Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

The issue here is that capital gain is not taxed. But it will be implemented, and sooner than you think. EU is already thinking about it and will push it so US will follow.

Capital gains are taxed, when the stock is sold. That's literally what capital gains are.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c..._gains_tax.asp

- - - Updated - - -

If they don't start paying their fair share soon, they will be eaten.

What exactly is "their fair share?"

- - - Updated - - -

we already did, you keep ignoring it, broken record the "wealth increase" rhetoric , its also worth noting that posted img goes over how Bezos was able to write of his entire income worth on "expenses" for one thing or another: something something loopholes and abuses from earlier.

That's because you guys don't even understand what income is, compared to wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

All because someone doesn't understand the notion that capital gains (or in another term one could google, capital income) is actual income that generates wealth and not some abstract, untaxable entity.

Pretty silly, tbh.

You mean the definition I've had to provide multiple times, because people don't actually understand it?

Yeah, that is a fucking problem...

- - - Updated - - -

if one would use the actual definition of libertarian and not say be orange lips rand paul "libertarian"

And, which exactly do you think I am?

- - - Updated - - -

Nah.. He understands. Completely.

- - - Updated - - -

He said Trump's tax cuts should have been larger. Says it all.

Yes, I do understand, because I'm the guy who ad to provide the definition for the legion of Bernie bots who didn't know what it meant.

- - - Updated - - -

What perplexes is someone defending billionaires not paying any taxes.

They are paying their taxes.

[Machismo]

That is true,

and while I largely agree that the people you're arguing against or who are trying to dogpile you in this thread (as usually happens on this forum), the main issue here is that some of these CEO's / billionaires have at occasions such a large income that they can afford not to officially take any for years after, and thus report years upon years of no income and thus having to pay no taxes.

Of course there are also other loopholes, eg. a CEO using a company credit card for all his expenses (also won't get taxed personally).
Or just personal / private purchases ending up as company expenses that are tax deductible...

What needs to happen is closing loopholes and perhaps taking a scrutinizing look at how company expenses end up as private purchases for individuals in the company, but meh... the moment you try to let the government regulate anything it turns into a fiasco and power-tripping by a bunch of incompetents.

You do realize I see through your bullshit, right? We all do. You Trumpsters really need to stick to a better script. That's the problem with being a supposed Bernie supporter, than being outed as a devout Trump supporter.

[gondrin]

Capital gains are taxed, when the stock is sold. That's literally what capital gains are.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c..._gains_tax.asp

- - - Updated - - -



What exactly is "their fair share?"

- - - Updated - - -



That's because you guys don't even understand what income is, compared to wealth.

- - - Updated - - -



You mean the definition I've had to provide multiple times, because people don't actually understand it?

Yeah, that is a fucking problem...

- - - Updated - - -



And, which exactly do you think I am?

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, I do understand, because I'm the guy who ad to provide the definition for the legion of Bernie bots who didn't know what it meant.

- - - Updated - - -



They are paying their taxes.

The thing that I find funny, well, not sure if funny would be the word, is that people think that when Bezos, Gates, Musk or any other person who has the vast majority of their wealth tied to stock that was given to them at the foundation of their business that when they hear, lets say Bezos, wealth increased by $13 billion, they think he actually made $13 billion and has access to it like anyone else would as if they got their paycheck. In reality, the stock he has went up in price and it is worth that much more.

That is what people are misunderstanding. That is why the article is junk. Until the stock is sold, it is nothing but paper with a number on it. If you want to tax that increase, you also have to allow someone whos stock goes down to write it off. Right now, that is how Trump got away without pay ANY taxes for years as he was able to write off losses(well, he claimed they were losses) for well over a decade. That is why I said the article is conflating wealth with income.

For those that are arguing that isn't what is being said, think of this. Should someone have to pay an income tax on their house going up in value? Lets say someone has a $100k home they bought a few years back and it is now worth $200k. Should they have to pay an income tax just from it going up in value? I'm not talking about capital gains from selling it or property taxes. I'm talking about a tax because its value went up as the person who owns it wealth went up.

Same with how the article talked about what they paid % in taxes. Lets use the example I gave above. If that person made $40k a year, they would pay a little over $7.3k in taxes. If we use the same criteria that the article used, that person would have at least $200k in wealth(their house plus whatever other property/possessions they own). That would mean they paid a little over 3.5% in a "true tax rate" if we go by what the article used as their criteria when in reality, they paid around 18% of their income in taxes.

I'm not supporting Bezos or any other rich person. I've stated in this very thread they need to remove a ton of deductions(or remove them all outright other then a standard one that basic) as that is how the extreme rich get away with paying almost no to no tax at all. I've also stated that they need to change how stocks are taxes to begin with. It should be taxed at standard tax rates and capital gains tax rates removed outright.

[Machismo]

The thing that I find funny, well, not sure if funny would be the word, is that people think that when Bezos, Gates, Musk or any other person who has the vast majority of their wealth tied to stock that was given to them at the foundation of their business that when they hear, lets say Bezos, wealth increased by $13 billion, they think he actually made $13 billion and has access to it like anyone else would as if they got their paycheck. In reality, the stock he has went up in price and it is worth that much more.

That is what people are misunderstanding. That is why the article is junk. Until the stock is sold, it is nothing but paper with a number on it. If you want to tax that increase, you also have to allow someone whos stock goes down to write it off. Right now, that is how Trump got away without pay ANY taxes for years as he was able to write off losses(well, he claimed they were losses) for well over a decade. That is why I said the article is conflating wealth with income.

For those that are arguing that isn't what is being said, think of this. Should someone have to pay an income tax on their house going up in value? Lets say someone has a $100k home they bought a few years back and it is now worth $200k. Should they have to pay an income tax just from it going up in value? I'm not talking about capital gains from selling it or property taxes. I'm talking about a tax because its value went up as the person who owns it wealth went up.

Same with how the article talked about what they paid % in taxes. Lets use the example I gave above. If that person made $40k a year, they would pay a little over $7.3k in taxes. If we use the same criteria that the article used, that person would have at least $200k in wealth(their house plus whatever other property/possessions they own). That would mean they paid a little over 3.5% in a "true tax rate" if we go by what the article used as their criteria when in reality, they paid around 18% of their income in federal taxes.

I'm not supporting Bezos or any other rich person. I've stated in this very thread they need to remove a ton of deductions(or remove them all outright other then a standard one that basic) as that is how the extreme rich get away with paying almost no to no tax at all. I've also stated that they need to change how stocks are taxes to begin with. It should be taxed at standard tax rates and capital gains tax rates removed outright.

Mark Cuban touched on this in his article, people don't understand that it's largely about liquidity, and a wealth tax on those stocks means them being forced to literally sell off portions of the company they own, because they were so good at running that very company. It's quite literally punishing success.

Now, it may not seem like a large chunk, but over time, that's a significant hit to their share total for that company.

[Shadowferal]

That is true, .

What's also true is you're not American. You live in a socialist country with all that such a country gives you to keep you from turning into a cuthroat...living in a dog-eat-dog country.

[Slant]

Not to mention nobody will want to even buy parts of a company -if- they'd also be expected to pay taxes on those a year later themselves.

Oh, so stocks actually are being bought to support a company instead of just using them as a gambling wealth multiplier then? Fancy that... what a grand idea.

[Machismo]

What is thus also true is that I know what it's like to live in a socialist country and being able to tell you it's not all roses and moonshine either, and that socialist governments can just be as corrupt and offer loopholes for corporations as the US government does. Anyone would rather live in the USA than deal with this over-bearing government nonsense that tries to stick their noses up everyone's posteriors.

So, why are you then an avowed socialist... and Trump supporter?

Don't you live in Florida? I'm pretty sure you said you moved to Florida.

[Shadowferal]

Anyone would rather live in the USA than deal with this over-bearing government nonsense that tries to stick their noses up everyone's posteriors.

Anyone? Yourself perhaps?

[Machismo]

Anyone? Yourself perhaps?

Remember, he supposedly moved to Florida, in order to vote for Trump.

[Shadowferal]

The thing you and many others on this forum need to learn is the following absolute truth: The government does not exist to help you, on the contrary. This is true whether it's a socialist, a communist, a fascist or a democratic government.

You didn't answer the question.

And politicians here in the US are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Indeed, they tell your ilk exactly how to think...and say precisely what they want to hear.

[Dontrike]

Not to mention nobody will want to even buy parts of a company -if- they'd also be expected to pay taxes on those a year later themselves.

"If you tax them they won't want to do anything" is a terrible take. It'd be like saying "You can't tax purchases else no one will buy anything."

[Shadowferal]

Which will remain true no matter which politicians you elect, whether they're ultra-socialists or ultra-capitalists. They'll just find different ways to torment the common folk and reward the elite.

And yet you claim government shouldn't do anything about the abuse the wealthy gets away with....and that a person born in a gutter should never get any help...

[Slant]

What is thus also true is that I know what it's like to live in a socialist country and being able to tell you it's not all roses and moonshine either, and that socialist governments can just be as corrupt and offer loopholes for corporations as the US government does. Anyone would rather live in the USA than deal with this over-bearing government nonsense that tries to stick their noses up everyone's posteriors.

Er... you're the first one even talking about living in a socialist regime.

People have got to learn that socialist market economy != socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing you and many others on this forum need to learn is the following absolute truth:

The government does not exist to help you, on the contrary.
(unless you're part of the absolute 0.1% / elite)

This is true whether it's a socialist, a communist, a fascist or a democratic government.

Wrong, anarchisto. Also, you need to stop refuting things nobody ever said. Double wrong, anarchisto.

[Bodakane]

The thing that I find funny, well, not sure if funny would be the word, is that people think that when Bezos, Gates, Musk or any other person who has the vast majority of their wealth tied to stock that was given to them at the foundation of their business that when they hear, lets say Bezos, wealth increased by $13 billion, they think he actually made $13 billion and has access to it like anyone else would as if they got their paycheck. In reality, the stock he has went up in price and it is worth that much more.

That is what people are misunderstanding. That is why the article is junk. Until the stock is sold, it is nothing but paper with a number on it. If you want to tax that increase, you also have to allow someone whos stock goes down to write it off. Right now, that is how Trump got away without pay ANY taxes for years as he was able to write off losses(well, he claimed they were losses) for well over a decade. That is why I said the article is conflating wealth with income.

For those that are arguing that isn't what is being said, think of this. Should someone have to pay an income tax on their house going up in value? Lets say someone has a $100k home they bought a few years back and it is now worth $200k. Should they have to pay an income tax just from it going up in value? I'm not talking about capital gains from selling it or property taxes. I'm talking about a tax because its value went up as the person who owns it wealth went up.

Same with how the article talked about what they paid % in taxes. Lets use the example I gave above. If that person made $40k a year, they would pay a little over $7.3k in taxes. If we use the same criteria that the article used, that person would have at least $200k in wealth(their house plus whatever other property/possessions they own). That would mean they paid a little over 3.5% in a "true tax rate" if we go by what the article used as their criteria when in reality, they paid around 18% of their income in taxes.

I'm not supporting Bezos or any other rich person. I've stated in this very thread they need to remove a ton of deductions(or remove them all outright other then a standard one that basic) as that is how the extreme rich get away with paying almost no to no tax at all. I've also stated that they need to change how stocks are taxes to begin with. It should be taxed at standard tax rates and capital gains tax rates removed outright.

Define tax shelter, please.

[Machismo]

Define tax shelter, please.

You kept bringing up tax shelters, provide examples, please.

- - - Updated - - -

I quote myself:



The government should do those things, but I'm not naive enough any longer to assume that anything the government does won't be twisted into something to annoy the common folk with.

- - - Updated - - -



And in my opinion you are wrong.

You can cling unto your little bit of lost hope though, if you so desire, if it makes you sleep better at night.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

How does that jive with your support of Trump?

[gondrin]

Define tax shelter, please.

Anything that is made to avoid reducing or paying taxes outright.

According to this definition, giving to a charity can be classified as a tax shelter.

Now tell me how a stock value increase without selling said stock is income and should be taxed as income before selling said stock?

EDIT: Well, putting pretax money in a 401k is considered a tax shelter too.

[Machismo]

Seeing things burn down or destroyed from the inside jives pretty well with what Trump was doing.

So, you pushed all those lies, just to spread chaos?

What does that say about how reliable your word is, and why should anyone ever believe anything you ever say? It means you don't believe a word of what you are actually saying, so neither should we.

After all, you did get busted supporting sexual assault in that endeavor of yours.

[Shadowferal]

I quote myself: .

Hmm..so I guess you'd never want to move to the US after all.
Pity.
I know just the right spot.

[Machismo]

Chaos is the only solution to the problematics pointed out in the opening post of this thread.

Thanks for showing that there's no reason to even read what you type, since it's all lies.

Imagine going out of your way to support sexual assault, to further that gain...

[Shadowferal]

Chaos is the only solution to the problematics pointed out in the opening post of this thread.

Wouldn't mind a reenactment of the French Revolution for the "Let them eat cake" crowd.