Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Draco-Onis]

Nice data, but reading it over, this gives people a false impression. First there is no wealth taxes, so linking your income taxes to the % of your wealth is not really a data to conclude anything about how much income tax they avoided. We could go on a discussion about taxing wealth, but thats another topic. Bezos in the example didnt pay 0.98% income tax. That 0.98% is a fake number that is not used to calculate taxes. He reported 4.22 billions incomes and was taxed 973 millions on it. That is 23% income tax paid. Buffet paid 19% income taxes, not 0.1%. Again i think using fake metric to try to solve real problems is not doing a service here. You also want to be careful about wealth taxes, i dont think your average citizen want or should be taxed on wealth. Billionaires probably should, but it depends where the moneys at. Because i dont think someone making 50k a year that saved some wealth wants to pay taxes on that shit, even if its super small.

You dont want to start your stuff with outright lies, does a disservice to your data and what cause you champion. Do we really need to make out fake metrics to point out that people winning 4.4 billions a year should probably not be a thing? Look they are evil 0.98% income tax paid with tax avoiding!!!

It's not fake metric because wealth is not illiquid whenever Besos needs money he has a number of ways to purchase whatever he wants without paying a single penny in taxes. For example you can set up an LLC in a tax haven have that LLC purchase everything you want using as passthrough so you pay no taxes or you can use your assets for a loan with a fraction in interest you would have paid in taxes.

The tax code is written under the assumption that wealth cannot become income without paying taxes, that's false.

[Machismo]

The only metric that matters is the amount of money you have left in your pocket at the end of the month.

A person with no money is more burdened than someone who has $1000 at the end of the month.

A person with $1000 at the end of the month is more burdened than someone who is the sole owner of a large multi billion dollar corporation that generates hundreds of millions of dollar in annual revenue with a 20% profit margin and can go drag racing as a “hobby”.

Who says that's the only metric?

That means if a person wasted their money on other things, then the burden is higher than a person who earned the exact same, paid the exact same in taxes, but didn't buy cocaine and hookers with what he had left over.

So, to conclude, the guy snorting cocaine off a hooker's ass is more burdened?

This sounds like a very dangerous metric to use.

- - - Updated - - -

You're deflecting. You made a claim. Either you can substantiate that claim with an actual argument, or you can't.



That doesn't make anything "disingenuous". Wealth taxes exist, separate from income taxes. Propublica didn't confuse the two things. They are, in fact, very clear that they're talking about wealth growth as compared to "income" as defined under tax law.

I did back it up, with data on numerous occasions.

They tried to call it a "true tax rate," and it's disingenuous as shit. It's an income tax, that they were trying to compare to wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

Well you see... a person who makes 2k a month and pays 200 in taxes and lives in an area where cost of living is saying 2200 a month is less burdened than a person making 55,000,000 a month and is left with 38.5 million because well the latter pays higher taxes.....

So, now we're bringing areas with cost of living into it? Is that the new metric being added?
Well, I look forward to you being able to compile all that data, let me know when you have it all.

- - - Updated - - -

So out of interest, how does your philosophy reconcile the Scandanavian countries? Higher taxes, and those taxes used to provide societal benefits. As a result they are the happiest people on the entire planet.

Surely increasing their "burden" should make them unhappier, if your philosophy had an ounce of merit?

They are happy. They are also not Americans, who have a completely different mindset, as a whole.

It does increase their burden, they simply don't mind.

I mind.

Many others also mind.

And the real issue, is that the people calling for these tax increases, are not calling to increase their own taxes.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess reading has escaped you in this moment... part of the metric are the words in that are in quotations....

Great, let's see some real numbers on it. I'm getting a lot of different "metrics" people want to base it on.

[Fugus]

@Machismo

Sorry man, but your cry that “it increases the burden” is a non-issue.

It increases the burden, as you are applying it, is not a bad thing.

This is another example of you turning it into a libertarian ideology debate.

If you are falling onto “it increases the burden” you have already lost as your entire argument relies on something that isn’t an issue as you apply it to begin with.

[minteK917]

It's not fake metric because wealth is not illiquid whenever Besos needs money he has a number of ways to purchase whatever he wants without paying a single penny in taxes. For example you can set up an LLC in a tax haven have that LLC purchase everything you want using as passthrough so you pay no taxes or you can use your assets for a loan with a fraction in interest you would have paid in taxes.

The tax code is written under the assumption that wealth cannot become income without paying taxes, that's false.

Yes and thats exactly what i mean, throwing around imaginary numbers like 0.98% doesent help fixing that or explaining that to the average person. Because its not true, bezos did not pay 0.98% income taxes, he paid 23%. Its unlikely he even bother doing his taxes, probably need an entire company to do that for him lol. But the point is, if you make fictional numbers to bait people, it doesent help. All this kind of practice does is bunch of idots on twitter will make bezos meme quotting 0.98% and thats the end of it, because everyone will know thats clearly a fake number on its face. You cant start this with the lie that they paid 0.98% and 0.1% income taxes, they did not. Its bad enough, we dont need to make fake god damn metric to explain why we need taxes reform. You dont need to start with a lie to then go into a real premise, you just hurt your premise for no reason. That lie doesent even map into the issue you bring up, that 0.98% income tax paid, is matched to his TOTAL networth gain of 2011-2018. Nobody would want tax to be counted like that clearly. Im for tax reform and probably massive wealth taxes once you reach a certain amount for sure, but we dont need to use lies to advocate for this.

[Machismo]

@Machismo

Sorry man, but your cry that “it increases the burden” is a non-issue.

It increases the burden, as you are applying it, is not a bad thing.

This is another example of you turning it into a libertarian ideology debate.

If you are falling onto “it increases the burden” you have already lost as your entire argument relies on something that isn’t an issue as you apply it to begin with.

Oh, I agree it's a non-issue for most people, because their burden isn't increasing. Which is my point. They don't care about that burden, because it's someone else's to bear.

So, how much more of a burden are you, and them willing to bear?

[omerome]

It is disingenuous, because they are trying to equate income to wealth.

I don't pay income tax on my 401k, or my collection of thimbles.

I don't pay income tax on mine, either. But I do pay income tax which helps pay for things that are necessary for everyone - like infrastructure.

Yes, we all are aware of things like this, right? If the wealthy can't be taxed for the stocks/bonds which consist of most of their wealth and also refuse to generate actual income to avoid getting taxed, they should not be able to drive on the roads they clearly destroy, drink the water they pollute, and breathe the air they turn toxic. Because they are the biggest causes. They want to use our resources, they need to properly pay for it like the rest of us do because the system is not clearly not working now.

To me, they are actual parasites. Because after utilizing up all of the resources in a region, they look for a new host/location. Don't believe me? Look at how they were racing to get into space just a month or so ago.

[Endus]

I did back it up, with data on numerous occasions.

I've never seen it. And "I explained it in some magical other time and place" is not a defense or argument.

They tried to call it a "true tax rate," and it's disingenuous as shit. It's an income tax, that they were trying to compare to wealth.

Neither of those statements are true. Propublica very clearly defined their terms and approach, and it's not their fault if you didn't read it closely enough.

[Fugus]

Oh, I agree it's a non-issue for most people, because their burden isn't increasing. Which is my point. They don't care about that burden, because it's someone else's to bear.

So, how much more of a burden are you, and them willing to bear?

It’s a non issue virtually across the board but you are pretending it is is what I am trying to point out to you. You are ignoring the financial situations involved and how that burden is a needed one to fix stuff.

“It increases the burden” and leaving it out is about as much as a cry of “But the gays” when you are doing what you are doing as you are basing on ideology and not reality.

[Machismo]

I don't pay income tax on mine, either. But I do pay income tax which helps pay for things that are necessary for everyone - like infrastructure.

Yes, we all are aware of things like this, right? If the wealthy can't be taxed for the stocks/bonds which consist of most of their wealth and also refuse to generate actual income to avoid getting taxed, they should not be able to drive on the roads they clearly destroy, drink the water they pollute, and breathe the air they turn toxic. Because they are the biggest causes. They want to use our resources, they need to properly pay for it like the rest of us do because the system is not clearly not working now.

To me, they are actual parasites. Because after utilizing up all of the resources in a region, they look for a new host/location. Don't believe me? Look at how they were racing to get into space just a month or so ago.

And they also pay income tax. They pay a higher rate of their income than you or I do, on average.

Now, if you want to get into the "parasites" debate, that is going to end badly... as there are people who literally pay zero federal income taxes, yet use plenty of federal dollars and infrastructure. I doubt you want to go down that road.

[Themius]

~~snippity snip

I'm not wasting my time showing you data that a worker making 40k in NY has a heavier burden due to cost of living than a banker making 55 million... you have a brain... I don't think you're braindead... you're basically insulting yourself by asking for this.

[Machismo]

I've never seen it. And "I explained it in some magical other time and place" is not a defense or argument.



Neither of those statements are true. Propublica very clearly defined their terms and approach, and it's not their fault if you didn't read it closely enough.

Well, you haven't been paying attention, the numbers were provided weeks ago.

Their true tax rate means nothing, as it is trying to conflate two different things.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s a non issue virtually across the board but you are pretending it is is what I am trying to point out to you. You are ignoring the financial situations involved and how that burden is a needed one to fix stuff.

“It increases the burden” and leaving it out is about as much as a cry of “But the gays” when you are doing what you are doing as you are basing on ideology and not reality.

Then, it would be a non-issue to increase the burden on poor people.

Of course not...

It's a non-issue, because they don't give a shit if they force someone else to pay. It's not a non-issue, because it's not a problem, but because they just don't give a shit about tat problem.

[Endus]

Well, you haven't been paying attention, the numbers were provided weeks ago.

And yet, you can't or won't just link to a post where you supposedly did so.

If you can't back your position up, maybe bow out rather than continuing like this.

Their true tax rate means nothing, as it is trying to conflate two different things.

This is false. Propublica very clearly defined their terms, and conflated nothing.

[Machismo]

I'm not wasting my time showing you data that a worker making 40k in NY has a heavier burden due to cost of living than a banker making 55 million... you have a brain... I don't think you're braindead... you're basically insulting yourself by asking for this.

Once again, that's fine, I can simply dismiss your claim that they have a higher burden.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet, you can't or won't just link to a post where you supposedly did so.

If you can't back your position up, maybe bow out rather than continuing like this.



This is false. Propublica very clearly defined their terms, and conflated nothing.

I've posted it a half dozen times, it's about tax burden based on income.

I backed it up dozens of times.

Their "true tax rate" isn't true at all, because it's an income tax, not a wealth tax. They may have well called it a "super duper tax number."

[Ivanstone]

Who says that's the only metric?

That means if a person wasted their money on other things, then the burden is higher than a person who earned the exact same, paid the exact same in taxes, but didn't buy cocaine and hookers with what he had left over.

So, to conclude, the guy snorting cocaine off a hooker's ass is more burdened?

This sounds like a very dangerous metric to use.

The guy snorting cocaine off a hooker's ass is not more burdened because he has sufficient income to purchase entertainment.

There things you need in life: Shelter, Transportation, Food, Healthcare, Clothing.
There are things that you should have in life: Entertainment, savings.

If you can't pay for the first group, you're definitely burdened.
How much you can buy of the second group is also an indication of burden.

These things vary from person to person. I am not especially burdened by some standards although it might be partially because I'm a cheep bastard on clothes and transportation. I'm also easily entertained by the internet's shenanigans and don't need to wallow in the decadence of prostitutes, cocaine and drag racing. I, however, do not presume that decisions I make for my life are appropriate or usable for someone else.

A properly progressive taxation system tries to insure that people have a functional government whilst not over-burderning people.

[Fugus]

Then, it would be a non-issue to increase the burden on poor people.

Of course not...

It's a non-issue, because they don't give a shit if they force someone else to pay. It's not a non-issue, because it's not a problem, but because they just don't give a shit about tat problem.

And you would be wrong on this assumption of yours as it requires you to ignore reality and pretend the situations of both are the same when they aren’t.

And you have had this spelled out countless times on countless threads and yet pretend it never was because you are rejecting facts you dislike to cling to your ideology.

Increasing the burden as you describe it will be required to address countless issues and you have yet to come out to a WORKABLE alternative to it. You ideas aren’t workable at all from what you described as what you would like to do.

[Themius]

Once again, that's fine, I can simply dismiss your claim that they have a higher burden.

- - - Updated - - -



I've posted it a half dozen times, it's about tax burden based on income.

I backed it up dozens of times.

Their "true tax rate" isn't true at all, because it's an income tax, not a wealth tax. They may have well called it a "super duper tax number."

On what basis Machismo... come on now don't be a coward on this issue...

Tell me on what planet is it possible for a person making 40k in ny to have a lower burden than a person making 55 million...

[Machismo]

The guy snorting cocaine off a hooker's ass is not more burdened because he has sufficient income to purchase entertainment.

There things you need in life: Shelter, Transportation, Food, Healthcare, Clothing.
There are things that you should have in life: Entertainment, savings.

If you can't pay for the first group, you're definitely burdened.
How much you can buy of the second group is also an indication of burden.

These things vary from person to person. I am not especially burdened by some standards although it might be partially because I'm a cheep bastard on clothes and transportation. I'm also easily entertained by the internet's shenanigans and don't need to wallow in the decadence of prostitutes, cocaine and drag racing. I, however, do not presume that decisions I make for my life are appropriate or usable for someone else.

A properly progressive taxation system tries to insure that people have a functional government whilst not over-burderning people.

But, you said it was how much money they had left over, which one would have less.

This is the problem with your metric, spending habits.

[Endus]

I've posted it a half dozen times, it's about tax burden based on income.

I backed it up dozens of times.

That would not in any way function as an argument against the idea that the wealthy need to pay more in taxes. A bunch of numbers cannot possibly refute that.

You're just deflecting again. Back up your claims.

Their "true tax rate" isn't true at all, because it's an income tax, not a wealth tax. They may have well called it a "super duper tax number."

Again, Propublica defined their terms very clearly, that they were looking at "growth of wealth" rather than "income".

To capture the financial reality of the richest Americans, ProPublica undertook an analysis that has never been done before. We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest Americans paid each year to how much Forbes estimated their wealth grew in that same time period.

We’re going to call this their true tax rate.

It isn't their fault you didn't read the article very carefully. You're attacking a straw man, not the article or its analysis.

[Machismo]

And you would be wrong on this assumption of yours as it requires you to ignore reality and pretend the situations of both are the same when they aren’t.

And you have had this spelled out countless times on countless threads and yet pretend it never was because you are rejecting facts you dislike to cling to your ideology.

Increasing the burden as you describe it will be required to address countless issues and you have yet to come out to a WORKABLE alternative to it. You ideas aren’t workable at all from what you described as what you would like to do.

I'm not ignoring reality, I'm supporting their liberties, just as much as I'm supporting the liberties of the other guy.

I don't need it spelled out, I'm very well away that they don't give a shit who they choose to go after.

[Shadowferal]

Libertarian ideals are contradictory by nature he wants no taxes but wants to get rid of the debt.

Easily done since he supports getting rid of every program that helps seniors and the poor.