to be forced to liquidate assets in order pay taxes on shares that they haven't sold?

Go back. Reread the thread. This time pay attention.

In spite of unrealized gains the extremely wealthy have zero liquidity problems.