Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Breccia]

I doubt it is due to criminal evasion.

For the record, so do I. There's plenty of ways the upper tier can legally reduce their payments, both before and after the tax cut for the rich.

[Dontrike]

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

Considering how much they abuse the system and punish the poor? Yes, it is about punishing them.

[gondrin]

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?

Nope, all I'm doing is asking if it were to be treated like any other tax. If so, then all you are going to achieve is a multiyear use of deductions, much like Trump has used for when his properties decreased in value.

Otherwise, if you treat it as a different type of tax and retax wealth that was already taxed previously, then you are stating that people should be subject to double taxation.

Thing is, I would love to see any and all loopholes and deductions removed other then a standard deduction that is of a set amount that can be used by everyone. If you have losses one year, tough. It cannot be used as a deduction. If you try and offset your income for any reason, tough. It cannot be used as a deduction.

This is the fairest way of doing this. Also, stocks should be taxed regardless if you sold them below when you bought them and cannot be used as a deduction(if they aren't already). There shouldn't be capital losses unless the thing is completely destroyed and cannot be recovered.

[Machismo]

For the record, so do I. There's plenty of ways the upper tier can legally reduce their payments, both before and after the tax cut for the rich.

More than likely, it would be to charitable donations, turnover losses, or even money spent on re-investment, or the money he blew on his campaigns.

In the end, the hysteria about the wealthy not paying, is largely based on misinformation. The average 1%er pays more than the average 5%er, or the 10%er, or the other 90%. Yes, this is both in dollar amount, as well as based on a percentage of their income.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering how much they abuse the system and punish the poor? Yes, it is about punishing them.

I will simply highlight Lynsi Snyder, and ask why she needs to be punished? The owner of In&Out has long paid her employees well above the industry average, and has given them health care and benefits for decades.

Why do you want to punish her?

As for them abusing the system, and punishing the poor, this is also a narrative that is more rhetoric, than actual substance.

[Endus]

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.

A wealth tax doesn't care about your wealth in the prior year. It isn't about your income. It's about your net worth. So no; losing a bunch of money wouldn't mean you get a tax deduction, it would mean your net worth is reduced and thus you'd pay the tax on that lower amount, if you still qualified.

What about an inheritance of property? Should someone be forced to sell non stock property if they inherited it like land?

Why shouldn't they, if they're above the net worth limit? Let's recall that the lowest total net wealth that a wealth tax has been proposed for is a net worth of $50 million.

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.

A wealth tax wouldn't care about day-to-day variance. It would care about value on the day of assessment. You're complaining about a complication that would not exist.

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.

Again, demonstrating you are either deliberately misrepresenting the wealth tax, or don't know enough about it to hold a valid opinion.

If you're not worth north of $50 million, no recent proposal for a wealth tax would affect you.

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.

This is either rank dishonesty, as an attempt at deliberate and malicious character assassination, or you're projecting your own issues onto other people and are incapable of understanding their actual motives. You're flatly incorrect about this framing.

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.

It's not an income reduction to begin with. Here you are conflating income and wealth, when you were accusing others of doing so a few posts ago.

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.

Why is that a "danger"? We're only talking about the mega-rich, to begin with. Much like with progressive tax brackets, it's not possible to truly harm anyone through a wealth tax, because of how it's applied.

- - - Updated - - -

I will simply highlight Lynsi Snyder, and ask why she needs to be punished? The owner of In&Out has long paid her employees well above the industry average, and has given them health care and benefits for decades.

Why do you want to punish her?

As for them abusing the system, and punishing the poor, this is also a narrative that is more rhetoric, than actual substance.

Taxes aren't a punishment.

You are, again, projecting your own personal issues rather than making an informed argument.

[Machismo]

A wealth tax doesn't care about your wealth in the prior year. It isn't about your income. It's about your net worth. So no; losing a bunch of money wouldn't mean you get a tax deduction, it would mean your net worth is reduced and thus you'd pay the tax on that lower amount, if you still qualified.


Why shouldn't they, if they're above the net worth limit? Let's recall that the lowest total net wealth that a wealth tax has been proposed for is a net worth of $50 million.



A wealth tax wouldn't care about day-to-day variance. It would care about value on the day of assessment. You're complaining about a complication that would not exist.



Again, demonstrating you are either deliberately misrepresenting the wealth tax, or don't know enough about it to hold a valid opinion.

If you're not worth north of $50 million, no recent proposal for a wealth tax would affect you.



This is either rank dishonesty, as an attempt at deliberate and malicious character assassination, or you're projecting your own issues onto other people and are incapable of understanding their actual motives. You're flatly incorrect about this framing.



It's not an income reduction to begin with. Here you are conflating income and wealth, when you were accusing others of doing so a few posts ago.



Why is that a "danger"? We're only talking about the mega-rich, to begin with. Much like with progressive tax brackets, it's not possible to truly harm anyone through a wealth tax, because of how it's applied.

And that's the problem, a business owner could tank their stock the day before the "assessment" day. Or, it could be done the other way, and online trolls could challenge a stock short, and cause it to skyrocket before.

Imagine how much the stockholders of Game Stop would have to pay if it were assessed after it spiked.

As for the dollar amounts for the wealth tax, it undermines my entire thesis, this is all about punishing the wealthy. It always has been, and it always will be. At least some people are decent enough to admit it.

As for my "rank dishonesty," that is a poster who has literally called for full wealth redistribution by force. He's an avowed communist. He's made no attempts to hide that he wants to punish the wealthy.

No, I'm not conflating the two, I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between a wealth tax, and how it would not carry over to the next year, like income taxes do in the case of losses.

I have demonstrated how it can harm them, by literally forcing them to sell their own companies. Of course, if you want to argue that a wealth tax cannot harm people, then taxing the wealth of literally everyone wouldn't be harmful. We can go on this merry-go-round all you like, but we're going to end up at the same spot. What you really want to argue, is that you are accepting of the amount of harm that is being caused, and don't care, because of exactly who is being harmed in the first place. At some point, even you have to agree that taxation, be it via wealth, or income, is harmful. Or, are you going to argue that those cannot be harmful?

- - - Updated - - -

Taxes aren't a punishment.

You are, again, projecting your own personal issues rather than making an informed argument.

The other poster literally admitted to wanting to punish them.

[Endus]

And that's the problem, a business owner could tank their stock the day before the "assessment" day. Or, it could be done the other way, and online trolls could challenge a stock short, and cause it to skyrocket before.

Imagine how much the stockholders of Game Stop would have to pay if it were assessed after it spiked.

And?

You keep acting like this is terrible.

As for the dollar amounts for the wealth tax, it undermines my entire thesis, this is all about punishing the wealthy. It always has been, and it always will be. At least some people are decent enough to admit it.

No, it's just you either building an ad hominem so you don't have to deal with the actual argument, or you projecting your own personal vices onto others. I don't really care which; either way, it's wrong.

As for my "rank dishonesty," that is a poster who has literally called for full wealth redistribution by force. He's an avowed communist. He's made no attempts to hide that he wants to punish the wealthy.

I don't care. Am I that person? No? Then why does what they said have anything to do with me?

Also, "wealth redistribution by force" is a fancy word for "taxation".

Also, nothing about "being communist" or taxation involves "punishing the wealthy".

I have demonstrated how it can harm them, by literally forcing them to sell their own companies.

That isn't harming them in any way whatsoever.

If I take my entire six-figure income and spend it all on a fancy new sports car, is the government "harming me" by "forcing" me to pay taxes I no longer have the money to pay, on that income? Is it "punishment" that I have to sell that fancy new car?

Your position is ridiculous.

Of course, if you want to argue that a wealth tax cannot harm people, then taxing the wealth of literally everyone wouldn't be harmful.

You know this is a dishonest framing. I'm not entertaining it.

If surgery is safe and not harmful, then clearly cutting everyone up with a scalpel wouldn't be hurting anyone unnecessarily, right? Same really terrible argument.

We can go on this merry-go-round all you like, but we're going to end up at the same spot. What you really want to argue, is that you are accepting of the amount of harm that is being caused, and don't care, because of exactly who is being harmed in the first place. At some point, even you have to agree that taxation, be it via wealth, or income, is harmful. Or, are you going to argue that those cannot be harmful?

You're gonna have to define what you mean by "harm" at this point, because you appear to believe that "being slightly less fantastically rich than last year" is a "harm". And by the same extension you keep trying to draw, me buying a hamburger "harms" me, because I now have less money. Your sense of "harm" does not make sense.

In this case, anyone facing a wealth tax is worth north of $50 million, and it's wealth beyond that which is taxed, so no, I'm finding it pretty hard to see any "harm" in such a tax.

Edit: I'll also note you're skipping right past all the actual harms caused by the super-rich, in garnering that wealth in the first place. Yes, even Lynsi Snyder. "Not exploiting employees to the legal limit of permitted exploitation" is not the same thing as not exploiting staff at all. She is not sharing the value their labor produces, which is how she got to be that wealthy in the first place.

[Shadowferal]

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.

Yup. The time will eventually come. History proves that such a reversal always happens eventually.
The "let them eat cake" crowd will try to run then. But...no running this time around.

[unfilteredJW]

The Embarrassed Millionaire rides again!

[Machismo]

And?

You keep acting like this is terrible.



No, it's just you either building an ad hominem so you don't have to deal with the actual argument, or you projecting your own personal vices onto others. I don't really care which; either way, it's wrong.



I don't care. Am I that person? No? Then why does what they said have anything to do with me?

Also, "wealth redistribution by force" is a fancy word for "taxation".

Also, nothing about "being communist" or taxation involves "punishing the wealthy".



That isn't harming them in any way whatsoever.

If I take my entire six-figure income and spend it all on a fancy new sports car, is the government "harming me" by "forcing" me to pay taxes I no longer have the money to pay, on that income? Is it "punishment" that I have to sell that fancy new car?

Your position is ridiculous.



You know this is a dishonest framing. I'm not entertaining it.

If surgery is safe and not harmful, then clearly cutting everyone up with a scalpel wouldn't be hurting anyone unnecessarily, right? Same really terrible argument.



You're gonna have to define what you mean by "harm" at this point, because you appear to believe that "being slightly less fantastically rich than last year" is a "harm". And by the same extension you keep trying to draw, me buying a hamburger "harms" me, because I now have less money. Your sense of "harm" does not make sense.

In this case, anyone facing a wealth tax is worth north of $50 million, and it's wealth beyond that which is taxed, so no, I'm finding it pretty hard to see any "harm" in such a tax.

Edit: I'll also note you're skipping right past all the actual harms caused by the super-rich, in garnering that wealth in the first place. Yes, even Lynsi Snyder. "Not exploiting employees to the legal limit of permitted exploitation" is not the same thing as not exploiting staff at all. She is not sharing the value their labor produces, which is how she got to be that wealthy in the first place.

Once again, just because you don't care, doesn't make it a bad thing. It merely solidifies my overall narrative of your beliefs and motives.

We have people literally saying they want to punish the wealthy. It's not an ad hominem, it's agreeing with them as to their motives.

You responded to me, who was responding to someone who literally said it. You chose to jump in, pearls firmly in hand, and protest that's not what you want, when I wasn't fucking talking to you, while swearing I'm accusing you.

You are claiming it's not harm, they are claiming otherwise. Luckily, the government isn't allowing you to punish them. As for taxation not being harmful, or punishment, which is your argument, then taxing the total wealth of all poor people wouldn't be harmful, nor would it be punishment. I'm sure you'd have no problem with this.

You will not entertain it, because it demonstrates how shitty of an argument you made, and how hypocritical it is. If you want to argue that taxation is neither punishment, nor a harmful act, then at least have the decency to stick to it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup. The time will eventually come. History proves that such a reversal always happens eventually.
The "let them eat cake" crowd will try to run then. But...no running this time around.

Except, the data disproves his statement.

- - - Updated - - -

The Embarrassed Millionaire rides again!

Can you refute the data that has been presented?

[Endus]

We have people literally saying they want to punish the wealthy. It's not an ad hominem, it's agreeing with them as to their motives.

When you use that to describe my motives, it's an ad hominem.

We're not a frickin' hive mind.

You are claiming it's not harm, they are claiming otherwise.

Who's "they"?

I asked you to define your terms. Not to pass that buck on to some mythical "they" and pretend it wasn't your argument.

Luckily, the government isn't allowing you to punish them. As for taxation not being harmful, or punishment, which is your argument, then taxing the total wealth of all poor people wouldn't be harmful, nor would it be punishment. I'm sure you'd have no problem with this.

Yes, because your framing is dishonest. As I've already explained. It's a willful dishonesty meant to avoid allowing the discussion to properly continue.

You will not entertain it, because it demonstrates how shitty of an argument you made, and how hypocritical it is. If you want to argue that taxation is neither punishment, nor a harmful act, then at least have the decency to stick to it.

I'm not entertaining it because it's a deliberate lie.

Taxation is not a punishment. It's a duty of citizenship.

Badly constructed tax systems can create hardship among those in poverty, who can't afford to pay those taxes. This is an identifiable harm, but it's not "the concept of taxation" that creates it, it's the specific context of their income as compared to their tax burdens, as compared to the cost of living.

Such a factor can't be applied to the mega-rich in regards to a wealth tax for net worth over $50 million, for obvious reasons, which is why your position is deliberately dishonest. Such a tax ends orders of magnitudes above the point where harm could possibly be construed to exist.

Because "harm" is "hardship", in this case. The "harm" is not the paying of taxes, it's actual homelessness or skipped meals or neglected medical care or what have you, the actual harms of poverty.

[Machismo]

When you use that to describe my motives, it's an ad hominem.

We're not a frickin' hive mind.



Who's "they"?

I asked you to define your terms. Not to pass that buck on to some mythical "they" and pretend it wasn't your argument.



Yes, because your framing is dishonest. As I've already explained. It's a willful dishonesty meant to avoid allowing the discussion to properly continue.



I'm not entertaining it because it's a deliberate lie.

Taxation is not a punishment. It's a duty of citizenship.

Badly constructed tax systems can create hardship among those in poverty, who can't afford to pay those taxes. This is an identifiable harm, but it's not "the concept of taxation" that creates it, it's the specific context of their income as compared to their tax burdens, as compared to the cost of living.

Such a factor can't be applied to the mega-rich, for obvious reasons, which is why your position is deliberately dishonest.

The people who are going to be hit by these wealth taxes you want so much. They are calling it harm.

I'm calling it harm.

It's not a lie, it's literally your argument. If you want to argue that taxation is neither a punishment, nor a harmful act, then at least stick with it.

Badly constructed tax systems can cause hardship and harm in people of all income levels.

So, glad you agree taxes can be harmful. You're one step closer.

[Endus]

The people who are going to be hit by these wealth taxes you want so much. They are calling it harm.

I'm calling it harm.

By what definition of "harm"?

Second time I've asked you to define your terms.

It's not a lie, it's literally your argument. If you want to argue that taxation is neither a punishment, nor a harmful act, then at least stick with it.

I literally just explained why that's not true.

Badly constructed tax systems can cause hardship and harm in people of all income levels.

Define your terms. In the way I just defined harm, above, this statement you made is categorically false.

It's almost like taxation itself is not what's harmful.

[Machismo]

By what definition of "harm"?

Second time I've asked you to define your terms.



I literally just explained why that's not true.



Define your terms. In the way I just defined harm, above, this statement you made is categorically false.

Well, what's your definition of "harm?"

I want to see where you are coming from, as you stated it can be harmful. So, you first. What is your definition of harm?

They are harmed, because their freedom is directly limited, and as a result of specific targeting based on a harmless action of their own. Quite literally, their liberty is being attacked.

[JohnBrown1917]

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

lmao

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

Only those who made it by exploiting the rest of society.

But punishing the super rich to benefit the lower classes does make it sound like a good method to appeal to those who get exploited by the super rich.

[Machismo]

lmao


Only those who made it by exploiting the rest of society.

So, exactly how did they exploit it.

More importantly, how are you not trying to exploit them, by your logic?

[Dontrike]

I will simply highlight Lynsi Snyder, and ask why she needs to be punished? The owner of In&Out has long paid her employees well above the industry average, and has given them health care and benefits for decades.

Why do you want to punish her?

As for them abusing the system, and punishing the poor, this is also a narrative that is more rhetoric, than actual substance.

Do you honestly believe that her being taxed more would hurt her employees?

Ha "more rhetoric than substance" You're funny. Loop holes, subsidies, bailing out companies and entire industries are examples of them abusing the system, but why remember those when you could forget them instead?

[Santti]

You know, I'm so glad I've found this channel. The Alt-Right Playbook videos are especially very enlightening. It's funny how well it fits, say, Machismo over here. Particularly videos like The Alt-Right Playbook: Never Play Defense. Not to mention, The Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish.

[JohnBrown1917]

So, exactly how did they exploit it.

More importantly, how are you not trying to exploit them, by your logic?

By taking all the profits from the labour they spend time for, but the details are all in Marx's books. He really had it all figured out, really shows how little has changed since then.


But all that wealth Bezos and Musk have could really be put to good use to relieve the global south from its famine problems, among other things.

[Shadowferal]

Last month; G-20 Finance Chiefs Back Tax Deal and Vow to Clear Hurdles

Finance ministers from the U.S. and Europe expressed confidence that a global tax deal endorsed by the Group of 20 on Saturday has enough momentum to overcome domestic political obstacles in time for it to be finalized in October.