Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Bodakane]

It doesn't "attack their liberty" in any way whatsoever. Nobody has a "right" to extreme wealth. There is no country on the planet that agrees with that idea.

Also, it isn't "forcing them to sell their property". That's a free choice they're making, to pay their tax debts. If they can pay those obligations without selling, they're free to do so.

You're not making an argument. You're throwing a child's tantrum, saying "but it's miiiiine" when asked to share.

Its not even sharing. Its paying for what they use.

Who benefits more from roads, courts and welfare than the Waltons and Bezos?

[Fugus]

Fine, then I can force you to sell your house, and your liberty is intact.

Nah, fuck that.

Dude, that’s the world we already live in and the world you wanting to expand and make worse.

You think your freedom should include putting people into such duress that you can forcibly strip their freedoms from them.

[Ivanstone]

Good for him, it's his stuff.

The math has shown (Warren's plan) won't just be a drag, it will literally force people to sell the companies they own, usually the ones they started, or the ones they own outright. That's the problem, the only way to pay for having a successful business, is to sell off that business... piece by piece.

1. Fuck him.

2. This isn’t the wealth tax thread. It’s a suggested remedy.
3. There are more wealth taxes than Warren’s, some of which are already in existence and have numerous billionaires actively paying them.
4. If your wealth increases faster than the wealth tax the you’re not selling anything.
5. For example, if your company is worth $3 billion, has $1 billion in revenues and has a 20% profit margin odds are you probably just raked in $200 million dollars which is greater than the $60 million you would pay under a Warren wealth tax.

[uuuhname]

Dude, that’s the world we already live in and the world you wanting to expand and make worse.

You think your freedom should include putting people into such duress that you can forcibly strip their freedoms from them.

once again the only "freedom" being defend here by libertarians is their ability to acquire and own things.

[Machismo]

A right they still have, FYI. Needing to sell assets to meet debts owed doesn't mean you don't have that right. It just mean that your right to own shit doesn't supersede the debts you owe.



Then you could argue that taxation as a whole is an attack on liberty. In which case society falls apart as the government is unable to pay for anything, including things like emergency services, and all of the positive freedoms we enjoy thanks to being a part of a society of laws are gone.

Unless you can afford to pay for personal protection and all that jazz, so it's really just taking rights and freedoms away from the poors which you either don't realize, or don't care about.

Though technically at that point, without a central government and a currency to pay those folks protecting you...well shit, now we're in even messier territory.

Yes, so you could raise taxes on the poor, and they would still have the same rights and freedoms... right?

Nah, didn't think so.

- - - Updated - - -

what the fuck are you talking about have you been taking ivermectin?

If this is about not caring about taking people's assets, then at least be consistent.

- - - Updated - - -

A "right to own [some] property and assets" is not a "right to never be obliged to sell any property to pay off extant debts you owe". Not anywhere.



That's a hilarious lie.



The bullshit of claiming that taxation is an attack on liberty?

It's just a lie. An obvious, ridiculous lie. Go on, call taxation "theft". Declare that you're a sovereign citizen and the laws don't apply to you. That's the territory you're in right now.

Great, then you should have no issue with raising the taxes and wealth taxes on the poor.

It's not an attack on their liberty, clearly...

- - - Updated - - -

A "right to own [some] property and assets" is not a "right to never be obliged to sell any property to pay off extant debts you owe". Not anywhere.



That's a hilarious lie.



The bullshit of claiming that taxation is an attack on liberty?

It's just a lie. An obvious, ridiculous lie. Go on, call taxation "theft". Declare that you're a sovereign citizen and the laws don't apply to you. That's the territory you're in right now.

Great, then you should have no issue with raising the taxes and wealth taxes on the poor.

It's not an attack on their liberty, clearly...

[Edge-]

Yes, so you could raise taxes on the poor, and they would still have the same rights and freedoms... right?

The same rights? Yes? Taxation has nothing to do with rights, being taxed doesn't impact your right to Freedom of Religion nor your right to own a firearm in the country - note it's a right to own, not a right to afford a firearm.

Freedoms? Yeah, that's a separate topic because it depends on what kinds of freedoms we're talking about.

Freedom from hunger? No, definitely not. But that's a freedom that, for example, isn't in jeopardy when the wealthy are taxed more heavily. Because context matters.

Nah, didn't think so.

Why ask questions if you're just going to tell me what you think the answer is? I mean, you're wrong, but you could have just said what your opinion was and not tried to play some cutesy game.

[Machismo]

...foreclosures and repossession are literally the opposite of a wealth tax. It's when you can't afford the shit you have.

And was pointed out, Warren's wealth tax would quite literally punish people for being successful, and force them to sell their property, because they were successful.

[Edge-]

and force them to sell their property

If they've planned their financials poorly, why is that her fault? You keep telling other people to plan their finances better, why doesn't this apply to the poor, oppressed uber-wealthy?

[Huehuecoyotl]

And was pointed out, Warren's wealth tax would quite literally punish people for being successful, and force them to sell their property, because they were successful.

The point is that the system at the moment takes the "success" of society and millions of people in it, and filters it directly into the pockets of a few dozen. This wealth tax isn't about punishing people for being successful, it's about ensuring that the results of that success is more fairly apportioned. If billionaires would do it themselves by distrubuting the profits of their companies more fairly amongst those that generate it, there wouldn't be the need for it. Their unabashed greed has led us to this situation.

You still seem to believe in the myth of the self made billionaire. That concept is utter bollocks, and you need to be honest enough to admit it.

[Machismo]

It's been shown to you repeatedly that a) most billionaires didn't build up from nothing, they had a nice lump of wealth to start with and b) no billionaire IN THE WORLD built a company up on their own. It literally isn't possible. Any company that reaches the size where it is genuinely worth that much has employees; lots of them. People working hard to make that billionaire money, often for less than minimum wage, with taxpayer support. And he's building the company in a country whose infrastructure and communications have been build with other people's effort to provide a foundation for the growth of that company.

This myth you've built in your head of the hard-working billionaire building his company up single-handedly only to have the evil government try and take it away is fucking laughable. A wealth tax is a tool to try and get some of the wealth that certain individuals have steered into their own pocket back out, so that it can be redirected to the actual working people. Because the alternative is for those people to simply get more and more of the money, until society grinds to a halt (or actually breaks) because there isn't enough left for the rest of us.

You want a genuine cliff edge, rather than the social security one you are using as a bogey-man? It's when the rich have so much money that society crumbles, and their wealth isn't enough to keep the wolves from the door. The French can explain what happens next, it isn't pretty. I think they'd prefer a wealth tax to whatever the American working man comes up with in lieu of the guillotine.

Anyone can get a small-business loan, or seek investors. Did Bezos get a quarter million from his parents? Yes. DO I sure as shit wish I was one of those initial investors?

Hell yeah.

Alas, I was not.

I never said they built the entire company the entire time on their own. But, many started them on their own. They also had employees who did the work, investors who took a risk, and people who stuck with them from the beginning. They pay their investors. They pay their employees.

That's why I specifically brought up Lynsi Snyder. This is a family-owned company, and she is the sole owner, That company has paid its employees well above the industry average for decades, and has also given them medical care for decades. The math is simple... if Warren's plan comes to fruition, she either has to sell off her company, piece by piece, or she has to draw more money from the company (and less from those employees) to cover those costs.

That's wat a wealth ax does.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not even sharing. Its paying for what they use.

Who benefits more from roads, courts and welfare than the Waltons and Bezos?

based on what metric? Are we talking total value, or as compared to the amount they pay in taxes?

[Edge-]

Anyone can get a small-business loan, or seek investors.

In theory, sure. In practice/reality, this is hilariously incorrect to the extreme.

[Machismo]

Dude, that’s the world we already live in and the world you wanting to expand and make worse.

You think your freedom should include putting people into such duress that you can forcibly strip their freedoms from them.

I'm not the one trying to strip freedoms.

- - - Updated - - -

In theory, sure. In practice/reality, this is hilariously incorrect to the extreme.

If I were poor as shit, and had a good idea, then finding investors shouldn't be too difficult.

[Edge-]

If I were poor as shit, and had a good idea, then finding investors shouldn't be too difficult.

...do you honest to god believe this? That you can find investors with a great idea alone? That you don't need...I dunno...money already to limit the risk, previous products/services showing you've got a good track record for investing, or maybe something like a very good credit score?

So if I declare bankruptcy and my credit goes to shit and I don't have a dollar to my name, I'm gonna walk into some investment firms or banks, pitch them on my billion dollar idea, and they won't take a look at my financial history and call in a haz-mat team to toss me out of the building because they're too afraid to touch my financially toxic ass themselves?

This is a literal fantasy world. I mean, it explains a lot about why your views on other topics are so detached from reality, at least.

Edit: Hell, they'll reject you simply for being a woman or a person of color and we've got documented proof that these folks see loans/investment at lower levels than their male/white counterparts. And that's not even about fucking ideas, that's just racism and sexism being a thing that exists and complicates your black and white world.

[Machismo]

1. Fuck him.

2. This isn’t the wealth tax thread. It’s a suggested remedy.
3. There are more wealth taxes than Warren’s, some of which are already in existence and have numerous billionaires actively paying them.
4. If your wealth increases faster than the wealth tax the you’re not selling anything.
5. For example, if your company is worth $3 billion, has $1 billion in revenues and has a 20% profit margin odds are you probably just raked in $200 million dollars which is greater than the $60 million you would pay under a Warren wealth tax.

You are the one who posted the disingenuous article trying to equate income to wealth. So, take it up with Propublica.

Wealth taxes have been halted, because they are a pain in the ass. Quantifying someone's wealth isn't nearly as easy as you may think. Shit, even quantifying my wealth would be a pain in the ass, and I have relatively few assets. How do you calculate the value of my company? That alone makes it difficult.

Publicly-traded companies are easier to determine, that's just a matter of stock prices and value. But, even then, they could purposefully tank stock prices to decrease that value. Or, trolls could ramp up the stock prices, like they did with Gamestop. Imagine having to pay taxes on that bubble.

Under Warren's plan, that would be 6% above $1 billion. That alone is $120 million.

- - - Updated - - -

The same rights? Yes? Taxation has nothing to do with rights, being taxed doesn't impact your right to Freedom of Religion nor your right to own a firearm in the country - note it's a right to own, not a right to afford a firearm.

Freedoms? Yeah, that's a separate topic because it depends on what kinds of freedoms we're talking about.

Freedom from hunger? No, definitely not. But that's a freedom that, for example, isn't in jeopardy when the wealthy are taxed more heavily. Because context matters.



Why ask questions if you're just going to tell me what you think the answer is? I mean, you're wrong, but you could have just said what your opinion was and not tried to play some cutesy game.

It has plenty to do with freedom, does it not? That's the direct attack, right there.

[Edge-]

Imagine having to pay taxes on that bubble.

Why is that our problem? People are willfully boosting a junk stock for the memes, if the stock finally tanks back to its normal value or if they get a nice tax bill because they tried to game the system that's kinda like...literally only their problem and not our problem because we're not engaging in de-facto market manipulation.

[Endus]

Great, then you should have no issue with raising the taxes and wealth taxes on the poor.

It's not an attack on their liberty, clearly...

The only way it could infringe on their liberties and freedoms is if it negatively impacted their ability to live with a modicum of basic human decency.

A progressive tax bracket system prevents higher tax rates on higher incomes from having such an impact. You're fearmongering about issues that were concretely solved decades ago.

Pretending that context doesn't exist just makes you a bad faith poster. It doesn't mean you have an argument.

[Edge-]

It has plenty to do with freedom, does it not? That's the direct attack, right there.

What freedoms? Why ask me a question when you're just going to tell me I'm wrong and "correct" me? Just cut to the chase and get to correcting whatever wrong answer I'd give.

[Machismo]

If they've planned their financials poorly, why is that her fault? You keep telling other people to plan their finances better, why doesn't this apply to the poor, oppressed uber-wealthy?

Well, this is awkward.

Are you making my argument for slimming down SS for me?

Thanks.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Anyone can get a small-business loan, or seek investors.

Okay, then answer me this. Let's assume that everyone can get that start; can they all succeed and become billionaires? Obviously not, because if we all had $10bn, money would be worthless. So your starting point of "anyone can do it" then presumes that a few will succeed, and everyone else will fail. You want ALL of the results of that exercise to end up in the pockets of the lucky few that succeeded (and make no mistake "lucky" is the second most important thing after "rich parents") and the rest are just shit out of luck.

Do you think that's fair? Or that it will magically create a better society for us all? Well I'm sorry, but it isn't, and it won't.

As for the rest of your response; you've taken an outlier (something you've attacked other people for doing) and used that to defend the general billionaire class. But even that one example, where they "generously" give their employees above average benefits, still ends up keeping an enormous sum of money for the owner. Again, if they were more generous still and shared more of the profits, then the wealth tax wouldn't be needed. But even your outlier doesn't do that, and the rest of them are WORSE.

A wealth tax is required, because billionaires are too greedy and selfish to fairly share the profits from the hard-work of everyone. I thought you were against building a system that brought the worst out of people? Because this system you are defending sure as hell does that in spades.

[Machismo]

The point is that the system at the moment takes the "success" of society and millions of people in it, and filters it directly into the pockets of a few dozen. This wealth tax isn't about punishing people for being successful, it's about ensuring that the results of that success is more fairly apportioned. If billionaires would do it themselves by distrubuting the profits of their companies more fairly amongst those that generate it, there wouldn't be the need for it. Their unabashed greed has led us to this situation.

You still seem to believe in the myth of the self made billionaire. That concept is utter bollocks, and you need to be honest enough to admit it.

Society's success isn't the reason Gates is worth more than God. I get that we want to take credit, so we can justify taking their money... but that's not what happened.

Gates had a great idea, worked his ass of, and marketed it very well. Did he have employees who helped? Absolutely. And they also got paid for their work.

You can stop them, simply by not giving their companies any money, until they pay their employees more. Amazon wasn't always the monster company that it is now. They were the little guy, and people liked wat they had to offer. it didn't bother society how much he was paying his employees, they wanted what Amazon had to offer.

The sudden concern is way too late, and completely hypocritical.

- - - Updated - - -

...do you honest to god believe this? That you can find investors with a great idea alone? That you don't need...I dunno...money already to limit the risk, previous products/services showing you've got a good track record for investing, or maybe something like a very good credit score?

So if I declare bankruptcy and my credit goes to shit and I don't have a dollar to my name, I'm gonna walk into some investment firms or banks, pitch them on my billion dollar idea, and they won't take a look at my financial history and call in a haz-mat team to toss me out of the building because they're too afraid to touch my financially toxic ass themselves?

This is a literal fantasy world. I mean, it explains a lot about why your views on other topics are so detached from reality, at least.

Edit: Hell, they'll reject you simply for being a woman or a person of color and we've got documented proof that these folks see loans/investment at lower levels than their male/white counterparts. And that's not even about fucking ideas, that's just racism and sexism being a thing that exists and complicates your black and white world.

Once again, this is a simple reality of your circumstance. If you are poor as shit, and have bad finances, then most banks and investors won't want to take that risk.

Remember, it's not just about having an idea, but a real plan to market it, create it, and implement it.

Would you take that risk?