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

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

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

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

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

Why was it only 23 percent if true? I paid far more in far less.

[Incredulity 11558]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

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?

Flat out lie.

[Incredulity 11558]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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.

Deflect, dissemble....rinse, repeat.

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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.

 Nuance is lost on these idiots. Want buffet or bezos to pay more than one percent? You’re a property confiscation commmy!!!

Edited June 11, 2021 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Flat out lie.

Why do you love warren buffet so much? You ain’t him. Obviously.

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

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

I am not.  I wish he paid the exact same % as the janitor, school teacher, professor, cop, or Dr.   I don’t believe the rich should pay a single percent less than the middle class, and they shouldn’t pay a single percent more than the poor.  
 

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You believe that in this country everyone is given a fair shake, a legacy of past discrimination just doesn’t matter.

I believe every American (and many immigrants) have a chance to make it here, more than anywhere else in the world. Keep in mind we live in a country where if your sister sucks the right dick, you can become a billionaire (and dicksucker make herself 3-400m in the process).   All while being POC. 

[Incredulity 11558]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

 Nuance is lost on these idiots. Want buffet or bezos to pay more than one percent? You’re a property confiscation commmy!!!

It’s in the article dipshit, they didn’t pay one percent income tax rates.

 

[wildcat09 29266]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Deflect, dissemble....rinse, repeat.

I'm truly sorry that you lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend what private property is. Really, I am. Don't feel too bad, plenty of stupid people are wildly successful so there's still hope for you.

[Incredulity 11558]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm truly sorry that you lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend what private property is. Really, I am. Don't feel too bad, plenty of stupid people are wildly successful so there's still hope for you.

Fartsniffing.gif

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I am not.  I wish he paid the exact same % as the janitor, school teacher, professor, cop, or Dr.   I don’t believe the rich should pay a single percent less than the middle class, and they shouldn’t pay a single percent more than the poor.  
 

I believe every American (and many immigrants) have a chance to make it here, more than anywhere else in the world. Keep in mind we live in a country where if your sister sucks the right dick, you can become a billionaire (and dicksucker make herself 3-400m in the process).   All while being POC. 

Ok I’ll ignore the dicksucker comments.

And yes many immigrants are given the opportunity to succeed, at least once they prove their worth to the owners of this country and even eventually become “white.”

This is decidedly not the case for the “blacks.” They have been and continue to be discriminated against to this day. To deny that is simply ignorant. And when one “them” managed to get elected president, a certain segment of the American population went insane. Because how could that possibly happen? And here we are today. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Ok I’ll ignore the dicksucker comments.

And yes many immigrants are given the opportunity to succeed, at least once they prove their worth to the owners of this country and even eventually become “white.”

This is decidedly not the case for the “blacks.” They have been and continue to be discriminated against to this day. To deny that is simply ignorant. And when one “them” managed to get elected president, a certain segment of the American population went insane. Because how could that possibly happen? And here we are today. 

I literally just gave you an example of a billionaire black/mixed race family.  If you can become a billionaire creating art (rap). 
 

Not at all surprised you brought race into this, as you do every discussion, but since you have, tell me wtf that has to do with tax brackets of Americans.  You don’t believe POC should pay taxes I guess? 

[Incredulity 11558]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Ok I’ll ignore the dicksucker comments.

And yes many immigrants are given the opportunity to succeed, at least once they prove their worth to the owners of this country and even eventually become “white.”

This is decidedly not the case for the “blacks.” They have been and continue to be discriminated against to this day. To deny that is simply ignorant. And when one “them” managed to get elected president, a certain segment of the American population went insane. Because how could that possibly happen? And here we are today. 

The most insanely racist thing I have read in a good long while. 

Holy shit.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Incredulity said:

The most insanely racist thing I have read in a good long while. 

Holy shit.

Well since you think so that means it’s the most non racist thing anyone ever posted. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I literally just gave you an example of a billionaire black/mixed race family.  If you can become a billionaire creating art (rap). 
 

Not at all surprised you brought race into this, as you do every discussion, but since you have, tell me wtf that has to do with tax brackets of Americans.  You don’t believe POC should pay taxes I guess? 

LOL. You can’t help yourself can you . My mistake in engaging in a conversation with you. It’s pointless.

[Incredulity 11558]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Well since you think so that means it’s the most non racist thing anyone ever posted. 

Seek help

[TwiceHorn 31302]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

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.  

 

Um.  Patents.  Courts to enforce them,  Contracts and same.  Highways on which to transport things.  Electricity and internet to sell them with.  Trade agreements to make it possible to do business with China while only partially losing your ass.  Capital markets that, while they spend excessive amounts of time evading laws, could not exist without them and a robust court system.  A government that simultaneously enables their existence and is a massive consumer of their services.

All of these high-falutin, "independent" money-making things are excessively dependent on the systems of government and it's "products" to make them go.  A poor person may need welfare benefits occasionally, and is dependent on social security for retirement, but big business is the principal consumer of of the most fundamental government services.

"Relative poors," which include the less than say 5-10% may appear to be the largest consumers of government services, but that's only because they constitute 90-95% of the population.

Edited June 11, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[fattyflattie 4636]

Loving all the vague “well you guys just don’t understand” and “you’ll never grasp what we’re getting at” comments.  Solid work guys.   Maybe one day y’all will understand what we’re saying. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Um.  Patents.  Courts to enforce them,  Contracts and same.  Highways on which to transport things.  Electricity and internet to sell them with.  Trade agreements to make it possible to do business with China while only partially losing your ass.  Capital markets that, while they spend excessive amounts of time evading laws, could not exist without them and a robust court system.  A government that simultaneously enables their existence and is a massive consumer of their services.

All of these high-falutin, "independent" money-making things are excessively dependent on the systems of government and it's "products" to make them go.  A poor person may need welfare benefits occasionally, and is dependent on social security for retirement, but big business is the principal consumer of of the most fundamental government services.

"Relative poors," which include the less than say 5-10% may appear to be the largest consumers of government services, but that's only because they constitute 90-95% of the population.

That’s all communist crap according to the idiots on this thread. They all think that someday they will be warren buffet when in fact they’re underwater on their boat and blame the poors for that. It’s comical how stupid they are. Or at least it would be if they weren’t ruining the country. 

[wildcat09 29266]

25 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Loving all the vague “well you guys just don’t understand” and “you’ll never grasp what we’re getting at” comments.  Solid work guys.   Maybe one day y’all will understand what we’re saying. 

We understand exactly what you’re saying. You’re saying that someone who works to create something deserves to reap the benefits, which is so basic and uncontroversial that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agree. What we’re saying is that Bezos couldn’t have created Amazon without the system we collectively built and maintain, and that since he derives a much greater benefit from that system than most of us he should pay for more of it than he’s currently paying.

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

What we’re saying is that Bezos couldn’t have created Amazon without the system we collectively built and maintain, and that since he derives a much greater benefit from that system than most of us he should pay for more of it than he’s currently paying.

Yeah but I don’t disagree with that. I’ve said that a bunch of times throughout the entire thread.  

[TwiceHorn 31302]

The first thing a smart, "self-made" dude does is get a lawyer.   Maybe an accountant then a lawyer.

When you think about that for a little while, the primary purpose of that is to avail himself of the features of the government, and avoid a few. 

And the rest of the smart, self-made dude's existence is going to involve pretty serious entanglement with government.  Far more, really, than the average working stiff.

The other thing, while we tend to think of lobbying as mostly companies "getting the government off their back," that's not really true.  Probably at least half of lobbying is to get government to do things that favor them, and not just favor them by leaving them alone.

Edited June 11, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah but I don’t disagree with that. I’ve said that a bunch of times throughout the entire thread.  

Well good. Glad we’re all friends again then.

[UncleSonny 6562]

Not that it matters with all the other bullshit happening here, but if I’m following right I’m pretty sure this girl was used as an example of a POC up-thread:

[Incredulity 11558]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The first thing a smart, "self-made" dude does is get a lawyer.   Maybe an accountant then a lawyer.

When you think about that for a little while, the primary purpose of that is to avail himself of the features of the government, and avoid a few. 

And the rest of the smart, self-made dude's existence is going to involve pretty serious entanglement with government.  Far more, really, than the average working stiff.

The other thing, while we tend to think of lobbying as mostly companies "getting the government off their back," that's not really true.  Probably at least half of lobbying is to get government to do things that favor them, and not just favor them by leaving them alone.

Right,  so why the fuck would we want to spend more to deepen that cesspool?

[wildcat09 29266]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The first thing a smart, "self-made" dude does is get a lawyer.   Maybe an accountant then a lawyer.

When you think about that for a little while, the primary purpose of that is to avail himself of the features of the government, and avoid a few. 

And the rest of the smart, self-made dude's existence is going to involve pretty serious entanglement with government.  Far more, really, than the average working stiff.

The other thing, while we tend to think of lobbying as mostly companies "getting the government off their back," that's not really true.  Probably at least half of lobbying is to get government to do things that favor them, and not just favor them by leaving them alone.

The only ways the poor really benefit from government is direct benefits, public transportation, and just enough regulation of landlords to hopefully keep them from dying from horribly shitty housing conditions. The total value of all of that help is just enough to keep them alive and able to work for wages at levels that are insufficient to allow them to actually save money.

Meanwhile, Bezos is the beneficiary of hundreds of billions of dollars of public investment every year, from all the things you’ve listed to another few dozen you haven’t, like regulation of air traffic, the regulation and subsidy of telecommunications and electrical utilities, and the very creation of the internet itself.

[TwiceHorn 31302]

23 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Right,  so why the fuck would we want to spend more to deepen that cesspool?

The cesspool of incorporating?  So you can avoid liability and attract investors?  The cesspool of protecting your inventions and good name with patents and trademarks?

Maybe get that SBA loan?

A typical small business person is going to seek and receive a lot of advantages from government before they get to the point of trying to avoid "burdensome regulations."

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The first thing a smart, "self-made" dude does is get a lawyer.   Maybe an accountant then a lawyer.

When you think about that for a little while, the primary purpose of that is to avail himself of the features of the government, and avoid a few. 

And the rest of the smart, self-made dude's existence is going to involve pretty serious entanglement with government.  Far more, really, than the average working stiff.

There is a joke about marriage in here somewhere, but it is eluding me.

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The only ways the poor really benefit from government is direct benefits, public transportation, and just enough regulation of landlords to hopefully keep them from dying from horribly shitty housing conditions. The total value of all of that help is just enough to keep them alive and able to work for wages at levels that are insufficient to allow them to actually save money.

Meanwhile, Bezos is the beneficiary of hundreds of billions of dollars of public investment every year, from all the things you’ve listed to another few dozen you haven’t, like regulation of air traffic, the regulation and subsidy of telecommunications and electrical utilities, and the very creation of the internet itself.

Our poor people in this country with a few exceptions are wealthier than probably half the world. That doesn't mean we can't do better for them, but to act like we are somehow the absolute worst is just plain dishonesty.

[Bama Chick 28596]

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?  

Yeah, don’t think using Gates as an example of “not one of those rich assholes” is the best idea considering the revelations about his behavior that have come out in the last few weeks.

Seems like Melinda would be a better example.

[Incredulity 11558]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Maybe get that SBA loan?

A typical small business person is going to seek and receive a lot of advantages from government before they get to the point of trying to avoid "burdensome regulations."

“Hi, I’m with the government. I’m here to help you.”

prepare thy anus.

[wildcat09 29266]

5 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Our poor people in this country with a few exceptions are wealthier than probably half the world. That doesn't mean we can't do better for them, but to act like we are somehow the absolute worst is just plain dishonesty.

If you don’t like dishonesty why are you pretending I said something that I never said?

[TwiceHorn 31302]

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

“Hi, I’m with the government. I’m here to help you.”

prepare thy anus.

I am certainly not saying that the government is always beneficial.  Or even most of the time.

But the fact remains that business voluntarily engages and receives benefits from government from jump in ways that individuals generally do not.

This is not a discussion about raising or lowering taxes, broadly.  It's about, given a system of taxation, is it "fair" for business to avoid taxation.

The arguments in favor of that  point out that, businesses and wealthy business owners pay lots of taxes, but not relative to their income.

I am just pointing out that businesses "consume" and benefit from government far more than individuals do most of the time.  Thus making it "fair" for them to pay a larger share more proportionate to their income.

I didn't like it at the time, and I think it was really inartfully said, but Obama's "you didn't build that" raises a pretty fair point.

[wildcat09 29266]

I think some people in this thread are just too emotional to participate in a rational discussion.

[Neonmoon 38127]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am certainly not saying that the government is always beneficial.  Or even most of the time.

But the fact remains that business voluntarily engages and receives benefits from government from jump in ways that individuals generally do not.

This is not a discussion about raising or lowering taxes, broadly.  It's about, given a system of taxation, is it "fair" for business to avoid taxation.

The arguments in favor of that  point out that, businesses and wealthy business owners pay lots of taxes, but not relative to their income.

I am just pointing out that businesses "consume" and benefit from government far more than individuals do most of the time.  Thus making it "fair" for them to pay a larger share more proportionate to their income.

I didn't like it at the time, and I think it was really inartfully said, but Obama's "you didn't build that" raises a pretty fair point.

I’m in the same boat. I initially disagreed with Obama’s statement, probably because of phrasing and mostly emotion, but he made an excellent point. Businesses receive a lot of benefits, as you already listed, and to suggest that they only succeed through their own hard work and grit ignores the massive benefits received by society aka government protection and enforcement funded by taxpayers. No is arguing for a socialist system or a government owned company, just that they should pay a little more because of it. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

The goal of course for the super rich is to make sure all of us remain distracted and angry at each other so that nothing actually changes and they continue to amass all of the wealth.

[StruggleBus 3922]

On 6/8/2021 at 5:45 PM, Chewbacca said:

I'm just saying if it really bothered him, he would pay more.  Clearly he's just giving it lip service.

[Guest Lobo]

So government has a qualified monopoly on roads, utilities, and infrastructure.  I pay taxes and fees to build, use, and maintain those resources.  But if I make a few bucks while I'm doing all that, then most of my success is owed to the government even though I never had a choice?  Sounds awesome.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by Lobo

[Incredulity 11558]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I pay taxes and fees to build, use, and maintain those resources.

Exactly.  The pretense of, "you didn't build that" is entirely false.  Every fee, surcharge, and tax(gas, income, cap gains, property, personal property,) pay for the fucking infrastructure.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

If you don’t like dishonesty why are you pretending I said something that I never said?

Yeah, that's fair. I'm not even sure what everyone is arguing about still. I'm pretty sure we all agree that the rich need to pay as much in taxes as we do.

[Dahobbs 17449]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

So government has a qualified monopoly on roads, utilities, and infrastructure.  I pay taxes and fees to build, use, and maintain those resources.  But if I make a few bucks while I'm doing all that, then most of my success is owed to the government even though I never had a choice?  Sounds awesome.  

Is most of your success due to the government in particular? No. Is a very large portion of your success due to the benefits you receive as a result of being a member of a larger society? Absolutely.  Without a society, including a government, none of the people that we are talking about in this thread would have the wealth that they do. So, it isn't unreasonable that some of that wealth (not all of it, not even most of it) should go back to benefit of society as whole. 

I consider myself a capitalist because I believe that a capitalist economy is an efficient way to distribute resources in a way that results in the most net good. But, sometimes that economy needs a little bit of help to avoid inefficient outcomes. Is more "good" generated by an economy where Bezos can capture 99.9% of society's resources or an economy that more widely distributes resources? I'm confident it is the latter. And so was Adam Smith by the way. I think it is better for society as whole and more overall good is generated if we prevent a small number of people from controlling substantially all the resources of society.  

 

[Dahobbs 17449]

9 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Yeah, that's fair. I'm not even sure what everyone is arguing about still. I'm pretty sure we all agree that the rich need to pay as much in taxes as we do.

Largely I think this thread has devolved into emotional responses about what we think people mean and not what is actually being said. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Exactly.  The pretense of, "you didn't build that" is entirely false.  Every fee, surcharge, and tax(gas, income, cap gains, property, personal property,) pay for the fucking infrastructure.

YOU didn't build it. WE, collectively, built it.

[fattyflattie 4636]

14 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Yeah, that's fair. I'm not even sure what everyone is arguing about still. I'm pretty sure we all agree that the rich need to pay as much in taxes as we do.

It took a turn at the inheritance/death tax discussion.   Pretty sure everyone here understands tax shelters the ultra rich use to avoid income taxes is bullshit and should be corrected. 

[wildcat09 29266]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Is most of your success due to the government in particular? No. Is a very large portion of your success due to the benefits you receive as a result of being a member of a larger society? Absolutely.  Without a society, including a government, none of the people that we are talking about in this thread would have the wealth that they do. So, it isn't unreasonable that some of that wealth (not all of it, not even most of it) should go back to benefit of society as whole. 

I consider myself a capitalist because I believe that a capitalist economy is an efficient way to distribute resources in a way that results in the most net good. But, sometimes that economy needs a little bit of help to avoid inefficient outcomes. Is more "good" generated by an economy where Bezos can capture 99.9% of society's resources or an economy that more widely distributes resources? I'm confident it is the latter. And so was Adam Smith by the way. I think it is better for society as whole and more overall good is generated if we prevent a small number of people from controlling substantially all the resources of society.  

 

If the DT crowd ever actually read what the founders thought about concentrated wealth they'd scream about how we were founded as a communist country and how we need to be reabsorbed as part of the British monarchy.

[wildcat09 29266]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It took a turn at the inheritance/death tax discussion.   Pretty sure everyone here understands tax shelters the ultra rich use to avoid income taxes is bullshit and should be corrected. 

But what if differential treatment of what we've decided to call capital gains is itself a tax shelter?

[Dahobbs 17449]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It took a turn at the inheritance/death tax discussion.   Pretty sure everyone here understands tax shelters the ultra rich use to avoid income taxes is bullshit and should be corrected. 

Yes, we seem to be on the same page as far as that goes. Obviously you and I have a disagreement over the benefits of a graduated tax system. But that is more about how to address a problem as opposed to the existence of the problem. It's unfortunate that this thread got so emotionally charged as I think there was actually some good discussion going. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, we seem to be on the same page as far as that goes. Obviously you and I have a disagreement over the benefits of a graduated tax system. But that is more about how to address a problem as opposed to the existence of the problem. It's unfortunate that this thread got so emotionally charged as I think there was actually some good discussion going. 

Meh. Surly people get surly at night.  I’m certain there’s a way to fix the codes to make things equitable. I’m certain no one with power will allow that to happen (I hope they do) 

[TwiceHorn 31302]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, we seem to be on the same page as far as that goes. Obviously you and I have a disagreement over the benefits of a graduated tax system. But that is more about how to address a problem as opposed to the existence of the problem. It's unfortunate that this thread got so emotionally charged as I think there was actually some good discussion going. 

I've been intrigued by a flat tax, but acknowledge that it's regressive as hell, and therefore less than ideal, if not wrong.

The appeal lies entirely in the simplicity of administration and the ostensible lack of loopholes.  Not in any fairness argument.

[Guest Lobo]

Though not by legislative design, wouldn't a flat tax end up being "non-regressive" in the sense that it actually collects more revenue than the current "progressive" tax system?  Progressive whiners are so busy bitching about the front-end, they forgot---their system doesn't actually work all that well except for middle/mass affluent income earners fucked on both sides.  

[workswithseed 2037]

7 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Yeah, don’t think using Gates as an example of “not one of those rich assholes” is the best idea considering the revelations about his behavior that have come out in the last few weeks.

Seems like Melinda would be a better example.

The only things I can think of is him having a mistress, and him saying that the owner of a drug patent shouldn't be forced to give it away.

[Dahobbs 17449]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've been intrigued by a flat tax, but acknowledge that it's regressive as hell, and therefore less than ideal, if not wrong.

The appeal lies entirely in the simplicity of administration and the ostensible lack of loopholes.  Not in any fairness argument.

I'd be more intrigued about a flat property/wealth tax than a flat income tax. I could see the former actually working and being something approaching fair. I don't see how the latter is anything but a highly regressive tax on the working class.