Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

Again, Propublica defined their terms. This is just obviously untrue.



Then maybe engage in a little self-reflection, because you've spent a solid third of the thread on character attacks, not "disagreements".

And their terms are utterly meaningless, and not representative of the American tax system... since as long as I can.recall.

I've spent a solid third of this thread trying to provide definitions of word that I'm using correctly, or providing definitions of terms to explain the differences between them.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, Propublica defined their terms. This is just obviously untrue. You might not like their analysis, but you aren't making any argument that they're actually wrong about anything.



Then maybe engage in a little self-reflection, because you've spent a solid third of the thread on character attacks, not "disagreements".

Making things up that others did not say, and claiming they said it.
Casting aspersions as to people's moral stances.
And so on.

You mean like saying I would have supported anti-abolitionists?

Yeah...

Meanwhile, I have pointed out that their analysis is pointless, because we pay taxes on income... not wealth. Considering how many people in this thread continued to confuse the two, I'd say Propublica was successful in their attempt to deceive.

[Bodakane]

Once again, "fair share" is the pointless rallying cry that is little more than political punditry. It means nothing without quantififying it.

What do you think is being said, seriously? No one is accusing or implying that you brought up the fair share argument. No one.

What I'm saying is that your definition of what is fair, changes based on what argument you're making, thereby cementing your status as a Class A Hypocrite.

[Machismo]

What do you think is being said, seriously? No one is accusing or implying that you brought up the fair share argument. No one.

What I'm saying is that your definition of what is fair, changes based on what argument you're making, thereby cementing your status as a Class A Hypocrite.

I simply applied it, because you guys couldn't. I was mocking the fact that this rallying cry cannot be explained by the people screaming it.

If you want it back, define it.

[Bodakane]

I simply applied it, because you guys couldn't. I was mocking the fact that this rallying cry cannot be explained by the people screaming it.

If you want it back, define it.

Nope. That's not what you were doing when you started that bullshit. Basically, you either lying now or were trolling then. Which is it?

[Machismo]

Nope. That's not what you were doing when you started that bullshit. Basically, you either lying now or were trolling then. Which is it?

No, first I asked you to explain what you guys meant by it. I was practically pleading for you to explain it.

You didn't.

[Bodakane]

No, first I asked you to explain what you guys meant by it. I was practically pleading for you to explain it.

You didn't.

No you didn't, Liar.

Here's the proof.....
My post, yesterday 10:47am est.

Imagine thinking that wanting the ultra wealthy to actually pay a fair share of taxes is really about us wanting their money in our pockets somehow.....sigh.

Your bullshit response, yesterday at 3:40 pm, which was your first since I had made the first one:

They are paying a fair share. If you have evidence that they are breaking the laws, then let's see it.

You'll notice a complete lack asking to explain it or what was it you said...practically pleading for it?

So literally just today I've proven you're ignorant on this subject matter, are a bad faith shit poster and now, an unrepentant liar.

That doesn't even include the logic beating others have given you in here like Endus and Fugus.

That's gotta suck for you.

[Machismo]

No you didn't, Liar.

Here's the proof.....
My post, yesterday 10:47am est.


Your bullshit response, yesterday at 3:40 pm, which was your first since I had made the first one:


You'll notice a complete lack asking to explain it or what was it you said...practically pleading for it?

So literally just today I've proven you're ignorant on this subject matter, are a bad faith shit poster and now, an unrepentant liar.

That doesn't even include the logic beating others have given you in here like Endus and Fugus.

That's gotta suck for you.

You realize this "fair share" thing has been going for weeks, right?

I think they are paying their fair share, because they are making a higher percentage than the average American.

Feel free to disagree.

[Bodakane]

You realize this "fair share" thing has been going for weeks, right?

I think they are paying their fair share, because they are making a higher percentage than the average American.

Feel free to disagree.

Do all the backbends you want, you're outed.

What happened:
You give Endus shit for using one definition of burden, when you're using different ones, even though you literally did the same thing to me weeks ago about salary, and have continued to try and wield it like some internet sword of argument winning, even though I literally provided a definition of salary that absolutely lines up with my point.
Verdict: Hypocrite

What happened:
You didn't read the article from the fucking Wall Street Journal of all places, clearly illustrating and explaining how the ultra wealthy use their stock portfolios to take loans to be used as "income" to avoid income tax. And even if you did read it and honestly address it, you wouldn't have understood it.
Verdict: Flaming ignorance about the subject matter

What happened:
You admit that you purposely used a different definition of fair to troll everyone.
Verdict: Bad faith shit poster

What happened:
You claimed you said some shit that you clearly didn't. With quoted proof above.
Verdict: Liar

[Machismo]

Do all the backbends you want, you're outed.

What happened:
You give Endus shit for using one definition of burden, when you're using different ones, even though you literally did the same thing to me weeks ago about salary, and have continued to try and wield it like some internet sword of argument winning, even though I literally provided a definition of salary that absolutely lines up with my point.
Verdict: Hypocrite

What happened:
You didn't read the article from the fucking Wall Street Journal of all places, clearly illustrating and explaining how the ultra wealthy use their stock portfolios to take loans to be used as "income" to avoid income tax. And even if you did read it and honestly address it, you wouldn't have understood it.
Verdict: Flaming ignorance about the subject matter

What happened:
You admit that you purposely used a different definition of fair to troll everyone.
Verdict: Bad faith shit poster

What happened:
You claimed you said some shit that you clearly didn't. With quoted proof above.
Verdict: Liar

Nope he was busting my balls about it. He's free to use the word how he likes, as am I.

The issue with your claim, was that it was demonstrably false, and that evidwnce was handed to you immediately.

You chose to double down, which was problematic, because.you built the narrative on a false statement.

You posted an article behind a paywall, and got pissed that I didn't read it. It was payable.

I admit I used a word with its proper definition, which I demonstrated by linking the definition.

As for "fair share:

Last I checked the top 1% pay about 40% of the income taxes but their collective income is less than 30% of the total income. They pay more than their fair share of income taxes. However we could lower taxes on the bottom 99% if people are worried that they're paying too much compared to the rich.

Democrats are going to raise taxes on the rich though, so congratulations. Progressives got what they wanted. The Democrats here should be happy about that instead of continuing to be angry at the rich and green with envy.

They are not paying their fair share because since income is only 30% of their wealth which means 70% is not taxes. If a regular person shielded 70% of their income from taxes they would be thrown in jail.

Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most.

Our analysis of tax data for the 25 richest Americans quantifies just how unfair the system has become.
By the end of 2018, the 25 were worth $1.1 trillion.

----
Society needs to collapse to get any meaningful changes.
...and maybe a guillotine.

how is paying your fair share punishment? You do realize that the wealthy benefit the most from a stable society right?

Then, those tens of millions of people with 401k plans won't be punished when their plans get taxed every single year.

- - - Updated - - -



What exactly is "your fair share?"

Tax reform doesn't get passed, because most politicians understand it is a fucking death sentence if they fuck it up. Even cutting taxes is a risky political move. if they raise taxes, even on the wealthy, the wealthy will make sure the shit rolls downhill, and workers will take the hit. When they do, they will blame the government for it, even when it was someone else getting taxed. Let's face it, the GOP is way, way better when it comes to messaging on that issue.

That's the problem, an inability to answer the simple questions. All we hear is, "pay their fair share." When pressed what the fuck that even means, people cannot answer. It's like watching Trumpsters try and explain how he actually won the election.

- - - Updated - - -



And, when they sell that stock, they will be taxed.

It's the same for you and I.

If you want to tax my stocks for every year I own it, you are going to get strenuous opposition.

No the problem is that the questions and solutions are not simple. "Pay their fair share" is the only simple answer because its at least accurate. Details are hard work and you've never shown the desire to do the hard work.

The GOP is only "better" at messaging because its much, much easier to be the liar.

A fundamental issue is that it's too easy to effectively hide your wealth in near perpetuity in stocks.

There's a good reason why stock options have become the preferred form of remuneration in corporate.

This behavior in turn feeds into the incentives of CEOs to engage in behaviors like stock buybacks.

It creates a closed wealth loop of non liquid assets that are effectively tax exempt and which also feeds into the limited purchasing power of the lower echelons of the economy.

Corporations paying no taxes, paying their CEOs in stocks, using swaps and low to non existent capital gains taxes to reward their shareholders, increasing profitability through low wages and questionable business practices to use those profits to buy back their own stocks inflating its value.

Having them pay their fair share would simply mean sticking a tax somewhere into that loop to channel some money back into the "real" economy.

A real capital gains tax would be a good first step.



That's the problem. They won't. There are plenty of ways to dodge those obligations.

Zero interest borrowing helps there for example.

Jeff Bezos didn't buy his 500m yacht out of liquidating some of his stocks. He bought it by having half a dozen banks line up and extending him some sub 1% credit line backed by his gazillions in Amazon stocks.

And as I said earlier, there are a plethora of other mechanisms the truly wealthy can use to never actually have to pay their "fair share".

And yes "fair share" is an elusive and subjective value. But whatever it might be, it's more than whatever they are paying now, where most of the global wealth is tied up in a closed loop of multi millionaires and billionaires passing around stock options and buying things out of zero interest loans backed by the taxes of the middle class.

So... weeks ago.

[Mihalik]

So... weeks ago.

I'm not getting baited into this again.

You have engaged in Dribbles levels of goal post shifting, straight up bullshit and recital of empty talking points.

[Machismo]

I'm not getting baited into this again.

You have engaged in Dribbles levels of goal post shifting, straight up bullshit and recital of empty talking points.

I was simply pointing out that I had called the "Fair share" narrative into question weeks ago.

[Bodakane]

I was simply pointing out that I had called the "Fair share" narrative into question weeks ago.

So what? That's not what you were lying about earlier today.

And this isn't even the only active thread where literally EVERYONE ELSE in the thread is calling you a lying hypocrite, who doesn't understand the topic and tries to score points semantically. Maybe its time to look inward.

[Machismo]

So what? That's not what you were lying about earlier today.

And this isn't even the only active thread where literally EVERYONE ELSE in the thread is calling you a lying hypocrite, who doesn't understand the topic and tries to score points semantically. Maybe its time to look inward.

So, glad you agree that this was something brought up weeks ago, and not just yesterday, like you thought.

I understand just fine. They are trying g to equate income to wealth, and push those distorted numbers as a "true tax rate."

[Bodakane]

So, glad you agree that this was something brought up weeks ago, and not just yesterday, like you thought.

I understand just fine. They are trying g to equate income to wealth, and push those distorted numbers as a "true tax rate."

Agree? I just said that wasn't what you were lying about earlier. Jesus fucking christ.

No one is conflating income and wealth. You just don't know what fucking income is. Only you are confused, everyone literally EVERYONE else understands it.

And again, the other thread about school lunches, everyone is saying the same shit about you in there as they are in here.....think that shit through.

[Machismo]

Agree? I just said that wasn't what you were lying about earlier. Jesus fucking christ.

No one is conflating income and wealth. You just don't know what fucking income is. Only you are confused, everyone literally EVERYONE else understands it.

And again, the other thread about school lunches, everyone is saying the same shit about you in there as they are in here.....think that shit through.

Nope, even you confused it... when you lied about Bezos being paidninnstock as part of his salary. You assumed he was like the average CEO who didn't start the company, who does get paid in stock options. It would have been a simple "oops, my bad" and it would have been over.

But, this is why I have constantly been calling for things to be quantified, because people don't seem to know the difference with these things.

The simple act of owning stocks is not an increase in income. Even if those stocks skyrocket, it's still not an increase in income. When one sells those stocks, the overall losses/gains from those sales are income.

[Bodakane]

Nope, even you confused it... when you lied about Bezos being paidninnstock as part of his salary. You assumed he was like the average CEO who didn't start the company, who does get paid in stock options. It would have been a simple "oops, my bad" and it would have been over.

But, this is why I have constantly been calling for things to be quantified, because people don't seem to know the difference with these things.

The simple act of owning stocks is not an increase in income. Even if those stocks skyrocket, it's still not an increase in income. When one sells those stocks, the overall losses/gains from those sales are income.

He is paid in stock. Its a fact. The article you refuse to read that was posted in its entirety, by another poster, explains how this works. You just won't read it (though you lack the capacity for understanding it even if you did).

This isn't the simple act of owning stocks. You keep comparing it to yourself which is stupid. Its like saying you understand what its like owing a yacht because you own a canoe. No matter how many different ways and different people explain it to you, you just plug your ears like a child and scream "lalalalalalala I can't hear you, lalalalalalala".

You're more invested in trying to win an argument with like 30 people on based semantics that you invented, then actually learning something and growing as a person.

There is no way you're married.

[Machismo]

He is paid in stock. Its a fact. The article you refuse to read that was posted in its entirety, by another poster, explains how this works. You just won't read it (though you lack the capacity for understanding it even if you did).

This isn't the simple act of owning stocks. You keep comparing it to yourself which is stupid. Its like saying you understand what its like owing a yacht because you own a canoe. No matter how many different ways and different people explain it to you, you just plug your ears like a child and scream "lalalalalalala I can't hear you, lalalalalalala".

You're more invested in trying to win an argument with like 30 people on based semantics that you invented, then actually learning something and growing as a person.

There is no way you're married.

His own company literally and specifically stated he has never been paid in company stock.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...pay-2020-04-16

So, who is paying him in stock? If he's being paid in stock, then certainly you can say who is rendering that payment. We know it's not Amazon.

The issue is that this isn't just a matter of semantics, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of reality and simple economic terms.

Yep, I'm married, no matter how irrelevant that barb of yours was.

[Bodakane]

His own company literally and specifically stated he has never been paid in company stock.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...pay-2020-04-16

So, who is paying him in stock? If he's being paid in stock, then certainly you can say who is rendering that payment. We know it's not Amazon.

The issue is that this isn't just a matter of semantics, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of reality and simple economic terms.

Yep, I'm married, no matter how irrelevant that barb of yours was.

I know what his company said. Its not relevant. The reason its not relevant is because you are arguing as the only form of salary is paycheck. He is dodging income tax. The Wall Street Journal explained this to you. You won't read it and even if you did you wouldn't;t understand it. I know that because its been explained to you 100 different ways and the result is no different than if we were trying to explain banking to a clam. The problem isn't the facts you've been given, the problem is your not equipped to grasp any of this. this has been proven time and again. It keeps getting proven every time you post this same shit over and over.

[Machismo]

I know what his company said. Its not relevant. The reason its not relevant is because you are arguing as the only form of salary is paycheck. He is dodging income tax. The Wall Street Journal explained this to you. You won't read it and even if you did you wouldn't;t understand it. I know that because its been explained to you 100 different ways and the result is no different than if we were trying to explain banking to a clam. The problem isn't the facts you've been given, the problem is your not equipped to grasp any of this. this has been proven time and again. It keeps getting proven every time you post this same shit over and over.

So, who is paying him in stock?

Before, you tried to say his company was paying him as part of his salary. We have concluded that is not happening.

What he has, is a shit ton of wealth, because the value of the stocks he's always had have gone up significantly, year after year.

[Bodakane]

So, who is paying him in stock?

Before, you tried to say his company was paying him as part of his salary. We have concluded that is not happening.

One more time. Get an adult to help you through this.

Because he has the stock, he doesn't take a big paycheck. If he didn't have the stock, he'd be talking bigger paychecks. The position of CEO of Amazon would get paid more than $81k/year if it wasn't for the stocks. So instead, like all the ultra wealthy, he takes a small paycheck and takes out loans against the stock portfolio, where the interest rate is lower than the income tax had he taken the money in his paycheck. That's where his liquidity comes from that would otherwise come from a paycheck if he wasn't dodging income tax. The Wall Street Journal article, you refuse to read, which again has been posted in it entirety without the paywall, explained this and flat out says they all do this to AVOID INCOME TAX. These aren't simple loans, like you or I could get, even with your awesome super duper Chipotle stock.

There is no argument you've made up to this point, that refutes anything I just said. Not your article about what Amazon said. Not your very narrow definition of salary. Not your refrain that none of us understand the difference between wealth and income. Not your feeble attempts to paint us as just wanting his money. Not your incredibly stupid comparisons to your own entirely different financial status. So if you respond with a retort, you'll need an argument you haven't made, because again, if say any of that shit I just listed, it will show YET AGAIN, you don't know the first thing about this stuff.