Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Glorious Leader]

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 it was legal

The best part about his take here is that flies right in the face of usual libertarian argument that taxation is theft.

I'll also add he does not understand anarchism.

[Machismo]

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 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.


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.....

You said it was quite literally his salary, and that they were giving him shares.

That was objectively false.

Can you admit it?

[Bodakane]

You said it was quite literally his salary, and that they were giving him shares.

That was objectively false.

Can you admit it?

Link

Salary is financial compensation an employee receives for performing the job, and part of an employee compensation package. Salary can be on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis.

Those stocks are his compensation for running Amazon no matter how you want to parse it. Once again, just like with every other semantics bullshit you've pulled in here, you are arguing about words that you either made up the definition to like you did with "fair share" or take only one narrow definition of many and then act as if that is the only definition. If this isn't true, explain why his payroll hit is only $81K.

[Machismo]

Link



Those stocks are his compensation for running Amazon no matter how you want to parse it. Once again, just like with every other semantics bullshit you've pulled in here, you are arguing about words that you either made up the definition to like you did with "fair share" or take only one narrow definition of many and then act as if that is the only definition. If this isn't true, explain why his payroll hit is only $81K.

He owned the stock, whether he acted as CEO, or not.

He could literally quit today, and still have all that stock.

Does that mean my Chipotle stock is my compensation for running Chipotle?

I've never worked at Chipotle.

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

Until you can work past these definitions, then we really are stuck.

His payroll is low, because he doesn't need it, because he owned the fucking company. He has vast wealth, but relatively low liquidity, which he gets by selling his stock. It's not compensation, it's not a salary. It was all his when he started his company.

[Fugus]

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.

Yeah, I believe I mentioned much earlier in the thread I was against a wealth tax and others also mentioned the flawed setup they cherry picked but the overall numbers were still striking even when taking that stuff out and looking at the overall picture.

As for a sales tax based system, I would have to disagree on that one, it hugely rewards people who have more income more than we do now while punishing those who are don't.

As for the retirement issues, we have known about them for decades the issue comes from the party of "Person Responsibility" refusing to increase the taxes to pay into the system knowing this bubble was coming and then instead chose to offload the burden on their children and grandchildren to pay for their past due bills on the issue.

And one of the best ways to promote saving for retirement is by setting up the economy so that the people working has enough spending money to support themselves and their family while being able to save up for retirement while forcing companies to actually take care of their employees and pay them enough to survive and save and give them the benefits their grandparents, through unions and god knows how much else, fought for.

And none of that even gets into the part where the need for labor has declined over the decades due to automation removing jobs faster than it can create new ones which is a double whammy on this issue which we still refuse to take steps to address.

Taxing when they earn it while taxing all income as income regardless of source (With exemptions for the values in companies and unrealized gains like that),

Taxing when they spend it with a graduated tax brackets for homes, vehicles, and other necessities based on the value of the object, not the income of the owner.

Taxing when they inherit and treat all assets in this as income regardless of source INCLUDING those unrealized gains as they are being realized for the intent and purpose of the previous holder of said asset at that point of the transfer.

[Bodakane]

He owned the stock, whether he acted as CEO, or not.

He could literally quit today, and still have all that stock.

Does that mean my Chipotle stock is my compensation for running Chipotle?

I've never worked at Chipotle.

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

Until you can work past these definitions, then we really are stuck.

His payroll is low, because he doesn't need it, because he owned the fucking company. He has vast wealth, but relatively low liquidity, which he gets by selling his stock. It's not compensation, it's not a salary. It was all his when he started his company.

He was the CEO. According to you, that job is worth $81K/year. You aren't the CEO of Chipotle. You merely own stock. Not sure why you're struggling with this very easy to understand concept.

[Machismo]

Yeah, I believe I mentioned much earlier in the thread I was against a wealth tax and others also mentioned the flawed setup they cherry picked but the overall numbers were still striking even when taking that stuff out and looking at the overall picture.

As for a sales tax based system, I would have to disagree on that one, it hugely rewards people who have more income more than we do now while punishing those who are don't.

As for the retirement issues, we have known about them for decades the issue comes from the party of "Person Responsibility" refusing to increase the taxes to pay into the system knowing this bubble was coming and then instead chose to offload the burden on their children and grandchildren to pay for their past due bills on the issue.

And one of the best ways to promote saving for retirement is by setting up the economy so that the people working has enough spending money to support themselves and their family while being able to save up for retirement while forcing companies to actually take care of their employees and pay them enough to survive and save and give them the benefits their grandparents, through unions and god knows how much else, fought for.

And none of that even gets into the part where the need for labor has declined over the decades due to automation removing jobs faster than it can create new ones which is a double whammy on this issue which we still refuse to take steps to address.

Taxing when they earn it while taxing all income as income regardless of source (With exemptions for the values in companies and unrealized gains like that),

Taxing when they spend it with a graduated tax brackets for homes, vehicles, and other necessities based on the value of the object, not the income of the owner.

Taxing when they inherit and treat all assets in this as income regardless of source INCLUDING those unrealized gains as they are being realized for the intent and purpose of the previous holder of said asset at that point of the transfer.

I think that's why they published the numbers in such a manner, because it's striking.

I get the complaints about a sales tax, I do. Personally, I prefer it, because it simplifies the process. I also don't like al the deductions and tax credits, as it tilts heavily against some people. More than anything, I want a system that rewards saving, and responsible spending habits. So, if we don't do it in regards to spending, then it would be for saving. Allow deductions based on money set into specified accounts. I don't mean simply like a 401k, since I hate how little access people have to their own money.

I don't want to increase retirement taxes, I want people to be more responsible for their own retirements, including having more freedom to determine how some of their payroll taxes are invested.

[Fugus]

I think that's why they published the numbers in such a manner, because it's striking.

I get the complaints about a sales tax, I do. Personally, I prefer it, because it simplifies the process. I also don't like al the deductions and tax credits, as it tilts heavily against some people. More than anything, I want a system that rewards saving, and responsible spending habits. So, if we don't do it in regards to spending, then it would be for saving. Allow deductions based on money set into specified accounts. I don't mean simply like a 401k, since I hate how little access people have to their own money.

I don't want to increase retirement taxes, I want people to be more responsible for their own retirements, including having more freedom to determine how some of their payroll taxes are invested.

I wish that were possible but I really don't see that working on a large scale anytime soon. People just aren't that forward thinking when they are younger and refuse to think about it many times till well past the point of too late. And that isn't even mentioning the ones who flat out don't make enough to save even if they tried.

The only way you will get people to do that is if you forced them to which is effectively what the payroll tax is. Just like how car insurance is mandatory otherwise no one would try and get it till it was too late and health insurance is a clusterfuck with the successful systems either having it be directly tax payer funded or the ACA on steroids making it mandatory.

People on the overall just don't think that far enough until they are too late, at which point the options are to flat out let them go homeless and potentially die or force others to pay for them or take care of them.

The level of responsibility you want just will not exist on a large scale within mine, yours, or likely even your children's lifetime within the US or really any nation where that became optional.

[Machismo]

He was the CEO. According to you, that job is worth $81K/year. You aren't the CEO of Chipotle. You merely own stock. Not sure why you're struggling with this very easy to understand concept.

No, according to his company, that's how much it was worth. Well, that, plus all the money for his security detail.

I'm not struggling, because I know what a salary is. I'm not the one who was literally refuted by the company itself. Your continued dodging and backpedaling of "in essence it was his salary."

No, it's not, because you're trying to conflate wealth and salary. Normally, it's not such a big deal, but the article in the beginning is doing the very same thing, and people are trying to act based off that false narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

I wish that were possible but I really don't see that working on a large scale anytime soon. People just aren't that forward thinking when they are younger and refuse to think about it many times till well past the point of too late. And that isn't even mentioning the ones who flat out don't make enough to save even if they tried.

The only way you will get people to do that is if you forced them to which is effectively what the payroll tax is. Just like how car insurance is mandatory otherwise no one would try and get it till it was too late and health insurance is a clusterfuck with the successful systems either having it be directly tax payer funded or the ACA on steroids making it mandatory.

People on the overall just don't think that far enough until they are too late, at which point the options are to flat out let them go homeless and potentially die or force others to pay for them or take care of them.

The level of responsibility you want just will not exist on a large scale within mine, yours, or likely even your children's lifetime within the US or really any nation where that became optional.

That's the problem, a complete lack of personal responsibility. And honestly, I'm tired of pandering to it. We're saddling future generations with all this debt, because adults cannot think more than a week ahead.

I think there is a way to "force" them to do it, by letting them be responsible for the failure to plan accordingly. The insolvency date is coming soon, and that can even be the date it happens. Payouts plummet, and just let it happen, and stop increasing for a while. It's "heartless," but no more hertless than saddling our grandkids with tens of trillions in debt.

[Fugus]

That's the problem, a complete lack of personal responsibility. And honestly, I'm tired of pandering to it. We're saddling future generations with all this debt, because adults cannot think more than a week ahead.

I think there is a way to "force" them to do it, by letting them be responsible for the failure to plan accordingly. The insolvency date is coming soon, and that can even be the date it happens. Payouts plummet, and just let it happen, and stop increasing for a while. It's "heartless," but no more hertless than saddling our grandkids with tens of trillions in debt.

It's one of those things where they won't learn it themselves, you are talking about days they aren't really even able to see that far ahead and don't think about unless told to explicitly and many of them still won't be able to. The delayed gratification is just too great for many to really think of the cost/reward to it when you are talking about people who still largely consider themselves "Young and Invincible with their entire lives to figure this stuff out".

Just like this hump we have, we have ways to fix it NOW to address its issues, we just refuse to do it because it goes against the ideologies of many of the people who will be on it or even actively on it now because they don't know how the stuff works.

But letting them be responsible for their failures to plan according won't work either as that will just lead to a bunch of violent and thieving old people who are too broken to work and too broke to live along with that huge outcry from their families. And these people will actually get lots of sympathy from that "Old Person" vibe when on a scale THAT large and including more than a main focus on minorities.

Letting them die or expecting them to prepare for themselves is a fool errand when you think of just how little most people think and how violent people get when they are hungry or watching their parents starve and need someone to blame, especially if their parents actually worked most of their lives.

The way to address the looming threat is to raise the cap on payroll so it taxes the full range of the income instead of capping out at a little over $120k and taxing all income as income so those as the top can't dodge it as the stock market stuff doesn't pay ANY into it from what I understand.

Personal responsibility on this though from the young, especially THIS group of the young who were never taught about it growing up from parents whom they themselves don't even think about it critically even while on that door step or collecting themselves. This nation has a better chance of us all turning into the Highlander and living forever than having that happen. Even if you could start teaching it, a statistically significant of the population would still be too stubborn to learn or just pretending they won't live that long or some other thing and will still end up putting us right there.

And if you decided to go with basically a giant retirement complex so they can survive just to avoid requiring them pay in while still avoiding the violence when those eggs hatch, you will still be stuck paying for that which will still end up paying about just as much, if not more, judging by our prison costs.

[Bodakane]

No, according to his company, that's how much it was worth. Well, that, plus all the money for his security detail.

I'm not struggling, because I know what a salary is. I'm not the one who was literally refuted by the company itself. Your continued dodging and backpedaling of "in essence it was his salary."

No, it's not, because you're trying to conflate wealth and salary. Normally, it's not such a big deal, but the article in the beginning is doing the very same thing, and people are trying to act based off that false narrative.

I honestly don't know if you're just incapable of understanding this or lack the intestinal fortitude to admit you're wrong.

[Shadowferal]

I honestly don't know if you're just incapable of understanding this or lack the intestinal fortitude to admit you're wrong.

Neither.
He knows exactly what everyone's about.
Just put him on ignore. That's the only way to treat libertarians. Never give them an audience.

[Draco-Onis]

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.

The government doesn't listen to its people that is by design, I understand that you are against taxation period however to claim it's fair is ludicrous. You are basically saying if the government doesn't change something yet it means it's good, are you sure you want to go with that because history has not been kind to that line of thinking?

As a libertarian saying big brother is right is kind of of an contradiction of your beliefs.

[Machismo]

It's one of those things where they won't learn it themselves, you are talking about days they aren't really even able to see that far ahead and don't think about unless told to explicitly and many of them still won't be able to. The delayed gratification is just too great for many to really think of the cost/reward to it when you are talking about people who still largely consider themselves "Young and Invincible with their entire lives to figure this stuff out".

Just like this hump we have, we have ways to fix it NOW to address its issues, we just refuse to do it because it goes against the ideologies of many of the people who will be on it or even actively on it now because they don't know how the stuff works.

But letting them be responsible for their failures to plan according won't work either as that will just lead to a bunch of violent and thieving old people who are too broken to work and too broke to live along with that huge outcry from their families. And these people will actually get lots of sympathy from that "Old Person" vibe when on a scale THAT large and including more than a main focus on minorities.

Letting them die or expecting them to prepare for themselves is a fool errand when you think of just how little most people think and how violent people get when they are hungry or watching their parents starve and need someone to blame, especially if their parents actually worked most of their lives.

The way to address the looming threat is to raise the cap on payroll so it taxes the full range of the income instead of capping out at a little over $120k and taxing all income as income so those as the top can't dodge it as the stock market stuff doesn't pay ANY into it from what I understand.

Personal responsibility on this though from the young, especially THIS group of the young who were never taught about it growing up from parents whom they themselves don't even think about it critically even while on that door step or collecting themselves. This nation has a better chance of us all turning into the Highlander and living forever than having that happen. Even if you could start teaching it, a statistically significant of the population would still be too stubborn to learn or just pretending they won't live that long or some other thing and will still end up putting us right there.

And if you decided to go with basically a giant retirement complex so they can survive just to avoid requiring them pay in while still avoiding the violence when those eggs hatch, you will still be stuck paying for that which will still end up paying about just as much, if not more, judging by our prison costs.

My issue is that the responsible are simply being asked to continue paying more and more for the irresponsible. Tax rates have increased more than 20 times, yet people still cannot be bothered. At some point, it simply becomes far too burdensome to continue it.

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly don't know if you're just incapable of understanding this or lack the intestinal fortitude to admit you're wrong.

Once again, I'm more than capable, which is why I did my best to explain to you the difference.

I'm speaking with Fugus in a perfectly reasonable manner, because he's being perfectly reasonable with me. Personally, I'm rather tired if trying to correct your false assertions, because one can only provide literal definitions so many times.

And no, this isn't a case of the 'spirit" of what you said, because you kept trying to say they were literally and specifically doing something... that they were not doing.

- - - Updated - - -

The government doesn't listen to its people that is by design, I understand that you are against taxation period however to claim it's fair is ludicrous. You are basically saying if the government doesn't change something yet it means it's good, are you sure you want to go with that because history has not been kind to that line of thinking?

As a libertarian saying big brother is right is kind of of an contradiction of your beliefs.

I'm saying that the term "fair share" is an abstract talking point that is nothing more than regurgitated punditry. It means nothing by itself, and could be replaced with "argle bargle."

I'm saying people are pouring misinformation into this thread, and don't like the idea of dealing with the numbers that don't go along with the narrative they are trying to construct.

[beanman12345]

The government doesn't listen to its people that is by design, I understand that you are against taxation period however to claim it's fair is ludicrous. You are basically saying if the government doesn't change something yet it means it's good, are you sure you want to go with that because history has not been kind to that line of thinking?

As a libertarian saying big brother is right is kind of of an contradiction of your beliefs.

Well if libertarians could be consistent, they would probably disavow it.

[Fugus]

My issue is that the responsible are simply being asked to continue paying more and more for the irresponsible. Tax rates have increased more than 20 times, yet people still cannot be bothered. At some point, it simply becomes far too burdensome to continue it.

Except when you look at it, we aren't really "Increasing the tax" as they people aren't paying a higher interest rate as the vast majority already pay it on 100% of their income.

As for "Why", that is pretty simple. The fact that the top largely pay virtually nothing towards Social Security as they have learned to dodge it and many other taxes getting paid through capital gains while the working class largely is getting paid less and less after adjusting for inflation and productivity and such leading to a situation where those paying in are paying less to nothing and those who are paying in are too broke meaning they pay less as well while the costs aren't lessened to match.

Forcing those who were supposed to pay into it as well to actually pay into it while also forcing them to remedy a situation where their workers are too poor to pay enough into it due to their below living wages by having them help to shore up the fund off the money that should have paid living wages to their workers would help to get us past this hump.

So, so answer your question, we aren't increasing the tax rate so much as we are trying to prevent people from avoiding paying it while forcing those who dodged paying the original rate to help keep it functioning and solvent till the boomers are gone. Those of the working class, won't be having their taxes increased a single cent. And generally, if you are wealthy enough to get outside of the cap as a flat income, you aren't hurting financially at all short of a major drug problem.

[Machismo]

Except when you look at it, we aren't really "Increasing the tax" as they people aren't paying a higher interest rate as the vast majority already pay it on 100% of their income.

As for "Why", that is pretty simple. The fact that the top largely pay virtually nothing towards Social Security as they have learned to dodge it and many other taxes getting paid through capital gains while the working class largely is getting paid less and less after adjusting for inflation and productivity and such leading to a situation where those paying in are paying less to nothing and those who are paying in are too broke meaning they pay less as well while the costs aren't lessened to match.

Forcing those who were supposed to pay into it as well to actually pay into it while also forcing them to remedy a situation where their workers are too poor to pay enough into it due to their below living wages by having them help to shore up the fund off the money that should have paid living wages to their workers would help to get us past this hump.

So, so answer your question, we aren't increasing the tax rate so much as we are trying to prevent people from avoiding paying it while forcing those who dodged paying the original rate to help keep it functioning and solvent till the boomers are gone. Those of the working class, won't be having their taxes increased a single cent. And generally, if you are wealthy enough to get outside of the cap as a flat income, you aren't hurting financially at all short of a major drug problem.

That's still a tax increase, just towards a different segment of the population. We placed an earnings cap, because there's also a benefits cap. It seems like an easy fix, because most people on here wouldn't be impacted. It becomes "someone else's problem."

And that's my issue, SS is all about shared sacrifice, so paying into it should also be the same.

The people hardest hit will be those making $130-250k a year. Their tax burden will be a huge hit, and their employers will take that same hit.

[Fugus]

That's still a tax increase, just towards a different segment of the population. We placed an earnings cap, because there's also a benefits cap. It seems like an easy fix, because most people on here wouldn't be impacted. It becomes "someone else's problem."

And that's my issue, SS is all about shared sacrifice, so paying into it should also be the same.

The people hardest hit will be those making $130-250k a year. Their tax burden will be a huge hit, and their employers will take that same hit.

If you are paying the taxes, your rates aren't going up. You aren't taking a tax increase in that case unless you are making 120k or more.

We placed an earnings cap for that point originally but we also have an issue of those same people dodging that cap and paying near zero towards it for decades and needs to be remedied if we want to actually get anything working.

Those making 130-250k per year will have MAYBE a 5% increase in overall taxes which will not negatively impact the vast majority of them. Those making less than that will have zero impact.

Those who have been paying zero in it for decades using capital gains will have an impact though and they will largely be the ones hit by this.

Hell, if we actually did this, after we salved it, just taxing all income as income and lifting the cap, we could potentially lower the rate more or just reimpose the cap later but still making sure all income it taxed as income.

And shared sacrifice, would require that they paid in according to what they can as the sacrifice for those scraping by is huge to lose money while the sacrifice for the top can be equated to a rounding error for many of them.

Lets put it this way, I worked at Walmart around 2012, during that time the 6 Walton heirs received roughly 2.2 BILLION every year in stock dividends from the place. They paid zero towards social security from those billions while the average worker in there made maybe $1,000 a week at the time gross and paid on every dime.

[Machismo]

If you are paying the taxes, your rates aren't going up. You aren't taking a tax increase in that case unless you are making 120k or more.

We placed an earnings cap for that point originally but we also have an issue of those same people dodging that cap and paying near zero towards it for decades and needs to be remedied if we want to actually get anything working.

Those making 130-250k per year will have MAYBE a 5% increase in overall taxes which will not negatively impact the vast majority of them. Those making less than that will have zero impact.

Those who have been paying zero in it for decades using capital gains will have an impact though and they will largely be the ones hit by this.

Hell, if we actually did this, after we salved it, just taxing all income as income and lifting the cap, we could potentially lower the rate more or just reimpose the cap later but still making sure all income it taxed as income.

And shared sacrifice, would require that they paid in according to what they can as the sacrifice for those scraping by is huge to lose money while the sacrifice for the top can be equated to a rounding error for many of them.

Lets put it this way, I worked at Walmart around 2012, during that time the 6 Walton heirs received roughly 2.2 BILLION every year in stock dividends from the place. They paid zero towards social security from those billions while the average worker in there made maybe $1,000 a week at the time gross and paid on every dime.

But, the tax burden does go up.

As for that 5% increase (really a 6.2%, that also applies to their employers. That's a fair chunk of change, particularly for people earning that amount, and living in a city with a high cost of living. For a person making $200 a year, that's an extra $4-5k out of their pockets, and the same for their employer. It's not a huge amount, but it definitely hurts.

[Fugus]

But, the tax burden does go up.

As for that 5% increase (really a 6.2%, that also applies to their employers. That's a fair chunk of change, particularly for people earning that amount, and living in a city with a high cost of living. For a person making $200 a year, that's an extra $4-5k out of their pockets, and the same for their employer. It's not a huge amount, but it definitely hurts.

That's something a business can adjust to without too much issue most times if they are even remotely capable. McDonalds and Papa Johns could handle that without flinching.

And for the person making $200,000 a year, that $5,000 won't break them by any stretch unless they have some major money management issues and unlike the people stuck trying to save up thinking about decades ahead to even start, the risk management of that is much more easily apparent and managed around at that level and time scale.

And if you are talking about "Tax Burden" in the way I am thinking you are, and mean that the overall amount of taxes collected from society as a whole goes up.. Well, yeah, that is the point and it HAS to to address this issue as the tax burden is too low due to people dodging it and has been for decades and it has to be addressed which will require it to go up to levels high enough to do that job which will require it to at LEAST hit the levels it was before people dodged it and the working class could afford to pay into it.

If we want to address this issue in a way that could reasonably work, this is it. No level of "Personal Responsibility" Policies will fix this as this isn't an issue where that can work on the large scale, it just won't.

So, unless you have an alternative to funding social security or creating some alternative where paying into it is required and where the rich can't dodge paying it and they are required to pay enough to support their workers or risks leaving people to die on the streets which leads to people on this streets rising up and waging war for their own survival, this is it.

We can't look at any ideological purity here, this isn't a religion, this is facts, this is data, this is reality. We need stuff that can actually work within the world we have.