Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Themius]

That's an idea I've seen floated a few times. A sales tax on stock sales. Even just 1% or so would completely decimate the algorithmic trading methodologies.

New York actually already does this. They tax every transitions a small amount. Until I believe the 70s or so. Now we still take the tax but voluntarily the state remits it back…

[Machismo]

Wait, are you really asking me, who clearly doesn't have millions or billions in wealth that's tied to stocks/bonds (that's not taxed, but heavily benefited from), if I am willing to pay more for these things I want?

And just to let you know, this isn't about things I want, these are things this country needs. Everyone benefits from a better educated, healthy, financially independent, and happy society. Why should I who doesn't have the massive amount of wealth that's tied to intangible and untaxed income pay more for things that helps people? Meanwhile, the rich and powerful can continue to gobble up more resources while keeping this country in a broken state.

Great, how much more are you willing to spend for all the things you say the country needs?

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant. In spite of their tax "burden" they are much wealthier and their wealth continually increases.

The wealthy benefit more from society than the poor.

Again not relevant. If people were better compensated they would end up paying more in taxes.

Excellent idea. Make it so. I get a property tax rebate because I am low income instead of a different tax bracket but the effect is similar.

I'm sure if we can use our smarts to create thousands of tax shelters we can also use those smarts to improve the graduated tax system.

Once again, if this is the metric, then that means differing tax rates by area codes, or you are going to push that burden (using your metric) in very disproportionate ways.

People say the wealthy benefit more from society than the poor, but is this in pure dollar amount, or as compared to how much they contribute via tax dollars? THis also requires some sort of metric.

Property taxes are assessed at the state and local levels. We're talking about federal income tax burden.

- - - Updated - - -

You said he couldn't back it up. Not that he hadn't.



And?



You're deflecting, again. This is about your statement, not Themius'.

I did back it up, in the next comments. Enjoy!!!

[Themius]

You said he couldn't back it up. Not that he hadn't.



And?



You're deflecting, again. This is about your statement, not Themius'.

It's all kind of funny to me. It's such a logical thing that shouldn't require me to go hunting for data to "prove" that a person making 40k in New York, is more burdened by taxes than a person making 55 million. He wants specifically for me to prove the arguments I had on how having more disposable income and factoring in cost of living means a person with 55 million is less burdened than one with 40k in New York.

It's hilarious and frankly a self-own for Machismo to even ask for such information. I've played this game before and his reply when provided with the facts (which are common fucking sense) is to either respond with "well that's not what I was talking about!" or "okay but what about" or "....~silence~..."

It's such an old boring game.

[Machismo]

It's all kind of funny to me. It's such a logical thing that shouldn't require me to go hunting for data to "prove" that a person making 40k in New York, is more burdened by taxes than a person making 55 million. He wants specifically for me to prove the arguments I had on how having more disposable income and factoring in cost of living means a person with 55 million is less burdened than one with 40k in New York.

It's hilarious and frankly a self-own for Machismo to even ask for such information. I've played this game before and his reply when provided with the facts (which are common fucking sense) is to either respond with "well that's not what I was talking about!" or "okay but what about" or "....~silence~..."

It's such an old boring game.

No, I wanted to know what metrics you are basing this off of.

When you plan on basing tax policy on things, you sure as shit better be able to quantify it.

[Themius]

No, I wanted to know what metrics you are basing this off of.

When you plan on basing tax policy on things, you sure as shit better be able to quantify it.

metrics... cost of living is a metric... disposable income is a metric...

I'm sorry... do you need me to explain why disposable income and cost of living factor into how a person with 40k is more burdened than one with 55mn, Who both live in New York?

You mean you can't logic yourself out of this conundrum? It is clear to me libertarianism is not allowing you to admit what is plain... this is almost as bad as saying "invest with your heart is perfectly sound advice and investing in the broad market is bad advice"

Fuck... I compared portfolios and backtested and provided numbers on these issues noting volatility and risk and you ignored those metrics to go fee fees, metrics don't mean shit to you.

[omerome]

Great, how much more are you willing to spend for all the things you say the country needs?

For the sake of this question which is laced in poor faith, if I made 50K (which isn't a lot in many places) you want to give someone like me a greater tax burden? As it has been explained plenty of times already, taxing someone more when they don't have much, is just going to put them in even greater financial ruin.

So let's say I get taxed an extra 3%, that's even less money in my pocket to spend on necessities for me or my family and especially if I live in a higher cost of living area. Meanwhile, taxing the super-rich and wealthy that same extra 3% would barely put a dent into their wealth, but would do so much more to put us on a path for this country to benefit everyone - not just the privileged.

[Machismo]

metrics... cost of living is a metric... disposable income is a metric...

I'm sorry... do you need me to explain why disposable income and cost of living factor into how a person with 40k is more burdened than one with 55mn, Who both live in New York?

You mean you can't logic yourself out of this conundrum? It is clear to me libertarianism is not allowing you to admit what is plain... this is almost as bad as saying "invest with your heart is perfectly sound advice and investing in the broad market is bad advice"

Once again, this all gets very tricky to quantify when you're talking about "burden."

This is your argument, I would love for you to lay it out, especially if you are planning on basing tax policy on it. Let's see some real statistics.

[Muzjhath]

Do you think anyone here, besides me, actually gives a shit about the freedoms of the wealthy? Be honest.

I have called for slowly reducing government spending.

You don't give a shit about freedom, you only fucking virtue signal about doing so.
If you gave a shit about actual freedom you'd be for people centric cities build so you didn't need a car, but could walk/cycle/drive/public transport everywhere. You'd want everyone to have access to food and shelter and the means of supplying it. Etc.
You wouldn't harp on about induvidual "liberty" and other such fucking buzzwords. You wouldn't be for a system that'd turn the world into a practical feudal society where serfdom once again reigns suppreme.

[Machismo]

For the sake of this question which is laced in poor faith, if I made 50K (which isn't a lot in many places) you want to give someone like me a greater tax burden? As it has been explained plenty of times already, taxing someone more when they don't have much, is just going to put them in even greater financial ruin.

So let's say I get taxed an extra 3%, that's even less money in my pocket to spend on necessities for me or my family and especially if I live in a higher cost of living area. Meanwhile, taxing the super-rich and wealthy that same extra 3% would barely put a dent into their wealth, but would do so much more to put us on a path for this country to benefit everyone - not just the privileged.

No, let's not deal with hypotheticals, I want to know how much more you'd be willing to spend.

You want all these things, I simply want to know how much more you are willing to pay to get them. This is the part that stops people, when it applies to them.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't give a shit about freedom, you only fucking virtue signal about doing so.
If you gave a shit about actual freedom you'd be for people centric cities build so you didn't need a car, but could walk/cycle/drive/public transport everywhere. You'd want everyone to have access to food and shelter and the means of supplying it. Etc.
You wouldn't harp on about induvidual "liberty" and other such fucking buzzwords. You wouldn't be for a system that'd turn the world into a practical feudal society where serfdom once again reigns suppreme.

I'm all for people living in cities, if they want to. Hell, in the school lunch thread, I said I have no problem giving every kid free food.

So, when you are done misrepresenting my stance, let me know.

[Ivanstone]

Once again, if this is the metric, then that means differing tax rates by area codes, or you are going to push that burden (using your metric) in very disproportionate ways.

People say the wealthy benefit more from society than the poor, but is this in pure dollar amount, or as compared to how much they contribute via tax dollars? THis also requires some sort of metric.

Property taxes are assessed at the state and local levels. We're talking about federal income tax burden.

So fucking what?

So assess it. More to the point the wealthy are able to craft laws themselves, determine their tax rates and choose how much they can compensate their employees. Its almost like they have more wealth and can control the wealth of others. If that's not greater benefit than I don't know what is.

As an example, Wal Mart put up a new big box store a short distance away (~15min walk). They pretty much asked for additional road work and changes to local traffic patterns. And they got it. And probably a property tax abatement as well. If I asked the same it would be "Thank you for your vote and we'll look into it."

You think you're talking about Federal Taxes. I am not. I always consider all the taxes that a person can potentially pay. Without citation I am going to state that if we include all local, state and federal taxes that many people are heavily burderned, most people are lightly burdened and the wealthy will still be wealthy and increasing their wealth and have no burden whatsoever.

[Machismo]

So fucking what?

So assess it. More to the point the wealthy are able to craft laws themselves, determine their tax rates and choose how much they can compensate their employees. Its almost like they have more wealth and can control the wealth of others. If that's not greater benefit than I don't know what is.

As an example, Wal Mart put up a new big box store a short distance away (~15min walk). They pretty much asked for additional road work and changes to local traffic patterns. And they got it. And probably a property tax abatement as well. If I asked the same it would be "Thank you for your vote and we'll look into it."

You think you're talking about Federal Taxes. I am not. I always consider all the taxes that a person can potentially pay. Without citation I am going to state that if we include all local, state and federal taxes that many people are heavily burderned, most people are lightly burdened and the wealthy will still be wealthy and increasing their wealth and have no burden whatsoever.

So, to be clear, you want to base federal income tax levels by zip code? Great. Of course, that would mean the wealthy would just buy a house in BFE South Dakota, and claim that as their residence.

This threat is about federal taxes.

[Muzjhath]

I'm all for people living in cities, if they want to. Hell, in the school lunch thread, I said I have no problem giving every kid free food.

So, when you are done misrepresenting my stance, let me know.

Except that you are more or less always against taxes unless it's a 100% flat rate for everyone. Which is just fucking fantasyland bullshit.

[Ivanstone]

So, to be clear, you want to base federal income tax levels by zip code? Great. Of course, that would mean the wealthy would just buy a house in BFE South Dakota, and claim that as their residence.

This threat is about federal taxes.

No they wouldn't. Progressive tax system. A person living in South Dakota would potentially have $15K in untaxable income. A person in New York City would have $30K. This would account for cost of living disparities. Yes, these are asspull numbers. What you pay at the bottom end is very different from what you pay at the top end.

In part but failing to consider the entire tax burden is simply dishonest.

Also if its about Federal Taxes than I expect you'll not mention non-existent wealth tax again if you're going to be pedantic.

[Machismo]

Except that you are more or less always against taxes unless it's a 100% flat rate for everyone. Which is just fucking fantasyland bullshit.

We already have a progressive system.

What I want, doesn't matter too much, because I know I'll never get it. A federal-based sales tax isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

What I'm currently arguing, is that the narrative being pushed by Propuiblica and others isn't what's actually happening.

[Themius]

Once again, this all gets very tricky to quantify when you're talking about "burden."

This is your argument, I would love for you to lay it out, especially if you are planning on basing tax policy on it. Let's see some real statistics.

Not tricky at all. Real stats on what? That people who make 40k have less disposable income than those that make 55mn? You need "stats" for that? You mean you can't use common sense?

You mean that all those super rich are secretly living month to month in a 2 bedroom apartment in the city?

[omerome]

No, let's not deal with hypotheticals, I want to know how much more you'd be willing to spend.

You want all these things, I simply want to know how much more you are willing to pay to get them. This is the part that stops people, when it applies to them.

How else would I be able to answer this ridiculous question because this is simply a discussion and not an actual bill that can turn into a law?

I could get taxed 40% and it still wouldn't be enough to benefit the country simply because of my lower income compared to the wealthy. All that would do is create greater a deeper burden on me and people like me because unless you want me to die from starvation or lack of healthcare, the government would have to step in and provide assistance.

The part that stops people like you because it could apply to you, or people you aspire to be, is the concern of not being able to buy that extra yacht or that fourth vacation home in the Hamptons. Which was likely financed by financial manipulation via stock buybacks because those individuals would do whatever they can to minimize their tax burden.

[Machismo]

No they wouldn't. Progressive tax system. A person living in South Dakota would potentially have $15K in untaxable income. A person in New York City would have $30K. This would account for cost of living disparities. Yes, these are asspull numbers. What you pay at the bottom end is very different from what you pay at the top end.

In part but failing to consider the entire tax burden is simply dishonest.

Also if its about Federal Taxes than I expect you'll not mention non-existent wealth tax again if you're going to be pedantic.

Then, as before, poor people in urban areas are getting an additional burden than the poor people in rural areas (cost of living averages)

As for graduated tax scales, we already have that.

Except, this thread is literally about a Propublica article that tries to tie income tax to wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

Not tricky at all. Real stats on what? That people who make 40k have less disposable income than those that make 55mn? You need "stats" for that? You mean you can't use common sense?

You mean that all those super rich are secretly living month to month in a 2 bedroom apartment in the city?

They also pay less in taxes. That was covered long, long ago.

This is about "burden."

- - - Updated - - -

How else would I be able to answer this ridiculous question because this is simply a discussion and not an actual bill that can turn into a law?

I could get taxed 40% and it still wouldn't be enough to benefit the country simply because of my lower income compared to the wealthy. All that would do is create greater a deeper burden on me and people like me because unless you want me to die from starvation or lack of healthcare, the government would have to step in and provide assistance.

The part that stops people like you, because it could apply to you, or people you aspire to be, is the concern of not being able to buy that extra yacht or that fourth vacation home in the Hamptons. Which was likely financed by financial manipulation via stock buybacks because those individuals would do whatever they can to minimize their tax burden.

I'm asking for your opinion, and your stance on how much more you would be willing to pay to get those things for people to have?

This is about your personal willingness to contribute. Now, I have no idea what country you are in, or what your tax burden is. Which, is why I wanted you to clear it up for me. I see all sorts of people saying they want the wealthy to pay more (differing amounts). What I'm having a hard time getting, is people to say how much more they would personally pay.

[Edge-]

I'm asking for your opinion, and your stance on how much more you would be willing to pay to get those things for people to have?

You could just write, "I don't want to discuss actual policy." and it'd be a lot easier on everyone. Because you don't, and every time the topic approaches actual policy discussions you throw this kind of garbage argument out as if it's some kind of "I win" button when people don't bother playing this pointless game.

[omerome]

I'm asking for your opinion, and your stance on how much more you would be willing to pay to get those things for people to have?

This is about your personal willingness to contribute. Now, I have no idea what country you are in, or what your tax burden is. Which, is why I wanted you to clear it up for me. I see all sorts of people saying they want the wealthy to pay more (differing amounts). What I'm having a hard time getting, is people to say how much more they would personally pay.

And I already told you that because of my lack of income compared to the rich and powerful, it wouldn't be enough to pay for those things people need to have.

You're basically saying to someone who could be living off of a bowl of rice and beans that they should eat even less rice and beans to survive. I really don't understand how you don't understand this.

[Machismo]

You could just write, "I don't want to discuss actual policy." and it'd be a lot easier on everyone. Because you don't, and every time the topic approaches actual policy discussions you throw this kind of garbage argument out as if it's some kind of "I win" button when people don't bother playing this pointless game.

I've been trying to discuss it for weeks.

People lay out what they want, and they want others to pay for it. I'm simply asking how much skin they are willing to have in the game.

People want to push misinformation and bullshit narratives that are statistically false. They want to repeat talking political talking points about "fair share" without having a clue what that means... other than "more."

- - - Updated - - -

And I already told you that because of my lack of income compared to the rich and powerful, it wouldn't be enough to pay for those things people need to have.

You're basically saying to someone who could be living off of a bowl of rice and beans that they should eat even less rice and beans to survive. I really don't understand how you don't understand this.

I know you're not a billionaire, I'm not arguing you are.

I'm saying you make way, way less than them. But, these are the things you want (which you laid out). How much more are you personally, with your "less income" are you willing to spend in order to get those things you want the government to provide?