Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Shadowferal]

House Democrats clear path toward passing $3.5 trillion budget bill and infrastructure plan after breaking stalemate EDTUPDATED WED, AUG 25 2021

Many Republicans have supported the bipartisan infrastructure bill, saying it will jolt the economy. But they have opposed the trillions more in spending proposed by Democrats and the tax hikes on businesses and wealthy individuals the Democrats hope to use to pay for it.

[Dontrike]

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

Because you defend the rich every chance you get.

[Machismo]

Because you defend the rich every chance you get.

Because, you attack the rich every chance you get.

If you did nothing but attack poor people, I'd only be defending them, in your eyes.

[Draco-Onis]

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.

Yea it's always been generational and it's fine all you have done so far is use talking points that would embarrass anyone who has taken economics 101.

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

Which is the issue because they don't make money through income.

Who said anything about it collapsing tomorrow?

The debt is simply becoming more and more burdensome.

Define burdensome because that's a feeling nothing to do with data.

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

Republicans have raised the debt far more than democrats and they have cut more taxes than anyone so that statement isn't based on reality.

[Machismo]

Yea it's always been generational and it's fine all you have done so far is use talking points that would embarrass anyone who has taken economics 101.



Which is the issue because they don't make money through income.


Define burdensome because that's a feeling nothing to do with data.



Republicans have raised the debt far more than democrats and they have cut more taxes than anyone so that statement isn't based on reality.

The issue is that people don't understand the difference between income, and wealth. They cannot seem to grasp that stocks are considered income, when they are sold, and the gains are realized. When they sell those stocks, they will be taxed on it, just like with you and I.

Republicans aren't fiscally conservative. I'm not here to defend the shitty fiscal habits of Republicans.

As for burdensome:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/burdensome

[Themius]

Because, you attack the rich every chance you get.

If you did nothing but attack poor people, I'd only be defending them, in your eyes.

But you attack the poor so you'd just be buddies.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is that people don't understand the difference between income, and wealth. They cannot seem to grasp that stocks are considered income, when they are sold, and the gains are realized. When they sell those stocks, they will be taxed on it, just like with you and I.

Republicans aren't fiscally conservative. I'm not here to defend the shitty fiscal habits of Republicans.

As for burdensome:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/burdensome

Other countries sometimes factor in stocks as part of wealth and tax them.

[Machismo]

But you attack the poor so you'd just be buddies.

Nope, I will defend the poor, and do so quite often. My primary goal is liberty. I care about the liberty of poor people, every bit as much as yours, mine, or even rich people.

- - - Updated - - -

But you attack the poor so you'd just be buddies.

- - - Updated - - -



Other countries sometimes factor in stocks as part of wealth and tax them.

Stocks are wealth, they are not income, not until those gains are realized.

Other countries do all sorts of things, that doesn't mean I support it.

[Draco-Onis]

The issue is that people don't understand the difference between income, and wealth. They cannot seem to grasp that stocks are considered income, when they are sold, and the gains are realized. When they sell those stocks, they will be taxed on it, just like with you and I.

Republicans aren't fiscally conservative. I'm not here to defend the shitty fiscal habits of Republicans.

As for burdensome:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/burdensome

You don't have to sell the stocks to draw income from them that's not even going into tax havens and loopholes only available for the rich. The definition of burdensome is not what I meant, I mean define how the debt hampers the economy or everyday Americans?

[Themius]

Nope, I will defend the poor, and do so quite often. My primary goal is liberty. I care about the liberty of poor people, every bit as much as yours, mine, or even rich people.

You don't care about liberty.... if you did you'd have a problem with unregulated capitalism... because it inherently is the antithesis of liberty.

[Draco-Onis]

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.

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

[Machismo]

You don't have to sell the stocks to draw income from them that's not even going into tax havens and loopholes only available for the rich. The definition of burdensome is not what I meant, I mean define how the debt hampers the economy or everyday Americans?

It quite literally is an extra burden on them, and that burden is increasing quite rapidly.

Also, this is straying off-topic, and I'm trying to stick to it.

The issue is that people don't understand simple concepts like income, debt, or even wealth.

[Themius]

It quite literally is an extra burden on them, and that burden is increasing quite rapidly.

Also, this is straying off-topic, and I'm trying to stick to it.

The issue is that people don't understand simple concepts like income, debt, or even wealth.

"I don't want taxes to improve society" is what your arguments always come down to... it is boring.

[Machismo]

You don't care about liberty.... if you did you'd have a problem with unregulated capitalism... because it inherently is the antithesis of liberty.

Once again, this is your straw man, and it's off-topic.

If someone had unironically proposed increasing the taxes of the poor, I'd be opposing them, as well.

[Themius]

Once again, this is your straw man, and it's off-topic.

If someone had unironically proposed increasing the taxes of the poor, I'd be opposing them, as well.

What about increasing taxes on the rich to tackle climate change issues created by the rich?

Should the government regulate pricing of goods?

[Draco-Onis]

It quite literally is an extra burden on them, and that burden is increasing quite rapidly.

Also, this is straying off-topic, and I'm trying to stick to it.

The issue is that people don't understand simple concepts like income, debt, or even wealth.

I understand them quite well and you seem to be confused aside from vague talking points you haven't said what that extra burden is. In economic term the average household burden is more because of how the money is being spent which is padding the pockets of the rich and powerful instead of helping them.

[Machismo]

"I don't want taxes to improve society" is what your arguments always come down to... it is boring.

And your arguments are always that someone else needs to pay more.

Wealthy people do pay taxes. Sure, they don't pay as much as you want, but they still pay more than the average American, both in dollar value, and as a percentage of their income.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand them quite well and you seem to be confused aside from vague talking points you haven't said what that extra burden is. In economic term the average household burden is more because of how the money is being spent which is padding the pockets of the rich and powerful instead of helping them.

Increasing their taxes, whether it be on the wealthy, or the poor, is an increase in their burden.

[Themius]

And your arguments are always that someone else needs to pay more.

Wealthy people do pay taxes. Sure, they don't pay as much as you want, but they still pay more than the average American, both in dollar value, and as a percentage of their income.

The wealthy need to pay more... period. "They pay more than average" is kind of a shit argument....

[Machismo]

The wealthy need to pay more... period. "They pay more than average" is kind of a shit argument....

"They need to pay more" is a shit argument...

The issue is that you people will never be sated. No amount will be enough, because you'll just want to spend more, and then need to go take more to justify even more spending.

[Draco-Onis]

Increasing their taxes, whether it be on the wealthy, or the poor, is an increase in their burden.

The wealthy and the poor are not one type of people that live the same lives with the same access, power, privilege and lawyers. You may as well say we are all human therefore Bill Gates getting more taxes hurts the guy begging on the streets.

[Themius]

Increasing their taxes, whether it be on the wealthy, or the poor, is an increase in their burden.

This is a silly argument:

A tax of $10 on a person who makes $100 in a week is a burden. A tax of $1000 on a person who makes $10,000 in a week is not a burden

A burden is defined specifically as a heavy load