Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Slant]

Laws enacted by politicians who are bought and paid for by the 1% so it's all legal...

I mean that is part of the current problem, isn't it?

[Machismo]

You did not answer my question thus you agree with it. If not, answer it then. Simple enough, even for you.

I'm not addressing your straw man.

You are lying.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying he's breaking any laws right now. Although I'm also not saying he's not breaking a shitton of laws and dodging others by clever tax evasion techniques.

What I'm saying is, laws can be passed that change how society works. That's the intent of laws. To tame anarchy and actions widely considered undesireable.

What "tax evasion" techniques?

That's the point. He's not paying to the increased value of his stocks, unless he sells those stocks.

Just like you and I.

- - - Updated - - -

Laws enacted by politicians who are bought and paid for by the 1% so it's all legal...

What laws, specifically?

[Themius]

Machismo... why do you act like an alien that has been fed libertarian nonsense that comes to the planet with NO HISTORY or KNOWLEDGE of the world outside of the libertarian nonsense?
It’s like... you’ve never lived on earth let alone the the country of America.

[Machismo]

Machismo... why do you act like an alien that has been fed libertarian nonsense that comes to the planet with NO HISTORY or KNOWLEDGE of the world outside of the libertarian nonsense?
It’s like... you’ve never lived on earth let alone the the country of America.

I'm literally talking about the current reality.

Meanwhile, you have a dude who got busted lying, twice... about Bezos' salary, and how he receives it. You have another dude who didn't even know what capital gians were, while trying to mock me for not knowing what capital gains were. Shall I point you to the communist who wants to nationalize all property? How about the guy who wants the state to confiscate all value over $1 billion? Or, how about the guy who rejects the premise of the current reality, and says it is objectively wrong to speak about it?

Yeah, I'm fucking good, dude.

[Slant]

What "tax evasion" techniques?

That's the point. He's not paying to the increased value of his stocks, unless he sells those stocks.

Just like you and I.

Not like I. Germany used to have a wealth tax. The first conceptual wealth tax was introduced in the mid-1800s. In fact, it's part of our constitution. It has been the subject of much discussion.

One exerpt from that discussion is the dissenting vote of one of the constitutional judges speaking out against the limitations of wealth tax:

"Böckenförde schrieb in seinem Votum weiter, dass die Ungleichheit in der Gesellschaft „ein gewisses Maß nicht überschreiten darf, sonst geht sie über in Unfreiheit“. Der Ausgleich der gesellschaftlich begründeten Ungleichheiten sei eine der Kernaufgaben des demokratischen und sozialen Rechtsstaats. Die Sicherung unbegrenzter Eigentumsakkumulation sei nicht Inhalt des Grundgesetzes, und wenn die Ungleichheit sich „ungezügelt potenzieren“ kann, gerate die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung insgesamt in Gefahr. Die Entscheidung für den sozialen Rechtsstaat – zu dem einerseits der verfassungsrechtliche Schutz der wirtschaftlichen Individualrechte, andererseits aber auch die Sozialbindung des Eigentums und für bestimmte Bereiche sogar die Befugnis zur Vergesellschaftung gehöre – stelle den historischen Kompromiss zur Gründung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland dar.[21] Böckenförde verwies darauf, dass dieser Versuch der Beschränkung der Steuerhoheit in einer Situation erfolge, in der wegen der hohen Arbeitslosigkeit und der großen Belastungen infolge der deutschen Wiedervereinigung ein Ausgleichsbedarf bestehe, wie ihn die Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zuvor nicht gekannt habe. Es sei nicht einzusehen, dass angesichts dieser Umstände ein gemäßigter Zugriff auf bestehende Vermögensmassen verfassungsrechtlich tabu sein sollte."

Translation:

Böckenförde went on to write in his vote that inequality in society "must not exceed a certain level, otherwise it turns into unfreedom". The equalisation of socially justified inequalities is one of the core tasks of the democratic and social constitutional state. Securing unlimited accumulation of property is not part of the Basic Law, and if inequality can "increase unbridled", the constitutional order as a whole is endangered. The decision in favour of the social constitutional state - which includes, on the one hand, the constitutional protection of individual economic rights, and on the other hand, the social obligation of property and, for certain areas, even the power to socialise - represents the historical compromise for the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany.[21] Böckenförde pointed out that this attempt to restrict tax sovereignty takes place in a situation in which, due to high unemployment and the great burdens resulting from German reunification, there is a need for compensation that the history of the Federal Republic of Germany has never known before. It is not understandable that, in view of these circumstances, moderate access to existing assets should be constitutionally taboo.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

This is such a fundamentally important dissent, it cannot be overstated how much I agree with it. Subsequently, the constitutional court revised its position and is now following the dissent of the previous ruling. And you ought to do well to read and understand the implications of what he says.

So no, not you and I. We live in very different countries. Similar in most aspects, but in some key details, especially when it comes to social matters, we are fundamentally different. And 79% of the population here agree with me.

[Machismo]

Not like I. Germany has a wealth tax already. The first conceptual wealth tax was introduced in the mid-1800s. In fact, it's part of our constitution. It has been the subject of discussion, it has been limited and since then the limitations have been anulled again.

One exerpt from that discussion is the dissenting vote of one of the constitutional judges speaking out against the limitations of wealth tax:

"Böckenförde schrieb in seinem Votum weiter, dass die Ungleichheit in der Gesellschaft „ein gewisses Maß nicht überschreiten darf, sonst geht sie über in Unfreiheit“. Der Ausgleich der gesellschaftlich begründeten Ungleichheiten sei eine der Kernaufgaben des demokratischen und sozialen Rechtsstaats. Die Sicherung unbegrenzter Eigentumsakkumulation sei nicht Inhalt des Grundgesetzes, und wenn die Ungleichheit sich „ungezügelt potenzieren“ kann, gerate die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung insgesamt in Gefahr. Die Entscheidung für den sozialen Rechtsstaat – zu dem einerseits der verfassungsrechtliche Schutz der wirtschaftlichen Individualrechte, andererseits aber auch die Sozialbindung des Eigentums und für bestimmte Bereiche sogar die Befugnis zur Vergesellschaftung gehöre – stelle den historischen Kompromiss zur Gründung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland dar.[21] Böckenförde verwies darauf, dass dieser Versuch der Beschränkung der Steuerhoheit in einer Situation erfolge, in der wegen der hohen Arbeitslosigkeit und der großen Belastungen infolge der deutschen Wiedervereinigung ein Ausgleichsbedarf bestehe, wie ihn die Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zuvor nicht gekannt habe. Es sei nicht einzusehen, dass angesichts dieser Umstände ein gemäßigter Zugriff auf bestehende Vermögensmassen verfassungsrechtlich tabu sein sollte."

Translation:



This is such a fundamentally important dissent, it cannot be overstated how much I agree with it. Subsequently, the constitutional court revised its position and is now following the dissent of the previous ruling. And you ought to do well to read and understand the implications of what he says.

So no, not you and I. We live in very different countries. Similar in most aspects, but in some key details, especially when it comes to social matters, we are fundamentally different.

And the United States does not... and will not in my lifetime.

America is more capitalistic, and supports different freedoms differently. We tend to prefer free speech and gun rights (although not so much freedom of the press).

Also, from what I'm reading, Germany doesn't have a wealth tax. They used to, but no longer.

[Shadowferal]

I mean that is part of the current problem, isn't it?

Oh my yes.
For us...
For wealth worshippers the current problem isn't a problem. That's why the one person who you've all been arguing with...doesn't care about your logic, your reasoning, your facts... He's beenn playing. He's a Trump supporter.

[Themius]

“Different freedoms” he says... like the freedom to subjugate the poor by corporatists i guess?

What’s wrong with fancy serfdom? is what machismos arguments boil down to.

[Machismo]

“Different freedoms” he says... like the freedom to subjugate the poor by corporatists i guess?

What’s wrong with fancy serfdom? is what machismos arguments boil down to.

Nah, that's already been covered... and shown to be a lie.

[Themius]

Nah, that's already been covered... and shown to be a lie.

Shown to be a lie? What part was "the lie"?

Do you think just calling everything a lie somehow validates your arguments? It doesn't... in fact you sound exactly like this kid I knew when I myself was in middleschool... the sky being blue in our perception because of how light behaves... was a lie to him.

That 12 year old... like you... didn't have an actual explanation as to why known fact was a "lie" because they simply didn't understand the very topic they thought to speak on.... like you.

[Slant]

And the United States does not... and will not in my lifetime.

America is more capitalistic, and supports different freedoms differently. We tend to prefer free speech and gun rights (although not so much freedom of the press).

Also, from what I'm reading, Germany doesn't have a wealth tax. They used to, but no longer.

The wealth tax legally exists, the state chooses not to raise it. Has been like that since 1997, it's a bit complicated and mostly political. One reason was the extraordinary top tax bracket being at 59% plus solidarity tax for the German reunification. Doesn't change one bit about what that judge said in his dissent. And it's quite annoying that you don't acknowledge any of it. Pearls to the pigs...

[Machismo]

Shown to be a lie? What part was "the lie"?

Do you think just calling everything a lie somehow validates your arguments? It doesn't... in fact you sound exactly like this kid I knew when I myself was in middleschool... the sky being blue in our perception because of how light behaves... was a lie to him.

Your straw man argument, that's the lie.

You making up my argument for me, is the lie.

[Themius]

Your straw man argument, that's the lie.

You making up my argument for me, is the lie.

The strawman argument of subjugation was a lie? So you mean that poor people don't live in a world of corporate serfdom eg: fancy serfdom?

[Machismo]

The wealth tax legally exists, the state chooses not to raise it. Has been like that since 1997, it's a bit complicated and mostly political. One reason was the extraordinary top tax bracket being at 59% plus solidarity tax for the German reunification. Doesn't change one bit about what that judge said in his dissent. And it's quite annoying that you don't acknowledge any of it. Pearls to the pigs...

It does change it, because there's not really a wealth tax, from what I can see.

The fact that it was in a dissent, shows him to be on the losing end of that particular issue.

Forgive me, if I don't take advice on wealth seizure from Germany, of all places. It's not like your country has the best track record on such things...

That's like taking nation building advice from America.

- - - Updated - - -

The strawman argument of subjugation was a lie? So you mean that poor people don't live in a world of corporate serfdom eg: fancy serfdom?

Nope, this is your straw man, feel free to light it on fire all you like.

[Slant]

It does change it, because there's not really a wealth tax, from what I can see.

The fact that it was in a dissent, shows him to be on the losing end of that particular issue.

The fuck?

This isn't American Gladiator. A constitutional judge dissenting this sharply from a ruling is a big deal. He's representing an entire stream in legal discussion and as the court later revised its position to join HIS dissent, apparently they agree with him. I chewed it out for you already and you still won't acknowledge it. You haven't read it, have you? Boy, is your argument that weak that you're afraid to read a text simply because it might actually change your mind?

[Elegiac]

The fuck?

This isn't American Gladiator. A constitutional judge dissenting this sharply from a ruling is a big deal. He's representing an entire stream in legal discussion and as the court later revised its position to join HIS dissent, apparently they agree with him. I chewed it out for you already and you still won't acknowledge it. You haven't read it, have you? Boy, is your argument that weak that you're afraid to read a text simply because it might actually change your mind?

He’s just being dishonest as usual cause legal dissents also carry weight in the US, not just Germany, but we’re gonna pretend that’s not the case to service some nonsense about how capitalism isn’t an exploitative mess. Lol.

[Machismo]

The fuck?

This isn't American Gladiator. A constitutional judge dissenting this sharply from a ruling is a big deal. He's representing an entire stream in legal discussion and as the court later revised its position to join HIS dissent, apparently they agree with him. I chewed it out for you already and you still won't acknowledge it. You haven't read it, have you? Boy, is your argument that weak that you're afraid to read a text simply because it might actually change your mind?

It was a dissent, he lost. Sure, he can push the rhetoric, but that doesn't make it law. We get scathing dissents all the time from judges over here, but that doesn't make it canon.

I'm still not seeing where Germany still has a wealth tax.

- - - Updated - - -

He’s just being dishonest as usual cause legal dissents also carry weight in the US, not just Germany, but we’re gonna pretend that’s not the case to service some nonsense about how capitalism isn’t an exploitative mess. Lol.

Dude, you still don't even know what capital gains are. Are you sure you want to talk about dishonesty?

It was a scathing dissent, one I've read many times from SCOTUS judges. Hell, one of my favorites was Justice O'Connor in Kelo v. New London.

Feel free to look it up.

[Slant]

It was a dissent, he lost. Sure, he can push the rhetoric, but that doesn't make it law. We get scathing dissents all the time from judges over here, but that doesn't make it canon.

I'm still not seeing where Germany still has a wealth tax.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vstg_1974/index.html

I mean, nothing easier than just showing you the law, I guess. Now what?

[Elegiac]

It was a dissent, he lost. Sure, he can push the rhetoric, but that doesn't make it law. We get scathing dissents all the time from judges over here, but that doesn't make it canon.

It actually does. Dissents are a still formal legal opinion and do carry weight in consideration of precedent, which is why nonsense dissents like as seen from folks like Scalia and Thomas get criticised even if they are minority opinions.

[Machismo]

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vstg_1974/index.html

I mean, nothing easier than just showing you the law, I guess. Now what?

Do you have an English version?

https://www.dw.com/en/how-good-is-ge...ich/a-57617709

https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-taxes-in-europe-2020/

Is this like how we still have laws in the United States banning flag burning, even though those laws are constitutionally unenforceable?

- - - Updated - - -

It actually does. Dissents are a still formal legal opinion and do carry weight in consideration of precedent, which is why nonsense dissents like as seen from folks like Scalia and Thomas get criticised even if they are minority opinions.

Dissents don't have any actual power. Sure, it's the minority opinion, but that's it.

As for Scalia and Thomas, they may be utter shits... but people still care about their dissents.