Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Fugus]

@Machismo

I will try to make this my last exchange about the Social Security bit but there is one thing I would like you to answer.

While your solution to Social Security was to cut it and let those who are barely making ends meet off it already to full on go under and telling them they need to ween themselves off with the only 2 things they can ween themselves onto is either death or trying to get a job at 60-80 years old and in deteriorating health. Not a solution but you have refused to address that failing in your logic but the question I want to ask specifically is this:

Under your solution, you say that people should invest in their retirements in systems other than Social Security and that that system should be entirely OPTIONAL. Under that system, a statistically significant people will not take that "Option" because they are either too poor to or too dumb or short sighted to think that far. That will amount to at LEAST 15% of the elderly population even under the rosiest of predictions, probably closer to 35%+.

For those of that group who have gotten too old to work and have no retirement because they weren't forced to pay into it because you made it optional when it wasn't. What is your solution to handle them?

And saying that you don't care isn't an answer because if you are a government or society or even a person who doesn't want to deal with the increased crime from these people trying to survive when they are too old to work and too broke not to and just don't want a gun at your head so some elderly man can eat or pay for his medicines and roof over his head, just ignoring them is NOT an option.

So, you can't ignore them and there is no way to imprison THAT much of our population let alone the political and social fallout of explaining WHY you are locking them away was because they were forced to commit crimes to survive as an elderly person in our system.

So, what is your solution to handle that section of the population? And, as I said, ignoring them IS NOT AN OPTION.

Edit: Also remember that those you just cut social security on who was on the cusp of surviving will also be a part of that group I am asking about, making it even larger.

[Ivanstone]

There isn't a specific number of jobs in existence. Specific jobs are created, and disappear all the time.

Now, take your comment about "the big guys," many people are trying to donwithout them, by forcefully taking almost everything from them. Those "big guys" exist, because consumers want them. People don't really care about morals or ethics, when it comes to their shopping habits. If they did, then Wal-Mart would be out of business. Whether you want to admit it, or not... thosenrich fuckers exist, because you and continue to demand their products and services.

Not relevant. Any job that are created must be able to take of the person who take them. Jobs that disappear leave people behind who also must be taken care of. The only question is how barbaric are you going to be people while these jobs are changing. If you're Canadian you might have to file some light paperwork, your healthcare will be taken care of and your bank is less likely to fuck you. Americans have much less freedom to do that.

That's some real company town logic you got going on there. They continue to exist because they were less ethical when they were growing and then used their ill-gotten gains to squeeze out the competition. Reminder: Amazon got big not because they were innovative or hard-working. People tend to take the easiest route. They see the cheeper price and then not think about the hidden costs that occur later. If the big guys paid an appropriate amount of tax we might be less concerned about it but they don't and so we are.

[Machismo]

@Machismo

I will try to make this my last exchange about the Social Security bit but there is one thing I would like you to answer.

While your solution to Social Security was to cut it and let those who are barely making ends meet off it already to full on go under and telling them they need to ween themselves off with the only 2 things they can ween themselves onto is either death or trying to get a job at 60-80 years old and in deteriorating health. Not a solution but you have refused to address that failing in your logic but the question I want to ask specifically is this:

Under your solution, you say that people should invest in their retirements in systems other than Social Security and that that system should be entirely OPTIONAL. Under that system, a statistically significant people will not take that "Option" because they are either too poor to or too dumb or short sighted to think that far. That will amount to at LEAST 15% of the elderly population even under the rosiest of predictions, probably closer to 35%+.

For those of that group who have gotten too old to work and have no retirement because they weren't forced to pay into it because you made it optional when it wasn't. What is your solution to handle them?

And saying that you don't care isn't an answer because if you are a government or society or even a person who doesn't want to deal with the increased crime from these people trying to survive when they are too old to work and too broke not to and just don't want a gun at your head so some elderly man can eat or pay for his medicines and roof over his head, just ignoring them is NOT an option.

So, you can't ignore them and there is no way to imprison THAT much of our population let alone the political and social fallout of explaining WHY you are locking them away was because they were forced to commit crimes to survive as an elderly person in our system.

So, what is your solution to handle that section of the population? And, as I said, ignoring them IS NOT AN OPTION.

Edit: Also remember that those you just cut social security on who was on the cusp of surviving will also be a part of that group I am asking about, making it even larger.

This is off-topic, so I won't address it here. If you don't want to continue discussing it in PMs, like before, then you can start a thread, mention me, and I will discuss it there. Either that, or we can continue via PM.

- - - Updated - - -

Not relevant. Any job that are created must be able to take of the person who take them. Jobs that disappear leave people behind who also must be taken care of. The only question is how barbaric are you going to be people while these jobs are changing. If you're Canadian you might have to file some light paperwork, your healthcare will be taken care of and your bank is less likely to fuck you. Americans have much less freedom to do that.

That's some real company town logic you got going on there. They continue to exist because they were less ethical when they were growing and then used their ill-gotten gains to squeeze out the competition. Reminder: Amazon got big not because they were innovative or hard-working. People tend to take the easiest route. They see the cheeper price and then not think about the hidden costs that occur later. If the big guys paid an appropriate amount of tax we might be less concerned about it but they don't and so we are.

It is relevant, because you are trying to argue that it's always a net loss for someone else, but that's not really the case. Jobs fluctuate constantly, and that's the way it has been for quite some time.

No, people don't necessarily need to be taken care of. These are one of those eventualities you need to accept, and plan for. The only exception is if you literally work the same job until the day you die. I'd highly recommend against that last one.

And no, none of that is the fault of wealthy people.

Amazon was cheaper, because they were innovative. They were cheaper, because they limited overhead. It's a lot cheaper to have a warehouse in a rural area, than to have 30 brick-and-mortar stores in malls. People do tend to take the easiest route, and that is a choice they make. I'm not going to begrudge them for doing so, but their choice to do it does not make them my responsibility down the road.

You are shifting the blame for poor decisions and shortsightedness. If I'm constantly looking for the easy way out, and never making the hard decisions... then it's not the fault of the wealthy that I end up where I'm at. Spending all your money is easy. Credit cards are easy. Going out to eat, and getting fast food all the time is easy. Starbucks is easy. Jet skis are easy. Saving, budgeting, planning, and being responsible are less easy.

[Ivanstone]

Under your solution, you say that people should invest in their retirements in systems other than Social Security and that that system should be entirely OPTIONAL. Under that system, a statistically significant people will not take that "Option" because they are either too poor to or too dumb or short sighted to think that far. That will amount to at LEAST 15% of the elderly population even under the rosiest of predictions, probably closer to 35%+.

It's closer to 43.5%. More so for blacks or latinos.

Before SS it was estimated that half of all elderly Americans were considered poor and had to rely on others to survive.

[Fugus]

It's closer to 43.5%. More so for blacks or latinos.

Before SS it was estimated that half of all elderly Americans were considered poor and had to rely on others to survive.

Figured, I started a new thread about it so it can continue there. I really would like an answer to this one from him because when I lumped it with the other facts, he dismissed it and basically said that they earned their place in no uncertain terms and dismissed it from there. I would like to know his solution for handling THAT many elderly people who can't survive in his system since ignoring them logically isn't a solution.

[Ivanstone]

It is relevant, because you are trying to argue that it's always a net loss for someone else, but that's not really the case. Jobs fluctuate constantly, and that's the way it has been for quite some time.

No, people don't necessarily need to be taken care of. These are one of those eventualities you need to accept, and plan for. The only exception is if you literally work the same job until the day you die. I'd highly recommend against that last one.

And no, none of that is the fault of wealthy people.

Amazon was cheaper, because they were innovative. They were cheaper, because they limited overhead. It's a lot cheaper to have a warehouse in a rural area, than to have 30 brick-and-mortar stores in malls. People do tend to take the easiest route, and that is a choice they make. I'm not going to begrudge them for doing so, but their choice to do it does not make them my responsibility down the road.

You are shifting the blame for poor decisions and shortsightedness. If I'm constantly looking for the easy way out, and never making the hard decisions... then it's not the fault of the wealthy that I end up where I'm at. Spending all your money is easy. Credit cards are easy. Going out to eat, and getting fast food all the time is easy. Starbucks is easy. Jet skis are easy. Saving, budgeting, planning, and being responsible are less easy.

Its a net loss for someone else. You're not always going to get the job you want. Most people won't. Regardless of what happens you'll still have the same needs.

Not at all shocked that you're admitting to this. Its pretty much the battle cry for the Libertarian Death Cult.

If you have the capacity to make things better for others but choose to do otherwise, you're at fault. The wealthy very consistently choose to make things better for themselves at the expense of others. Rigging the tax code for example.

Amazon's "innovation" is allowing people to evade sales tax. After they gutted a sufficient amount of local small businesses property taxes withered as well.

People will make poor decisions and be short-sighted. Its part of life. If someone fucks themselves over they might become a drain on the rest of society. You could tell them to take a hike or if everyone (aka the government) helps them a little maybe they can back on their feet and contribute to society again.

[Fugus]

@Ivanstone

His solution to the elderly problem in our post, his solution was to let them starve and die and if they get desperate enough that they resort to crime to survive, arrest them and deal with them like any other criminal.

Guess that is his weird take on "Freedom". Don't have the freedom to live because you were lied to about your options growing up, so you have the freedom to die or become a criminal or a mooch on your family.

[Machismo]

Its a net loss for someone else. You're not always going to get the job you want. Most people won't. Regardless of what happens you'll still have the same needs.

Not at all shocked that you're admitting to this. Its pretty much the battle cry for the Libertarian Death Cult.

If you have the capacity to make things better for others but choose to do otherwise, you're at fault. The wealthy very consistently choose to make things better for themselves at the expense of others. Rigging the tax code for example.

Amazon's "innovation" is allowing people to evade sales tax. After they gutted a sufficient amount of local small businesses property taxes withered as well.

People will make poor decisions and be short-sighted. Its part of life. If someone fucks themselves over they might become a drain on the rest of society. You could tell them to take a hike or if everyone (aka the government) helps them a little maybe they can back on their feet and contribute to society again.

Nope, I'm not always going to get the job I want, and that's not the fault of the wealthy. Hell, it's also not the fault of the guy doing the hiring, or the guy who got the job instead of me.

SO, what exactly is your capacity to take care of others? Mathematically speaking, any amount you make that is over the absolute bare necessities to live, is money you could be using to help others. SO, according to you, you're at fault.

Amazon's innovation, was faster shipping, lower prices, and a large selection of goods.

[Ivanstone]

Nope, I'm not always going to get the job I want, and that's not the fault of the wealthy. Hell, it's also not the fault of the guy doing the hiring, or the guy who got the job instead of me.

SO, what exactly is your capacity to take care of others? Mathematically speaking, any amount you make that is over the absolute bare necessities to live, is money you could be using to help others. SO, according to you, you're at fault.

Amazon's innovation, was faster shipping, lower prices, and a large selection of goods.

And sometimes it’s all those things. And again it’s not about “you”. Are you incapable of conceiving of anything besides yourself?

Constant reinvestment in a business that generates sales tax and insures my property tax is bad. How lean is my life? I consider your lifestyle to be wasteful and decadent. And yes I do remember what you said about your life expenditures.

Other people innovated faster shipping and by innovated I mean fucked over their employees more. Also used their financial position to fuck over the Post Office. Their lower prices was largely because they didn’t charge sales tax. They might’ve had selection but being able to see things up close is also an advantage that Amazon still hasn’t replicated so the selection advantage is a wash.

[Machismo]

And sometimes it’s all those things. And again it’s not about “you”. Are you incapable of conceiving of anything besides yourself?

Constant reinvestment in a business that generates sales tax and insures my property tax is bad. How lean is my life? I consider your lifestyle to be wasteful and decadent. And yes I do remember what you said about your life expenditures.

Other people innovated faster shipping and by innovated I mean fucked over their employees more. Also used their financial position to fuck over the Post Office. Their lower prices was largely because they didn’t charge sales tax. They might’ve had selection but being able to see things up close is also an advantage that Amazon still hasn’t replicated so the selection advantage is a wash.

I'm not talking about just me, I'm just not blaming the wealthy for some dude getting a job over another dude. That's how competition works.

What exactly in my life was decadent? So, what capacity do you have to help others? Surely you could even squeeze out a dollar more. According to you, that makes you culpable.

You are blaming Amazon, because you cannot be bothered to spend a few extra dollars at the store nearby. Consumers drive this, and consumers have largely picked their favorites.

[Ivanstone]

I'm not talking about just me, I'm just not blaming the wealthy for some dude getting a job over another dude. That's how competition works.

What exactly in my life was decadent? So, what capacity do you have to help others? Surely you could even squeeze out a dollar more. According to you, that makes you culpable.

You are blaming Amazon, because you cannot be bothered to spend a few extra dollars at the store nearby. Consumers drive this, and consumers have largely picked their favorites.

You pretty much are though. You assume because you did something you assume everyone can do the same. You're mistaken.

If you have a car, you're wallowing in decadence. If I fell off the face of the earth tomorrow, I doubt my presence would be missed outside of family, friends and loyal customers. Meanwhile you're deflecting from those who can do more but generally choose to be actively harmful.

I used to think Amazon was cool. Until I realized the downsides of dealing with them. Now there's much less options and certainly nothing convenient. Its almost like people just gravitate towards the cheepest thing even though it may not be the best idea in the long run.

I did find a place to buy jeans locally. Its a 30-45min bus ride. Not an easy consideration when you work 7 days a week and their store hours closely match my own.

[Machismo]

You pretty much are though. You assume because you did something you assume everyone can do the same. You're mistaken.

If you have a car, you're wallowing in decadence. If I fell off the face of the earth tomorrow, I doubt my presence would be missed outside of family, friends and loyal customers. Meanwhile you're deflecting from those who can do more but generally choose to be actively harmful.

I used to think Amazon was cool. Until I realized the downsides of dealing with them. Now there's much less options and certainly nothing convenient. Its almost like people just gravitate towards the cheepest thing even though it may not be the best idea in the long run.

I did find a place to buy jeans locally. Its a 30-45min bus ride. Not an easy consideration when you work 7 days a week and their store hours closely match my own.

No, I'm arguing against your entire premise, as if people are somehow owed, or harmed because someone is picked for a job.

They. Are. Not.

That's like an incel saying a woman is harming him, because she fucks another dude.

Owning a car is decadence? So, we should all give them up, and walk? What about owning shoes? is that decadence?

You never did say what your capacity is to care for others, seems like a dodge.

Mind you, none of this is the fault of me, you , or even the wealthy.

[Ivanstone]

No, I'm arguing against your entire premise, as if people are somehow owed, or harmed because someone is picked for a job.

They. Are. Not.

That's like an incel saying a woman is harming him, because she fucks another dude.

Owning a car is decadence? So, we should all give them up, and walk? What about owning shoes? is that decadence?

You never did say what your capacity is to care for others, seems like a dodge.

Mind you, none of this is the fault of me, you , or even the wealthy.

“A job”. It’s not “a job”. It’s millions upon millions of them. One person or one thousand people improving themselves is insignificant for the most part. People being personally irresponsible will happen. Do we let them suffer from their own mistakes or do we help them? If we refuse to help them those that make society better or worse?

No one needs to get laid. People do need to have shelter, transportation, food, clothing and healthcare.

Yes. Deal with it. Really sucks to argue with someone who does everything you do when you whine about personal responsibility, takes it a step further and does it for the exact opposite reasons you do. Also you need shoes. Footwear prevent illness and injury. Also if you didn’t wear them up here you would die come winter.

I’m not here to indulge in your purity tests. Life is messy and no one lives perfectly. And you’re still deflecting for the wealthy.

If any ones at fault it’s the wealthy. Maybe Ayn Rand too. She wasn’t wealthy but she did write pornography for them.

[Machismo]

“A job”. It’s not “a job”. It’s millions upon millions of them. One person or one thousand people improving themselves is insignificant for the most part. People being personally irresponsible will happen. Do we let them suffer from their own mistakes or do we help them? If we refuse to help them those that make society better or worse?

No one needs to get laid. People do need to have shelter, transportation, food, clothing and healthcare.

Yes. Deal with it. Really sucks to argue with someone who does everything you do when you whine about personal responsibility, takes it a step further and does it for the exact opposite reasons you do. Also you need shoes. Footwear prevent illness and injury. Also if you didn’t wear them up here you would die come winter.

I’m not here to indulge in your purity tests. Life is messy and no one lives perfectly. And you’re still deflecting for the wealthy.

If any ones at fault it’s the wealthy. Maybe Ayn Rand too. She wasn’t wealthy but she did write pornography for them.

You spoke of decadence, and those who have the capacity to help, being at fault for this.

So, if you have capacity to help, you are admitting to being at fault. Of course you don't want to indulge it, because it means your argument is fucking garbage.

"They're at fault, because they have money" isn't the argument that you think it is.

[Ivanstone]

You spoke of decadence, and those who have the capacity to help, being at fault for this.

So, if you have capacity to help, you are admitting to being at fault. Of course you don't want to indulge it, because it means your argument is fucking garbage.

"They're at fault, because they have money" isn't the argument that you think it is.

Not helping if you have the capacity to help is bad. Having the capacity to help and choosing to do harm is worse. And more accurately explains America.

I don’t want to indulge because every argument with you eventually devolves into sub-moronic purity tests. I could be entirely hypocritical here and it wouldn’t matter because I’m just one asshole on the internet with infinitesimal influence on the world.

They’re not at fault because they have money. They’re at fault because they do shitty things with their money.

[Machismo]

Not helping if you have the capacity to help is bad. Having the capacity to help and choosing to do harm is worse. And more accurately explains America.

I don’t want to indulge because every argument with you eventually devolves into sub-moronic purity tests. I could be entirely hypocritical here and it wouldn’t matter because I’m just one asshole on the internet with infinitesimal influence on the world.

They’re not at fault because they have money. They’re at fault because they do shitty things with their money.

Do you have any capacity to help? You seem to want to refuse to answer. Either you are saying you have absolutely no money to spare, and are living a truly frugal lifestyle, or you are arguing against yourself, and calling yourself bad.

It does matter, if you don't even believe your own argument, while trying to force other people to pay for things based on your hypocritical argument.

This is the problem, you are trying to make a blanket statement about all wealthy people.

[Ivanstone]

Do you have any capacity to help? You seem to want to refuse to answer. Either you are saying you have absolutely no money to spare, and are living a truly frugal lifestyle, or you are arguing against yourself, and calling yourself bad.

It does matter, if you don't even believe your own argument, while trying to force other people to pay for things based on your hypocritical argument.

This is the problem, you are trying to make a blanket statement about all wealthy people.

I would’ve thought the infinitesimal influence bit would’ve been a dead give away. I guess not. From my perspective the store provides tax income to the government which in turn is used to pay for beneficial things.

You can 100% believe in your argument and still do the wrong thing personally. Shitty. Life is hard.

All of them use the same taxation system whether they agree with it or not. I’ll be nicer to them if they at least decide to treat capital gains as income and pay the full tax rate. Additional brownie points for not takin deductions on charity. Funny how I never hear anyone do that.

[Machismo]

I would’ve thought the infinitesimal influence bit would’ve been a dead give away. I guess not. From my perspective the store provides tax income to the government which in turn is used to pay for beneficial things.

You can 100% believe in your argument and still do the wrong thing personally. Shitty. Life is hard.

All of them use the same taxation system whether they agree with it or not. I’ll be nicer to them if they at least decide to treat capital gains as income and pay the full tax rate. Additional brownie points for not takin deductions on charity. Funny how I never hear anyone do that.

But, the issue is backing up what you are arguing. If you don't even believe in your own argument, then it's probably not worth making. Your argument is so bad, you cannot even stick with it.

[Ivanstone]

But, the issue is backing up what you are arguing. If you don't even believe in your own argument, then it's probably not worth making. Your argument is so bad, you cannot even stick with it.

I believe in my argument. I still bought jeans from Amazon this week. My other choices were take more time that I don't have that much to spare of to go across town and buy from a small business or go to Wal-mart who are just as bad as Amazon. I don't want to give Uncle Jeff money but you make these kind of decisions when you work 7 days a week while minimizing personal expenses. Just another small killing to make it through the day.

Actual hypocrisy is someone like Warren Buffett claiming to want to pay more tax and then not volunteering to do so. Unlike myself, Buffett can pay a lot without hurting himself and has tremendous influence on others.

[Fugus]

I believe in my argument. I still bought jeans from Amazon this week. My other choices were take more time that I don't have that much to spare of to go across town and buy from a small business or go to Wal-mart who are just as bad as Amazon. I don't want to give Uncle Jeff money but you make these kind of decisions when you work 7 days a week while minimizing personal expenses. Just another small killing to make it through the day.

Actual hypocrisy is someone like Warren Buffett claiming to want to pay more tax and then not volunteering to do so. Unlike myself, Buffett can pay a lot without hurting himself and has tremendous influence on others.

My personal views on the likes of Warren Buffet and the rest, while I agree that they should pay more, even if I was a billionaire myself, I wouldn't pay anymore than I had to.

I would actually pay as little as possible while lobbying to get the rates I paid higher to where it should be. Just me paying what I should wouldn't fix the problem, it would just lead to me having less for doing the right thing.

I would pay as little as possible while donating to candidates who intended to close the loopholes I was using, if I was a billionaire I would even pay for ads online and other places where I would spell out the loopholes I am using and showing others how to do it and make it a huge deal and showing that you guys need to close them because I am not the only ones doing this, I am just the one being open about it.

I would flat out tell them that even if I think I should be taxed more, I will not offer up it willingly, it is their job as voters and candidates to MAKE me pay it.

Not even a case of me being greedy either, just pure pragmatic. If I were to pay and virtually none of the others, it wouldn't accomplish anything, it would just lead to me taking the loss for little to no societal gain. If it were actually mandated, like it should be, then my extra taxes combine with the others who should also be paying and amounts to something.