Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Endus]

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?

Why not?

You pay taxes on your house's value even if you haven't sold it. Then you're gonna pay more taxes on the sale if you DO sell it. Nobody's complaining about that.

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.

This isn't a counter-argument. If we're talking taxes, then the value in question would be the value it held at years' end, when you pay your taxes. The same way your house property value is assessed. Or your income.

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

Progressive tax brackets; I was trying to broadly describe a system with increasing tax brackets. The current top bracket in the USA is set at around $500k, so picture new tax brackets at, say, $5m and then a new final at $50m. You can add some more gradations in there if you like, I'm not fussed.

I did mean it to be the effective tax rate, however, and I know I didn't make that clear enough. The tax rate of 37% at the top right now, for instance, is not the effective tax rate; that's before exceptions and loopholes and so on are considered. And I'm talking about effective tax rates, so that's after those considerations. I'm specifying this because it's easier to compare effective tax rates between nations than it is the statutory tax rates, since the circumstances for how things work from there are wildly different between jurisdictions; effective tax rates bring us right back to "how much is your net take-home, after taxes?"

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Like, if anyone wants to challenge me on a "but how could someone live with taxes that high", if you can't get by with your meager tens of millions of net after-tax income, then your problem isn't the tax system.

Progressive brackets really shouldn't be this complicated a concept, but it seems like I have to re-explain a system nearly everyone already deals with every year, every time these debates come up.

[GreenJesus]

Why not?

You pay taxes on your house's value even if you haven't sold it. Then you're gonna pay more taxes on the sale if you DO sell it. Nobody's complaining about that.



This isn't a counter-argument. If we're talking taxes, then the value in question would be the value it held at years' end, when you pay your taxes. The same way your house property value is assessed. Or your income.



Progressive tax brackets; I was trying to broadly describe a system with increasing tax brackets. The current top bracket in the USA is set at around $500k, so picture new tax brackets at, say, $5m and then a new final at $50m. You can add some more gradations in there if you like, I'm not fussed.

I did mean it to be the effective tax rate, however, and I know I didn't make that clear enough. The tax rate of 37% at the top right now, for instance, is not the effective tax rate; that's before exceptions and loopholes and so on are considered. And I'm talking about effective tax rates, so that's after those considerations. I'm specifying this because it's easier to compare effective tax rates between nations than it is the statutory tax rates, since the circumstances for how things work from there are wildly different between jurisdictions; effective tax rates bring us right back to "how much is your net take-home, after taxes?"

- - - Updated - - -



Like, if anyone wants to challenge me on a "but how could someone live with taxes that high", if you can't get by with your meager tens of millions of net after-tax income, then your problem isn't the tax system.

Progressive brackets really shouldn't be this complicated a concept, but it seems like I have to re-explain a system nearly everyone already deals with every year, every time these debates come up.

I'm in California, so real estate taxes are capped at 2% increases a year and aren't reassessed until change of ownership.

Being taxed on unrealized gains is pointless since you haven't actually.. well you know.. realized the gains.. once the stocks are sold, you either pay capital gains tax or income tax depending on how long you held the asset. Paying taxes every year on ownership of assets as well as when you sell jt is double dipping and would lead to weird behavior where people would sell on December 30th and then rebuy on January 1st to avoid the snapshot.

[Endus]

I'm in California, so real estate taxes are capped at 2% increases a year and aren't reassessed until change of ownership.

And? This is meaningless. We're talking hypotheticals for a new system, the details of a current system aren't relevant in any way.

Being taxed on unrealized gains is pointless since you haven't actually.. well you know.. realized the gains..

Are you seriously claiming you can't leverage your assets without actually selling them?

Assets have value even if their gains have not been realized. Same way we talk about someone's "net worth"; that's not based solely on realized gains.

once the stocks are sold, you either pay capital gains tax or income tax depending on how long you held the asset.

You're saying that like that's an alternative. When it's in addition. You'd pay tax on those gains.

You're acting like wealth taxes aren't a known factor that have well-recognized implementations. We're not talking about fairy tale economics, here.

Paying taxes every year on ownership of assets as well as when you sell jt is double dipping and would lead to weird behavior where people would sell on December 30th and then rebuy on January 1st to avoid the snapshot.

Double taxation is only when income tax is paid twice on the same source of income. Which isn't what we're talking about, with a wealth tax. It's unrelated to income; you could be an inheritor who had $0 income in a year, but still paid the wealth tax based on net worth.

Double taxation isn't on whether it's the same dollars of value that are taxed twice, because that happens constantly. Every taxed transaction takes a little more off the same money changing hands.

[GreenJesus]

And? This is meaningless. We're talking hypotheticals for a new system, the details of a current system aren't relevant in any way.



Are you seriously claiming you can't leverage your assets without actually selling them?

Assets have value even if their gains have not been realized. Same way we talk about someone's "net worth"; that's not based solely on realized gains.



You're saying that like that's an alternative. When it's in addition. You'd pay tax on those gains.

You're acting like wealth taxes aren't a known factor that have well-recognized implementations. We're not talking about fairy tale economics, here.



Double taxation is only when income tax is paid twice on the same source of income. Which isn't what we're talking about, with a wealth tax. It's unrelated to income; you could be an inheritor who had $0 income in a year, but still paid the wealth tax based on net worth.

Double taxation isn't on whether it's the same dollars of value that are taxed twice, because that happens constantly. Every taxed transaction takes a little more off the same money changing hands.

Let's say I have like 100k in stocks and indexes (outside of my retirement account). You want me to pay taxes on the value of shares in my account that I haven't even sold to make a profit yet? If tax evaluation day is on December 31st and my shares jump 100% in value to 200k that day and then went back down to 100k then next day, but I was on a beach somewhere not checking it. I would have to pay income tax on 100k "gains" that I didnt even realize. It would be broken as all hell.

Its amazing how people cheer on the government figuring out more ways to steal your own money.

[Endus]

Let's say I have like 100k in stocks and indexes (outside of my retirement account). You want me to pay taxes on the value of shares in my account that I haven't even sold to make a profit yet?

You're seriously ranting against this based on a complete misrepresentation of what a wealth tax even is?

Your question makes no sense. None. You're not arguing against a wealth tax at all, here. It's like complaining that the government will make you pay them income tax even if you make zero income.

If tax evaluation day is on December 31st and my shares jump 100% in value to 200k that day and then went back down to 100k then next day, but I was on a beach somewhere not checking it. I would have to pay income tax on 100k "gains" that I didnt even realize.

Let's make it $100 million, so we're actually in the territory, since you were off by a factor of about 5000 before any proposed wealth taxes would kick in.

In that case, yes, you'd pay based on your net worth on December 31st. The same way you'd pay income tax in that year if you got paid on December 31st, but not if you got paid just a day later. That's the same thing.

And no; you'd be paying a wealth tax on your total net worth, as evaluated on the 31st. Not on the gains. That total net worth may be higher than it will be shortly, but that's irrelevant. Same way your income tax doesn't get adjusted if you lose your job on the 31st and won't be paid moving forward from there; that's an issue for the next year's evaluation at that point.

[Mayhem]

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.

In a system that is about gambling, you might lose sometimes is not the eye-opener you think it is.

Arguing with a broken system that the system can't be fixed because it is broken is an interesting approach though.

[gondrin]

You're seriously ranting against this based on a complete misrepresentation of what a wealth tax even is?

Your question makes no sense. None. You're not arguing against a wealth tax at all, here. It's like complaining that the government will make you pay them income tax even if you make zero income.



Let's make it $100 million, so we're actually in the territory, since you were off by a factor of about 5000 before any proposed wealth taxes would kick in.

In that case, yes, you'd pay based on your net worth on December 31st. The same way you'd pay income tax in that year if you got paid on December 31st, but not if you got paid just a day later. That's the same thing.

And no; you'd be paying a wealth tax on your total net worth, as evaluated on the 31st. Not on the gains. That total net worth may be higher than it will be shortly, but that's irrelevant. Same way your income tax doesn't get adjusted if you lose your job on the 31st and won't be paid moving forward from there; that's an issue for the next year's evaluation at that point.

However, much like taxes work now, if you have a loss of wealth from one year to another, do you get to use it as a tax deduction? I tried to point this out earlier in the thread but nobody answered(or I think nobody answered). Should I be able to use a loss of value on stocks BEFORE being sold as a tax deduction or after they are sold from one year to another under a wealth tax.
What about an inheritance of property? Should someone be forced to sell non stock property if they inherited it like land?

[Mayhem]

However, much like taxes work now, if you have a loss of wealth from one year to another, do you get to use it as a tax deduction? I tried to point this out earlier in the thread but nobody answered(or I think nobody answered). Should I be able to use a loss of value on stocks BEFORE being sold as a tax deduction or after they are sold from one year to another under a wealth tax.
What about an inheritance of property? Should someone be forced to sell non stock property if they inherited it like land?

Why would you get a tax deduction? You'd be paying less in taxes for that year anyway.

[Bodakane]

However, much like taxes work now, if you have a loss of wealth from one year to another, do you get to use it as a tax deduction? I tried to point this out earlier in the thread but nobody answered(or I think nobody answered). Should I be able to use a loss of value on stocks BEFORE being sold as a tax deduction or after they are sold from one year to another under a wealth tax.
What about an inheritance of property? Should someone be forced to sell non stock property if they inherited it like land?

Are you really arguing that its unfair to tax the mega wealthy on their net worth because due to the tax shelters that only they can afford to use, it makes it hard to determine what their yearly net worth actually is?

[Machismo]

Are you really arguing that its unfair to tax the mega wealthy on their net worth because due to the tax shelters that only they can afford to use, it makes it hard to determine what their yearly net worth actually is?

This is simply a bullshit narrative. Stocks are taxed upon sale, and for good reason. It's a much bigger pain in the ass to tax things based on their gains over a different period of time. This is especially true for volatile things like stocks, which shift by whole percentage points of value every single day.

It's unfair to tax them on net wealth for the litany of reasons that were already presented, and ignored by all the selfish people who just want to punish people for being rich. The prime example is Lynsi Snyder, who is the sole owner of a major business, and has nearly all her net worth tied up in that single business.

The problem is... people like you don't know the different between wealth, and income. That has been evidence since the first day this thread was created.

- - - Updated - - -

In a system that is about gambling, you might lose sometimes is not the eye-opener you think it is.

Arguing with a broken system that the system can't be fixed because it is broken is an interesting approach though.

The system isn't broken (at least not in the way you think), people just don't really understand how stocks, income, and wealth actually work.

- - - Updated - - -

And? This is meaningless. We're talking hypotheticals for a new system, the details of a current system aren't relevant in any way.



Are you seriously claiming you can't leverage your assets without actually selling them?

Assets have value even if their gains have not been realized. Same way we talk about someone's "net worth"; that's not based solely on realized gains.



You're saying that like that's an alternative. When it's in addition. You'd pay tax on those gains.

You're acting like wealth taxes aren't a known factor that have well-recognized implementations. We're not talking about fairy tale economics, here.



Double taxation is only when income tax is paid twice on the same source of income. Which isn't what we're talking about, with a wealth tax. It's unrelated to income; you could be an inheritor who had $0 income in a year, but still paid the wealth tax based on net worth.

Double taxation isn't on whether it's the same dollars of value that are taxed twice, because that happens constantly. Every taxed transaction takes a little more off the same money changing hands.

This is a terrible approach. It's like demanding people take out a credit card to pay off the taxes you want them to pay for their collection of baseball cards that they have stored in the basement.

Now, imagine how big of a pain it would be to calculate the net worth of every American, and verify those numbers.

[Bodakane]

This is simply a bullshit narrative. Stocks are taxed upon sale, and for good reason. It's a much bigger pain in the ass to tax things based on their gains over a different period of time. This is especially true for volatile things like stocks, which shift by whole percentage points of value every single day.

It's unfair to tax them on net wealth for the litany of reasons that were already presented, and ignored by all the selfish people who just want to punish people for being rich. The prime example is Lynsi Snyder, who is the sole owner of a major business, and has nearly all her net worth tied up in that single business.

The problem is... people like you don't know the different between wealth, and income. That has been evidence since the first day this thread was created.

You calling something a bullshit narrative when it deals with mega wealthy americans means I'm literally on target. You worship the american mega rich so fucking hard, I think you dislike Trump only because he wasn't rich enough.

Also, if they can borrow against their net wealth, then should be able to be taxed on it.

[Machismo]

You calling something a bullshit narrative when it deals with mega wealthy americans means I'm literally on target. You worship the american mega rich so fucking hard, I think you dislike Trump only because he wasn't rich enough.

Also, if they can borrow against their net wealth, then should be able to be taxed on it.

You are literally the guy who lied about someone's income and salary.

You can borrow against your wealth, so that means we should tax you on yours, as well... right? So, is 2% of your wealth acceptable, or shall we be like Warren, and take 6%? I assume you want to pay this annually, or did you want to pay that percentage quarterly?

Go ahead calculate exactly how much all your shit is worth, and I can show you where to send the check.

[Bodakane]

You are literally the guy who lied about someone's income.

You can borrow against your wealth, so that means we should tax you on yours, as well... right? So, is 2% of your wealth acceptable, or shall we be like Warren, and take 6%? I assume you want to pay this annually, or did you want to pay that percentage quarterly?

Go ahead calculate exactly how much all your shit is worth, and I can show you where to send the check.

I don’t lie. You just don’t understand the things you’re talking about.

I pay a higher percentage of my earnings in taxes than the wealthy pay in there’s. They benefit and use more of the governments services and infrastructure than I do as well. They should pay more.

You are literally arguing that the mega wealthy pay exactly what they should and they don’t make liberal use of tax shelters and tax havens to avoid as much tax as possible. It’s a bad argument and you should feel bad for making it.

[Machismo]

I don’t lie. You just don’t understand the things you’re talking about.

I pay a higher percentage of my earnings in taxes than the wealthy pay in there’s. They benefit and use more of the governments services and infrastructure than I do as well. They should pay more.

You are literally arguing that the mega wealthy pay exactly what they should and they don’t make liberal use of tax shelters and tax havens to avoid as much tax as possible. It’s a bad argument and you should feel bad for making it.

So, you're not the guy who claimed Bezos was getting paid in stocks as part of his salary?

What percentage of your earnings do you pay? In the United States, high-income earners pay a higher percentage of their income, as per the 2020 tax records.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...ta-2020-update

People say they benefit more, but I have seen no quantifiable evidence of this. This is simply a baseless claim on your part. Now, if you care to quantify that, then I look forward to that evidence. Are we basing that "more" on total dollar value, or as a percentage of their income? Since you are talking about percentages of income, I can only assume you also mean they use more government infrastructure and services, as compared to their income. I'd hate to be using a double standard to be disingenuous.

They do pay more. They pay a considerable amount more.

Once again, the numbers don't lie. But, people who say that Jeff Bezos was paid in stock as part of his salary... did lie.

[JohnBrown1917]

Now, imagine how big of a pain it would be to calculate the net worth of every American, and verify those numbers.

Just focus on the super rich and it'll be fine.

[Machismo]

Just focus on the super rich and it'll be fine.

Nah, I'm not a fan of eating the rich due to anger and jealousy.

But thanks for admitting this is all about just wanting to punish the wealthy.

[Breccia]

Nah, I'm not a fan of eating the rich due to anger and jealousy.

I mean, we've all seen the effective tax rates. Is it really about jealousy at this point when they're paying less than you and I are?

[Machismo]

I mean, we've all seen the effective tax rates. Is it really about jealousy at this point when they're paying less than you and I are?

Except, most really aren't. The issue is that people are trying to base it off their wealth, and not their income.

On average, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of their income than all the other groups. Bloomberg is a big exception, as his effective rate is quite low. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure why his is low, but I doubt it is due to criminal evasion.

[gondrin]

Why would you get a tax deduction? You'd be paying less in taxes for that year anyway.

If a wealth tax is treated like any other tax, then if you have any losses on property(decreases in value from the previous valuation), it can be used as a deduction. Meaning that if one year, lets say for example, I'm worth 200M then the next, due to stock value, property value and the like going down, I would be worth around 150M. That 50M is considered a loss if a wealth tax is treated like any other tax and therefore can be used as a tax deduction.

Businesses use this all the time as they have capital assets that decrease in value and will use that as a deduction. Same with those who buy and sell stock. If you sell it and it is at a lower value then you bought it, it can be used as a deduction on your taxes.

[Machismo]

If a wealth tax is treated like any other tax, then if you have any losses on property(decreases in value from the previous valuation), it can be used as a deduction. Meaning that if one year, lets say for example, I'm worth 200M then the next, due to stock value, property value and the like going down, I would be worth around 150M. That 50M is considered a loss if a wealth tax is treated like any other tax and therefore can be used as a tax deduction.

Businesses use this all the time as they have capital assets that decrease in value and will use that as a deduction. Same with those who buy and sell stock. If you sell it and it is at a lower value then you bought it, it can be used as a deduction on your taxes.

That's the problem with a wealth tax, it doesn't take those losses as an income deduction the next year. It will simply mean that the wealth will be taxed at $150 million in that next year.

The issue with capital gains/losses, is that is determined when those gains/losses are realized, which means when they are sold.

That's the danger of a wealth tax, as it may literally force you to sell wealth, simply for having wealth.