Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Slant]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1...162600450?s=19

McConnel quick to rush protecting billionaires instead of January 6th or infrastructure, etc.

Priorities.

Knowing the behaviour of the US electorate, bullshit like that just further cements his position at the next elections he's in.

[Magical Mudcrab]

https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-...n-on-companies
“ IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig has previously said the agency brings in $5 to $7 for every dollar spent on enforcement.”

A 5-7x ROI? That's absolutely insane.

[Breccia]

A 5-7x ROI? That's absolutely insane.

You could look at it that way, yes.

You could also say "holy shit, a lot of people cheat on their taxes".

Think of it as a parallel to the voter fraud commission Trump ran for about a year. They found nothing and the commission fell apart when one member was arrested and one died, presumably of boredom. Now, imagine they'd found thousands, tens of thousands, of illegal votes. Some people would say "well that's a good use of government resources". Others would say "holy shit, that's a lot of illegal votes".

[Glorious Leader]

You could look at it that way, yes.

You could also say "holy shit, a lot of people cheat on their taxes".

Think of it as a parallel to the voter fraud commission Trump ran for about a year. They found nothing and the commission fell apart when one member was arrested and one died, presumably of boredom. Now, imagine they'd found thousands, tens of thousands, of illegal votes. Some people would say "well that's a good use of government resources". Others would say "holy shit, that's a lot of illegal votes".

The difference being their is obvious evidence of tax evasion. The voter fraud bullshit was cooked up.

[Breccia]

The difference being their is obvious evidence of tax evasion.

To be fair, it's not always obvious. But yeah.

[Magical Mudcrab]

You could look at it that way, yes.

You could also say "holy shit, a lot of people cheat on their taxes".

Think of it as a parallel to the voter fraud commission Trump ran for about a year. They found nothing and the commission fell apart when one member was arrested and one died, presumably of boredom. Now, imagine they'd found thousands, tens of thousands, of illegal votes. Some people would say "well that's a good use of government resources". Others would say "holy shit, that's a lot of illegal votes".

I don't think I quite follow as I don't see the two situations as analogous (correct me if I'm misinterpreting your intent). In the election audits there was never a reasonable suspicion of voter fraud provided and, unsurprisingly, all of the audits came back showing there was no meaningful degree of fraud (i.e.: no degree of voter fraud was found that could have impacted an election). In regards to the article we see some billionaires paying, quite literally, orders of magnitude less than what they should due to exploitation of the tax system. Even if we wanted to discount the evidence for investigation, the costs for those two circumstances do not carry the same level of risk; voter fraud does not have a monetary ROI to recoup cost, whereas pursuing cases of potential fraud has a 5-7x ROI if the IRS Commissioner is believed.

[Breccia]

I don't think I quite follow as I don't see the two situations as analogous (correct me if I'm misinterpreting your intent).

You are, but because I was not very clear.

People praise government spending the IRS's efficiency when it works.

People get upset about government spending like the voter fraud commission when it fails.

And we never know until they're done trying.

The situations were analogous until one succeeded and one failed. If the voter fraud committee had, somehow, found the millions of illegal votes Trump claimed, we'd be talking about them the same way as the IRS's 5:1 results.

Forgive the first post, I was trying to finish the post in a hurry.

[Glorious Leader]

It's standard economic base principles. If you don't understand the difference between the means of production, and private property, you fail to grasp the most basic elements of economic theory as studied by every single living economist today.



You can't be fucking serious.

It's when you stop talking about personal private property, and start talking about the means of production. This is like you arguing that an iguana and a puppy are the same thing, and when I say "one's a reptile and one's a mammal", you're like "what? Which is which? I am uncapable of telling the two apart!" It's that level of nonsense.

Learn what basic terminology means. Google is your friend. Stop wasting people's time.

The easiest way to illustrate this distinction is to make a distinction between possessions and private property. Possesion in and of itself will not create a hierarchy but implicit in the idea of private property is the social relations it creates. I.e boss and employee

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a comparable graph, that ties in productivity gains over the same period alongside wages;



If wages had kept pace throughout, as they had up to the '70s, everyone would be making about twice as much today. Entry-level work wouldn't be priced at $25-30,000, but at $50-60,000. We wouldn't be talking about a $15 minimum wage, we'd have had that since 2009, and we'd be arguing that it needs to be $30 like yesterday, because $15 is garbage nonsense.

That's the world we could've had, before capitalism was perverted.

you call it a bug but its really a feature..

- - - Updated - - -

. Rich people will simply move to and support countries that will help them grow their stake in their business instead of shrinking it.

And when they do they will be subject to a tax as well. The idea that they can escape their obligations by feeling to the 3rd world needs to be obliterated. Capital needs to be disciplined.

[PC2]

And when they do they will be subject to a tax as well. The idea that they can escape their obligations by feeling to the 3rd world needs to be obliterated. Capital needs to be disciplined.

Nah, if taxes cause their net worth to shrink then that means the tax policy is onerous and would have to be changed. If financial shrinkage is purely caused by a larger economic downturn, terrible choices, or donations then that would be totally fine, that's what already happens from time to time.

The reality is this isn't a problem because billionaires are on their way to becoming trillionaires. You can try to stop that but I'd bet everything I have that it won't work.

[Themius]

Nah, if taxes cause their net worth to shrink then that means the tax policy is onerous and would have to be changed. If financial shrinkage is purely caused by a larger economic downturn, terrible choices, or donations then that would be totally fine, that's what already happens from time to time.

The reality is this isn't a problem because billionaires are on their way to becoming trillionaires. You can try to stop that but I'd bet everything I have that it won't work.

You guys are funny...what are they just going to cease existing?

"Oh my god I only made 32mn this year instead of 45mn because of taxes!"....

[Glorious Leader]

Nah, if taxes cause their net worth to shrink then that means the tax policy is onerous and would have to be changed. If financial shrinkage is purely caused by a larger economic downturn, terrible choices, or donations then that would be totally fine, that's what already happens from time to time.

The reality is this isn't a problem because billionaires are on their way to becoming trillionaires. You can try to stop that but I'd bet everything I have that it won't work.

Well theirs always the guillotine.

[Mayhem]

A federal wealth tax is not on the horizon for the US so it's not an issue. Of course local property taxes exist but I don't think they can really go up much higher where I live, Democrats would lose key benefactors at that point.

If other countries want to shrink the net worth of their wealthiest citizens then it's their prerogative. Rich people will simply move to and support countries that will help them grow their stake in their business instead of shrinking it.

You are a funny guy.

[Endus]

Nah, if taxes cause their net worth to shrink then that means the tax policy is onerous and would have to be changed.

Why on any Earth would that ever be considered true? You have no basis for this claim other than pure autocratic hierarchism.

If financial shrinkage is purely caused by a larger economic downturn, terrible choices, or donations then that would be totally fine, that's what already happens from time to time.

Rich people being less rich is a problem, but financial collapse is not a problem? You're out to fuckin' lunch.

The reality is this isn't a problem because billionaires are on their way to becoming trillionaires. You can try to stop that but I'd bet everything I have that it won't work.

They can only do it because of social approval. If society chooses to say "nah", that can be prevented. They have very little actual power.

Something the wealthy get reminded of every time they push too far, and the populace rises up against them. Turns out that art pieces and fancy clothing and land ownership does precisely jack to mollify the mob outside your doors.

[PC2]

You are a funny guy.

Yes when I want to be but that's only for some topics. For this topic I'm 100% serious. I think the inequality-obsessed people here are confused about the nature of economics and progress and they're setting themselves up for disappointment by making economic equality their top goal.

One of my points here is we want society to create massive amounts of wealth at a rapid pace. Society has barely even begun to scratch the surface. The idea that humanity can create a significant amount of wealth without simultaneously increasing inequality is a misunderstanding of economics.

Well theirs always the guillotine.

No worries, the violent people who want that are the most incompetent and ignorant people in society. They aren't capable of pulling it off.

You guys are funny...what are they just going to cease existing?

"Oh my god I only made 32mn this year instead of 45mn because of taxes!"....

Themius if you follow the reply chain back a couple of posts you'll see that I was specifically referencing a hypothetical scenario where the ultra rich people are losing net worth because of taxes. If they ended up making any positive number such as 32mn then that means it doesn't apply to what we're talking about.

[Endus]

Yes when I want to be but that's only for some topics. For this topic I'm 100% serious. I think the inequality-obsessed people here are confused about the nature of economics and progress and they're setting themselves up for disappointment by making economic equality their top goal.

"Economic equality" /= "Reasonable levels of inequality".

Stop pretending dishonest straw men are your opponents' actual positions. It's just a form of lying.

One of my points here is we want society to create massive amounts of wealth at a rapid pace.

1> Why? This isn't automatically a good thing, in and of itself.
2> If you're expecting continuous increase in that wealth creation, your position is untenable on its face. Wealth is necessarily finite.
3> If you're not expecting continuous growth, then society's already meeting that bar. So what's your point, again?

Society has barely even begun to scratch the surface. The idea that humanity can create a significant amount of wealth without simultaneously increasing inequality is a misunderstanding of economics.

In what way?

It isn't even an expectation in capitalist theory, let alone the broader world of economic theory.

No worries, the violent people who want that are the most incompetent and ignorant people in society. They aren't capable of pulling it off.

Neither of those statements bear any resemblance to reality. Historically, ideological revolutions have been led by intellectual elites in more cases than not.

Themius if you follow the reply chain back a couple of posts you'll see that I was specifically referencing a hypothetical scenario where the ultra rich people are losing net worth because of taxes. If they ended up making any positive number such as 32mn then that means it doesn't apply to what we're talking about.

You still haven't explained why their wealth decaying over time is untenable. You just declared it, by fiat, with no argument.

[Elegiac]

One of my points here is we want society to create massive amounts of wealth at a rapid pace.

Why should that be a priority rather than more efficiently distributing existing wealth.

[Captain N]

Why should that be a priority rather than more efficiently distributing existing wealth.

He must have missed the graph Endus showed previously that showed that productivity is resulting in massive amounts of wealth. It just keeps going to a handful of people while things get tighter and tighter for the lower quintile of earners.

[Shadowferal]

Yes when I want to be but that's only for some topics. For this topic I'm 100% serious. I think the inequality-obsessed people here are confused about the nature of economics and progress and they're setting themselves up for disappointment by making economic equality their top goal.

No you're not. If you were serious about this you'd know more about it instead of coming across as helplessly ignorant...as usual.

[Verdugo]

Neither of those statements bear any resemblance to reality. Historically, ideological revolutions have been led by intellectual elites in more cases than not.

Remember, Primary thinks that history is just another fairy tale. For him, nothing existed before he was born.

[Mayhem]

Yes when I want to be but that's only for some topics. For this topic I'm 100% serious. I think the inequality-obsessed people here are confused about the nature of economics and progress and they're setting themselves up for disappointment by making economic equality their top goal.

One of my points here is we want society to create massive amounts of wealth at a rapid pace. Society has barely even begun to scratch the surface. The idea that humanity can create a significant amount of wealth without simultaneously increasing inequality is a misunderstanding of economics.

I wonder if we ever find a topic where you actually have knowledge in the field or know what you're talking about. This isn't it, that's for sure. I mean, probably apart from you being 100% serious, everything else is wrong in your post. It's neither backed by facts nor logic.