Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Machismo]

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.

It's still an additional cost, and not a small one. Sure, they can adjust, but why should they have to?

All of this is simply to push responsibility onto others, because people cannot be bothered. That's the part that is the toughest sell. It's not because they are simply down on their luck, it's because they are reckless, short-sighted, and know that someone else will just pick up the tab.

My alternative is to either increase the retirement age, or to reduce benefits. We've tried raising taxes more than 20 times, and we're still in a land of unfunded liability, that we can't even see the top. Let's try something different.

[Fugus]

It's still an additional cost, and not a small one. Sure, they can adjust, but why should they have to?

All of this is simply to push responsibility onto others, because people cannot be bothered. That's the part that is the toughest sell. It's not because they are simply down on their luck, it's because they are reckless, short-sighted, and know that someone else will just pick up the tab.

My alternative is to either increase the retirement age, or to reduce benefits. We've tried raising taxes more than 20 times, and we're still in a land of unfunded liability, that we can't even see the top. Let's try something different.

No, you are basically trying to push ideological purity on this issue.

Why should they have to? To make sure that Social Security will exist when they are old enough and because that won't hit them near as hard as not having Social Security when they get older.

And again, this isn't pushing responsibility onto others. This is forcing others to take the responsibility they have intentionally dodged and allowed the problem to compound and back up because of them failing to do uphold their end of the responsibilities. And on this, I am not talking about those making $200k on a paycheck because they are paying $5,000 over the course of the year in taxes that they then get back as they retire. I am taking about those who earned millions to billions while paying zero or close to it in Social Security while forcing their workers to be so underpaid that they can't pay into it properly either.

Your retirement is by far the most short sighted and irresponsible action between them. Those collecting social security aren't exactly getting paid mounds of money. My grandmother retired from decades delivering children at a major hospital around here while my grandfather (Her husband) was retired Sargent Major in the Army having fought in World War 2 and didn't retire till around 1995 where he was forced out due to age (Only time that man cried). They still weren't paid some kings ransom. Forcing her to make less would be pure insanity.

Forcing people to pay in enough to fund their own retirement and forcing the owners to contribute and pay their workers enough to properly pay into it would actually do more.

Your suggestion is a slap in the face for anyone who spent their entire life working and paying in only to be told to get off their ass and get a fucking job at 80 because their Social Security didn't pay enough after paying into it all the time when the issue doesn't have anything to do with their work ethic or responsibility and plenty to do with those signing his paycheck shirking their responsibilities.

Sorry man, you are putting your ideology ahead of reality on this and would screw us all as a whole if it was implemented.

- - - Updated - - -

Paying more into a system so that you can actually use it at a level where it actually does its job is a really good reason as opposed to just having them go for broke when they get old because it wasn't funded because they didn't pay enough when they could and their bosses paid zero or close to it when that same boss should have been paying just as much as he was.

[Dontrike]

And yet, by average... it's simply not the case.

"Not all of them are at that level, so that makes it okay." One terrible argument.

Amazon itself pays less in taxes than much of the poor does, same for Activision and other companies. That should never happen.

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly my point, an attempt to minimize this, by dehumanizing them. Meanwhile, mark Cuban made it clear why a wealth tax is a bad idea.

That point was actually arguing against you, but it's cool you agree that the rich can afford a wealth tax. Good job in finally realizing it.

Of fucking course a rich guy would argue against taxing him. Same reason I'd argue against getting kicked in the nuts. "The rich man says he doesn't want to be taxed, and I believed him" is hilarious in about a dozen ways.

[Fugus]

Alright, I am about to go but seriously.

Your suggestion is a nonstarter for very vital and obvious reasons and will only end with lots of suffering and violence which will end up costing even more money to address.

Even if you want to not raise the cap, you still need to require them treating all income as income regardless of source and start forcing those at the top to contribute as well.

And, your personal responsibility suggestion is an exercise in futility that would fail 10 times out of 10 if tried anytime since the founding of this country unless you want pain and suffering as you end up with people who are too poor, too short sighted, too dumb to pay into it and you won't be able to overcome those masses to do so voluntarily because of that and that number will be too large to make your plan anything but a ticking time bomb of poor and desperate people who are trying to survive after they spent their entire life working or trying to work only to be cast aside because they didn't make a decision that you deemed they were smart enough to make without looking at the numbers.

Unless you are booking a trip on the Elysium for your retirement to avoid those masses, you will be in for a rough awakening should you even get your policy put into action.

So, if you got an actual WORKABLE and reasonable solution that will actually work, you would still be stuck doing what I suggested or similar because, your suggestion, isn't remotely workable and would backfire in spectacularly horrible fashion.

And if you got a workable and reasonable suggestion, it would be great to hear.

[Machismo]

No, you are basically trying to push ideological purity on this issue.

Why should they have to? To make sure that Social Security will exist when they are old enough and because that won't hit them near as hard as not having Social Security when they get older.

And again, this isn't pushing responsibility onto others. This is forcing others to take the responsibility they have intentionally dodged and allowed the problem to compound and back up because of them failing to do uphold their end of the responsibilities. And on this, I am not talking about those making $200k on a paycheck because they are paying $5,000 over the course of the year in taxes that they then get back as they retire. I am taking about those who earned millions to billions while paying zero or close to it in Social Security while forcing their workers to be so underpaid that they can't pay into it properly either.

Your retirement is by far the most short sighted and irresponsible action between them. Those collecting social security aren't exactly getting paid mounds of money. My grandmother retired from decades delivering children at a major hospital around here while my grandfather (Her husband) was retired Sargent Major in the Army having fought in World War 2 and didn't retire till around 1995 where he was forced out due to age (Only time that man cried). They still weren't paid some kings ransom. Forcing her to make less would be pure insanity.

Forcing people to pay in enough to fund their own retirement and forcing the owners to contribute and pay their workers enough to properly pay into it would actually do more.

Your suggestion is a slap in the face for anyone who spent their entire life working and paying in only to be told to get off their ass and get a fucking job at 80 because their Social Security didn't pay enough after paying into it all the time when the issue doesn't have anything to do with their work ethic or responsibility and plenty to do with those signing his paycheck shirking their responsibilities.

Sorry man, you are putting your ideology ahead of reality on this and would screw us all as a whole if it was implemented.

- - - Updated - - -

Paying more into a system so that you can actually use it at a level where it actually does its job is a really good reason as opposed to just having them go for broke when they get old because it wasn't funded because they didn't pay enough when they could and their bosses paid zero or close to it when that same boss should have been paying just as much as he was.

People making $150k a year are not dodging, we both agree.

The issue is, it's a hard sell on those people. You are asking people to give more, in order to take care of others who aren't. The more this gets taxed, the more the burden is shifted to others, and the more resentful they become.

You're asking people to pay more, when they won't be getting more out of it. They will likely see it as rewarding poor behavior... because it is.

- - - Updated - - -

"Not all of them are at that level, so that makes it okay." One terrible argument.

Amazon itself pays less in taxes than much of the poor does, same for Activision and other companies. That should never happen.

- - - Updated - - -



That point was actually arguing against you, but it's cool you agree that the rich can afford a wealth tax. Good job in finally realizing it.

Of fucking course a rich guy would argue against taxing him. Same reason I'd argue against getting kicked in the nuts. "The rich man says he doesn't want to be taxed, and I believed him" is hilarious in about a dozen ways.

The issue is that taxes are a blanket law, so going after the bad actors, will usually hit the good actors.

Cuban stated he even thinks he should be paying more income taxes. He laid out why it being in the form of a wealth tax is such a terrible idea.

[Glorious Leader]

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.

Evidently he's all for the state. He's confused about a number of topics.

- - - Updated - - -

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 - - -



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.

On the topic of "saddling our grandkids tens of trillions of debt". This is to put it mildly utter and absolute bullshit. Just as a point of reference rhe US government has been in debt for literally its entire existence save 1 year when Andrew Jackson tried to pay it off and a massive depression followed. It hasn't been a problem for almost the entirety of American history and it won't be. Ever.

[Machismo]

Evidently he's all for the state. He's confused about a number of topics.

- - - Updated - - -



On the topic of "saddling our grandkids tens of trillions of debt". This is to put it mildly utter and absolute bullshit. Just as a point of reference rhe US government has been in debt for literally its entire existence save 1 year when Andrew Jackson tried to pay it off and a massive depression followed. It hasn't been a problem for almost the entirety of American history and it won't be. Ever.

And that debt is getting exponentially higher.

[Glorious Leader]

And that debt is getting exponentially higher.

Wow that point flew right over your fucking head didn't it.

[Dontrike]

And that debt is getting exponentially higher.

And you get rid of debt either by spending less or taking in more money and lo and behold there's a whole bunch of people we can not only stop giving money to, but also they give more back.

[Shadowferal]

On the topic of "saddling our grandkids tens of trillions of debt". This is to put it mildly utter and absolute bullshit. Just as a point of reference rhe US government has been in debt for literally its entire existence save 1 year when Andrew Jackson tried to pay it off and a massive depression followed. It hasn't been a problem for almost the entirety of American history and it won't be. Ever.

And yet he supported Trump's tax cuts.

[Machismo]

Wow that point flew right over your fucking head didn't it.

Nope, the issue is that burden is becoming exponentially higher, and will eventually have to be addressed... either through default, or paying it off.

- - - Updated - - -

And you get rid of debt either by spending less or taking in more money and lo and behold there's a whole bunch of people we can not only stop giving money to, but also they give more back.

So... just take it from other people?

Yep, that pretty much tracks.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet he supported Trump's tax cuts.

You are ignoring that I also called for spending cuts to go along with them.

Does that mean you supported Trump's tariffs?

If you don't answer, I'll assume you did.

[Draco-Onis]

Nope, the issue is that burden is becoming exponentially higher, and will eventually have to be addressed... either through default, or paying it off.

Here's the problem it's not that simple a country isn't a household, it's also very stupid not to borrow when interest rates are so low as long as what you invest in returns higher than the interest. While there is a good argument to be made on what the government spends the money on, the whole but the grandkids line isn't really valid argument.

Our grandkids aren't going to have to pay it all at once it's not a credit card and again countries are not people.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The concept of fairness isn't abstract even animals understand it, rich billionaires shouldn't be paying zero taxes not so hard.

[Shadowferal]

While there is a good argument to be made on what the government spends the money on, the whole but the grandkids line isn't really valid argument.

Trump tax cuts that he wanted paid for by cuts to medicare/Medicaid so those that need such programs get fucked twice over. Dude is worse than most of those on the former Trump admin.

[Mayhem]

Here's the problem it's not that simple a country isn't a household, it's also very stupid not to borrow when interest rates are so low as long as what you invest in returns higher than the interest. While there is a good argument to be made on what the government spends the money on, the whole but the grandkids line isn't really valid argument.

I've tried to explain this to him but he either ignored it or changed the topic.

My country was paid to borrow, in his world that's bad because the debt has to be paid back at some point.

[Dontrike]

So... just take it from other people?

Yep, that pretty much tracks.

Oh you mean thing that rich people do? Guess it's fine for them to do it, but we can never take from the rich.

"If we add to the dragon's hoard it's sure to create jobs."

[Shadowferal]

I've tried to explain this to him but he either ignored it or changed the topic.

Libertarians...they ignore, obfuscate, dismiss, change the subject, redefine words, they'll add text to your posts insist you mean this or that, that you believe in something you never mentioned...

[unfilteredJW]

Libertarians...they ignore, obfuscate, dismiss, change the subject, redefine words, they'll add text to your posts insist you mean this or that, that you believe in something you never mentioned...

It’s what happens when your position is indefensible.

[Glorious Leader]

Here's the problem it's not that simple a country isn't a household.

It really is though because his point about it needing to be addressed just confuses macro economics for the kitchen table. Again the US government has been in debt for 242 years of existence. Why will it suddenly collapse from debt tommorow is unclear.

[Shadowferal]

It’s what happens when your position is indefensible.

Reminds me of this; Rand Paul is not a big fan of, uh, democracy?

"The idea of democracy and majority rule really is what goes against our history and what the country stands for," the Kentucky Republican Senator told The New York Times in a story published Monday.

Three things have always been true of Paul:
1) He is utterly convinced he is smarter than just about anyone,
2) He tends to think and talk in broad theoretical terms without considering lived experiences and
3) He loves to create controversy via trolling.

[Machismo]

Here's the problem it's not that simple a country isn't a household, it's also very stupid not to borrow when interest rates are so low as long as what you invest in returns higher than the interest. While there is a good argument to be made on what the government spends the money on, the whole but the grandkids line isn't really valid argument.

Our grandkids aren't going to have to pay it all at once it's not a credit card and again countries are not people.

- - - Updated - - -



The concept of fairness isn't abstract even animals understand it, rich billionaires shouldn't be paying zero taxes not so hard.

I never said a country is a household, but it's still a major debt. The key to debt... is that it needs to be paid back.

Since this is long term debt, it becomes generational.

Rich billionaires aren't paying zero taxes. It is based on their income.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh you mean thing that rich people do? Guess it's fine for them to do it, but we can never take from the rich.

"If we add to the dragon's hoard it's sure to create jobs."

I don't support it when they do it, why would I support it when you do it?

- - - Updated - - -

It’s what happens when your position is indefensible.

And yet, I have offered plenty of data to back it up. Care to refute it?

- - - Updated - - -

It really is though because his point about it needing to be addressed just confuses macro economics for the kitchen table. Again the US government has been in debt for 242 years of existence. Why will it suddenly collapse from debt tommorow is unclear.

Who said anything about it collapsing tomorrow?

The debt is simply becoming more and more burdensome.

the issue is that the same people who want to raise taxes on other people, also want to keep spending more and more.