Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Shadowferal]

Yes, I clearly fucking said income. You think income is only their paycheck, because you're ignorant on the topic.

He also refuses to acknowledge that "legal" and "corrupt" are the same thing regarding the wealthy.

[Machismo]

He also refuses to acknowledge that "legal" and "corrupt" are the same thing regarding the wealthy.

I'm still trying to work with people on the difference of words like "income" and "wealth."

[Ivanstone]

I'm still trying to work with people on the difference of words like "income" and "wealth."

A regular person’s income will usually determine their wealth.

A wealthy person’s wealth determines their income. Loudly proclaiming that a regular person can do the same might be true in theory but rarely works out in practice. Especially since the wealthy can exert control over a regular person’s income and wealth.

[Machismo]

A regular person’s income will usually determine their wealth.

A wealthy person’s wealth determines their income. Loudly proclaiming that a regular person can do the same might be true in theory but rarely works out in practice. Especially since the wealthy can exert control over a regular person’s income and wealth.

If they have no investments... which they should.

If they have no assets that appreciate in value, which they should.

As for the misconception about them not paying their "fair share" in taxes, that is a narrative that really just doesn't hold water.

[Edge-]

If they have no investments... which they should.

Considering the number of Americans who wouldn't be able to afford an unexpected $1,000 expense, or even an unexpected $400 expense...this is like telling people starving during a famine that they should just try eating.

If they have no assets that appreciate in value, which they should.

See above. Do you not understand the concept that the way society is structured that wealth inherently begets wealth while poverty inherently begets poverty? That's like, a feature of the current system, not a bug.

[Ivanstone]

If they have no investments... which they should.

If they have no assets that appreciate in value, which they should.

As for the misconception about them not paying their "fair share" in taxes, that is a narrative that really just doesn't hold water.

Regular people can obtain investments and appreciable assets. The amount of income they have will almost always determine the amount of each they can have. That income is reduced in part by the amount of taxes they pay and therefore reduce the amount of shit they can get.

This idea is decoupled in regards to the wealthy.

[Machismo]

Considering the number of Americans who wouldn't be able to afford an unexpected $1,000 expense, or even an unexpected $400 expense...this is like telling people starving during a famine that they should just try eating.



See above. Do you not understand the concept that the way society is structured that wealth inherently begets wealth while poverty inherently begets poverty? That's like, a feature of the current system, not a bug.

Yes, that's a huge problem, and one that is largely a result of their own spending habits. I'm not talking about poor people who make minimum wage, even... but rather people who make a decent living, yet spend it all.

Wealth does beget wealth, compound interest is a thing. Even setting a small amount to the side each monthly, given enough time, can balloon up nicely. It's why I have long focused on budgeting and responsible spending habits for people who live paycheck to paycheck.

- - - Updated - - -

Regular people can obtain investments and appreciable assets. The amount of income they have will almost always determine the amount of each they can have. That income is reduced in part by the amount of taxes they pay and therefore reduce the amount of shit they can get.

This idea is decoupled in regards to the wealthy.

Wealthy still pay taxes, they simply have more free (available) income to work with after they pay those taxes. They also have more wealth to exponentially compound that, due to how investments work.

This isn't the fault of the wealthy.

[Edge-]

Yes, that's a huge problem, and one that is largely a result of their own spending habits.

Again, literally untrue and not remotely accurate. Poverty begets poverty, and being poor is expensive.

Example: Bank fees. I've got a good savings account so I'm in the "rewards" program with my bank and they tell me about the hundreds I'm saving in fees as a part of the program.

If I didn't have a healthy bank account? I'd be paying those fees, because being poor is expensive and you're frequently and actively financially penalized for being poor.

I'm not talking about poor people who make minimum wage, even... but rather people who make a decent living, yet spend it all.

You can make a decent living and still be poor because you have a lot of bills. Lifelong medical condition that's expensive even with insurance? You're caring for family members who are unable to care for themselves and social safety nets aren't cutting it? You live in a high cost of living area and can't move somewhere cheaper without losing your job, so most of your money is spent on basics like a place to live?

Wealth does beget wealth, compound interest is a thing.

It's not even that. It's that when you have more money MANY more doors are open to you, and a lot of the "costs for being poor" are no longer applicable as in my example above. You're actively financially rewarded by a lot of companies for simply being wealthy, and penalized for simply being poor.

Even setting a small amount to the side each monthly, given enough time, can balloon up nicely.

...with .01% interest rates? I mean, if if you're stashing $100 a month, in 10 years you might be earning $1 in interest on that. Put it in investments? Sure, more potential for growth, but with the modest investment you're still seeing a fairly minimal return even with good growth because of how little you have compared to say, someone that just dumps $100k into a fund or spread that out amongst riskier and safer funds.

You can make some headway maybe, but you'd better hope you never have any unexpected expenses. No car accidents, no flat tires, no broken plumbing in your home, no medical needs, nothing.

It's why I have long focused on budgeting and responsible spending habits for people who live paycheck to paycheck.

This is not a magical cure/fix for everything.

[Bodakane]

I'm still trying to work with people on the difference of words like "income" and "wealth."

You don't understand the difference. You literally don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, those are the rates, based on their income. As I pointed out, Bloomberg should be looked into, as his is abnormally low. Perhaps you can find why his is lower than normal. Perhaps he donated a great deal.

But, take Bezos, it would be an additional $166 million to get him to that 26.8% that you wanted. Sure, that's a lot of money, but it's certainly not as outrageous as people would have us believe.

For Musk, he's over that amount, so it would mean he'd get money back... to the tune of $48 million.

Buffet would owe $9.75 million to hit 26.8%

Let's not forget, those numbers are for over a 5-year span.

That's not their income. They are hiding the vast majority of their income in tax shelters. Do you know why they are called tax shelters?

[Machismo]

Again, literally untrue and not remotely accurate. Poverty begets poverty, and being poor is expensive.

Example: Bank fees. I've got a good savings account so I'm in the "rewards" program with my bank and they tell me about the hundreds I'm saving in fees as a part of the program.

If I didn't have a healthy bank account? I'd be paying those fees, because being poor is expensive and you're frequently and actively financially penalized for being poor.



You can make a decent living and still be poor because you have a lot of bills. Lifelong medical condition that's expensive even with insurance? You're caring for family members who are unable to care for themselves and social safety nets aren't cutting it? You live in a high cost of living area and can't move somewhere cheaper without losing your job, so most of your money is spent on basics like a place to live?



It's not even that. It's that when you have more money MANY more doors are open to you, and a lot of the "costs for being poor" are no longer applicable as in my example above. You're actively financially rewarded by a lot of companies for simply being wealthy, and penalized for simply being poor.



...with .01% interest rates? I mean, if if you're stashing $100 a month, in 10 years you might be earning $1 in interest on that. Put it in investments? Sure, more potential for growth, but with the modest investment you're still seeing a fairly minimal return even with good growth because of how little you have compared to say, someone that just dumps $100k into a fund or spread that out amongst riskier and safer funds.

You can make some headway maybe, but you'd better hope you never have any unexpected expenses. No car accidents, no flat tires, no broken plumbing in your home, no medical needs, nothing.



This is not a magical cure/fix for everything.

Most credit unions will waive the main fee, which is the service fee, if you do direct deposit. There's still plenty of banks that don't charge this fee at all.

The other fees are overdraft fees, which is pretty standard across all banks, and is largely eliminated by not living paycheck to paycheck. I haven't had an overdraft or NSF fee in over 20 years, long before I managed to accrue much money at all.

The other fee that pops up, is an ATM fee. That can also be eliminated, by using certain credit unions, or just the ATMs for your specific bank.

We have discussed spending habits of people of varying incomes, and those can, and should be addressed... by them.

As for high cost of living, that's also largely a personal choice. People can choose to move where the median income is higher in relation to the average cost of living. But, people don't want to move, because they want to be near "home" or family. Once again, that is a choice they make.

When I say put money aside, I don't mean in a savings account. Invest it. So, say the average return is 5% (it is higher, but just for the sake of this). That $100 a month would end up being about $15k. Sure, that may not seem like a ton, but it's $3k more than they would have had, if they just tossed it into the bank. If it goes by the average rate of return for the S&P 500, that number is over $17k.

I make a good living. I don't expect people to save nearly as much as I do. But, I also forego a lot of extra expenses that many of my friends enjoy. I don't go on nearly as many vacations, and I live in a small house, and my car is almost 10 years old (and will be given to my kids to drive). I don't eat out at expensive restaurants. Help, the fanciest I tend to get, is Chipotle. I also don't drink, don't smoke, and don't go to Starbucks. Those types of expenses add of extremely fast.

This is how headway is made, slowly but surely. Is it a guarantee against everything life can throw at me? Hell no. But, it makes me far more prepared to deal with things like a broken refrigerator, or a car accident.

This isn't about trying to catch up to wealthy people, because that's never going to happen. This is about living more comfortably, and not having major financial worries.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't understand the difference. You literally don't.

- - - Updated - - -



That's not their income. They are hiding the vast majority of their income in tax shelters. Do you know why they are called tax shelters?

That is their income. Most of their wealth is ties up in stocks, usually for the companies they formed.

Tell me, what exactly is Jeff Bezos' income from 2014-2018?

[Bodakane]

That is their income. Most of their wealth is ties up in stocks, usually for the companies they formed.

Tell me, what exactly is Jeff Bezos' income from 2014-2018?

Pay attention...

Their money is tied up in stocks specifically to avoid income tax. That is what the problem is. They are abusing tax shelters. But again, you clearly don't know what a tax shelter is.

[Machismo]

Pay attention...

Their money is tied up in stocks specifically to avoid income tax. That is what the problem is. They are abusing tax shelters. But again, you clearly don't know what a tax shelter is.

His money is tied up in stocks, because he literally created them when starting the company.

So, to be clear, my 401k, and all the other stocks I bought are tax shelters? I ask, because my 401k is taxed when I cash it in. the Roth IRA is is taxed beforehand, and my other stocks are taxed based on dividends and realized income when sold. I just want you to be clear, that the 60 million Americans, and all the people who own stock (about half of adults) are using those tax shelters... right?

[Bodakane]

His money is tied up in stocks, because he literally created them when starting the company.

So, to be clear, my 401k, and all the other stocks I bought are tax shelters? I ask, because my 401k is taxed when I cash it in. the Roth IRA is is taxed beforehand, and my other stocks are taxed based on dividends and realized income when sold. I just want you to be clear, that the 60 million Americans, and all the people who own stock (about half of adults) are using those tax shelters... right?

You don't understand this shit. You just don't. And it is willful ignorance on your part.

How does he pay for things?

[Ivanstone]

This isn't the fault of the wealthy.

Actually it is. Things are set up the way they are because the wealthy wanted it that way.

For example,

This isn't about trying to catch up to wealthy people, because that's never going to happen. This is about living more comfortably, and not having major financial worries.

Were the poor of Texas living comfortably last winter? Very many of them were not because the wealthy decided that an unreliable electrical grid was a better way to make money for themselves.

[Machismo]

You don't understand this shit. You just don't. And it is willful ignorance on your part.

How does he pay for things?

He pays for things by selling billions in stock, and he pays taxes on that stock.

I already pointed to multiple times of him selling that stock. Linked it, and everything.

Now, answer my question.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it is. Things are set up the way they are because the wealthy wanted it that way.

For example,


Were the poor of Texas living comfortably last winter? Very many of them were not because the wealthy decided that an unreliable electrical grid was a better way to make money for themselves.

Here's the thing, I'm not going to catch up to those billionaires. But, some will catch them. Some of them will do it through starting their own companies. Now, Gates didn't start dirt poor, but he sure as shit caught up. The same goes for Bezos.

I don't expect you to catch up, either. But, you can work to live comfortably. If you somehow create a product that revolutionizes the world, I hope you do catch them.

The simple act of investing $100 a month isn't going to make you a billionaire. That's what I was talking about, when I spoke about never catching the wealthy. And honestly, that's fine.

[Ivanstone]

The simple act of investing $100 a month isn't going to make you a billionaire. That's what I was talking about, when I spoke about never catching the wealthy. And honestly, that's fine.

The simple act of investing $100 a month will not save you.

Your paycheque is controlled by the wealthy. Your shelter is controlled by the wealthy. Your transportation is controlled by the wealthy.

Yes, you can get a better job. Yes, you can get a better shelter. Yes, you can get better transportation.

But all of those things are not options for everyone and any improvement you have in your life may come at the expense of someone else.

[Bodakane]

He pays for things by selling billions in stock, and he pays taxes on that stock.

I already pointed to multiple times of him selling that stock. Linked it, and everything.

Now, answer my question.

That's not what he does.

He, like all the uber wealthy, take out loans on those stocks, and get an interest rate lower than what the income tax would be. They do that instead of taking a paycheck that pays them what they're worth for the job they do.

I have answered your stupid fucking question every other time you asked it.....this has nothing to do with you people outside the 1%. Not a single one of you can game the system of tax shelters like the uber wealthy can and to the degree they can, because you can't afford to.

Forget Bezos.

Lets say John Jimmy of 123 Products is the CEO. Let's say this company makes a $100 billion a year. John Jimmy, as the CEO is valuable to the company, its his leadership that has made them successful. Let's say his worth to the company is $300 million a year, as in they should pay him $300 mil/year in paychecks.

He has 2 choices:

A)- $300mil/yr in paychecks, and paying 25% income tax on that.

or

B)- $80k/yr in paychecks and paying 25% income tax on that, but has $100billion worth of 123 Product stock that he uses to take out loans against that give him way more than $300mil/yr but he has to pay way less than 25% tax on, in interest rates.

You nor anyone else outside the 1% has options like that. This is why literally EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD has set high limits to when and how these rules should kick in. You and your 3 shares of Chipotle and a modest 401k, don't qualify, so stop asking and relating it back to shit that's not part of the scenario.

It is wrong that they have the B option. Yes, they benefit more from government resources. So much so, there's literally no way to quantify it. But if you really need a hard number to prove that Bezos benefits more from government resources than you or I do, than you're being a bad faith shit poster. I mean those 3.5 billion products a year don't get delivered on Amazon owned roads, for example.

So yes, we have people benefitting more from government infrastructure and using those benefits to pay less to that infrastructure. Its wrong. You can't argue that on its merits, all you can do is use narrow semantic and /or circular arguments, which is precisely what you've done.

[Machismo]

The simple act of investing $100 a month will not save you.

Your paycheque is controlled by the wealthy. Your shelter is controlled by the wealthy. Your transportation is controlled by the wealthy.

Yes, you can get a better job. Yes, you can get a better shelter. Yes, you can get better transportation.

But all of those things are not options for everyone and any improvement you have in your life may come at the expense of someone else.

So, buy a home, then you control that aspect. Buy a car, you can control that, as well. Tart your own company, then you control your very paycheck.

They are options for ALMOST everyone. Sure, it may take time, but it is something that can be achieved.

Not only that, someone not having those things is not inherently the fault of the wealthy. It's also not mine, nor is it yours.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what he does.

He, like all the uber wealthy, take out loans on those stocks, and get an interest rate lower than what the income tax would be. They do that instead of taking a paycheck that pays them what they're worth for the job they do.

I have answered your stupid fucking question every other time you asked it.....this has nothing to do with you people outside the 1%. Not a single one of you can game the system of tax shelters like the uber wealthy can and to the degree they can, because you can't afford to.

Forget Bezos.

Lets say John Jimmy of 123 Products is the CEO. Let's say this company makes a $100 billion a year. John Jimmy, as the CEO is valuable to the company, its his leadership that has made them successful. Let's say his worth to the company is $300 million a year, as in they should pay him $300 mil/year in paychecks.

He has 2 choices:

A)- $300mil/yr in paychecks, and paying 25% income tax on that.

or

B)- $80k/yr in paychecks and paying 25% income tax on that, but has $100billion worth of 123 Product stock that he uses to take out loans against that give him way more than $300mil/yr but he has to pay way less than 25% tax on, in interest rates.

You nor anyone else outside the 1% has options like that. This is why literally EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD has set high limits to when and how these rules should kick in. You and your 3 shares of Chipotle and a modest 401k, don't qualify, so stop asking and relating it back to shit that's not part of the scenario.

It is wrong that they have the B option. Yes, they benefit more from government resources. So much so, there's literally no way to quantify it. But if you really need a hard number to prove that Bezos benefits more from government resources than you or I do, than you're being a bad faith shit poster. I mean those 3.5 billion products a year don't get delivered on Amazon owned roads, for example.

So yes, we have people benefitting more from government infrastructure and using those benefits to pay less to that infrastructure. Its wrong. You can't argue that on its merits, all you can do is use narrow semantic and /or circular arguments, which is precisely what you've done.

I literally pointed to several times where he sold billions in stock. I linked the articles. I really don't care if you like it, that's what happened.

We know he sold stock, because he no longer owns the entire company. He ha slowly chipped away at the amount of stock he owns.

I'm not going to forgive Bezos, because you are saying literally all the "uber wealthy." You want to jump into hypotheticals, because you realize your narrative is collapsing. Every time you try to claim something, it simply evaporates before your very eyes, and you have to move goalposts.

Let's say instead of going after hypothetical situations to justify your narrative, you stick with reality. This is exactly why I called you on your very specific claims about specific people... because that's how misinformation is pushed.

So, you want to forget Bezos. Sure, just as soon as you admit the shit you were saying was fucking false.

Loans are debt... not income. I can literally take a loan out against my stocks right now. By my calculations, it takes about 12 clicks on my mouse.

[Bodakane]

So, buy a home, then you control that aspect. Buy a car, you can control that, as well. Tart your own company, then you control your very paycheck.

They are options for ALMOST everyone. Sure, it may take time, but it is something that can be achieved.

Not only that, someone not having those things is not inherently the fault of the wealthy. It's also not mine, nor is it yours.

- - - Updated - - -



I literally pointed to several times where he sold billions in stock. I linked the articles. I really don't care if you like it, that's what happened.

We know he sold stock, because he no longer owns the entire company. He ha slowly chipped away at the amount of stock he owns.

I'm not going to forgive Bezos, because you are saying literally all the "uber wealthy." You want to jump into hypotheticals, because you realize your narrative is collapsing. Every time you try to claim something, it simply evaporates before your very eyes, and you have to move goalposts.

Let's say instead of going after hypothetical situations to justify your narrative, you stick with reality. This is exactly why I called you on your very specific claims about specific people... because that's how misinformation is pushed.

So, you want to forget Bezos. Sure, just as soon as you admit the shit you were saying was fucking false.

Loans are debt... not income.

I'm using hypotheticals to try and get through to you the issue because you literally don't understand it. You still don't. It was the last thing I could think of to try and make a dent in your ignorance. It was a hail mary.

[jonnysensible]

i like how this is basically the bad climate argument.

'well jimbo if you separate your plastic and banana peels you can save the planet*'

*and we can ignore the structural issues and huge polluters.

'well jimbo if you save your pennies every month you will have enough for a campervan in 60 years control your destiny*'

*and ignore the structural issues of capitalism and the inequality.

how fucking boring.