Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Shadowferal]

They're using it fine. They never made a claim that it was a legal term, unlike you.

You're getting it! If it's "legal" then it's "fair."

[Machismo]

No one but you, tried to equate fair share with legal. You did that. No one else. You did it right here:


You did it, because you know you can't argue fair share the way it was used, by me, so you, no one fucking else, tried to make it about legality.

So, over just this one point about "fair share", you have not only shown yourself to be a lair, but also a bad faith poster. Basically, exactly like all the Trump supporters that have been banned from here. Your tactics are literally no different.

That's the problem, "fair share" is nothing but a hollow talking point, that isn't based on anything concrete. It's little more than punditry.

Oh, I'm well aware that "fair share" really means "other people need to pay more, but not me."

- - - Updated - - -

Not trying to dehumanize them, trying to humanize them. Unless you think the things billionaires can do are things everyone can do. The wealthy live like the lords and kings of old, I just want them brought more down to earth. No one needs their own space company, or Giga yacht, or private enclave and in fact, very few people will ever even come close to having this kind of stuff. Instead of allowing a select handful to live far above and beyond what an average person does, it's far better for society if their excess wealth is used for the betterment of society as a whole. Billionaires can and should still exist to a point, but not to the point it starts to have a determinantal effect on society, which based on the record amounts of corporate consolidation and the amount of money being push into politics alone, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that isn't what's happening.

Yes, billionaires are humans, and they deserve rights and freedoms every bit as much as you or I do. The fact that you don't care, and understand that most people wouldn't care, underscores my point perfectly.

It's easy to not care about taking away someone else's freedoms, because you're not losing anything in the process. Sure, the justification for the taking of that freedom is "the benefit of society," but that's how it has always gone. That's how most oppression throughout history has been justified, even when it's supposedly well-intended.

[Bodakane]

That's the problem, "fair share" is nothing but a hollow talking point, that isn't based on anything concrete. It's little more than punditry.

Oh, I'm well aware that "fair share" really means "other people need to pay more, but not me."

Stop it. Just fucking stop it.

If you thought it was a hollow point you would have said that. Instead, like a bad faith poster, you literally reinvented MY FUCKING POINT, to be about something else entirely (legality) and went a multipost bullshit rant about what you changed it into....then when that stopped working........you fucking lied and said it was someone else's argument.

This is horseshit.

[Machismo]

Stop it. Just fucking stop it.

If you thought it was a hollow point you would have said that. Instead, like a bad faith poster, you literally reinvented MY FUCKING POINT, to be about something else entirely (legality) and went a multipost bullshit rant about what you changed it into....then when that stopped working........you fucking lied and said it was someone else's argument.

This is horseshit.

Once again, "fair share" isn't my argument, I'm mocking that argument, because it means nothing. its empty platitudes.

It's like when people complain that Bezos is getting all these stocks as part of his salary, when that's not really happening.

Meanwhile, I stick with the numbers, and try to point out the bullshit that Propublica is pushing with their "true tax rate."

[xChurch]

Yes, billionaires are humans, and they deserve rights and freedoms every bit as much as you or I do. The fact that you don't care, and understand that most people wouldn't care, underscores my point perfectly.

It's easy to not care about taking away someone else's freedoms, because you're not losing anything in the process. Sure, the justification for the taking of that freedom is "the benefit of society," but that's how it has always gone. That's how most oppression throughout history has been justified, even when it's supposedly well-intended.

The reason most don't care is that they have a level of freedom very very, very few other people have. You're asking people to care about a billionaire's "freedom" to have a space company just to have a dick measuring contest, and then acting confused and even belligerent when people tell you they don't care about maintaining that freedom for a select few. It's just not worth it for society as a whole to maintain that level of freedom for just a small group when their excess wealth could be put to better use. In the end, these people will still have outsized power compared to the rest of us. Bezo's will still have his space company, Zuckerburg will still have his enclave in Hawaii, etc etc. No one is going into the poor house because of the things people in the thread are suggesting, save for their own incompetence putting them there. Of course, it kind of blows my mind that expecting billionaires to you know....make more money, is somehow too big of an ask, it's...like what they do. The rest of us don't get to complain about our taxes and be let off scott free.

[Shadowferal]

If another "insurrection" occurs, I should wonder that the place won't be in DC.

[Machismo]

The reason most don't care is that they have a level of freedom very very, very few other people have. You're asking people to care about a billionaire's "freedom" to have a space company just to have a dick measuring contest, and then acting confused and even belligerent when people tell you they don't care about maintaining that freedom for a select few. It's just not worth it for society as a whole to maintain that level of freedom for just a small group when their excess wealth could be put to better use. In the end, these people will still have outsized power compared to the rest of us. Bezo's will still have his space company, Zuckerburg will still have his enclave in Hawaii, etc etc. No one is going into the poor house because of the things people in the thread are suggesting, save for their own incompetence putting them there. Of course, it kind of blows my mind that expecting billionaires to you know....make more money, is somehow too big of an ask, it's...like what they do. The rest of us don't get to complain about our taxes and be let off scott free.

And therein lies my thesis, people don't give a shit about the freedoms of others. I know exactly why they don't care, and I pointed it out many, many times.

All of this is to push misinformation in order to blame the wealthy, because they are easy to hate by the masses.

Meanwhile, the numbers don't really back up their claims.

[Bodakane]

Once again, "fair share" isn't my argument, I'm mocking that argument, because it means nothing. its empty platitudes.

It's like when people complain that Bezos is getting all these stocks as part of his salary, when that's not really happening.

Meanwhile, I stick with the numbers, and try to point out the bullshit that Propublica is pushing with their "true tax rate."

#1. You were the one to make the fair share argument about legality. Acknowledge this.

#2. It is effectively his salary. He didn't;t do his job for $81K/year. He had the the stocks in lieu of making billions in direct pay. If didn't have the stocks, following your exceedingly stupid take, he would have still only made $81K/year.

#3. No you haven't. You've lied, repeatedly. You've argued in bad faith, repeatedly. You've also shown a complete lack of understanding of literally anything anyone has said.

[Machismo]

#1. You were the one to make the fair share argument about legality. Acknowledge this.

#2. It is effectively his salary. He didn't;t do his job for $81K/year. He had the the stocks in lieu of making billions in direct pay. If didn't have the stocks, following your exceedingly stupid take, he would have still only made $81K/year.

#3. No you haven't. You've lied, repeatedly. You've argued in bad faith, repeatedly. You've also shown a complete lack of understanding of literally anything anyone has said.

I'm the one who said it's their fair share, because the United States Government, the people who literally charge their taxes, say so. I fully admit it, proudly.

It's not effectively his salary. This is you being wrong, over and over again, and not being able to admit it. Once again, it started out as a minor mistake, but you kept refusing to admit you made a teensy boo boo. Hell, I even admitted to being wrong, just yesterday, when I accused Endus of saying something he didn't say. You can do it, too.

I provided those numbers, multiple times. I understand just fine, and considering I'm arguing with the guy who doesn't know what a salary is, this isn't really the insult you think it is.

[Huehuecoyotl]

What drives someone to defend billionaires to this extent? What mindset do you have to get in to say to yourself "those people that own more than most countries need someone to defend them, poor dears. They are getting unfairly attacked just because they have enough money to create their own NASA while their employees have to piss in bottles for fear of losing the job that (with taxpayer support) almost keeps them out of poverty."

I know who's side I'm on, and it isn't the kind of people whose greed leads them to continue to drag money towards themselves when they already have more than they can spend in a dozen lifetimes. Whose wealth damages entire societies, particularly when they use some of that wealth to effectively control the political and legal processes to their own benefit.

Fuck anybody that tries to defend these people. Because the damage these people are doing to our societies can only be fixed in two ways; through legal and political ways, or via the French approach. And if these fuckers carry on demanding that we eat cake, they're going to end up losing the choice of which route gets taken.

[Shadowferal]

What drives someone to defend billionaires to this extent? .

Someone that has a lot of money and supported Trump's tax cut.

[Draco-Onis]

I'm the one who said it's their fair share, because the United States Government, the people who literally charge their taxes, say so. I fully admit it, proudly.

I am not aware of anyone in the government that claims that the current system is fair or fine, if that were the case it wouldn't change every year. Also it's illogical to say it's the US government, did you miss the Trump tax cuts? lobbyist paid for by the rich literally wrote the thing and put notes on the margin last minute.

The current system allows the rich to write the tax code for themselves because money equals speech and no one in the government is going to claim it's fair it just suits their purpose which is to get bribes I mean donations.

[Machismo]

I am not aware of anyone in the government that claims that the current system is fair or fine, if that were the case it wouldn't change every year. Also it's illogical to say it's the US government, did you miss the Trump tax cuts? lobbyist paid for by the rich literally wrote the thing and put notes on the margin last minute.

The current system allows the rich to write the tax code for themselves because money equals speech and no one in the government is going to claim it's fair it just suits their purpose which is to get bribes I mean donations.

And yet, that government isn't changing it. They certainly aren't seriously close to getting that wealth tax that people on here want so damn much.

[Santti]

What drives someone to defend billionaires to this extent? What mindset do you have to get in to say to yourself "those people that own more than most countries need someone to defend them, poor dears. They are getting unfairly attacked just because they have enough money to create their own NASA while their employees have to piss in bottles for fear of losing the job that (with taxpayer support) almost keeps them out of poverty."

I had no idea either, but I found a nice youtube channel explain it to me. The videos are titled "The Alt-Right Playbook". Very much recommend watching them. Explains their position quite well, I believe. And yes, Machismo fits there as well. Particularly the parts about rhetoric.

Long story short, the shitty arguments are not a bug. They are a feature.

[Fugus]

The reason most don't care is that they have a level of freedom very very, very few other people have. You're asking people to care about a billionaire's "freedom" to have a space company just to have a dick measuring contest, and then acting confused and even belligerent when people tell you they don't care about maintaining that freedom for a select few. It's just not worth it for society as a whole to maintain that level of freedom for just a small group when their excess wealth could be put to better use. In the end, these people will still have outsized power compared to the rest of us. Bezo's will still have his space company, Zuckerburg will still have his enclave in Hawaii, etc etc. No one is going into the poor house because of the things people in the thread are suggesting, save for their own incompetence putting them there. Of course, it kind of blows my mind that expecting billionaires to you know....make more money, is somehow too big of an ask, it's...like what they do. The rest of us don't get to complain about our taxes and be let off scott free.

@Machismo

I have never really seen anyone with this logic on the system with any major grasp on the overall system and sounds like a response made from someone not paying attention and just out of spite.

If this was some open system like WoW where anyone could just go out and kill boars and sell the scrap with no regard to supply and demand and an infinite supply of them and you didn't even need food, water, shelter or clothing and the only stuff that has any supply/demand curve are luxury items you can do without and survive, then most of us wouldn't have an issue with the top getting rich beyond imagining. In worlds like that taxes aren't even needed.

No, the problem with the rich paying their "Fair Share" has to do with the fact that the world isn't like WoW, people actually need to make enough to survive off their labor and taxes are needed to fund out defense, education systems, and to help those who can't help themselves and this is a a system where our money doesn't disappear the moment it hits the vendor and actually circulates and is where all that other money comes from.

With the rich having so much of it, it stops circulating and starts to pool and does nothing for the economy, the working class and basically anyone. And to claim, "They can invest it" is a horseshit cop out as any money they invest into the company is already tax exempt, any money given for stocks doesn't go to the company beyond when they first issued it, and quite literally, if they are being taxed on it, it means that was profits that they weren't going to invest but to pocket.

As for what the "Fair Share" should be, that is something that can be debated but just because the law doesn't say what their fair share it, is says what they will require them to pay, whether that is fair or not.

Like if there is a house that costs $3,000 a month to maintain and I have a roommate and I only pay $10 a month while he pays the other $2,900 that doesn't mean I am paying my fair share. Even if I paid $2,000 while he only paid $1,000, if I get free reign and he gets only a walk in closet while he is locked out of most of the benefits provided to the house and the standard of living that comes with it and is effectively locked out of it, then I still am not paying my fair share and he should walk or kick me out.

As far as what the "Fair Share" for the rich is, it is certainly more than they pay now as they benefit more from the nation as a whole and the defenses it provides and the education to its works and its infrastructure. They benefit from these services far more than the average person whether they admit it or not. And a progressive tax system takes that into consideration along with the fact that the amount of spending money versus required expenses gets higher the more you make and the richer you are the more you can handle it without it adversely impacting your life.

Even if the top pay more than the rest, given the disparity in wealth and income between the two, they still don't pay enough. Just like if you want the bottom to pay more (Or any taxes), start requiring their employer to pay them living wages where they can avoid to survive, without welfare, and actually be able to pay taxes. Then you might see the percentage of "Who pays more" change instead of having the bottom ~40% of the nation too poor to pay with something like 1 in 7 Americans on Food Stamps.

And to Machismo, this is an example of how you turned this thread into a tangent of libertarian ideology.

[Machismo]

@Machismo

I have never really seen anyone with this logic on the system with any major grasp on the overall system and sounds like a response made from someone not paying attention and just out of spite.

If this was some open system like WoW where anyone could just go out and kill boars and sell the scrap with no regard to supply and demand and an infinite supply of them and you didn't even need food, water, shelter or clothing and the only stuff that has any supply/demand curve are luxury items you can do without and survive, then most of us wouldn't have an issue with the top getting rich beyond imagining. In worlds like that taxes aren't even needed.

No, the problem with the rich paying their "Fair Share" has to do with the fact that the world isn't like WoW, people actually need to make enough to survive off their labor and taxes are needed to fund out defense, education systems, and to help those who can't help themselves and this is a a system where our money doesn't disappear the moment it hits the vendor and actually circulates and is where all that other money comes from.

With the rich having so much of it, it stops circulating and starts to pool and does nothing for the economy, the working class and basically anyone. And to claim, "They can invest it" is a horseshit cop out as any money they invest into the company is already tax exempt, any money given for stocks doesn't go to the company beyond when they first issued it, and quite literally, if they are being taxed on it, it means that was profits that they weren't going to invest but to pocket.

As for what the "Fair Share" should be, that is something that can be debated but just because the law doesn't say what their fair share it, is says what they will require them to pay, whether that is fair or not.

Like if there is a house that costs $3,000 a month to maintain and I have a roommate and I only pay $10 a month while he pays the other $2,900 that doesn't mean I am paying my fair share. Even if I paid $2,000 while he only paid $1,000, if I get free reign and he gets only a walk in closet while he is locked out of most of the benefits provided to the house and the standard of living that comes with it and is effectively locked out of it, then I still am not paying my fair share and he should walk or kick me out.

As far as what the "Fair Share" for the rich is, it is certainly more than they pay now as they benefit more from the nation as a whole and the defenses it provides and the education to its works and its infrastructure. They benefit from these services far more than the average person whether they admit it or not. And a progressive tax system takes that into consideration along with the fact that the amount of spending money versus required expenses gets higher the more you make and the richer you are the more you can handle it without it adversely impacting your life.

Even if the top pay more than the rest, given the disparity in wealth and income between the two, they still don't pay enough. Just like if you want the bottom to pay more (Or any taxes), start requiring their employer to pay them living wages where they can avoid to survive, without welfare, and actually be able to pay taxes. Then you might see the percentage of "Who pays more" change instead of having the bottom ~40% of the nation too poor to pay with something like 1 in 7 Americans on Food Stamps.

And to Machismo, this is an example of how you turned this thread into a tangent of libertarian ideology.

Here's the problem, most of that "money" is nothing more than stocks. It's not money, it's pieces of a company. In reality, the rich largely just have most of the pieces of companies, which as long been the case.

The biggest issue I have, is the call to go after wealth, and tax it.... as opposed to the other push to simply increase an income tax rate.

Wealth taxes are fucking dangerous.

[Shadowferal]

I have never really seen anyone with this logic on the system with any major grasp on the overall system and sounds like a response made from someone not paying attention and just out of spite.

Libertarianism is widely condemned for obvious reasons.

[Fugus]

Here's the problem, most of that "money" is nothing more than stocks. It's not money, it's pieces of a company. In reality, the rich largely just have most of the pieces of companies, which as long been the case.

The biggest issue I have, is the call to go after wealth, and tax it.... as opposed to the other push to simply increase an income tax rate.

Wealth taxes are fucking dangerous.

I am not advocating a wealth tax on unrealized gains and never have. I have advocated closing loopholes they use to unfairly lower their taxes and to offshore their income to avoid it.

But I am not one who has advocated for a wealth tax on unrealized gains. The absolute CLOSEST, I could realistically even think about to that would be to start doing progressive tax scales on physical assets values such as homes and cars and such so that those at the lowest rungs pay little to nothing for their substance house and cars, the middle class pay decent amounts for their homes and cars while the top pay higher rates on their McMansions. But even that is a stretch.

For me, tax it when they make it, taxes it when they spend it, and when they inherit it, treat it like they made it.

[Bodakane]

I'm the one who said it's their fair share, because the United States Government, the people who literally charge their taxes, say so. I fully admit it, proudly.

Ok, and has been proven repeatedly, that's a wrong headed and inconsistent take. If you argue that its not, then you must be prepared to say slavery was fair when when it was legal.

It's not effectively his salary. This is you being wrong, over and over again, and not being able to admit it. Once again, it started out as a minor mistake, but you kept refusing to admit you made a teensy boo boo. Hell, I even admitted to being wrong, just yesterday, when I accused Endus of saying something he didn't say. You can do it, too.

It 1000000000000000% is his effectively salary. Learn the words being words here before you respond. It was never a mistake. Its an end around on paying taxes. Everyone, including Jeff Fucking Bezos knows this except you. It is why he takes such a small paycheck.

I provided those numbers, multiple times. I understand just fine, and considering I'm arguing with the guy who doesn't know what a salary is, this isn't really the insult you think it is.

You don't understand literally anything about any of this.

You don't understand fair share.
You don't understand the concept of tax shelters.
You don't understand how the ultra wealthy avoid taxes.
You don't understand how much these people use government services and avoid as much as paying for.
You don't understand libertarianism.
You don't understand the word effectively the way its been used in this discussion.
You don't understand wealth.

I'm fairly certain virtually everyone in this thread can add more.....

[Machismo]

I am not advocating a wealth tax on unrealized gains and never have. I have advocated closing loopholes they use to unfairly lower their taxes and to offshore their income to avoid it.

But I am not one who has advocated for a wealth tax on unrealized gains. The absolute CLOSEST, I could realistically even think about to that would be to start doing progressive tax scales on physical assets values such as homes and cars and such so that those at the lowest rungs pay little to nothing for their substance house and cars, the middle class pay decent amounts for their homes and cars while the top pay higher rates on their McMansions. But even that is a stretch.

For me, tax it when they make it, taxes it when they spend it, and when they inherit it, treat it like they made it.

And those are all reasonable arguments. I may disagree with some, but that's perfectly fine, and I would respect the points being made.

However the wealth tax, especially the narrative pushed by Propublica, is based on a lot of misinformation and bad statistics.

For me, I'd prefer a consumer-based sales tax, with certain things being able to be excluded, like basic foods. I would prefer to tax based on consumption, which would promote savings, and investment for retirement. I think the one thing that we still overlook, is preparedness for retirement. Old people are a huge financial burden on taxpayers, way more than many even realize.