Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

Oh please tell me how you have specific numbers when the company financials are private.


I've already told you exactly how they can pay the tax each year without seeing a single dime in wealth disapate.

Nope, Endus provided the recent profit numbers, enjoy!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Posters: painstakingly explain in detail their position, citing data and facts that show their position to be factually correct

Machismo: shits on chess board

And she'd be taxed at over 100% of her income/profits, according to Endus' numbers.

[Ivanstone]

Great, let's see their thoughts. You'll notice most of those wealth taxes went away, because they were shitty.

No I asked you to do it. I thought you would want a good real world example of billionaires being harmed by wealth taxes. Some countries still have Wealth Taxes (ex Switzerland). Some have gotten rid of theirs. Some have gotten rid of theirs but brought them back. I don’t know if they taxes were specifically shitty or if they were removed for shitty reasons. You’ll have to provide examples.

[uuuhname]

And she'd be taxed at over 100% of her income/profits, according to Endus' numbers.

oh no!

oh well.

you still haven't explained why that's skin off of anyone else's nose.

[unfilteredJW]

And she'd be taxed at over 100% of her income/profits, according to Endus' numbers.

This is a lie and can be summarily dismissed.

[Zan15]

Nope, Endus provided the recent profit numbers, enjoy!!!

And she'd be taxed at over 100% of her income/profits.

Don't care if Jesus provided the numbers you got nothing if its all guess work.

I already provided several examples for which we do have actual numbers and shown how easily they can afford the tax and still see substantial wealth growth.

So again what is the problem if these people still see growth even after an increased tax bill?


Somehow Bill gates has managed to give away tens of billions in stock, assets and cash to his charity while none of the doom and gloom you speak of managed to happen. His company was never taken away from him, his wealth grew and he was not bankrupted. The stock market did not crash, economic growth did not crater, MS stock continued to climb and the company managed just fine.

So again what is the problem with the new tax?

- - - Updated - - -

And she'd be taxed at over 100% of her income/profits, according to Endus' numbers.

odd because based on the guesstimates of her net worth from 2018 to today, its over a 2 billion dollar growth so in fact the taxes would not be anywhere near 100% of her income/profits.

Even though no one knows for sure her income/profits at all. Or even her estimated net worth for that matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Whelp i guess that is over.

I think its time for this thread to end its just a circle jerk since we can't get any other real discussion going or even debating what could possibly be a better solution then a straight wealth tax.

[Endus]

Like, what other ways?

We're back to this.

Selling stock in other companies that I assume she holds. Sell other property she owns, like real estate or art. Using her immense income. Selling preferred stock in her company. I could keep going.

Nope, Endus provided the recent profit numbers, enjoy!!!

And she'd be taxed at over 100% of her income/profits, according to Endus' numbers.

You mean "a super rough guesstimate based on an estimate of In&Out's profit margins and another separate estimate of its rough revenue."

And you're comparing a tax on her wealth to her income. If I work part-time as a librarian and make $20k/year, and inherit my great-grandpappy's $4,000,000 mansion, the 1% property tax on that will be about $40,000/year. Twice what I make. So I'm gonna have to sell that mansion, not live in it. And that $40,000 comes around again every year.

This stuff already happens. It's normal practice. Why raise a stink just because it might be a rich person divesting themselves of some assets this time around?

[Ivanstone]

I think its time for this thread to end its just a circle jerk since we can't get any other real discussion going or even debating what could possibly be a better solution then a straight wealth tax.

I’m hoping he uses his time off to research the dozens of Billionaires who currently live in countries that require them to pay a wealth tax.

They gotta be losing their shirts right?

Although it seems that the only way to stop being a billionaire in this world is to die or getting convicted of fraud like Bernie Madoff.

[Shadowferal]

I think its time for this thread to end its just a circle jerk since we can't get any other real discussion going or even debating what could possibly be a better solution then a straight wealth tax.

Among his problems is his inability to admit he wants the wealth gap to grow larger.

[PC2]

Among his problems is his inability to admit he wants the wealth gap to grow larger.

Why should anyone care? The wealth gap could grow a trillion times larger than it is today and equality/relative metrics would still never matter. The only thing that matters is *absolute* metrics of improvement.

[Shadowferal]

Why should anyone care? The wealth gap could grow a trillion times larger than it is today and equality/relative metrics would still never matter. The only thing that matters is *absolute* metrics of improvement.

To repeat;

Take heart in the fact that a wealth tax is inevitable. I mean all "his" arguments" have alwsys been more about making the wealth gap bigger. And history has shown us twice in the past couple of centuries that such a thing destroys itself, with the wealthy literally killed.

But since you ignore history and the lessons typically imparted...just don't act all surprised when it happens.

[PC2]

To repeat; But since you ignore history and the lessons typically imparted...just don't act all surprised when it happens.

A federal wealth tax is not on the horizon for the US so it's not an issue. Of course local property taxes exist but I don't think they can really go up much higher where I live, Democrats would lose key benefactors at that point.

If other countries want to shrink the net worth of their wealthiest citizens then it's their prerogative. Rich people will simply move to and support countries that will help them grow their stake in their business instead of shrinking it.

[Zan15]

A federal wealth tax is not on the horizon for the US so it's not an issue. Of course local property taxes exist but I don't think they can really go up much higher where I live, Democrats would lose key benefactors at that point.

If other countries want to shrink the net worth of their wealthiest citizens then it's their prerogative. Rich people will simply move to and support countries that will help them grow their business instead of shrinking it.

both of those are blatantly false and don't happen.

They won't move and their wealth will not shrink. It would also take a couple decades of insane wealth taxes to even make up for what they gained through tax avoidance and wealth growth already.

[beanman12345]

Damn. Waited on a timer for the exact moment to get another 200 posts in. If we put in a wealth tax some of that should go to increased mental health care, it's no joke.

[D3thray]

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.

Kinda hard to plan for tax obligations that didn’t exist when the company was founded…

[PC2]

both of those are blatantly false and don't happen.

They won't move and their wealth will not shrink. It would also take a couple decades of insane wealth taxes to even make up for what they gained through tax avoidance and wealth growth already.

That depends, how high is your fantasy wealth tax? There is no optimal wealth tax but if you believe there is then approximately how much is it? It's hard to comment on it when I don't know what numbers you are working with.

[D3thray]

If you go back to the article in the OP, you'll find we're talking about a wealth tax.

In which they disguise talking about a wealth tax by presenting it as income tax which clearly was not caught by several posters in this very thread. Can’t blame him for that when the article itself pulls this kind of crap.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't need to sell all of their company. They could give some of the company stock to the employees that are actually doing the legwork in increasing the company's value. On top of their salary, that is.

You know, just to stay under "that level".

Do you realize how small of a company you have to be to only be worth around 50 million?

- - - Updated - - -

And other people might be just as good as running the business. Something being "a family business" and "being run well" is not a reason not to change things in the context of our discussion. That's just you whining about fairness.

Also, since the VW Group is arguable one of the largest, if not the largest automaker on the planet, you might be inclined to say they're a well run family business. All of that is technically true.

Remember that emissions scandal that led to some arrests a few years ago? Yeah, that was exclusively born out of the "family business" model, because lead engineers and upper management didn't dare to oppose the family that owns the business and/or didn't dare to tell them they couldn't make the emissions goals that were required.

A family business typically isn't the best business model beyond a certain size.

Sooo, you’re in favor of corporations then? Those are the two major categories of businesses, public and private. Also obligatory ‘it’s but one example of anecdotal evidence’ that I can’t be bothered to refute.

[Zan15]

That depends, how high is your fantasy wealth tax? There is no optimal wealth tax but if you believe there is then approximately how much is it? It's hard to comment on it when I don't know what numbers you are working with.

we were going off two proposals of 3% and 6%.

sure lets not call it a wealth tax, lets call it a property tax shall we since they take other assets such as your home and call it property, so lets call stocks property.

There everything is fixed now.

[Endus]

Kinda hard to plan for tax obligations that didn’t exist when the company was founded…

Pretty much every new tax plan has a set date for commencement or a phase-in process, which eliminates that concern.

In which they disguise talking about a wealth tax by presenting it as income tax which clearly was not caught by several posters in this very thread. Can’t blame him for that when the article itself pulls this kind of crap.

There was no such "disguise".

[D3thray]

Nobody would be forcing her to do so. If she finds other ways to pay her taxes, that's fine.

And if she does choose to, so what? That's not a bad thing, in any way whatsoever. You keep acting like it is. "Oh no, a billionaire might sell some shares, the horror of it all!" Come the hell on. It's not spooky or weird or harmful for stock to be sold.

- - - Updated - - -

Currently working just fine in Canada (BC), France, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Italy, and Belgium, to cite current active examples.

First of all you know damn well in Canada you’re talking 1% not 3% and it’s only a proposal, not implemented. Furthermore, in terms of a progressive income tax, the US already has a more progressive income tax than our maple leaf neighbors.

When examining all taxes from all levels of government in Canada, the paper finds that the top 20 percent of income-earning families is the only group that collectively pays a greater share of total taxes than their share of total income earned. Specifically, the top 20 percent earns 49.1 percent of the nation’s income but pays 55.9 percent of total taxes—a difference of 13.9 per- cent. By contrast, families in the bottom 20 percent earn 4.1 percent of the nation’s income while collectively paying just 1.8 percent of all taxes.

https://taxfoundation.org/publicatio...come-tax-data/

vs

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...-in-canada.pdf

You only pay more proportionally in income taxes than the income you earn in the top 5% in the US. We can argue income disparity differences but this is currently the case in the US even after the cut in the top marginal tax rate.

Plus you don’t even have estate or gift taxes at the federal level to prevent passing off assets to others to avoid just such a tax.

So spare me when you say your ideas about wealth taxes are going swimmingly in Canada when you know you don’t even have them and the US proposal is far harsher.

[Shadowferal]

A federal wealth tax is not on the horizon for the US so it's not an issue.

You always claim this bullshit denial...and when you're wrong yet again you'll lack the grace to admit it. The wealth gap is getting larger. But I'm damn certain your response is

. Rich people will simply move to and support countries that will help them grow their stake in their business instead of shrinking it.

You don't know anything about other countries. You couldn't name them to save your life. Especially since most countries would indeed welcome the wealthy...and their wealth, and wouldn't let them leave until they divest themselves of it.