Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Cthulhu 2020]

The problem with conservatives and libertarians arguing tax policy, is that they argue in hypotheticals or "ideals".

Here's the reality. Our society costs ass tons of money. Tons and tons of it. And there's no way for us to just stop spending money on the society as it is now. No way.

Currently, the lower, middle, and upper middle class citizens pay a pretty premium amount of money that they earn because they only earn money through wage and salary, which is easily taxed.

The wealthy pay little to no taxes on their wealth because they use numerous loopholes, like paying a token salary of 50k and then buying anything they want on company dollar and writing it off as a business expense.

THIS IS THE REALITY. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. THIS IS NOT FANTASY LAND.

So what needs to happen to reduce the tax burden on the middle class is that we need the wealthy paying more. The problem is, conservatives and libertarian fuckwads like to argue in a hypothetical and imagined world where absolute freedom is a must. The problem with libertarian ideology is that its economic policies only work when you have a society that is built around libertarianism. Our current late capitalism system is not compatible with libertarian ideals at all. You can sit there and preach about how libertarianism is wonderful and all, but it would not work in our framework. You want to be against taxes? Give us a good reason. "It removes individual freedoms" is not a good reason. One because people who are taxed still have freedoms, two because the police, fire, disaster relief, and the rest of government is going to continue functioning.

You want to see mass societal collapse? Stop paying government to operate. The US will turn into Somalia. Somalia is the libertarian wet dream. No laws. People just doing what they want. But nobody wants that. We want to live in a society with laws, rules, protections, order, safety. That all costs money.

Shut the fuck up with your whole libertarian utopia. It's no more obtainable than communist utopia. They're both dreams for kids who don't know how real economics work.

[D3thray]

I'm just pointing out that the typical refrain is "but it would be more difficult for these uber-rich to maintain their wealth level and ownership of the means of production, year after year!"

When that's not by any measure a negative, and indeed, is a desirable outcome in pretty much every respect. One of the goals of a wealth tax.

What you’re asking him to do is sell his own stake in his own company. Since you don’t agree with the standard western model wear-in people are actually allowed ownership over the things they take they take the financial risk in creating, I’m not surprised you see nothing wrong with the government taking that from them.

[Endus]

What you’re asking him to do is sell his own stake in his own company.

You say that like it's somehow a challenge to my position, or in any way a problem to be concerned about.

Your shock and horror at the idea is circular reasoning; you can't believe I'd suggest he sell his stake in his own company, but it's only his own company because he . . . owns a stake in it.

Since you don’t agree with the standard western model wear-in people are actually allowed ownership over the things they take they take the financial risk in creating, I’m not surprised you see nothing wrong with the government taking that from them.

"People are allowed ownership over the things they take the financial risk in creating" is not an accurate description of the capitalist system. At all. In any remote way. Ownership is not tied to risk in any way whatsoever. And you're ignoring all the risks taken by non-capitalists, and how those risks aren't rewarded with ownership of the means of production.

You're not even internally consistent. What the hell am I supposed to do with this? It's garbage reasoning that doesn't support any extant body of economic theory.

[Freighter]

What you’re asking him to do is sell his own stake in his own company. Since you don’t agree with the standard western model wear-in people are actually allowed ownership over the things they take they take the financial risk in creating, I’m not surprised you see nothing wrong with the government taking that from them.

How is paying taxes sell his own stake in his own company?

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be allowed to sit on a mountain of money and not have to pay taxes on it.

[Logwyn]

When someone like David Tepper decides to move and affects the rest of a state with a population of 8.882 million and the budget. Something is kinda wrong.

[Zan15]

When someone like David Tepper decides to move and affects the rest of a state with a population of 8.882 million and the budget. Something is kinda wrong.

This is why federal funding needs a huge overhaul.

Florida gets substantially more federal money then many other states, and those states are forced to have income taxes and higher property taxes to offset the difference.

If the playing field was leveled you can be sure FL would have to institute an decent sized income tax to make up the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

What you’re asking him to do is sell his own stake in his own company. Since you don’t agree with the standard western model wear-in people are actually allowed ownership over the things they take they take the financial risk in creating, I’m not surprised you see nothing wrong with the government taking that from them.

How many people a year are forced to sell their houses because they can no longer afford the property tax on their "assets"?

I wonder if I could legally sell "shares" in my house and register it as a corporate entity so i no longer have to pay property tax??? Of course i will keep 98% of the shares....

"sorry you can't tax me and force me to sell my house...i mean....company".

Why is the govt taking so many people's houses away from them!!!! I though we were allowed ownership over things they took a financial risk in!!!

[Draco-Onis]

In the millions sure. A billion is alot larger than a million i.e. the amount of tax they are suggesting to collect and again which is potentially even 40% larger than advertised.

It's existing shares not new issuance your logic makes zero sense, Bezos selling to pay his tax bill doesn't dilute the value of the company nor is it because of a big problem with Amazon. You are talking out of your ass there's no logic behind your assumption.

[Machismo]

How is paying taxes sell his own stake in his own company?

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be allowed to sit on a mountain of money and not have to pay taxes on it.

That's the point, most of them aren't sitting on mountains of money.

Most of that money is tied up in companies.

- - - Updated - - -

You act like they don't do everything they can to lessen their income tax burden. Telling you a simple truth that has been proven over a 1000 posts and countless links, that you refuse to accept, doesn't mean I'm being condescending.

You still cannot figure out the difference between wealth, and income.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like the ban evading alt is going the same way as the banned main. You really seem to get angry when some of the reality of how ludicrous your ideas are seeps through. Maybe take some time to think about why you're getting angry that your ideas don't stand up to dissection. Did you get them drummed into you by your parents? Some role model in your life? If you could learn to let go of them, I'm pretty sure you'd become a calmer person as a result.

Leave ignoring reality to the Trumpsters and anti-vaxxers. You don't want to share attributes with those groups.

Nope, wasn't me. That's the Brexit Burner dude.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a way to play games.

They pay more in absolute individual terms.

They do not pay more in proportional terms.

They also do not pay more in collective terms; the top 1% (which is arguably too wide a category in the first place) don't pay 50% of the total income tax collected in the USA.

The latter two, of course, are the important measures. The first is just there to play stupid gotcha games like this.

They do pay more in proportional terms.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...ta-2020-update

The average American pays 14.6%.

- - - Updated - - -

Its fucking adorable, that you think Bezos only makes money from a weekly paycheck from Amazon.

Now don't try and tell us you don't think that, because the entirety of your special little argument can only make sense if it's based on you thinking all his money comes from a weekly paycheck on Friday. It really is so adorable.

How would you know? You tried to say he got stocks as part of his salary.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Liquidity is a huge issue. I pointed to Lynsi Snyder, who has almost all her money tied up in a single company, that she alone owns, and her family founded over 60 years ago.

If Warren's plan were ever to come to fruition, then she would be forced to sell her company, piece by piece... all due to that lack of liquidity.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, you seem to be complaining that his wealth wouldn't be sustainable.

And that's the deliberate intent of such a tax.

Complaining about the desired and intended outcome is . . . not an argument.

SO, now rationalize that with someone who is the sole owner of their company, like Lynsi Snyder and In&Out Burger.

- - - Updated - - -

Well your first mistake is assuming the 20 billion dollars would cover just a single year taxes, so he wouldn't have to do this every year.

Even worst case, Warren's tax would be 3%, or 4.3 billion dollars.

Then he is still sitting on 144 billion which has been appreciating at greater than 2% each year. Even a 10% growth rate which is substantially under amazon's stock rate in any measurement would result in him netting an additional 14.4 billion dollars each year. Even @ 2% to match his interest on his loan his asset would gain 2.88 billion dollars in value.

He could then sell just the gain in value to cover his loan payments/taxes while still increasing his net work by billions each year.

This does not even assume any other income in the mix.

Warren's new plan calls for 6%, and it is annually.

So, that would be over &10 billion... every single year.

Taking out loans wouldn't do much, because his debt would be compounded annually.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with conservatives and libertarians arguing tax policy, is that they argue in hypotheticals or "ideals".

Here's the reality. Our society costs ass tons of money. Tons and tons of it. And there's no way for us to just stop spending money on the society as it is now. No way.

Currently, the lower, middle, and upper middle class citizens pay a pretty premium amount of money that they earn because they only earn money through wage and salary, which is easily taxed.

The wealthy pay little to no taxes on their wealth because they use numerous loopholes, like paying a token salary of 50k and then buying anything they want on company dollar and writing it off as a business expense.

THIS IS THE REALITY. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. THIS IS NOT FANTASY LAND.

So what needs to happen to reduce the tax burden on the middle class is that we need the wealthy paying more. The problem is, conservatives and libertarian fuckwads like to argue in a hypothetical and imagined world where absolute freedom is a must. The problem with libertarian ideology is that its economic policies only work when you have a society that is built around libertarianism. Our current late capitalism system is not compatible with libertarian ideals at all. You can sit there and preach about how libertarianism is wonderful and all, but it would not work in our framework. You want to be against taxes? Give us a good reason. "It removes individual freedoms" is not a good reason. One because people who are taxed still have freedoms, two because the police, fire, disaster relief, and the rest of government is going to continue functioning.

You want to see mass societal collapse? Stop paying government to operate. The US will turn into Somalia. Somalia is the libertarian wet dream. No laws. People just doing what they want. But nobody wants that. We want to live in a society with laws, rules, protections, order, safety. That all costs money.

Shut the fuck up with your whole libertarian utopia. It's no more obtainable than communist utopia. They're both dreams for kids who don't know how real economics work.

I provided Warren's tax plan, and the value of the owner of In&Out, as well as her other assets.

I dare you to show how she could make it worl.

[Endus]

They do pay more in proportional terms.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...ta-2020-update

The average American pays 14.6%.

Apparently you missed the study at the start, which demonstrated people like Jeff Bezos paying zero income tax in certain years.

0% < 14.6%.

Liquidity is a huge issue. I pointed to Lynsi Snyder, who has almost all her money tied up in a single company, that she alone owns, and her family founded over 60 years ago.

If Warren's plan were ever to come to fruition, then she would be forced to sell her company, piece by piece... all due to that lack of liquidity.

SO, now rationalize that with someone who is the sole owner of their company, like Lynsi Snyder and In&Out Burger.

No "rationalization" necessary. Your position rests on an ought statement that I categorically reject. If she (or any other wealthy individual) can't afford their tax obligations, and have to sell part of their ownership of their business, that's how things work when you don't plan for your tax obligations. That's not the government's fault.

There is absolutely no reason her ownership shouldn't fall into question. If she were sued and needed to pay off the decision against her, and her only asset was her ownership of In&Out, she'd be obliged to sell there, too. Same difference.

[Machismo]

Apparently you missed the study at the start, which demonstrated people like Jeff Bezos paying zero income tax in certain years.

0% < 14.6%.



No "rationalization" necessary. Your position rests on an ought statement that I categorically reject. If she (or any other wealthy individual) can't afford their tax obligations, and have to sell part of their ownership of their business, that's how things work when you don't plan for your tax obligations. That's not the government's fault.

There is absolutely no reason her ownership shouldn't fall into question. If she were sued and needed to pay off the decision against her, and her only asset was her ownership of In&Out, she'd be obliged to sell there, too. Same difference.

And over the years in the OP, he paid an average of 23%.

23% > 14.6%.

You are ignoring the "HOW THE FUCK ARE THYE GOING TO PAY FOR IT" part. I know that you have flat out said that you are not concerned with the actual consequences of laws, and that isn't your business. But, that is my business, and the math shows that Lynsi Snyder would be forced to sell part of her company that she owns outright, just because her company is successful. And, within 17 years, regardless of how well that company, she'd lose majority ownership of that company.

Mind you, it's a company that is famous for treating its employees well.

[Endus]

And over the years in the OP, he paid an average of 23%.

23% > 14.6%.

Look at you, moving them goalposts.

You are ignoring the "HOW THE FUCK ARE THYE GOING TO PAY FOR IT" part.

They're worth north of $50m. They'll figure it out.

I know that you have flat out said that you are not concerned with the actual consequences of laws, and that isn't your business.

Literally not what I said. Stop making shit up.

But, that is my business, and the math shows that Lynsi Snyder would be forced to sell part of her company that she owns outright, just because her company is successful. And, within 17 years, regardless of how well that company, she'd lose majority ownership of that company.

1> Not just because she's successful.
2> And? You still haven't explained why this is a "bad thing". You just demand we accept that by fiat. Not gonna happen.

Mind you, it's a company that is famous for treating its employees well.

Why do you think that would change my mind about anything?

[Machismo]

Look at you, moving them goalposts.



They're worth north of $50m. They'll figure it out.



Literally not what I said. Stop making shit up.



1> Not just because she's successful.
2> And? You still haven't explained why this is a "bad thing". You just demand we accept that by fiat. Not gonna happen.



Why do you think that would change my mind about anything?

You moved the goalposts, I'm going by the data from the OP.

You want to force people to sell their companies. Period.

The women who can no longer get abortions will figure it out.

the minorities who no longer have easy means to vote, will figure it out.

[Endus]

You moved the goalposts, I'm going by the data from the OP.

I did not, no. I pointed out that Bezos has paid $0 income tax in certain years, which should not be possible. That's a position the article presented.

You wanted to shift that to a long-term average over a year period you'd cherry-picked to suit your desired outcome.

You want to force people to sell their companies. Period.

Wrong.

I want the uber-wealthy to contribute back to the society which has propped them up, and to correct for the exploitative economic systems that have allowed them to extract that much wealth in the first place.

That may result in some of them having to sell their companies to pay those obligations, sure. But that's secondary, and it's not something to be concerned about in the first place.

The women who can no longer get abortions will figure it out.

the minorities who no longer have easy means to vote, will figure it out.

And here's where you just start being outrageously and deliberately dishonest.

This is why nobody can discuss the topic with you; because you pull dishonest bullshit like this and misrepresent their arguments, never actually responding to their actual position.

[Slant]

This is why nobody can discuss the topic with you; because you pull dishonest bullshit like this and misrepresent their arguments, never actually responding to their actual position.

Hear, hear!

[Santti]

This is why nobody can discuss the topic with you; because you pull dishonest bullshit like this and misrepresent their arguments, never actually responding to their actual position.

Yet we apparently must keep trying, for hundreds of pages, repeating the same things, over and over again, getting absolutely nowhere...

[Machismo]

I did not, no. I pointed out that Bezos has paid $0 income tax in certain years, which should not be possible. That's a position the article presented.

You wanted to shift that to a long-term average over a year period you'd cherry-picked to suit your desired outcome.



Wrong.

I want the uber-wealthy to contribute back to the society which has propped them up, and to correct for the exploitative economic systems that have allowed them to extract that much wealth in the first place.

That may result in some of them having to sell their companies to pay those obligations, sure. But that's secondary, and it's not something to be concerned about in the first place.



And here's where you just start being outrageously and deliberately dishonest.

This is why nobody can discuss the topic with you; because you pull dishonest bullshit like this and misrepresent their arguments, never actually responding to their actual position.

And yet, he has paid objectively more, in proportion, than the average American... as per the data provided.

You understand what such a law would do, and you support it. Yes, the fact that you KNOW what will happen, and you support it, means you want it to happen. You really should stop even trying to lie about this.

You are the one who made it clear that how they deal with a new law, is none of your concern. This was your fucking argument. How women deal with the new abortion laws is none of the GOP's business. It's not, the women can figure it out. How minorities deal with polling stations closing in their areas, and being taken off the voter rolls, is not the concern of the GOP. Those minorities and urban dwellers can figure it out.

This is literally your fucking argument.

I mean, you seem to be complaining that his wealth wouldn't be sustainable.

And that's the deliberate intent of such a tax.

Complaining about the desired and intended outcome is . . . not an argument.

Congratulations on being just like the GOP.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet we apparently must keep trying, for hundreds of pages, repeating the same things, over and over again, getting absolutely nowhere...

Except, it's literally his argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Reporting him doesn’t work so the only option is to counter his crap.

You mean countering it by pushing outright lies, and not understanding basic economic concepts like income and salary?

[Slant]

And yet, he has paid objectively more, in proportion, than the average American... as per the data provided.

You understand what such a law would do, and you support it. Yes, the fact that you KNOW what will happen, and you support it, means you want it to happen. You really should stop even trying to lie about this.

You are the one who made it clear that how they deal with a new law, is none of your concern. This was your fucking argument. How women deal with the new abortion laws is none of the GOP's business. It's not, the women can figure it out. How minorities deal with polling stations closing in their areas, and being taken off the voter rolls, is not the concern of the GOP. Those minorities and urban dwellers can figure it out.

This is literally your fucking argument.

Congratulations on being just like the GOP.

In proportion to his wealth? Fucking nope.

Only in absolute sums. This is an argument you might get away with in elementary school. But that's not how you talk about taxes. Unless you're trying deliberately to be as obtuse as fucking possible, of course. Hi Machismo!

Only asocial cockroaches earnestly say "He's paying 0.1% of his wealth in tax and that's proportionally more than anyone else, cos he owns 100 billion dollars!"

That's not how the concept of "contributing to society" works. You're supposed to contribute according to your means. If you're poor, you pay less, but still 30% (I'm making numbers up now), if you're rich, you pay a lot more, but still 30%.

You don't go around and say "I paid 300 thousand dollars in tax, which means I contribute more than the guy who paid 300 dollars in tax!"

NOT IF YOU'RE 100 BILLION DOLLARS worth. And if the other guy maybe makes 20 grand a year. You'd have to be a very "special child" to believe that's a sound argument among adults.

[Machismo]

In proportion to his wealth? Fucking nope.

Only in absolute sums. This is an argument you might get away with in elementary school. But that's not how you talk about taxes. Unless you're trying deliberately to be as obtuse as fucking possible, of course. Hi Machismo!

It's an income tax, you are moving goalposts. he was discussing income.

Fucking nope.

[Endus]

And yet, he has paid objectively more, in proportion, than the average American... as per the data provided.

Again, moving goalposts.

I'm not going kick at moved goalposts. I'm not playing that game.

You understand what such a law would do, and you support it. Yes, the fact that you KNOW what will happen, and you support it, means you want it to happen. You really should stop even trying to lie about this.

I'm not lying, at all. I have, in fact, stated that some people may have to sell their ownership stakes.

You've yet to provide any rational explanation for why that's even a problem in the first place.

You are the one who made it clear that how they deal with a new law, is none of your concern. This was your fucking argument.

No. It wasn't.

Which is why you have to rely on trying to paraphrase me, because you can't actually quote me directly saying that, because I did not say that.

If you're so certain that you're paraphrasing me correctly, feel free to cite me directly. Make sure you don't cut relevant context in the process, though, because I'll call that out too.

You're just lying about my argument. It's a method of baiting and trolling. You're not doing this to further good faith discussion.

And no; that quote you did provide in no way backs you up on this. It was not a generalized comment; it was a specific outcome to this particular kind of law in these particular kinds of circumstances.

[Shadowferal]

This is why nobody can discuss the topic with you; because you pull dishonest bullshit like this and misrepresent their arguments, never actually responding to their actual position.

He's adding irellevant shit again?

"I'm the only one fighting for the starving children in Ethiopia....?"
Gotta add the words "freedom" or "liberty" somewhere...