Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[D3thray]

That speculation fundamentally involves the growth of wealth, over time.

If you were to take any particular moment in time, you could theoretically assess the precise value of every form of wealth in the world at that moment. That value, whatever it may be, will always be finite. Hypotheticals about possible future growth do not and indeed, can not change that.

And I'm using "wealth" very specifically, not "dollars". I'm not talking about money supply; money is just a convenient medium of exchange of and quantification for wealth. That matters, obviously, but that's where we get into the problems of just adding currency to the money supply; the collective wealth in society doesn't change, and because of that, the value of a particular dollar relative to that wealth shrinks, because even fiat currencies are predicated on something. This particular action is a lot more complex than I'm making it out to be, honestly, I'm trying to summarize, but that's the root of why just printing a few hundred trillion dollars to prop up your economy never works; the economy fundamentally works off wealth, not currency, and boosting the money supply only affects currency, not wealth. This is also why we often use historical comparisons by talking about "in 2020 dollars" or whatever; assessing "how rich was Howard Hughes" is an exploration of wealth, relative to society, and you need to eliminate the variable of the value of a dollar to make those comparisons make any sense at all.

When I'm talking "wealth", I don't just mean currency, I mean land, I mean treasures (cultural, artistic, historical, bullion, what have you), I mean all forms of legitimately saleable property of any kind whatsoever. This is, by comparison, why we don't consider a poor family with 18 kids to be "wealthy" because we could consider the black market value of those children if sold as slaves/organs/whatever; that's evil as fuck and illegal, and thus it would be improper to assess those children as "wealth" to begin with. They're not legitimately saleable property. At least, not today.

Long story short; I have no interest in "theoretically infinite". I care about "finite in practice". Besides, people really need to hold off on using "infinite". The solar system's resources aren't infinite. The Milky Way's resources aren't infinite. The observable Universe's resources are not infinite. Even if we could commodify everything, that's still not "infinite wealth". And we're still stuck on this one rinky-dink planet and kind of doing an arse job of exploiting its resources without choking on the byproducts.

Even the money supply isn’t constrained by the number of dollars because of systems like fractional reserve banking. In fact fractional reserve banking is the entire reason we’re having this discussion at all. We for the most part do not barter anymore so the entire contention is over the proportion of the money supply controlled by individuals. Jeff Bezos for example does not have 144 billion dollars to spend because Jeff Bezos does not have 144 billion dollars in loans or hard currency. He couldn’t by definition or his net worth would be zero. The idea that he could even realistically leverage that much money as an individual is ludicrous, no bank would do it because he wouldn’t be able to service it if only due to the capital gains tax taking 20% off the top of anything he’d sell to cover payments.

Net worth is a fun number to look at on paper, but wealth is not a useful metric when talking about taxes and control of an economy because there is no realistic way for the ultra-rich to even be able to leverage that amount of money. Which is why wealth taxes as proposed are missing huge amounts of nuance. We should be talking about the velocity of money anyway not total amount of wealth or money supply.

- - - Updated - - -

You miss the last 60 or so pages and fail to read the OP article where most of their income is not taxed or reported???

If ALL their "income" was reported regardless of type you would see those wonderful taxfoundtation #'s showing an entire different picture.

Their entire incomes are reported. That you’re choosing to redefine income in your head doesn’t change that fact.

[Draco-Onis]

Even the money supply isn’t constrained by the number of dollars because of systems like fractional reserve banking. In fact fractional reserve banking is the entire reason we’re having this discussion at all. We for the most part do not barter anymore so the entire contention is over the proportion of the money supply controlled by individuals. Jeff Bezos for example does not have 144 billion dollars to spend because Jeff Bezos does not have 144 billion dollars in loans or hard currency. He couldn’t by definition or his net worth would be zero. The idea that he could even realistically leverage that much money as an individual is ludicrous, no bank would do it because he wouldn’t be able to service it if only due to the capital gains tax taking 20% off the top of anything he’d sell to cover payments.

Net worth is a fun number to look at on paper, but wealth is not a useful metric when talking about taxes and control of an economy because there is no realistic way for the ultra-rich to even be able to leverage that amount of money. Which is why wealth taxes as proposed are missing huge amounts of nuance. We should be talking about the velocity of money anyway not total amount of wealth or money supply.

I am not sure what drugs you are on but Bezos has enough connection to do it or he can literally have amazon buy a few banks or he can borrow from several banks using dark pools to hide the transactions so that the banks are not aware that each have loaned him a certain amount. He can also use shell companies to get the loans and route the money overseas. There are so many legal options when you are that insanely rich so your entire notion is downright delusional.

- - - Updated - - -

Plan to Revive I.R.S. ‘Wealth Squad’ Puts the Richest on Notice

America's tax system is rigged to protect the rich and powerful

'These revelations make me sick' — Cramer suggests a billionaire surtax after ProPublica bombshell

Nothing will get done or change because the republicans are united against doing anything to the rich and people like Manchin and Sinema will vote alongside them. While the vast majority of Americans are for raising taxes on corporations and the mega wealthy, they have too much political power for that to happen.

[Endus]

Jeff Bezos for example does not have 144 billion dollars to spend because Jeff Bezos does not have 144 billion dollars in loans or hard currency. He couldn’t by definition or his net worth would be zero.

1> I don't know why you're bringing up liquidity, since it's irrelevant to my point.
2> If Bezos had $144 billion in cash, he'd have a net worth of $144 billion. By definition.

The idea that he could even realistically leverage that much money as an individual is ludicrous, no bank would do it because he wouldn’t be able to service it if only due to the capital gains tax taking 20% off the top of anything he’d sell to cover payments.

You realize you're describing the problem, right? Not actually making a counter-argument? Yes, Bezos would find it difficult if not impossible to liquidate his wealth. And? That's indicative of the problem.

Net worth is a fun number to look at on paper, but wealth is not a useful metric when talking about taxes and control of an economy because there is no realistic way for the ultra-rich to even be able to leverage that amount of money. Which is why wealth taxes as proposed are missing huge amounts of nuance.

Again, why are you imagining a need to liquidate all one's assets? You only need to liquidate enough to cover the proposed tax. For billionaires, Warren and Sanders' proposal was a 3% tax, which for Bezos would mean about $4.3b. Bezos bought MGM for $8.5b, so clearly he can liquidate that much at a time.

We should be talking about the velocity of money anyway not total amount of wealth or money supply.

You're the one bringing up the money supply, not the rest of us.

And a big reason for opposing wealth is because the wealthy are black holes for wealth; they contribute poorly to the velocity of money. Hell, forcing the wealthy to liquidate assets to pay wealth taxes directly contributes to said velocity.

[D3thray]

I am not sure what drugs you are on but Bezos has enough connection to do it or he can literally have amazon buy a few banks or he can borrow from several banks using dark pools to hide the transactions so that the banks are not aware that each have loaned him a certain amount. He can also use shell companies to get the loans and route the money overseas. There are so many legal options when you are that insanely rich so your entire notion is downright delusional

Leverage. It’s a term with a specific meaning in the context of loans. Quite literally speaking Jeff Bezos has 144 billion or whatever the exact amount is in un-leveraged assets, meaning assets not used as collateral for a loan by definition of net worth. If he WERE to leverage even a significant fraction of that amount then controlling interest of that portion would pass to the banks. Unless you’re arguing he’s hidden all that and is secretly a pauper. You are the one making up fairytales in your head.

And by the way this is not an amount of money that Bezos has just being hoarded by him and not spent. He quite literally doesn’t have that amount of money.

[Slant]

Straw man: I never said "equal distribution".

Nor did you suggest redistributing "all means". Just an appropriate portion of it.

@ILFSTE

It's a bit sad that some people here seem to be so narrow minded, they immediately argue against what people like Endus say as if he was Marx himself.

That's not what any of these guys are about. The main angle Endus has is reducing (sic! REDUCING not ELIMINATING) the wealth imbalance that is close to unbearable for a modern society.

He's not stealing from people. He's not trying ot make the rich poor. He's not trying to make the poor rich. He's not trying to sneak communist-socialism in through the back door. It's not a clever trick, you don't need to try and be clever yourself. It's literally what you see is what you get. Reducing the imbalance to a degree that hopefully eases the pressure society is suffering from right now. Yes, that means the rich have to give up some, and yes the poor get some. And that's basically the core of the idea. It's not outrageously complicated, so how about you show some respect and pay attention to what people like Endus are saying.

[D3thray]

1> I don't know why you're bringing up liquidity, since it's irrelevant to my point.
2> If Bezos had $144 billion in cash, he'd have a net worth of $144 billion. By definition.



You realize you're describing the problem, right? Not actually making a counter-argument? Yes, Bezos would find it difficult if not impossible to liquidate his wealth. And? That's indicative of the problem.



Again, why are you imagining a need to liquidate all one's assets? You only need to liquidate enough to cover the proposed tax. For billionaires, Warren and Sanders' proposal was a 3% tax, which for Bezos would mean about $4.3b. Bezos bought MGM for $8.5b, so clearly he can liquidate that much at a time.



You're the one bringing up the money supply, not the rest of us.

And a big reason for opposing wealth is because the wealthy are black holes for wealth; they contribute poorly to the velocity of money. Hell, forcing the wealthy to liquidate assets to pay wealth taxes directly contributes to said velocity.

From an artificial source. If he’s selling these inherently worthless chits then someone else is buying them and the government is pocketing 20% of that transaction on top of what they are asking him to pay. This tax does not suddenly create the money need to liquidate his assets. You’re imagining pulling piles of money from a pot that doesn’t exist.

If your concern is limiting the amount he can leverage then write that into law but the tax proposal is ludicrous.

[Endus]

Nor did you suggest redistributing "all means". Just an appropriate portion of it.

@ILFSTE

It's a bit sad that some people here seem to be so narrow minded, they immediately argue against what people like Endus say as if he was Marx himself.

That's not what any of these guys are about. The main angle Endus has is reducing (sic! REDUCING not ELIMINATING) the wealth imbalance that is close to unbearable for a modern society.

He's not stealing from people. He's not trying ot make the rich poor. He's not trying to make the poor rich. He's not trying to sneak communist-socialism in through the back door. It's not a clever trick, you don't need to try and be clever yourself. It's literally what you see is what you get. Reducing the imbalance to a degree that hopefully eases the pressure society is suffering from right now. Yes, that means the rich have to give up some, and yes the poor get some. And that's basically the core of the idea. It's not outrageously complicated, so hope about you show some respect and pay attention to what people like Endus are saying.

It's always fascinating when they think I "hate the rich", or am a communist.

Like, I wouldn't have a problem with a rich magnate like Jeff Bezos being worth $50m. My problem is that he's worth $190 billion, while so many of his staff are working for shitty pay in terrible conditions. He's extracting that wealth from their labor, and they see no return on that. And no, wages and salary don't count, as they don't incorporate any profit-sharing, generally; the idea of a set wage or salary is how that wealth is extracted. You labor and make $100k in value for the company, and your boss gives you $30k. If you bust your ass and boost that to $150k produced, your boss gives you $30k and maybe, if they're a "good boss", throws you and your team a pizza party (limit 2 slices each).

The system's highly attenuated. The poor are many. The rich are stupidly rich. The middle class is collapsing as the middle is pulled apart by those extremes (and almost entirely falling into the "poor" category). I'm just proposing we stop stretching and find a system that works for everyone, that encourages business and profit-seeking while getting workers to share in that profit generation they're an integral part of.

It really shouldn't be that complex. It's closer to a reinterpretation of what Adam Smith was talking about in Wealth of Nations, scraping off the bits he got wrong about human nature, than it is to anything written by Marx.

- - - Updated - - -

From an artificial source. If he’s selling these inherently worthless chits then someone else is buying them and the government is pocketing 20% of that transaction on top of what they are asking him to pay. This tax does not suddenly create the money need to liquidate his assets. You’re imagining pulling piles of money from a pot that doesn’t exist.

I can't even tell what, specifically, you're responding to, here.

Are you claiming currency is "inherently worthless chits"? Because that's just false on its face. And if you're not saying that, I have no idea what you're talking about, because I never suggested anything like that.

And while the tax doesn't "create the money to liquidate his assets", that money absolutely does exist, in the scale of the wealth taxes we're talking about. If it didn't, then there's no way Bezos could've bought MGM for $8.5b a few months ago. If you can liquidate assets for that kind of purchase, you can liquidate assets to pay your taxes.

[D3thray]

I can't even tell what, specifically, you're responding to, here.

Are you claiming currency is "inherently worthless chits"? Because that's just false on its face. And if you're not saying that, I have no idea what you're talking about, because I never suggested anything like that.

And while the tax doesn't "create the money to liquidate his assets", that money absolutely does exist, in the scale of the wealth taxes we're talking about. If it didn't, then there's no way Bezos could've bought MGM for $8.5b a few months ago. If you can liquidate assets for that kind of purchase, you can liquidate assets to pay your taxes.

I’m talking about his Amazon shares or other non-physical assets. I don’t know the details of the MGM purchase but I’d bet a significant portion of that was leveraged as well. This tax being proposed wouldn’t. You don’t take out loans to pay your taxes. If you don’t have the cash you just have to sell. As I’ve said earlier, stocks are not real money and you can’t treat them as such.

Besides didn’t you agree it would be nigh impossible for him to liquidate his fortune?

[Shadowferal]

Yes...Jeff Bezos has no money and is destitute and deserves all the charity and lucky breaks in the world. /s

[Endus]

I’m talking about his Amazon shares or other non-physical assets. I don’t know the details of the MGM purchase but I’d bet a significant portion of that was leveraged as well. This tax being proposed wouldn’t. You don’t take out loans to pay your taxes. If you don’t have the cash you just have to sell. As I’ve said earlier, stocks are not real money and you can’t treat them as such.

I'm baffled as to why you think selling stock isn't an option, here. Or other assets.

Besides didn’t you agree it would be nigh impossible for him to liquidate his fortune?

His entire fortune, all at once, immediately. But nobody's asking that.

[D3thray]

I'm baffled as to why you think selling stock isn't an option, here. Or other assets.



His entire fortune, all at once, immediately. But nobody's asking that.

I’d point out that stocks represent ownership of a company and that you’re essentially saying he owns too much of his own company but I already know you don’t think anyone should own their company, so I don’t even know why I’m belaboring the point.

But I will point out every corporation I’ve ever worked for offers an employee stock purchase plan that usually lets employees buy shares at a 20% discount. Maybe not exactly what you mean by ownership of the means of production but it counts in my book. The tools are there but you can’t force people to use them. It may sound blasé but you can only help people so much.

[Endus]

I’d point out that stocks represent ownership of a company and that you’re essentially saying he owns too much of his own company but I already know you don’t think anyone should own their company, so I don’t even know why I’m belaboring the point.

I mean, your argument there is begging the question. You've assumed that it being "his company" is a natural or desirable circumstance to begin with; that's the conclusion you're trying to arrive at.

It fails due to basic logical structure, not just because I disagree with the premises (though I do).

But I will point out every corporation I’ve ever worked for offers an employee stock purchase plan that usually lets employees buy shares at a 20% discount. Maybe not exactly what you mean by ownership of the means of production but it counts in my book. The tools are there but you can’t force people to use them. It may sound blasé but you can only help people so much.

Stock purchase plans are not even remotely close to what I'm talking about. They are not tied to labor, at all. And those who most need it can't afford to buy those stocks in the first place, even with a discount.

It's like telling a prisoner he can have maggot-filled gruel, or he can buy a meal from a five-star Michelin chef who's on staff. The proper meal just costs more than the prisoner makes in a month doing work throughout the prison. Pointing to the chef option and claiming your prisoners are well-fed is just a lie, at that point.

[Huehuecoyotl]

I’d point out that stocks represent ownership of a company and that you’re essentially saying he owns too much of his own company

Did he build all his warehouses? Write all the software his website uses? Manage and work in all those warehouses? Deliver all those parcels? Do all the metric crapton of other things that a company that size needs to do?

You seem to think that because he "started" this company that every penny it makes from the hard work of thousands upon thousands of people should automatically belong to him. And to suggest that he share it with the workers in that company (or the society that the company operates in) is tantamount to stealing.

No. Just fucking no. Nobody operates in a vacuum. His billions have come from the hard work of all those Amazon employees, and from tax payers who are paying to subsidise the shitty wages he pays them. He doesn't deserve those billions, and if karma were a thing he would have suffered withering in the genital region by now. Tax them, take the money back from billionaires and put it in the pockets of ordinary people. Nobody should have that much money, because as well as indicating a severe flaw in the way society is functioning, it also CAUSES more problems in that society.

[Ivanstone]

from tax payers who are paying to subsidise the shitty wages he pays them.

This is neat.
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst...rent/amazoncom
$3.3B state Subsidies

They’re relatively benign on the violation front. Walmart? Not so much:
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfir...parent=walmart
$2B Fines

[Daelak]

I'm not sure this has been brought up beforehand, but even the wealthiest members of society have a compelling economic interest in ensuring a fair and efficient distribution of wealth. A more egalitarian distribution means higher rates of return on ALL asset classes, lower incidences of criminal activity, higher overall happiness, more social mobility, which all creates a better society to live in.

The issue is that the wealthy are just as irrational and prone to heuristical information, meaning we cannot rely on their goodwill nor potential change in their behavior to make sure the global economic system is running at top efficiency.

We live in a time of advanced AI algorithms that would be able to quantify the ideal distribution to maximize returns at higher rates than currently reality and also increasing the QOL of all persons.

[Shadowferal]

Historians generally view the underlying causes of the French Revolution as the result of the Ancien Régime's failure to manage social and economic inequality. Rapid population growth and the inability to adequately finance government debt resulted in economic depression, unemployment and high food prices. These combined with a regressive tax system and resistance to reform by the ruling elite to produce a crisis Louis XVI proved unable to manage.

Just a matter of time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

[Endus]

I'm not sure this has been brought up beforehand, but even the wealthiest members of society have a compelling economic interest in ensuring a fair and efficient distribution of wealth. A more egalitarian distribution means higher rates of return on ALL asset classes, lower incidences of criminal activity, higher overall happiness, more social mobility, which all creates a better society to live in.

The issue is that the wealthy are just as irrational and prone to heuristical information, meaning we cannot rely on their goodwill nor potential change in their behavior to make sure the global economic system is running at top efficiency.

We live in a time of advanced AI algorithms that would be able to quantify the ideal distribution to maximize returns at higher rates than currently reality and also increasing the QOL of all persons.

The big problem is that, generally, those with the compassion, self-awareness, and ethical sense to contribute back to their workers and community in concrete ways, those people never become wealthy. They're the Mom & Pops that everyone loves and which cannot possibly compete with Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart doesn't give a shit and will nickel and dime their staff to save $0.02 on the price point of Kraft Dinner, because they know it'll drive sales to their stores and away from that Mom & Pop.

You find a few exceptions. The folks behind Costco are apparently pretty decent, and I haven't heard nightmare stories from Costco staff. There's Dan Price, the guy who decided to pay all his staff at least $70k/year at his payment company. But in general, particularly at the lower end where pennies matter, the big boys use economies of scale to flatten anyone less cutthroat than they are.

- - - Updated - - -

Historians generally view the underlying causes of the French Revolution as the result of the Ancien Régime's failure to manage social and economic inequality. Rapid population growth and the inability to adequately finance government debt resulted in economic depression, unemployment and high food prices. These combined with a regressive tax system and resistance to reform by the ruling elite to produce a crisis Louis XVI proved unable to manage.

Just a matter of time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

And to make the point; wealth inequality today is worse than at the point that the French Revolution kicked off, largely over that issue.

Some of us argue this strenuously about political change by adjusting policy approaches because we're well aware that there's a looming alternative correction pattern; one that centrally relies upon the guillotine. Maybe we should correct course before people start recalling why that thing was invented.

[PC2]

Historians generally view the underlying causes of the French Revolution as the result of the Ancien Régime's failure to manage social and economic inequality. Rapid population growth and the inability to adequately finance government debt resulted in economic depression, unemployment and high food prices. These combined with a regressive tax system and resistance to reform by the ruling elite to produce a crisis Louis XVI proved unable to manage.

Just a matter of time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.

It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw their life away just to be a failed revolutionary.

[Ivanstone]

The folks behind Costco are apparently pretty decent, and I haven't heard nightmare stories from Costco staff.

If you're Costco staff, you're generally treated well. They do sub-contract out certain things like the food samples and they're paid much worse.

[Specialka]

Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.

It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw it away just to be a failed revolutionary.

Inequality was the fuel, and it was ignited by people (aka the "Bourgeois" as they wanted to take the place of the Nobles as leading class), as it will be in our era. You do not want that ? Reduce inequality, offer better wealth redistribution, share more ressources, etc..