Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[JohnBrown1917]

It's nto going to happen, because most people don't want it to happen.

Those with the most money do not*

[Machismo]

I get it, you have no idea what corruption actually is. Its not everything you disagree with, its a very specific action. Overthrowing a government does not fall under it. We actually have proper words for those actions.


So i'll stick to billionaire corruption causing way more damage than any small-time criminal could even wish for.

Uh huh:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/corrupt

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...nglish/corrupt

[JohnBrown1917]

Uh huh:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/corrupt

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...nglish/corrupt

Glad you agree with me. Now we can get back to how billionaire corruption is a far bigger problem, but you love to downplay that as usual.

[Machismo]

Those with the most money do not*

It's not just them, plenty of people don't want it. It has almost no traction.

- - - Updated - - -

Glad you agree with me. Now we can get back to how billionaire corruption is a far bigger problem, but you love to downplay that as usual.

You mean that I used the word right, whether you like it, or not.

Uh huh.

[JohnBrown1917]

It's not just them, plenty of people don't want it. It has almost no traction.

Is this another case of you never heard anybody oppose it so it must be true? Only the super rich benefit from money in politics, its the rational stance to oppose it.

[Machismo]

Is this another case of you never heard anybody oppose it so it must be true? Only the super rich benefit from money in politics, its the rational stance to oppose it.

No, because your premise is flawed. Plenty of people benefit in politics. Evangelicals are going to benefit from the Trump presidency. Hell, conservatives as a whole are going to benefit for an entire generation.

This is about the lack of political capital to actually make it happen.

[Edge-]

It's not just them, plenty of people don't want it. It has almost no traction.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/163208/...campaigns.aspx

I don't have more recent numbers handy but like...you're wrong. As of 2013 50:46, so +4% wanted publicly funded elections. That's where things are slightly shakier however the numbers on limiting campaign fundraising/spending are VERY clear, with a 79:19 split in favor of limiting that. Like, that's universally popular.

I'd hazard a guess the numbers aren't too different nowadays.

[Shadowferal]

Those with the most money do not*

Our government refuses to do anything about pay-to-play politics...so corruption is built-in.

[Machismo]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/163208/...campaigns.aspx

I don't have more recent numbers handy but like...you're wrong. As of 2013 50:46, so +4% wanted publicly funded elections. That's where things are slightly shakier however the numbers on limiting campaign fundraising/spending are VERY clear, with a 79:19 split in favor of limiting that. Like, that's universally popular.

I'd hazard a guess the numbers aren't too different nowadays.

Yes, I read that poll.

Remember when something like 86% supposedly supported gun control?

This is something that may not even be constitutional. Considering Citizens United is almost certainly here to stay, that is a losing battle for you.

[Edge-]

Our government refuses to do anything about pay-to-play politics...so corruption is built-in.

Because that requires legislation which...the House has actually passed, multiple times now. Unfortunately there isn't enough support in the Senate for it so it's stuck. It's a shame there are a few Democrats opposing it, and also a shame that there's nary a Republican willing to support it.

[uuuhname]

this Mary go round of "nothing you want will ever come to pass" sure doesn't instill any desire to see this system continue much longer. and going by uh, history we're pretty much right on the precipice of another cataclysmic economic downturn, so cheers to that happening sooner rather than later.

[Shadowferal]

“If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”
~~Mick Mulvaney (he endorsed Rand Paul for president in '16)

[Bodakane]

So I'm clear the people who corrupt the government by using lots and lots of money.....are NOT the people with lots and lots of money?!??!?!

The fucking poor and all their disposable income, ruining everything......

[Glorious Leader]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/163208/...campaigns.aspx

I don't have more recent numbers handy but like...you're wrong. As of 2013 50:46, so +4% wanted publicly funded elections. That's where things are slightly shakier however the numbers on limiting campaign fundraising/spending are VERY clear, with a 79:19 split in favor of limiting that. Like, that's universally popular.

I'd hazard a guess the numbers aren't too different nowadays.

Even the fucking politicians want it. Instead of having to prostrate themselves for hours on end they could actually legislate. The donor ship class doesn't want it.

[Dontrike]

I have no problems defending the liberties of poor people.

You clearly do because when the check comes for the rich to finally pay back, or pay at all, you grab a helmet and a bayonet and head to the trenches to defend the rich.

[Machismo]

You clearly do because when the check comes for the rich to finally pay back, or pay at all, you grab a helmet and a bayonet and head to the trenches to defend the rich.

Once again, contrary to what Propublica is misleading people about... that's already happening.

Exactly what percentage of their income should they be forced to give up?

[Bodakane]

Once again, contrary to what Propublica is misleading people about... that's already happening.

Exactly what percentage of their income should they be forced to give up?

26.8%, but of their actual total yearly income, and not just the tiny little paycheck they get because they take compensation in other ways that are currently tax proof.

You keep ignoring this, over and over and over, because you can't actually argue against it.

[Machismo]

26.8%, but of their actual total yearly income, and not just the tiny little paycheck they get because they take compensation in other ways that are currently tax proof.

You keep ignoring this, over and over and over, because you can't actually argue against it.

You mean... their income.

What exactly is their yearly income? As you can see, they are paying roughly that for their income... Bloomberg being the outlier.

Their incomes are listed, as are the amount they paid in taxes:

Buffet: 19%

Bezos: 23%

Bloomberg 3% (I even stated he's the outlier, and to check exactly why he paid that amount)

Musk: 30%

[Bodakane]

You mean... their income.

What exactly is their yearly income? As you can see, they are paying roughly that for their income... Bloomberg being the outlier.

Their incomes are listed, as are the amount they paid in taxes:

Buffet: 19%

Bezos: 23%

Bloomberg 3% (I even stated he's the outlier, and to check exactly why he paid that amount)

Musk: 30%

Yes, I clearly fucking said income.

You think income is only their paycheck, because you're ignorant on the topic.

[Machismo]

Yes, I clearly fucking said income.

You think income is only their paycheck, because you're ignorant on the topic.

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.