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

[Neonmoon 38130]

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. 

  

 

Now explain to him the next part of the equation. What happens when the owner of said property says “fuck you, I got mine. I ain’t paying taxes” 

[Dahobbs 18185]

11 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

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.

 

 

 

Yes? No taxation without representation ring a bell? 

[fattyflattie 4640]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

ou realize our current system relies on a graduated tax, right?

I absolutely do, and hate it.  

 

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Those the benefit the most from society should carry the larger burden, first because they have benefited

How is Bezos coming up with an idea, maximizing and implementing it benefiting from society?  He was able to capitalize on it because he was intelligent and well educated.  Is someone who is not intelligent and uneducated any less or more American?  I would argue they collect (take) more societal benefits thru medical, SS, etc. than he will.  

 

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

second because they can most afford to

?

8 minutes ago, UncleSonny said:

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.

I don't think you are following me.  Their actual businesses, which were built over the last few decades, albeit in a fickle market, went kaput.  The parents will never have to work again, but they've put in their work.  Their kids will inherit less than any of yall that currently have real estate in Austin.    You were proposing that that kind of wealth is guaranteed once passed down.  Athletes out front should have told you 11m isn't shit for people with money. 

 

 

[wildcat09 29556]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

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.

I'm not "giving up." I've agreed to acknowledge the state's power to tell me that something is his property, because he's agreed to acknowledge the state's power to tell him that something else is my property. And both of us recognize the state's power to do so because we've agreed with each other to do so, because we each get something out of that agreement. This isn't a love of the state, like Slorch thinks. It's not secret marxist ideals shining through. This is basic self interest. I'm giving up the ability to take something he thinks is his, so that I don't have to spend all of my time physically protecting something I think is mine. 

But in a world in which .01% of people own half of the "property," what do the other 99.9% of people get out of acknowledging the .01%'s "ownership"? Doing so at that point is no longer in their economic self interest. The .01% can't possibly protect everything they "own" themselves, and it would definitely be in the 99.9%'s economic interest to take it.  

 

 

[UncleSonny 6790]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I don't think you are following me.  Their actual businesses, which were built over the last few decades, albeit in a fickle market, went kaput.  The parents will never have to work again, but they've put in their work.  Their kids will inherit less than any of yall that currently have real estate in Austin.    You were proposing that that kind of wealth is guaranteed once passed down.  Athletes out front should have told you 11m isn't shit for people with money. 

Not even close to what I said. What I said:

Quote

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. 

Fortunes are lost all the time, I was responding to the estate tax not being so burdensome as to effect the future wellbeing of the direct heirs. What does someone's parents' business going belly up have to do with anything?

[workswithseed 2201]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes? No taxation without representation ring a bell? 

That's not what the state said. They already filled their end of the bargain. 

 

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not "giving up." I've agreed to acknowledge the state's power to tell me that something is his property, because he's agreed to acknowledge the state's power to tell him that something else is my property. And both of us recognize the state's power to do so because we've agreed with each other to do so, because we each get something out of that agreement. This isn't a love of the state, like Slorch thinks. It's not secret marxist ideals shining through. This is basic self interest. I'm giving up the ability to take something he thinks is his, so that I don't have to spend all of my time physically protecting something I think is mine. 

But in a world in which .01% of people own half of the "property," what do the other 99.9% of people get out of acknowledging the .01%'s "ownership"? Doing so at that point is no longer in their economic self interest. The .01% can't possibly protect everything they "own" themselves, and it would definitely be in the 99.9%'s economic interest to take it.  

 

 

You don't need a state to say an agreement has been made. When you see wire around a property, you can agree for yourself that someone must own it. You could call him up and ask if he would be willing to go to a business venture to better use the land to profit from. If you want to just steal it, he can't stop you if he never checks his property, or has any security to protect it. He would be in his right to kick you off himself and anyone else that agrees that it's his. 

[DalTxHornFan 3130]

Serious question:  Why should the government get a check from your estate when you die? Especially when the increased value happened because they created inflation?

Edited June 11, 2021 by DalTxHornFan

[Dahobbs 18185]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I absolutely do, and hate it.  

 

How is Bezos coming up with an idea, maximizing and implementing it benefiting from society?  He was able to capitalize on it because he was intelligent and well educated.  Is someone who is not intelligent and uneducated any less or more American?  I would argue they collect (take) more societal benefits thru medical, SS, etc. 

 

No one is punishing Bezos for being rich or successful. He would still capture the bulk of the economic output we nominally associate with him even if he had to pay 40% of his gains in Texas.  But, the reality is that we attribute far too much of a result to a single individual, when the reality is that a mixture of luck, hardwork, the work of others, and the existence of our society itself, all contributed to that economic output. There have been plenty of smart, dedicated that had brilliant ideas who failed or were less successful merely due to historical happenstance. A graduated taxation system recognizes that reality. And, as I said, it shifts the burden of funding our common benefit to those individuals that can most afford to do so, as in paying a higher share isn't going to materially affect their lifestyle.  

[wildcat09 29556]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

That's not what the state said. They already filled their end of the bargain. 

 

You don't need a state to say an agreement has been made. When you see wire around a property, you can agree for yourself that someone must own it. You could call him up and ask if he would be willing to go to a business venture to better use the land to profit from. If you want to just steal it, he can't stop you if he never checks his property, or has any security to protect it. He would be in his right to kick you off himself and anyone else that agrees that it's his. 

You’re not getting it. If I want his property and I don’t derive some benefit from recognizing that it is actually his property, I’m not going to recognize that a fence makes it his. I’m not going to recognize that a deed makes it his. In that event, the only thing that would make me recognize it as “his property” would be his ability to physically keep me from taking it for myself.

[fattyflattie 4640]

13 minutes ago, UncleSonny said:

Fortunes are lost all the time, I was responding to the estate tax not being so burdensome as to effect the future wellbeing of the direct heirs. What does someone's parents' business going belly up have to do with anything?

You replied back with a bunch of math insinuating 16m would be fine. For many, it doesn’t even keep the ranch.  But the point is moot. The majority are stupid, and poor.  So they feast upon the intelligent and rich. The ultimate take what I can’t get myself. 

[wildcat09 29556]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No one is punishing Bezos for being rich or successful. He would still capture the bulk of the economic output we nominally associate with him even if he had to pay 40% of his gains in Texas.  But, the reality is that we attribute far too much of a result to a single individual, when the reality is that a mixture of luck, hardwork, the work of others, and the existence of our society itself, all contributed to that economic output. There have been plenty of smart, dedicated that had brilliant ideas who failed or were less successful merely due to historical happenstance. A graduated taxation system recognizes that reality. And, as I said, it shifts the burden of funding our common benefit to those individuals that can most afford to do so, as in paying a higher share isn't going to materially affect their lifestyle.  

It’s absolutely baffling that so many people really can’t wrap their head around this. We’re not talking about some really complex, esoteric shit here. It’s really basic and completely in line with the principles we were all taught that our country was founded upon. But the myth of the rugged individual is so strong that many people literally can’t understand that Bezos couldn’t have built his enormous wealth without a lot of help from the rest of us.

[fattyflattie 4640]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And, as I said, it shifts the burden of funding our common benefit to those individuals that can most afford to do so, as in paying a higher share isn't going to materially affect their lifestyle.  

You are making this assumption. His lifelong dream may be to own 20 islands.   You are also attributing too much to luck.  It’s not like the was born 6’8”, 290 and can run a 4.5. Talk about luck. 

[workswithseed 2201]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You’re not getting it. If I want his property and I don’t derive some benefit from recognizing that it is actually his property, I’m not going to recognize that a fence makes it his. I’m not going to recognize that a deed makes it his. In that event, the only thing that would make me recognize it as “his property” would be his ability to physically keep me from taking it for myself.

Did you miss the end of my statement where I said if you steal it, and he doesn't stop you then you have it unless he physically kicks you off. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

But the myth of the rugged individual is so strong that many people literally can’t understand that Bezos couldn’t have built his enormous wealth without a lot of help from the rest of us.

Yeah it’s so easy to do, exactly one person has done it. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

30 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not "giving up." I've agreed to acknowledge the state's power to tell me that something is his property, because he's agreed to acknowledge the state's power to tell him that something else is my property. And both of us recognize the state's power to do so because we've agreed with each other to do so, because we each get something out of that agreement. This isn't a love of the state, like Slorch thinks. It's not secret marxist ideals shining through. This is basic self interest. I'm giving up the ability to take something he thinks is his, so that I don't have to spend all of my time physically protecting something I think is mine. 

But in a world in which .01% of people own half of the "property," what do the other 99.9% of people get out of acknowledging the .01%'s "ownership"? Doing so at that point is no longer in their economic self interest. The .01% can't possibly protect everything they "own" themselves, and it would definitely be in the 99.9%'s economic interest to take it.  

 

 

 I am not going to lie, I’m really enjoying you explain this slowly. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah it’s so easy to do, exactly one person has done it. 

You’re missing the point. Would you like me to explain?

[Incredulity 11861]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It’s absolutely baffling that so many people really can’t wrap their head around this. We’re not talking about some really complex, esoteric shit here. It’s really basic and completely in line with the principles we were all taught that our country was founded upon. But the myth of the rugged individual is so strong that many people literally can’t understand that Bezos couldn’t have built his enormous wealth without a lot of help from the rest of us.

Watching a leftist condescend about property rights and the rule of law is never not funny.

[Dahobbs 18185]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You are making this assumption. His lifelong dream may be to own 20 islands.   You are also attributing too much to luck.  It’s not like the was born 6’8”, 290 and can run a 4.5. Talk about luck. 

He can still do that. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. 

Again, his success is in large part due to luck. You're falling for survivorship bias:

 

 

[workswithseed 2201]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Watching a leftist condescend about property rights and the rule of law is never not funny.

I also like that the government can't live without taxing everything. No one has even said that there shouldn't be a government.

[Dahobbs 18185]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 I am not going to lie, I’m really enjoying you explain this slowly. 

Yes, although I'm concerned by the fact that there is confusion on basic stuff from middle school and high school. 

[Dahobbs 18185]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I also like that the government can't live without taxing everything. No one has even said that there shouldn't be a government.

You'd agree that a government without resources isn't really a government anymore, right? 

[UncleSonny 6790]

19 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Serious question:  Why should the government get a check from your estate when you die? Especially when the increased value happened because they created inflation?

The exemption goes up every year to adjust for inflation. 
 

17 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

The majority are stupid, and poor.  So they feast upon the intelligent and rich. The ultimate take what I can’t get myself. 

This is pretty a staggering statement, especially given the OP but unfortunately an honest assessment about how plenty of people look at it. The fact it came right after you told me you know multiple (!) people who squandered tens of millions of dollars did make me laugh though. 

[Incredulity 11861]

Just now, workswithseed said:

I also like that the government can't live without taxing everything. No one has even said that there shouldn't be a government.

It will never be enough for the “fair share” crowd.  Note, they never define what is a fair share.  More, always more.  They are the twisted failure side of the greed they pretend to decry.

[Dahobbs 18185]

22 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You replied back with a bunch of math insinuating 16m would be fine. For many, it doesn’t even keep the ranch.  But the point is moot. The majority are stupid, and poor.  So they feast upon the intelligent and rich. The ultimate take what I can’t get myself. 

Why would you champion an economic system where you believe the majority of people are poor? Why would anyone want that? Isn't that just a failed state? My goal is an economic system that maximizes the benefits for everyone. I believe a property based, market economy is an efficient engine to achieve those goals, but sometimes needs assistance to reach the most efficient outcome. I'm in favor of economic policies that help us reach that ideal outcome. 

[workswithseed 2201]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

You'd agree that a government without resources isn't really a government anymore, right? 

No, I said that they can't give funny money out to the rich, if they take in fewer in taxes. The poor pay the rich at the hand of a gun when government is involved. 

[wildcat09 29556]

13 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 I am not going to lie, I’m really enjoying you explain this slowly. 

Motherfucker, don't spoil the surprise that they're actually the statists.

...shit, I fucked it up.

[wildcat09 29556]

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It will never be enough for the “fair share” crowd.  Note, they never define what is a fair share.  More, always more.  They are the twisted failure side of the greed they pretend to decry.

I dunno about you, but I'm fine with abolishing government. I'll get mine.

Bezos would have a shitload less, though.

[Incredulity 11861]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I dunno about you, but I'm fine with abolishing government. I'll get mine.

Bezos would have a shitload less, though.

Great, you’re super tough guy.  Your mom must be really proud.

[midtown 3350]

Maybe if everyone stopped using Amazon. Microsoft. Paypal etc these bitches wouldn't have money

[workswithseed 2201]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Great, you’re super tough guy.  Your mom must be really proud.

I go "you don't need government for contracts." He says "they're the statist." What?

[fattyflattie 4640]

18 minutes ago, UncleSonny said:

The fact it came right after you told me you know multiple (!) people who squandered tens of millions of dollars did make me laugh though. 

Yeah, I mean it’s funny in the same way homeless people are funny I guess?  I too, usually get a kick out of people losing their livelihoods. 
 

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

My goal is an economic system that maximizes the benefits for everyone.

*Everyone
*except those you feel have enough, in your opinion of course. 

[wildcat09 29556]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I go "you don't need government for contracts." He says "they're the statist." What?

If I don't want a state to keep me from taking Jeff Bezos' stuff and you do want a state to keep me from taking Jeff Bezos' stuff, which one of us is the big government statist? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Yes the poor are feasting off the rich nowadays. How fucked in the head do you have to be to believe that total crap.

Edited June 11, 2021 by JimmyJames

[UncleSonny 6790]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah, I mean it’s funny in the same way homeless people are funny I guess?  I too, usually get a kick out of people losing their livelihoods. 

Whoa, you really do need things spelled out for you. I’m laughing at you. 

[wildcat09 29556]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah, I mean it’s funny in the same way homeless people are funny I guess?  I too, usually get a kick out of people losing their livelihoods. 
 

*Everyone
*except those you feel have enough, in your opinion of course. 

If you're such a big fan of large agglomerations of wealth, England would probably be happy to have you.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, UncleSonny said:

Whoa, you really do need things spelled out for you. I’m laughing at you. 

He’s either a psychopath or a troll. Or both. It’s hard to tell on the net.

[Dahobbs 18185]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah, I mean it’s funny in the same way homeless people are funny I guess?  I too, usually get a kick out of people losing their livelihoods. 
 

*Everyone
*except those you feel have enough, in your opinion of course. 

Everyone, as in collectively maximizing the economic output. I'm not necessarily concerned with maximizing what is available to any one individual. I want to choose the system that has the highest net good for society overall. I don't that that system is ever going to be the one that gives almost everything to dahobbs and almost nothing to everyone else. 

[wildcat09 29556]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Everyone, as in collectively maximizing the economic output. I'm not necessarily concerned with maximizing what is available to any one individual. I want to choose the system that has the highest net good for society overall. I don't that that system is ever going to be the one that gives almost everything to dahobbs and almost nothing to everyone else. 

Of course not, the best system is one that gives everything to me and sends the DT crew to the gulags because they're annoying to me.

What are the odds that they'll ever be able to comprehend that that's the same type of system that they're tacitly endorsing?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Of course not, the best system is one that gives everything to me and sends the DT crew to the gulags because they're annoying to me.

What are the odds that they'll ever be able to comprehend that that's the same type of system that they're tacitly endorsing?

The odds are...

Zero. Point. Zero.

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Motherfucker, don't spoil the surprise that they're actually the statists.

...shit, I fucked it up.

They're not going to get it. That has been proven over and over again. 

[Bevo 13825]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

They're not going to get it. That has been proven over and over again. 

You can explain it again. If Wildcat wants the government to take the majority of people's wealth and give it to others while it keeps much for itself and fatty wants people to keep the majority of their wealth and give the government a little for its needs, it seems like both are "statists" in its broadest definition albeit Wildcat has a little more of a Marxist flair. Who cares though? It is a purely political discussion that deserves to be in the cloak room.

[Incredulity 11861]

4 minutes ago, Bevo said:

You can explain it again. If Wildcat wants the government to take the majority of people's wealth and give it to others while it keeps much for itself and fatty wants people to keep the majority of their wealth and give the government a little for its needs, it seems like both are "statists" in its broadest definition albeit Wildcat has a little more of a Marxist flair. Who cares though? It is a purely political discussion that deserves to be in the cloak room.

Lamprey doesn’t get it, and certainly couldn’t explain it.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Incredulity

[fattyflattie 4640]

59 minutes ago, UncleSonny said:

Whoa, you really do need things spelled out for you. I’m laughing at you. 

That says more about your inability to get your point across than my inability to understand your bullshit.  
 

59 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If you're such a big fan of large agglomerations of wealth, England would probably be happy to have you.

I am a large fan of Americans having large sums of wealth. Either they, or their family have earned it, and they absolutely should be taxed on their income, but it’s theirs.   In America, every. Single. Man. Woman. And. Child have the same opportunity to make and keep that wealth. If you are not up to it, that’s ok.  Doesn’t mean those who are should subsidize the rest at an increased rate. Even if you consider it “luck”. 

[wildcat09 29556]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I am a large fan of Americans having large sums of wealth. Either they, or their family have earned it, and they absolutely should be taxed on their income, but it’s theirs.   In America, every. Single. Man. Woman. And. Child have the same opportunity to make and keep that wealth. If you are not up to it, that’s ok.  Doesn’t mean those who are should subsidize the rest at an increased rate. Even if you consider it “luck”. 

Why should the government keep me from taking some of what Jeff Bezos considers to be his property?

[fattyflattie 4640]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Why should the government keep me from taking some of what Jeff Bezos considers to be his property?

I believe you are more than welcome to try? 

[Incredulity 11861]

Because he paid 973 Million in income taxes. 23% of his 4+billion in income.

[wildcat09 29556]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I believe you are more than welcome to try? 

Do you not have an answer or are you refusing to answer because your answer is sorta marxist?

[Incredulity 11861]

Is that a “fair share”?

[JimmyJames 12271]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That says more about your inability to get your point across than my inability to understand your bullshit.  
 

I am a large fan of Americans having large sums of wealth. Either they, or their family have earned it, and they absolutely should be taxed on their income, but it’s theirs.   In America, every. Single. Man. Woman. And. Child have the same opportunity to make and keep that wealth. If you are not up to it, that’s ok.  Doesn’t mean those who are should subsidize the rest at an increased rate. Even if you consider it “luck”. 

So you’re  a fan of warren buffet paying a one percent tax bill. Why?
 

You believe that in this country everyone is given a fair shake, a legacy of past discrimination just doesn’t matter. How can you possibly be so ignorant?

[wildcat09 29556]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Is that a “fair share”?

Look man, there's a few steps between "why do we have private property?" and "what should the property tax rates be?" I'm trying to get y'all there, but y'all aren't grasping the material as quickly as I thought you could. At this rate, we might get to what constitutes a "fair share" in a year or so.