Rich people don't pay much in taxes (now in CR) - ProPublica

[UncleSonny 6562]

20 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes.  Estate taxes and the like are why I laugh my ass off at the rich that hide all their $$$.  I don't blame them a single fucking bit.  The literal only reason 99% of people (with kids) work is to make their kid's life better than theirs was.  Whether that's providing them an education, or making sure their kids kids won't have to work, I don't see the difference. 

 

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That's fine then.  Let's do it for everyone.  Second generation American inheriting 20k from parents that worked their entire lives to save that, oh well, social contract, good of society, blah blah.   If we are looking to benefit society, then everyone in the society needs to be chipping in.  I assume they are part of this "social contract" and their money is likely just as green. 

You don't really seem to get how the estate tax works. Like at all.

 

[wildcat09 29264]

The lack of understanding of property rights on the right is so depressing.

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 minutes ago, UncleSonny said:

You don't really seem to get how the estate tax works. Like at all.

How is that? 

[UncleSonny 6562]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

How is that? 

Quote

Yes.  Estate taxes and the like are why I laugh my ass off at the rich that hide all their $$$.  I don't blame them a single fucking bit.  The literal only reason 99% of people (with kids) work is to make their kid's life better than theirs was.  Whether that's providing them an education, or making sure their kids kids won't have to work, I don't see the difference. 

The estate tax has never once, literally never, taken away a parents ability to pay for their children's education, nor does it have any bearing on whether that person's children have to work during their lifetime. 

The estate is exempt from the tax up to the exemption level, currently set at $11.7 million for an individual. An estate valued more than that is only taxed on the amount that exceeds the threshold. The idea that somebody has to hide money away so little Johnny can scrape together his tuition money is fucking stupid. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The lack of understanding of property rights on the right is so depressing.

It isn't a lack of understanding.  It is a disagreement with "Everything exists to satisfy  the State" that fucking fills the leftist mind with hopes and dreams of what they could give to others more deserving, at least in that same mind.  It's ALWAYS someone else's shit that they feel so entitled to.

Edited June 10, 2021 by slorch

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Flipside:

why are we as a society entitled to any of it, just because someone died?

Because they never paid taxes on it while they were alive? You know. That tax thing that me and you do every year. Well, me at least.

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

It isn't a lack of understanding.  It is a disagreement with "Everything exists to satisfy  the State" that fucking fills the leftist mind with hopes and dreams of what they could give to others more deserving, at least in that same mind.  It's ALWAYS someone else's shit that they feel so entitled to.

If I have to pay taxes every year then I sure as shit want entitled rich brats to pay taxes on money never taxed. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

It’s kind of amazing the length some people will go to defend a bunch of ultra rich assholes.

[Incredulity 11556]

53 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your argument is circular and assumes they have a right to the assets in perpetuity. As part of the social contract, they have received the benefit of being able to collect and enjoy these assets during their lifetime. I think it is only fair that after they pass, that a substantial portion of the assets return to society for recirculation. It is well established that the government can tax for the benefit of the society generally. I think preventing the accumulation of substantially all of the country's assets into the hands of a few families is a worthwhile goal that benefits society. You're free to disagree. You'd be wrong. But that is allowed too. 

“Social Contract”

 

Drink!

[workswithseed 2037]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s kind of amazing the length some people will go to defend a bunch of ultra rich assholes.

Yeah, we don't want to see a "too big to fail" label where the poor pay for the rich. Again, if the government doesn't have enough money, they can't pay the rich. 

[wildcat09 29264]

14 minutes ago, slorch said:

It isn't a lack of understanding.  It is a disagreement with "Everything exists to satisfy  the State" that fucking fills the leftist mind with hopes and dreams of what they could give to others more deserving, at least in that same mind.  It's ALWAYS someone else's shit that they feel so entitled to.

Interesting quote. Who said it?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Because they never paid taxes on it while they were alive? You know. That tax thing that me and you do every year. Well, me at least.

That wasn't the premise of the post I quoted.

It neither assumes taxes were paid, nor taxes were avoided.

 

As for my taxes, I most definitely pay them.   I'm sure it's not nearly enough though. #rolleyes

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, we don't want to see a "too big to fail" label where the poor pay for the rich. Again, if the government doesn't have enough money, they can't pay the rich. 

Can someone translate this for me please?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Interesting quote. Who said it?

Komrade dahabbs indirectly.

[Sbbruin 21743]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Interesting quote. Who said it?

[wildcat09 29264]

Let's try a little thought experiment. All you conservative DT guys feel free to play.

Let's say you own five different properties. What does that "ownership" mean to you? What does it give you the right to do with the property? If you're on property A, how do you expect to use property B?

[midtown 3342]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s kind of amazing the length some people will go to defend a bunch of ultra rich assholes.

Jeff Bezos bought me an my friends a drink at a bar in  NYC because my buddy's brother lives next door to Jeffs brother  He was in no way an asshole in the 5 mins we talked.  He created a business that revolutionized an industry. 

 

Bill Gates has probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives with his philanthropy.   Does that really make him an asshole?   Has anyone who is bitching about this saved anyone's life?  Let alone thousands upon thousands?  

Edited June 10, 2021 by midtown

[workswithseed 2037]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Can someone translate this for me please?

We don't want a fascist economy. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Let's try a little thought experiment. All you conservative DT guys feel free to play.

Let's say you own five different properties. What does that "ownership" mean to you? What does it give you the right to do with the property? If you're on property A, how do you expect to use property B?

However the fuck I want, until it transgresses the rights of someone else, and not some bullshit imaginary horseshit like endangering the Western Dandelion.

 

Oh and I disliked the DT experiment too.  

Edited June 10, 2021 by slorch

[Sbbruin 21743]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Let's try a little thought experiment. All you conservative DT guys feel free to play.

Let's say you own five different properties. What does that "ownership" mean to you? What does it give you the right to do with the property? If you're on property A, how do you expect to use property B?

[wildcat09 29264]

Just now, slorch said:

However the fuck I want, until it transgresses the rights of someone else, and not some bullshit imaginary horseshit like endangering the Western Dandelion.

Ok. But when you're on property A, how are you going to use property B? How do you intend to prevent me from deciding that I can make better use of property B and just walking onto it and using it for my own purposes?

[Sbbruin 21743]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Ok. But when you're on property A, how are you going to use property B? How do you intend to prevent me from deciding that I can make better use of property B and just walking onto it and using it for my own purposes?

[workswithseed 2037]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Let's try a little thought experiment. All you conservative DT guys feel free to play.

Let's say you own five different properties. What does that "ownership" mean to you? What does it give you the right to do with the property? If you're on property A, how do you expect to use property B?

Have you heard of the NAP?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Ok. But when you're on property A, how are you going to use property B? How do you intend to prevent me from deciding that I can make better use of property B and just walking onto it and using it for my own purposes?

Sounds like you need to move to Portland.  It's booming...

[wildcat09 29264]

Answer the question. You own property A and B. You're on property A, I decide I want to take property B for myself. How are you going to stop me (keeping in mind that you're not physically there to defend it)?

Edited June 10, 2021 by wildcat09

[52-80 19097]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Flipside:

why are we as a society entitled to any of it, just because someone died?

On principle, i dont think its right that anyone else is entitled to it. 
 

but also on principle, i dont think its right that the ultra wealthy paid less in taxes (based on notion of fairness, not on actual tax code), due to having access to tax vehicles and loopholes that others dont, no doubt helping accelerate their accumulation. 
 

on the practical side, if you are in the 9 figure club, you already won at life. your grand children already won. what more could you possibly want or need?  these people will continue to build wealth purely as a pursuit in itself, as a way to satisfy their ego. having a little less does not change their comfort and luxuries and lifestyle. but it will improve the society around them. 

 

i dont shoulder any blame on people who try to optimize to the tax code (hell if i dont do it myself), but the tax code itself needs to change. 

[Wally Fairway 5525]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

now THAT is a political post

[workswithseed 2037]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Answer the question. You own property A and B. You're on property A, I decide I want to take property B for myself. How are you going to stop me (keeping in mind that you're not physically there to defend it)?

Does he just not ever go over there property b? 

[wildcat09 29264]

It's very strange to see conservatives who supposedly admire the founders and care deeply about things like Constitutional originalism sneer so derisively at the ideas America was founded on.

 

 

[wildcat09 29264]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Does he just not ever go over there property b? 

He can, sure, but because he can only be in one place at a time he can't defend all of his properties himself.

[Incredulity 11556]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's very strange to see conservatives who supposedly admire the founders and care deeply about things like Constitutional originalism sneer so derisively at the ideas America was founded on.

 

 

[wildcat09 29264]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I'm sorry you feel like you can't get this material. It's really not that difficult though, you can understand it if you try.

[Chewbacca 7730]

It’s $142,800 for 2021. Not being douchy, just pointing it out.
 
Want to know how to fully fund social security? Simply get rid of the cap on wages subject to SS tax (like Medicare tax). Boom, problem solved. Almost 50% of the US annual budget goes to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Getting rid of this cap on SS would shrink the allocation of the budget to about 25-30%. But knowing politicians, they’d just reallocate the budget to bullshit that we don’t need.

Id rather see means testing. That 15.3% is a big bite for self employed people. Having no cap would be a killer. 15.3% forever, plus federal and state taxes and that puts the tax burden far north of 50%.

[TwiceHorn 31296]

18 hours ago, We’reTexas said:

I was curious and pulled Amazon’s proxy. Bezos has never received equity compensation. I mean it makes sense, but I was still pretty surprised for a second. He takes a nominal $80k salary plus has company-paid security (which is standard), but has been living off his founder shares for twenty years. Damn. 

Well, I am quite certain that the company-paid security counts as income (french benefit), so that imputed amount is going to go to FICA.

I tend to agree that the cap on FICA should be lifted, or raised substantially.  I'm not arguing that all income should be subject to FICA.

But a token salary is inherently arbitrary.  To choose one that may avoid or reduce the FICA tax burden kind of sucks.

[Chewbacca 7730]

Neumann made out like a bandit. He got all sorts of loan forgiveness as part of a golden parachute deal.

Much of that deal never came to fruition. He still made out much better than he should have, but not as well as he thought he was going to.

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 hour ago, UncleSonny said:

whether that person's children have to work during their lifetime. 

The fuck it doesn't.  I know more than one person who's parents had low 8 figure wealth disappear.  They went from "working" to actually working.  

 

41 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If you're on property A, how do you expect to use property B?

I'm failing to see how this matters in any sense.  I wouldn't know what it would gain, but I could burn 100 of my houses to the ground in front of a pile of homeless people for all it matters.   

 

41 minutes ago, midtown said:

Bill Gates has probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives with his philanthropy.   Does that really make him an asshole?   Has anyone who is bitching about this saved anyone's life?  Let alone thousands upon thousands?  

Listen bro. He's an asshole.  I mean, he has a SHITLOAD of money.  Complete asshole for being brilliant and doing all that work and shit to collect money.  ASSHOLE.  

[TwiceHorn 31296]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

LUCKY ASSHOLE

Fify.

[Dahobbs 17449]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

OK, comrade. 

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic because you're clearly smart enough to know better. 

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Social contract

Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority

 

Yeah, fuck all of that.

Fuck the philosophical basis relied upon by the founding fathers in declaring our independence and forming our system of government?

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

That's fine then.  Let's do it for everyone.  Second generation American inheriting 20k from parents that worked their entire lives to save that, oh well, social contract, good of society, blah blah.   If we are looking to benefit society, then everyone in the society needs to be chipping in.  I assume they are part of this "social contract" and their money is likely just as green. 

We already tax those people. The problem is that right now the middle class shoulder a far higher purpotionate  share of our common benefit than the truly wealthy. That said, an estate tax is only one way to fix that imbalance and prevent counter productive excess accumulation of wealth. I'm perfectly fine dropping an estate tax entirely (and the one we have does nothing, so effectively we have) if we replace income tax with a property/wealth tax. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Incredulity 11556]

Double 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Incredulity

[Incredulity 11556]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm sorry you feel like you can't get this material. It's really not that difficult though, you can understand it if you try.

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

) if we replace income tax with a property/wealth tax. 

I'm fine with that too, if it's across the board.  I'm pretty much good with whatever happens, as long as it's fair.  And fair shouldn't be determined by ones wealth, that's punishment.  You are an American, I'm an American, and Bezos is an American.  I can't understand why we all shouldn't be contributing the same percentage (I understand they hide their wealth, the majority of those loopholes can be closed). 

[TwiceHorn 31296]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm failing to see how this matters in any sense.  I wouldn't know what it would gain, but I could burn 100 of my houses to the ground in front of a pile of homeless people for all it matters.   

 

I believe that the point is, the owner will go to the courts, or the police or some combination of both, i.e. the government, to eject the squatter and protect the property rights.

The further point being that the very rich, arguments to the contrary, are extremely beholden to the government for the systems that create and protect their wealth.  Moreso than those who have no wealth to protect.

So, in a very real sense, they have as much or more obligation to pay taxes as the little guy.  Even hardcore libertarians, who believe the government should exist only to protect property rights, would probably have to go along with the idea that those with more property rights should pay a higher percentage of taxes.

[wildcat09 29264]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm failing to see how this matters in any sense.  I wouldn't know what it would gain, but I could burn 100 of my houses to the ground in front of a pile of homeless people for all it matters.     

Why shouldn't a homeless person just take one of those 100 houses while you're gone?

[workswithseed 2037]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm fine with that too, if it's across the board.  I'm pretty much good with whatever happens, as long as it's fair.  And fair shouldn't be determined by ones wealth, that's punishment.  You are an American, I'm an American, and Bezos is an American.  I can't understand why we all shouldn't be contributing the same percentage (I understand they hide their wealth, the majority of those loopholes can be closed). 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

[Chewbacca 7730]

Why shouldn't a homeless person just take one of those 100 houses while you're gone?

Why shouldn't we just booby trap our houses when we aren't there?

Stupid hypotheticals are stupid.

[Dahobbs 17449]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm fine with that too, if it's across the board.  I'm pretty much good with whatever happens, as long as it's fair.  And fair shouldn't be determined by ones wealth, that's punishment.  You are an American, I'm an American, and Bezos is an American.  I can't understand why we all shouldn't be contributing the same percentage (I understand they hide their wealth, the majority of those loopholes can be closed). 

You realize our current system relies on a graduated tax, right? I think something similar for a wealth tax is reasonable. Those the benefit the most from society should carry the larger burden, first because they have benefited, and second because they can most afford to.  That said taxes should only be as high as necessary to accomplish their goals and they shouldn't be punitive in the sense that they prevent someone from making a living. 

[workswithseed 2037]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic because you're clearly smart enough to know better. 

Fuck the philosophical basis relied upon by the founding fathers in declaring our independence and forming our system of government?

We already tax those people. The problem is that right now the middle class shoulder a far higher purpotionate  share of our common benefit than the truly wealthy. That said, an estate tax is only one way to fix that imbalance and prevent counter productive excess accumulation of wealth. I'm perfectly fine dropping an estate tax entirely (and the one we have does nothing, so effectively we have) if we replace income tax with a property/wealth tax. 

Yes, Hobbes was on their mind while killing the British. The British was owed the taxes for protecting the colonists homes in the British colonies during the French and Indian war.

 

 

 

[wildcat09 29264]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I believe that the point is, the owner will go to the courts, or the police or some combination of both, i.e. the government, to eject the squatter and protect the property rights.

The further point being that the very rich, arguments to the contrary, are extremely beholden to the government for the systems that create and protect their wealth.  Moreso than those who have no wealth to protect.

So, in a very real sense, they have as much or more obligation to pay taxes as the little guy.  Even hardcore libertarians, who believe the government should exist only to protect property rights, would probably have to go along with the idea that those with more property rights should pay a higher percentage of taxes.

Yes, though it's only one point in support of a larger point. Since only fatty seems to even want to try to follow, I'll just go ahead and lay it all out for the non-lawyers.

I've been trying to get at something that is extremely fundamental to the entire concept of private property rights: the necessity of a state, or really the necessity of a common agreement by the rest of us to recognize your rights in a piece of property, which is functionally administered by a state. You only own property because we've agreed to acknowledge your claim as superior to other claims. In essence, what is "yours" is only yours because I acknowledge it as such and agree not to take it from you.  I do this because I expect the same recognition from you in return about what I consider to be "mine." This is what all property law is built on. 

  

 

[UncleSonny 6562]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

The fuck it doesn't.  I know more than one person who's parents had low 8 figure wealth disappear.  They went from "working" to actually working.  

 

LOL. Their "low 8 figures "disappeared" huh? Lets say their low 8 figures is 20 million. Using the 2020-2021 rules give them their $11.7 exemption, so 8.3m is taxable. They'll pay the max base tax plus max rate on that ($345,000 & 40%). Tax burden is $3,320,000 + $345,000 = $3,665000.

Leaving their parents well earned fortune "disappeared" from a $20million dollar estate down to $16,355,000 to be divided amongst their poor children who are now forced into the work force.

Thoughts and prayers to your friends, hopefully black lung from the coal mine doesn't get them. 

 

[workswithseed 2037]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes, though it's only one point in support of a larger point. Since only fatty seems to even want to try to follow, I'll just go ahead and lay it all out for the non-lawyers.

I've been trying to get at something that is extremely fundamental to the entire concept of private property rights: the necessity of a state, or really the necessity of a common agreement by the rest of us to recognize your rights in a piece of property, which is functionally administered by a state. You only own property because we've agreed to acknowledge your claim as superior to other claims. In essence, what is "yours" is only yours because I acknowledge it as such and agree not to take it from you.  I do this because I expect the same recognition from you in return about what I consider to be "mine." This is what all property law is built on. 

  

 

How do you know it's his property? You're already giving up already in your first paragraph if you know that fact. Unless you play by Maverick's rule. If you don't have marker, then it's mine.