Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Ivanstone]

Then, as before, poor people in urban areas are getting an additional burden than the poor people in rural areas (cost of living averages)

As for graduated tax scales, we already have that.

Except, this thread is literally about a Propublica article that tries to tie income tax to wealth.

The current graduated system doesn't account for potential cost of living disparities. These are somewhat handled at the state level (NY State appears to allow roughly 28K income to be untaxed). A wealthy person could move to South Dakota and will pay less income tax (no state income tax) but for some reason no one's moving there.

Again you keep misrepresenting the article. More importantly this is about a series of articles (I've posted five so far) regarding how much the wealthy pay. I don't know if we'll see any shenanigans regarding local and state tax avoidance. They might not have the info.

[Machismo]

The current graduated system doesn't account for potential cost of living disparities. These are somewhat handled at the state level (NY State appears to allow roughly 28K income to be untaxed). A wealthy person could move to South Dakota and will pay less income tax (no state income tax) but for some reason no one's moving there.

Again you keep misrepresenting the article. More importantly this is about a series of articles (I've posted five so far) regarding how much the wealthy pay. I don't know if we'll see any shenanigans regarding local and state tax avoidance. They might not have the info.

The only way to deal with cost of living, is to based it on cost of living. That means breaking it down by zip code, or even more. It is handled at the state level, by how each state does their own taxes, as well as the county city level (mainly for property/sales taxes bumps). But, the federal government doesn't really do it.

Mind you, I'm open to entertaining the idea of tax rates based on cost of living in an area, but I don't see a good way to pull it off.

[omerome]

I've been trying to discuss it for weeks.

People lay out what they want, and they want others to pay for it. I'm simply asking how much skin they are willing to have in the game.

People want to push misinformation and bullshit narratives that are statistically false. They want to repeat talking political talking points about "fair share" without having a clue what that means... other than "more."

- - - Updated - - -



I know you're not a billionaire, I'm not arguing you are.

I'm saying you make way, way less than them. But, these are the things you want (which you laid out). How much more are you personally, with your "less income" are you willing to spend in order to get those things you want the government to provide?

If I had no worries about healthcare putting me in debt, dealing with climate change, driving and living in crumbling infrastructure, and was provided a livable wage on top of my current income, then and only then would this question ally make sense to answer to anyone who doesn't have to worry about these things on a daily basis (aka the rich and wealthy). Because right now, there is no number to answer your question that is *enough*.

Because how can a poor person give more of what they already don't have? A person with 10 dollars to their name which is supposed to feed them or their family is not willing to spend more on anything.

But whatever, it's clear you refuse to understand this.

[Machismo]

If I had no worries about healthcare putting me in debt, dealing with climate change, driving and living in crumbling infrastructure, and was provided a livable wage on top of my current income, then and only then would this question ally make sense to answer to anyone who doesn't have to worry about these things on a daily basis (aka the rich and wealthy). Because right now, there is no number to answer your question that is *enough*.

Because how can a poor person give more of what they already don't have? A person with 10 dollars to their name which is supposed to feed them or their family is not willing to spend more on anything.

But whatever, it's clear you refuse to understand this.

You decided to add a "living wage" in there:

As I said already, they SHOULD. They are the biggest benefactors. And no, not all of them pay what they are supposed to pay. That should have been clear by now.

And yet, the issue we're all trying to get you to see is, despite their contributions, it is clearly not enough to support society for the better. Because if it was, massive income inequality wouldn't be the issue it is today and has been for decades. We also wouldn't be having discussions about fixing our infrastructure, cleaning the environment, healthcare reform, and education because EVERYONE would be able to thrive, not just live in the country many people proclaim as the greatest in the world.

You ask someone to give you 30% of a loaf of bread that was supposed to feed a family of four compared to let's say, 40% of the food you put on your plates at an all-you-can-eat buffet and tell me which person has a tougher decision to make.

The argument for these things is about the betterment of society. My argument is that people like you are not willing to actually do more for that benefit, you simply want others to do more. The fact that you cannot answer, and even move goalposts, is the answer i expected.

[unfilteredJW]

It’s almost interesting watching someone flail so spectacularly and act as if they have somehow proved a point.

It would be if it wasn’t so sad.

[Ivanstone]

Mind you, I'm open to entertaining the idea of tax rates based on cost of living in an area, but I don't see a good way to pull it off.

If Mitt Romney (one person) can open up dozens of offshore shell corporations to marginally reduce his tax burden I'm pretty sure a bunch of people can come with something to affect taxes at the county level. Remember that the tax system is heavily convoluted so wealthy people can take better advantage of it.

[Machismo]

If Mitt Romney (one person) can open up dozens of offshore shell corporations to marginally reduce his tax burden I'm pretty sure a bunch of people can come with something to affect taxes at the county level. Remember that the tax system is heavily convoluted so wealthy people can take better advantage of it.

But, the response has been to want to just blanket raise the taxes. I have an issue with that, because it hits the "honest actors."

Jeff Bezos is easy to hate. So is Bill Gates. Lynsi Snyder... not so much.

Now, getting rid of "loopholes" is fine, but many of them exist to help the lower and middle classes, as well.

[Edge-]

Now, getting rid of "loopholes" is fine, but many of them exist to help the lower and middle classes, as well.

Do you think that offshore shell companies are used by lower/middle class folks? Do you think they have access to the kinds of more expensive accountants that you pay gobs of money to so that they can 'protect' your obscene wealth?

Shit man, they'd pay more to the accountant setting up a few companies than they actually fuckin have in liquid assets. The overwhelming majority of loopholes benefit the ultra-wealthy. Because some are built into the tax code by design, others are discovered by the fantastically expensive accountants that the wealthy have access to that the poor/middle class do not.

[omerome]

You decided to add a "living wage" in there:



The argument for these things is about the betterment of society. My argument is that people like you are not willing to actually do more for that benefit, you simply want others to do more. The fact that you cannot answer, and even move goalposts, is the answer i expected.

Ugh...and for the umpteenth time, how can someone who already doesn't have much, be expected to do more? Do you propose someone who is living in poverty to be required to volunteer at a food bank or work an extra job or two? Well, guess what? Many people do just that! So I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.

[Machismo]

Do you think that offshore shell companies are used by lower/middle class folks? Do you think they have access to the kinds of more expensive accountants that you pay gobs of money to so that they can 'protect' your obscene wealth?

Shit man, they'd pay more to the accountant setting up a few companies than they actually fuckin have in liquid assets. The overwhelming majority of loopholes benefit the ultra-wealthy. Because some are built into the tax code by design, others are discovered by the fantastically expensive accountants that the wealthy have access to that the poor/middle class do not.

No, I think things mortgage interest deductions exist. I think things like the earned income child tax credit are a thing. A lot of people want to tax the unrealized value of stocks, and not just when they are sold. A lot of others want to treat loans taken out as income, and not debt.

- - - Updated - - -

Ugh...and for the umpteenth time, how can someone who already doesn't have much, be expected to do more? Do you propose someone who is living in poverty to be required to volunteer at a food bank or work an extra job or two? Well, guess what? Many people do just that! So I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.

Which is my point. It's a lot easier to demand all these things, when you aren't paying for it.

I have no idea how much you make, or what your income level is. But, from what I can tell, your desire to increase your burden... just isn't there.

[Ivanstone]

But, the response has been to want to just blanket raise the taxes. I have an issue with that, because it hits the "honest actors."

Jeff Bezos is easy to hate. So is Bill Gates. Lynsi Snyder... not so much.

Now, getting rid of "loopholes" is fine, but many of them exist to help the lower and middle classes, as well.

So? I'm fine with the wealthy paying more taxes. I'm also fine with the poor paying less taxes. The wealthy will still be wealthy and the poor might have enough money left at the end of the month to afford a mid-quality prostitute and a line of coke. Sounds like a win-win

Lynzi Snyder has a large corporation with a billion dollars in revenue and a 20% profit margin. I'm sure she'll be fine.

The current tax system is convoluted to help the wealthy. If it helps the not-wealthy its an accident or a bribe.

[Edge-]

No, I think things mortgage interest deductions exist.

Ah yes, because that helps poor folks who...can't afford property so they rent?

I think things like the earned income child tax credit are a thing.

Which has largely not been very effective and is only more recently being improved. That's not a tax loophole though, so I'm not sure why you'd include it.

A lot of people want to tax the unrealized value of stocks, and not just when they are sold. A lot of others want to treat loans taken out as income, and not debt.

Not sure what either of these has to do with my post?

[Machismo]

Ah yes, because that helps poor folks who...can't afford property so they rent?



Which has largely not been very effective and is only more recently being improved. That's not a tax loophole though, so I'm not sure why you'd include it.



Not sure what either of these has to do with my post?

Yes, they rent, but tens of millions of Americans have mortgages. It's likely their biggest deduction.

People talk about "loopholes," but don't even really have a lot to say as to exactly what they are.

[omerome]

No, I think things mortgage interest deductions exist. I think things like the earned income child tax credit are a thing. A lot of people want to tax the unrealized value of stocks, and not just when they are sold. A lot of others want to treat loans taken out as income, and not debt.

- - - Updated - - -



Which is my point. It's a lot easier to demand all these things, when you aren't paying for it.

I have no idea how much you make, or what your income level is. But, from what I can tell, your desire to increase your burden... just isn't there.

Your point literally makes no sense. If I were the one paying for it, all it would do is keep me broke, even more overburdened, and in danger of being in an even worse financial state if my health were to deteriorate, for example. Because it's clear poor people are that way because they don't have any money and yet you think it's still okay to suggest that they should pay more. SMH.

[Bodakane]

But, the response has been to want to just blanket raise the taxes. I have an issue with that, because it hits the "honest actors."

Jeff Bezos is easy to hate. So is Bill Gates. Lynsi Snyder... not so much.

Now, getting rid of "loopholes" is fine, but many of them exist to help the lower and middle classes, as well.

Bullshit.

The argument in your crazy ass head cannon may be that, but no one here is saying that.

We are saying they need to pay more because:
#1. the ultra wealthy avoid income taxes
#2. use more government infrastructure then the rest of us.

These are inarguable facts. You know you can't fucking argue 1 and 2, so you are creating all these other reasons to justify your lust for the ultra wealthy.

Read this article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/buy-bor...th-11625909583

Buy, Borrow, Die: How Rich Americans Live Off Their Paper Wealth
Rising stocks and rock-bottom interest rates have delivered a big perk to rich Americans: cheap loans that they can use to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their tax bills.

Banks say their wealthy clients are borrowing more than ever before, often using loans backed by their portfolios of stocks and bonds. Morgan Stanley wealth-management clients have $68.1 billion worth of securities-based and other nonmortgage loans outstanding, more than double five years earlier. Bank of America Corp. said it has $62.4 billion in securities-based loans, dwarfing its book of home-equity lines of credit.

The loans have special benefits beyond the flexible repayment terms and low interest rates on offer. They allow borrowers who need cash to avoid selling in a hot market. Startup founders can monetize their stakes without losing control of their companies. The very rich often use these loans as part of a “buy, borrow, die” strategy to avoid capital-gains taxes.

Tell us all again how well you know the difference between income and wealth while the rest of us don't.

[Machismo]

Your point literally makes no sense. If I were the one paying for it, all it would do is keep me broke, even more overburdened, and in danger of being in an even worse financial state if my health were to deteriorate, for example. Because it's clear poor people are that way because they don't have any money and yet you think it's still okay to suggest that they should pay more. SMH.

Who said you're paying for it all?

I'm challenging you to show that this isn't just about making other people pay for all the shit you want.

You are failing to meet that challenge.

- - - Updated - - -

Bullshit.

The argument in your crazy ass head cannon may be that, but no one here is saying that.

We are saying they need to pay more because:
#1. the ultra wealthy avoid income taxes
#2. use more government infrastructure then the rest of us.

These are inarguable facts. You know you can't fucking argue 1 and 2, so you are creating all these other reasons to justify your lust for the ultra wealthy.

Read this article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/buy-bor...th-11625909583

1# Some do, just like you do by taking deductions of your own. They still pay more on average than you or I do.

2# By what metric are you basing this on? Is it compared to how much they pay in, or as a percentage of their income, or is it a percentage of how much they produce? Please, let me know how you quantify this.

[Endus]

Once again, this all gets very tricky to quantify when you're talking about "burden."

See, this is a bad-faith response.

There's absolutely no need to quantify a non-quantifiable thing. The concept of a "burden" is a qualifiable statement. Not quantifiable.

Your position is fundamentally the same as denying that a "pile of rice" can exist unless your debate opponent can quantify the exact number of rice grains that amounts to a "pile", where one less is "not a pile". Which just flatly isn't how the word is defined in the first place.

I've been trying to discuss it for weeks.

People lay out what they want, and they want others to pay for it. I'm simply asking how much skin they are willing to have in the game.

The problem with your argument is that nearly everyone agrees that "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need" is a fundamentally useful principle.

And in that principle, the wealthy have far more capacity to contribute back, and much less need to draw on the system.

I'll give you a hypothetical; if I were worth $100 million and making constant income to maintain that wealth level, I'd be contributing 90% or more of that back to society. If my taxes are not that high, then I'm seeking out charitable opportunities or issues I can try and self-fund. I'm not going to put a specific dollar value on it since I don't have experience with that kind of money, so I'm severely undercutting what I would likely actually contribute back.

And to be clear; that's not "angel investing" or whatever, that's "spending the money to help those who need it without any expectation of any direct possible benefit to myself in any way whatsoever, now or at any point in the future". And I only include "direct" because, indirectly, making a better society will, naturally, benefit me somewhat indirectly in that long term.

So, I expect similar stances by the wealthy. If they won't do so voluntarily (and they do not), then taxation to hit that target is reasonable. I'm not expecting anything of them I would not do myself. Your notion that this is an "us vs them" thing is just false; at best, you're projecting your own personal issues onto everyone else, when they're not by any means the common view.

Asking me to contribute at the same percentages that I'm describing for the wealthy, at my current middle-class income, is a willfully ignorant position that ignores the cost of living. It would render me homeless and unable to feed myself adequately. Such a burden would not exist for those who still have an income of millions after taxation.

[uuuhname]

Your point literally makes no sense. If I were the one paying for it, all it would do is keep me broke, even more overburdened, and in danger of being in an even worse financial state if my health were to deteriorate, for example. Because it's clear poor people are that way because they don't have any money and yet you think it's still okay to suggest that they should pay more. SMH.

he uses this ridiculous question about hypocrisy all the time. because libertarian's and by extension most Americans, are utterly brainwashed by this myth of radical individualism. that if only one person stood up and made a change that the world just naturally follows after them like some hero out a fucking Ayn Rand novel. they never understand that systemic change means EVERYONE has to get involved to make the necessary changes needed to the system. because they HATE the idea of a cooperative society. what's worse than having the big bad government tell you what to do? your pain in the ass neighbors! they have no idea what the concept of people working together, sharing recourses to reach a goal even looks like.

[Machismo]

See, this is a bad-faith response.

There's absolutely no need to quantify a non-quantifiable thing. The concept of a "burden" is a qualifiable statement. Not quantifiable.

Your position is fundamentally the same as denying that a "pile of rice" can exist unless your debate opponent can quantify the exact number of rice grains that amounts to a "pile", where one less is "not a pile". Which just flatly isn't how the word is defined in the first place.



The problem with your argument is that nearly everyone agrees that "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need" is a fundamentally useful principle.

And in that principle, the wealthy have far more capacity to contribute back, and much less need to draw on the system.

I'll give you a hypothetical; if I were worth $100 million and making constant income to maintain that wealth level, I'd be contributing 90% or more of that back to society. If my taxes are not that high, then I'm seeking out charitable opportunities or issues I can try and self-fund. I'm not going to put a specific dollar value on it since I don't have experience with that kind of money, so I'm severely undercutting what I would likely actually contribute back.

And to be clear; that's not "angel investing" or whatever, that's "spending the money to help those who need it without any expectation of any direct possible benefit to myself in any way whatsoever, now or at any point in the future". And I only include "direct" because, indirectly, making a better society will, naturally, benefit me somewhat indirectly in that long term.

So, I expect similar stances by the wealthy. If they won't do so voluntarily (and they do not), then taxation to hit that target is reasonable. I'm not expecting anything of them I would not do myself. Your notion that this is an "us vs them" thing is just false; at best, you're projecting your own personal issues onto everyone else, when they're not by any means the common view.

Asking me to contribute at the same percentages that I'm describing for the wealthy, at my current middle-class income, is a willfully ignorant position that ignores the cost of living. It would render me homeless and unable to feed myself adequately. Such a burden would not exist for those who still have an income of millions after taxation.

Great, then you want to burden the wealthy by increasing their tax burden. Glad we have that qualifiable thing covered.

I never said the wealthy don't have more capacity to pay. I'm saying that the people who want to push the wealthy to pay for all those things, and when it comes for them to chip in... they clearly don't want to pay their fair share (snark intended).

There's no need for hypotheticals about if you were a fucking multi-milionaire. This is about you, and them... right now. It's easy to say that you'd totes be super generous, if you had all that money, but when pressed with where you are right now... fucking crickets.

[Fugus]

It's quite literally increasing the burden.

And? You are forgetting that they were originally intended to have that burden as part of the program till they dodged it. And increasing the burden doesn't mean its a bad thing with as broadly you are painting that brush on it. Increasing that burden can also be a good thing if we are going as broadly as you are.

If you are going to go with "Increasing the burden" you need the thought process to continue past that point to try and argue how that increased cost is a bad thing compared to what it gives and what the alternatives are. Something you have failed to even attempt to do.

Does it increase the burden on those at the bottom who are paying it like they have this entire time? No. Should it? Again no.

Does it increase the burden on those making 130k+ yes, but not any appreciable amount to the money they are bringing in and will have no real impact on their standard of living short of a drug addiction. Should it? Debatable but likely needed to balance the issue given how long it has been neglected and how far it has fallen behind, maybe it can be phased out again later but these people will still benefit from it more if they paid more than if they don't and the programs end up scrapped or cut to useless because they refused to pay the funding.

Does it increase the burden on those making millions and using tax dodging strategies where they pay ZERO or near it, you bet your ass as they were intended to contribute to the programs as well, should it be? Again, you bet your ass.

So saying, "It increases the burden" doesn't make it bad if you are being honest about it and thinking beyond the scary words.

They are still paying more than the other pay levels, based on percentage of income.

And they are benefiting from the government more than those at any other pay levels as has been explained to you countless times for you to ignore it.

No, I'm calling for personal responsibility, and less government as a whole.

You are calling for fantasies that ignore reality. You want personal responsibility on this, you will have to MANDATE it because a statistically large group won't do it willingly either from being too poor to, too stupid to, or just flat out too short sighted, and you will still have to deal with them when the time comes which will makes things worse and more expensive to handle.

And you also pretend that getting rid of the government will magically make things better without their presence while ignoring the fact that they are REQUIRED in many areas to prevent other bigger players from coming in and becoming the effective government in those areas and the fact that some things just won't work in any free market, not to mention that the free market takes lots of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS to keep it functioning and going off the rails.

And again, if you actually have any WORKABLE alternatives, I am still waiting to hear it because the closest thing you gave to a solution would do nothing but cause damage by itself virtually across the board. For your solution to be workable, it needs to address things like funding, quality of service, availability, and how to prevent people from falling through the cracks and how to handle them better if they do.

What are your REAL alternatives, not your fantasy alternatives that cling to ideological purity.