Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

Nice try at changing the subject.

It's not changing the subject, it's calling your motives and stance into question. It's demonstrating that this isn't about making the world a better place, but about your disdain for others, and a need to punish them. Or, you can prove me wrong, and alleviate hardship in the world... by either sending care packages, sending donations, or even working diligently to get more of those Afghani refugees into your country. If you like, I can track down the numbers for your particular government representatives. Is it France?

The general whine is that the wealthy just aren't doing their fair share. But, as we see, the kinda are. They pay more, as a percentage of their income.

They also donate a ton of resources and money.

I simply offered a way for you to show how well-intended you are.

[JohnBrown1917]

It's not changing the subject, it's calling your motives and stance into question. It's demonstrating that this isn't about making the world a better place, but about your disdain for others, and a need to punish them. Or, you can prove me wrong, and alleviate hardship in the world... by either sending care packages, sending donations, or even working diligently to get more of those Afghani refugees into your country. If you like, I can track down the numbers for your particular government representatives. Is it France?

The general whine is that the wealthy just aren't doing their fair share. But, as we see, the kinda are. They pay more, as a percentage of their income.

They also donate a ton of resources and money.

I simply offered a way for you to show how well-intended you are.

Nah, i'm just not going to answer a question asked in bad faith. you just can't handle the heat when you figured out that capitalism has no way of preventing climate change.

[Machismo]

Nah, i'm just not going to answer a question asked in bad faith. you just can't handle the heat when you figured out that capitalism has no way of preventing climate change.

Your attempts to dodge are proving my point for me.

The argument that the wealthy are selfish scoundrels doesn't fly too well, when the numbers disagree with you, and you "cannot be bothered."

if you want to fight it, then don't shop at any business that doesn't operate in a manner that is as "green" as you like. Do your part.

let me know if you change your mind about helping Afghani refugees!!!

[JohnBrown1917]

Your attempts to dodge are proving my point for me.

This is just sad.

The argument that the wealthy are selfish scoundrels doesn't fly too well, when the numbers disagree with you, and you "cannot be bothered."

They cause far more damage.

if you want to fight it, then don't shop at any business that doesn't operate in a manner that is as "green" as you like. Do your part.
!

That is not going to stop climate change. We need big systemic changes to even stand a chance. Your way has done nothing in the decades we have known about this, only gotten worse.

[Shadowferal]

Is Machismo once again pushing for the mass genocide of the lower classes so he can continue to lick the boots of the wealthy? I swear I feel like we've had the same conversation...in this very thread....at least twice already.

Several threads actually.
An amazing waste of time arguing with anyone of a libertarian stripe. Ideologues bordering zealotry and fanaticism.

[Machismo]

This is just sad.


They cause far more damage.



That is not going to stop climate change. We need big systemic changes to even stand a chance.

This isn't just about climate change, this is a thread about the wealthy supposedly not paying enough money.

As for the rest, I clearly have you cornered, and I think even you realize it.

- - - Updated - - -

Several threads actually.
An amazing waste of time arguing with anyone of a libertarian stripe. Ideologues bordering zealotry and fanaticism.

You mean showing that the numbers don't agree with the bullshit narrative being pushed?

[JohnBrown1917]

This isn't just about climate change, this is a thread about the wealthy supposedly not paying enough money.

I brought up climate change as one of the biggest problems caused by wealth inequality.

As for the rest, I clearly have you cornered, and I think even you realize it.

Lmao.
Climate change is just getting worse under this system but it will somehow fix itself.

[Machismo]

I brought up climate change as one of the biggest problems caused by wealth inequality.


Lmao.

Wealth equality isn't causing climate change, the use of resources and emission of greenhouse gases is causing climate change.

Now, this is a story about wealthy people and their tax burden, which is higher than that, as a percentage of their income, than the average person. People want to scream about how immoral and selfish they are, and yet when pressed, they don't seem to want to demonstrate their generous nature.

[JohnBrown1917]

Wealth equality isn't causing climate change, the use of resources and emission of greenhouse gases is causing climate change.

By profit-driven companies and it benefits a tiny minority.

Now, this is a story about wealthy people and their tax burden, which is higher than that, as a percentage of their income, than the average person. People want to scream about how immoral and selfish they are, and yet when pressed, they don't seem to want to demonstrate their generous nature.

Got any more strawmen?

[uuuhname]

Several threads actually.
An amazing waste of time arguing with anyone of a libertarian stripe. Ideologues bordering zealotry and fanaticism.

several times in the same thread....

[Machismo]

By profit-driven companies and it benefits a tiny minority.



Got any more strawmen?

It's not a straw man, it's literally the thread topic. Your global warming rant is the straw man.

Those companies make products, and employ people. You use those products, do you not? I mean, how are you even accessing the internet, if it weren't for all those polluting bastards making computer equipment and cell phones?

If you don't benefit, then feel free to make your own.

[uuuhname]

it's not wealth inequality itself that causes climate change, it's just the fact the bottom 50% of the planet creates almost nothing of while the top 10% is responsible for almost ALL OF IT.

[Veggie50]

By profit-driven companies and it benefits a tiny minority.



Got any more strawmen?

Dont think we can really pin climate change on the wealthy, though they do have the most means to potentially fight it.

Yes, big corporations have high greenhouse gas emissions. They have those because consumers like us want cheap products to satiate our consumerism. It’s really a system of expectations which we’re all a part of.

Best way to combat this is to consume less. Result is everyone wants their neighbours to consume less, while keeping their own consumerism intact. Lots of whataboutism.

There is a way to make people consume less though; increase prices. And if they increase prices by making emissions standards more stringent, the knife cuts both ways. The upper class making smaller profit margins is a byproduct, not an aim.

[Endus]

I did read it, you spoke of hardship.

This creates undue, and targeted hardship on the wealthy. Just because you don't give a shit, doesn't make it so. Mark Cuban even laid it out, as did I with Lynsi Snyder.

That's not "hardship".

You don't get to redefine words to fit your argument. If their usual definitions don't fit, you're just wrong.

The act of being wealthy isn't a harmful action. People should be free to do what they want, so long as they are not harming others. The last time I checked, murder is a harmful act.

The act of garnering wealth, however, is pretty universally harmful.

"The act of being wealthy isn't a harmful action" is like saying "standing over a dead body you've just stabbed to death is not a harmful action." Sure, standing there isn't. That's not the question.

If taxes are not an infringement on one's personal freedoms, then taxing the poor isn't an infringement on their personal freedoms. Shall we bat around that argument again?

It isn't an infringement on their personal freedoms.

It's an infliction of hardship.

And that it inflicts hardship is entirely predicated on the context of their low wealth and that the taxation pushes them further into financial hardship.

A factor that does not exist when it comes to the wealthy.

It's the same reason for progressive tax brackets. Which are nearly universally adopted, because everyone recognizes this principle, except libertarian types who don't care about how much suffering their policies would create.

- - - Updated - - -

Dont think we can really pin climate change on the wealthy, though they do have the most means to potentially fight it.

Not just "the wealthy", but "the super-wealthy". Just 100 companies are responsible for a whopping 70% of global emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change

Yes, big corporations have high greenhouse gas emissions. They have those because consumers like us want cheap products to satiate our consumerism. It’s really a system of expectations which we’re all a part of.

This is an attempt to shift the blame from the polluters to the consumers, which is unreasonable. Consumption is not the problem. Exploitative and harmful business practices are.

[uuuhname]

This is an attempt to shift the blame from the polluters to the consumers, which is unreasonable. Consumption is not the problem. Exploitative and harmful business practices are.

the system itself which is... consumerism, is the problem. this is the system we are born into we have no choice but to participate in it. blaming it on those who have no choice but to work within the system and not the system itself is entirely self defeating.

[Bodakane]

So, you're not the guy who claimed Bezos was getting paid in stocks as part of his salary?

What percentage of your earnings do you pay? In the United States, high-income earners pay a higher percentage of their income, as per the 2020 tax records.

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

People say they benefit more, but I have seen no quantifiable evidence of this. This is simply a baseless claim on your part. Now, if you care to quantify that, then I look forward to that evidence. Are we basing that "more" on total dollar value, or as a percentage of their income? Since you are talking about percentages of income, I can only assume you also mean they use more government infrastructure and services, as compared to their income. I'd hate to be using a double standard to be disingenuous.

They do pay more. They pay a considerable amount more.

Once again, the numbers don't lie. But, people who say that Jeff Bezos was paid in stock as part of his salary... did lie.

I'm really sick of your lying bullshit. Read this, then apologize for calling me a liar.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachels...h=76eb6440389a

For Jeff Bezos, wealth does not come from a monthly paycheck. Amazon only pays its founder a salary of $81,000 per year (not including the $1.6 million Amazon pays Bezos’s for security), a drop in the bucket compared to his overall net worth of an estimated $200 billion. Instead, nearly 90% of Bezos’s fortune lies in his Amazon stock holdings.

You'll notice that's from Forbes. Stocks were always part of his compensation, which is why his base salary was so low. Now stop your shit.

[Machismo]

That's not "hardship".

You don't get to redefine words to fit your argument. If their usual definitions don't fit, you're just wrong.



The act of garnering wealth, however, is pretty universally harmful.

"The act of being wealthy isn't a harmful action" is like saying "standing over a dead body you've just stabbed to death is not a harmful action." Sure, standing there isn't. That's not the question.



It isn't an infringement on their personal freedoms.

It's an infliction of hardship.

And that it inflicts hardship is entirely predicated on the context of their low wealth and that the taxation pushes them further into financial hardship.

A factor that does not exist when it comes to the wealthy.

It's the same reason for progressive tax brackets. Which are nearly universally adopted, because everyone recognizes this principle, except libertarian types who don't care about how much suffering their policies would create.

- - - Updated - - -



Not just "the wealthy", but "the super-wealthy". Just 100 companies are responsible for a whopping 70% of global emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change



This is an attempt to shift the blame from the polluters to the consumers, which is unreasonable. Consumption is not the problem. Exploitative and harmful business practices are.

No, it's not hardship to you. You spoke of harm, and guys like Mark Cuban laid out very specifically why it's hardship, mainly due to a lack of liquid assets, and it would force them to sell off their property. Your inability to be empathetic is not a valid argument.

You are quite literally forcing them to sell their property, which is a hardship. Now, you can swear they are not suffering, and it's not a problem, but Mark Cuban certainly disagrees.

It just happens to be hardship and harm that you don't give a shit about.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm really sick of your lying bullshit. Read this, than apologize for calling me a liar.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachels...h=76eb6440389a



Now stop your shit.

You claimed he was paid stock as part of his salary, I proved that to be false... twice.

Which is why I tried to explain the difference between wealth, income, and salary. It would seem that the lesson did not take.

Your source literally proves me right, and you wrong. He's not paid in Amazon stock as part of his salary, because he already owned the fucking stock.

I am going to have to thank for for that marvelous self-own, it was genuinely enjoyable.

Jesus fucking christ.

He did not. His actual salary includes stocks. that is the loophole you pretend doesn't exist.

I know how taxes are taken out of stocks. I am saying that should be changed for people in that bracket. And not because of hate o punishment but because it is fair, since they use more of government services than anyone and only people of their wealth can afford to dodge taxes by using stocks as a tax shelter. You can't do it. I can't do it. We would starve and we use less than they do.

Its wrong, it needs to be changed. So stop telling me how it is as justification. I know how it is and it should changed.

Umm, no, his actual salary does not include stocks.

His wealth is largely consisted of his stock portfolio and other assets. That may be too complicated. His wealth, is all his stuff.

His income is his salary, and other realized gains, like when he sells stock.

So, at this point, you either still don't know what those words mean, or you are still pushing a false statement:

https://www.morningstar.com/news/mar...security-costs

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

"Basically, Bezos doesn’t need stock-based awards, given that he already owned 55,495,676 Amazon shares as of April 3, or 11.15% of the shares outstanding. Based on current stock prices, the value of his stockholdings exceeded $133 billion."

They don't need to pay him, what he already had.

[Bodakane]

Umm, no, his actual salary does not include stocks.

His wealth is largely consisted of his stock portfolio.

His income is his salary, and other realized gains, like when he sells stock.

Read the article as much as you need to.

His Amazon stock portfolio is what it is so he doesn't;t have to take as much of an actual paycheck......SO HE PAYS LESS IN TAXES!!!!!!

Your sheer ignorance over the subject doesn't;t mean i'm a liar, it just means you don't understand the concepts your crying about. You were literally proven wrong, be a fucking adult and take your lumps.

[Machismo]

Read the article as much as you need to.

His Amazon stock portfolio is what it is so he doesn't;t have to take as much of an actual paycheck.

Your sheer ignorance over the subject doesn't;t mean i'm a liar, it just means you don't understand the concepts your crying about. You were literally proven wrong, be a fucking adult and take your lumps.

And he did not get that as a salary, which was the claim you made.

It's an asset.

Your sheer ignorance on the definitions of basic words is not my problem. WE already established that I understand the concepts, because I provided the literal definitions for you, to clear up the misconception on your part.

A salary and wealth are not the same thing.

Income and wealth are not the same thing.

A salary is part of one's income.

Bezos does not receive stock as part of his salary.

The stocks he sells are part of his income (via capital gains/losses).

The stocks he does not sell, are part of his wealth.

[Endus]

No, it's not hardship to you.

Not just "to me". "To any reasonable use of the term".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hardship

You're misusing words because your position cannot hold up to honest scrutiny, and you know it.

You spoke of harm, and guys like Mark Cuban laid out very specifically why it's hardship, mainly due to a lack of liquid assets, and it would force them to sell off their property. Your inability to be empathetic is not a valid argument.

Minor annoyances he would get his accountants to deal with is not "hardship" by any measure.

And nothing I'm saying has anything to do with any "lack of empathy". There you go with the personal attacks and/or projection, again. You can't make your case on the facts, so you have to portray me as a "bad person".

You are quite literally forcing them to sell their property, which is a hardship.

This is recursively false.

They aren't "forced to sell their property", they're obliged to pay their legally-owed taxes. Like everyone is. If you're going to call that "forcing", all you're really saying is that law enforcement exists as a concept. It's a meaningless use of the term "force". It's the same kind of "forced" like "they force me to stop murdering people".

If you're not against the very basic concept of "rule of law", then you know you're being dishonest, here.

And if you are, you're absolutely nuts and that position says everything anyone needs to know about you. You really are opposed to stopping serial killers from getting their kill on, in this instance.

And despite the nonsense use of "forced", it's not a "hardship", since we're talking about wealth over $50 million, and you're using that word incorrectly.

You can't define your terms properly. And you deflect every time you're asked to. Because you're using scary-sounding words out of their proper context because you hope that dishonest appeals to emotion might gain you some ground when you very clearly know that logic and reason can't gain you any.