World's Second Richest Man Objects To Wealth Tax

  
By:  john-russell  •  one week ago  •  106 comments

World's Second Richest Man Objects To Wealth Tax
Gates appears to be so mortified by this proposed comeuppance that he told a reporter that he wasn't sure he could support Warren for president over Donald Trump. 

Bill Gates is worth 106 billion dollars give or take hundreds of millions. 

He is complaining that Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax would eat into that fortune roughly to the tune of 2 billion dollars per year for the first 25 years, and then about 1 billion dollars per year for the next 15, and then a billion or so a year for the next number of years, then a half billion a year, until finally, after 78 years, Gates would be down to a measly 10 billion. 

Gates appears to be so mortified by this proposed comeuppance that he told a reporter that he wasn't sure he could support Warren for president over Donald Trump. 

Who says love of money is not a powerful force? 

Gates wants to keep all that money, and give much of it away himself, giving it to causes he chooses. He and his wife have given about 35 billion to his charity The Gates Foundation over the years, so he is not stingy.

Gates is 64 and barring the unforeseen figures to live somewhere around 25 more years. Suffering the wealth tax and not allowing any income to him and his wife over that period (completely ridiculous), he will have appx 52 billion left after 25 years minus  whatever he gives to his foundation.  It is highly unlikely Gates or his charitable giving will "suffer" from the wealth tax, but untold individuals will gain and have a chance at a better life because he was "forced" to pay a wealth tax. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one week ago
Bill Gates said he remains unsure if he could get Elizabeth Warren to have a conversation with him because of his personal wealth.

In an interview at the  New York Times  DealBook Conference, Gates explained his criticism of a tax structure that is too liberal and damages the economy.

“I do think if you tax too much, you do risk the capital formation, innovation, ‘U.S. is the desirable place to do innovative companies,’ I do think you risk that,” he said.

Gates acknowledged that he is a “primary beneficiary” of the current tax structure but said he would be concerned if that system changed too much.

“If I had to pay $20 billion, it’s fine. But when you say I should pay $100 billion, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over,” he joked.

He said that he has not spoken to Warren about her proposed wealth tax, but noted that he is not sure she would be willing to speak to him.

“You know, I’m not sure how open-minded she is,” Gates said. “Or that she’d even be willing to sit down with somebody who has large amounts of money.”

He was asked if he would vote for Warren over President Trump but refused to say.

“I’m not gonna, you know, make political declarations,” he said, later adding, “I hope the more professional candidate is an electable candidate

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/24/18196275/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax
 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 days ago

Gates is right.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2  Paula Bartholomew    one week ago

 he remains unsure if he could get Elizabeth Warren to have a conversation with him

Would it hurt for him to even try?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2    one week ago

He probably knows it would be like banging his head on a wall trying to get her to see how wrong she is. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2    6 days ago

Haven't the Gates family been charitable enough already? Confiscatory tax rates will only result in the really rich taking up residence in friendlier countries, and taking as much of their assets and wealth out of the country too. The left wingers can't seem to understand this simple truth.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    6 days ago
The left wingers can't seem to understand this simple truth.

So why didn't they all leave in the 50's when taxes for the rich, were as high as 90%?  Hmmmm?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.2.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.1    6 days ago

Because nobody actually paid that high of a tax rate back then. There were many loopholes at the time. 

Verdict: True

While the top marginal income tax

rate

was over 90 percent while Eisenhower was president, few people were subject to that rate due to deductions and other tax loopholes. Top income earners paid much lower average tax rates.

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fact-check-90-percent-taxes-eisenhower-1950s/

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.2.2    6 days ago
Because nobody actually paid that high of a tax rate back then.

Dean, be kind.  You know that facts are anathema to some.  It breaks the bubble they live in and reality suffocates them.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.4  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.3    6 days ago

Can you imagine being so useless that your only hope for prosperity is for the government to tax your neighbor and give some to you. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MUVA @2.2.4    6 days ago

384

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  MUVA @2.2.4    6 days ago
Can you imagine being so useless that your only hope for prosperity is for the government to tax your neighbor and give some to you. 

Liberal Types are wanting "imagination land" to become a reality....for sure !

Let's just say....for giggles sake jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif , Democrats are elected and take over governments all over the place in this country, and they put in place their "Dream List". They will still find something "Wrong" somewhere, so they can use it to get elected again.

They NEED "Un-happy" in order to get power !

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2.2.4    6 days ago
'Can you imagine being so useless that your only hope for prosperity is for the government to tax your neighbor and give some to you.'

Who the fuck does that?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.8  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.7    6 days ago

Not you of coarse but my wife’s older sister is one of those for sure she was kicked out of the family business because she is s lazy good for nothing she has been on benefits for the last 15 years.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.2.2    6 days ago
Because nobody actually paid that high of a tax rate back then. There were many loopholes at the time.

So you are claiming that all the loopholes will also be removed with the "wealth tax"?  Is that really what you're claiming???

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.10  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.9    6 days ago

WTF is the point of a "WEALTH" tax hasn't the government already gotten in your pants for your income tax. Personal Property (some states)tax, Real Estate tax, Gas tax, Sales tax and every other f-ing tax we pay. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.2.11  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.9    6 days ago

Many of the loopholes were closed with the tax reform act in 1986. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.12  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.9    6 days ago
So you are claiming that all the loopholes will also be removed with the "wealth tax"?

We're still waiting for Elizabeth to tell us more about her "Wish List". 

The "Lint" she keeps throwing out there, still has "forked tongue".

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.10    6 days ago
WTF is the point of a "WEALTH" tax hasn't the government already gotten in your pants for your income tax.

How The Super Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

Tax laws, for years, have been skewed to help the wealthy keep their money, and even get refunds.  Most wealthy people pay a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.2.11    6 days ago
Many of the loopholes were closed with the tax reform act in 1986.

And many more have been created.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.13    6 days ago
Most wealthy people pay a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class.

Is there a viable point you're trying to make?

If you're concerned about percentages, the IRS just released the 2020 tax withholding tables.  Please peruse them and show me where higher incomes are paying a lower percentage than lower incomes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/here-are-the-new-income-tax-brackets-for-2020/ar-AAJXgSr?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=spartandhp

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.16  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.15    6 days ago
Please peruse them and show me where higher incomes are paying a lower percentage than lower incomes.

Do you actually believe what you type, or do you not understand how taxes in this country works?

Tax loopholes available to the wealthy, allow the wealthy to pay a smaller percentage of taxes based on their income.

I really don't know how to simplify it any further for you to understand.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    6 days ago
Confiscatory tax rates will only result in the really rich taking up residence in friendlier countries, and taking as much of their assets and wealth out of the country too. The left wingers can't seem to understand this simple truth.

They won't emigrate. 

Their money will, but they won't.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.13    6 days ago
Tax laws, for years, have been skewed to help the wealthy keep their money, and even get refunds. 

They haven't been skewed.

The wealthy just know how to use them better.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.18    6 days ago
The wealthy just know how to use them better.

You can write off almost 100% of your purchase of a private jet.  Would you care to explain how that NEW tax deduction would help the poverty class?

Dream of Owning a Plane? This Tax Break Can Help

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.20  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.9    6 days ago
So you are claiming that all the loopholes will also be removed with the "wealth tax"?  Is that really what you're claiming???

Yes! Liberals hate loopholes when it comes to taxing the rich.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.21  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.14    6 days ago
And many more have been created.

What are they?/

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.22  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.19    6 days ago
You can write off almost 100% of your purchase of a private jet.  Would you care to explain how that NEW tax deduction would help the poverty class?

Since when is the purpose of the tax code to "help the poverty class"?  That's just silly.

But the deduction does help workers.  It allows businesses to fully deduct the cost of new equipment, like forklifts or trucks or new servers or even desks and chairs.  That means they can afford to buy more of it.  So the people who make all that stuff, sell it, work on it and use it all have better paychecks.

If you want to "help the poverty class", nobody is stopping you.  The best thing you can do for them is help get them out of the poverty class, which is done through the educational system...not the tax code.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.23  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.16    6 days ago
Do you actually believe what you type, or do you not understand how taxes in this country works?

Given your posts, you probably want to be really careful about accusing somebody else of not understanding the tax code.

Tax loopholes available to the wealthy, allow the wealthy to pay a smaller percentage of taxes based on their income. I really don't know how to simplify it any further for you to understand.

Well why don't you try an example or two.  Be sure to indicate how said "loopholes" are only available to wealthy people.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.24  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.13    6 days ago

WTF are you talking about, they still pay!  The article you post says people earning 10 mill pay an average of close to 2 million.  People have tax shelters, real estate is one, taking you money via long term capital gains is another how do you think all these congressmen go in with 200k in assets and come out as multi millionaires.  Nothing is skewed,  "ANYBODY" can use these tax vehicles, its not some secret club. Tell me how many middle class tax payers are paying close to 2 million a year in taxes.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.25  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @2.2.20    6 days ago

Yes! Liberals hate loopholes when it comes to taxing the rich.

Wally your back!  Why do you keep refusing to answer any of my questions in other comment threads?  You keep running away and disappearing.  [ Deleted ]

wally, please provide a list of loophole for the rich only, that you feel are justified when they are only available to the wealthy.

giphy.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.26  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.16    6 days ago
I really don't know how to simplify it any further for you to understand.

Maybe you should understand it yourself before you chastise others.

Here's a hint.  Those "loopholes" as you claim are actually available to everyone that files a tax return.  That only some are capable of taking full advantage of them is not the fault of the wealthy, rather it is the vagaries of the tax code.

You note in 2.2.19 the ability to write off "almost" 100% of the cost of a private jet.  What is your point?  There are specific things that must be accomplished to deduct that.  If you don't meet those requirements, you don't get to write it off.  It's really simple when you understand it.  

Am I as wealthy as a Gates, or Buffet, or Soros?  Hell no.  Would I like to be?   Of course I would.   But if I ever attain that status, it will be due to me positioning myself in such a way as to attain that and not due to you or anyone else.  Ergo, what I do with MY wealth is MY decision, and once taxed as income and then invested or saved, any seizure by the government is simply theft and extortion.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.27  Jack_TX  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.24    6 days ago
WTF are you talking about, they still pay!

Yes, but they still have money left, so they haven't paid their "fair share".

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2.28  Heartland American  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.2.2    6 days ago

Exactly.  In the 1986 tax reform, the democrat house and Reagan made a deal for a 28% top tax rate income and cap gains in exchange for getting rid of the vast majority of deductions and loopholes that existed until then. Now Democrats, having gotten rid of the deductions and loopholes want to raise the top rates back up to where they were with the old deductions and loopholes.  Clinton raised the top rate to 39% and congress made him cut the cap gains to 20% top rate.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.29  gooseisgone  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.27    5 days ago
still have money lef

True...….Democrats want to take all the money so they buy votes and they wonder why they don't win elections.

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
3  NV-Robin6    one week ago

I highly doubt Elizabeth wins the nomination anyway. I'm hoping for either Amy or Biden with Amy as his running mate myself. She is the most pragmatic of them all, and Biden hands-down can beat Trump. I don't think he'll have to beat him though. My bet is Trump resigns before the 2020 campaign even gets moving. He's going down and he knows it. 

Whoohoo for Kentucky and Virginia! Here's a peek at what a blue wave can do.  I know Dowser is smiling! 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  NV-Robin6 @3    6 days ago
I highly doubt Elizabeth wins the nomination anyway.

From your lips to God's ears.

I'm hoping for either Amy or Biden with Amy as his running mate myself.

I could live with that.

She is the most pragmatic of them all, and Biden hands-down can beat Trump.

She is pragmatic, and I think Biden can beat Trump, but an awful lot can happen between here and there.

I don't think he'll have to beat him though. My bet is Trump resigns before the 2020 campaign even gets moving. He's going down and he knows it. 

Too early to say, IMO.  Again, an awful lot can happen between here and there.

Whoohoo for Kentucky and Virginia! Here's a peek at what a blue wave can do.  I know Dowser is smiling! 

I'm not a supporter of either a blue or red wave.  I've decided my new political mantra is "stop the stupid", and I'm voting for the candidates most likely to adhere to that philosophy.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.1  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1    6 days ago
"stop the stupid", and I'm voting for the candidates most likely to adhere to that philosophy

That kinda narrows the field.  Haha

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @3.1.1    6 days ago
That kinda narrows the field.  Haha

I know, right?

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    one week ago

The 'super rich' always covet their wealth.  They have to.

But one thing always puzzled me.  The rich are afraid of paying more but are the first ones to tell 'a lower tier wage earner' that they need to work more jobs in order to 'keep up'. 

Why doesn't that same thought process apply to the rich as well?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @4    6 days ago

So we should continue to punish the rich because liberals envy them?

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.1  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    6 days ago

Envy has nothing to do with it.  Its about the elite who take most of the gains in gdp (over the last few decades) and are subsidized by the rest of us.  While they benefit the most from our US economy and infrastructure, they DO NOT PAY THEIR SHARE OF THE TAXES THAT MAKE THEIR PROFITS POSSIBLE , SOMETIMES PAYING NOTHING .  And their costs are usually socialized when they encounter problems.  So while they are the main beneficiaries of our economy geared to enrich the top, they do not pay their share of those benefits, instead they have their spokesholes out there whining about how they deserve this windfall.  And the majority of Americans keep getting the shaft. 

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-economy-isnt-getting-better-for-most-americans-but-there-is-a-fix/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  lib50 @4.1.1    6 days ago

None of the rest of us get to decide exactly how our tax dollars are spent, why should Bill Gates and other billionaires? 

Gates says "don't tax me, I'll give my money away myself".  Charitable giving is already a way to lower one's taxable income. The same sort of thing could be applied top the wealth tax. Whatever money Gates gives away would lower his taxable wealth, and thus lower the amount of the wealth tax on him. 

But his personal giving should not be "instead of" the wealth tax. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    6 days ago

Huh?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  lib50 @4.1.1    6 days ago

Who determines what their "fair share" should be....the "gubment"?  Or greedy left wing asset confiscators?

SOMETIMES PAYING NOTHING .

Are you aware that there are many legal tax breaks and situations where individuals have no tax owed. No persons in their right minds would give the government anymore than they were legally required to

The same applies to corporations, who really in the long run don't pay taxes...they simply pass them down the line to the ultimate consumer.

It's always been thusly. Good luck trying to change the system that has been working for decades.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    6 days ago
But his personal giving should not be "instead of" the wealth tax. 

Ok JR...   SPECIFICALLY how is the "wealth tax" to be determined and exactly what will be included in such a tax?

Is it simply dollars in the bank?

Property owned?

Stock valuations in a portfolio?

Art work owned?

Antique vehicles in a personal collection?

And who exactly will determine the taxable values of said items?

And there must be a specific time period to determine such valuations.  

Now, what happens if it's simply stock valuations and the personal holdings are 1 billion dollars on Dec. 31, and the tax would be 2 million dollars.  On January 2, the company declares bankruptcy and the stock is valueless.   Is the tax still owed?  

Oh, in case you are unaware, except for cash, every other "holding" has a value that is totally subjective and does not necessarily have any basis in reality.

For example, some pieces of "art" are valued at millions of dollars.  Personally, I wouldn't waste a penny on some of the things others spend that amount of money on.  So, who's right and which value do you use?

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.6  MUVA  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.4    6 days ago

See it is much better for the government to take your money buy votes and give it their cronies.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.7  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.5    6 days ago

I remember the Clintons wanted to tax your equity in your home and investment properties because you were sitting on a windfall.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.8  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.5    6 days ago

My parents sold land because they could see the tax burden coming down pike at 88 my dad is starting to plan his future.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @4.1.7    6 days ago
I remember the Clintons wanted to tax your equity in your home and investment properties because you were sitting on a windfall.

ALL politicians are invariably looking to get into your pants....   your pockets specifically, but in some cases (no names mentioned) other areas!!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @4.1.8    6 days ago
My parents sold land because they could see the tax burden coming down pike at 88 my dad is starting to plan his future.

A friend played that game with some property he owned.  But he sold it to his son via a trust.  He used the system against itself and the price was essentially pennies on the dollar, but the taxes are based on valuation and since nothing in the area has been sold in decades, there was no local 'comps' to compare to so the market valuation is essentially what he sold it for.  And the tax court agreed!!

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.11  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.10    6 days ago

My parents kept their gas royalties and sold about 2000 acres it is s white hunting camp they built a beautiful lodge it is outside fort smith Arkansas. 

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.12  JBB  replied to  MUVA @4.1.11    6 days ago

What in heck is a "white hunting camp"? And, is there a limit on how many whites you can bag?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.9    6 days ago
ALL politicians are invariably looking to get into your pants....   your pockets specifically

I am reminded of a very wise man..................

"Henry Ford: "Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian."

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.14  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.13    6 days ago

A very wise man? Henry Ford? The antisemitic Nazi sympathizer Henry Ford? That Henry Ford? 

http://www.thehistoryreader.com/modern-history/hitlers-american-friends-henry-ford-and-nazism/

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.15  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @4.1.14    6 days ago

You can shoot the messenger all you want but the comment and sentiment stands. Tell me where it is wrong. 

"The antisemitic Nazi sympathizer Henry Ford?"

What does that have to do with intelligence? Show the class what you've got. Time to shine.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @4.1.1    6 days ago
Envy has nothing to do with it.

Riiiiiight.

  Its about the elite who take most of the gains in gdp (over the last few decades) and are subsidized by the rest of us.

Really now?  You mean the people who pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes in this country are somehow riding on your coattails?  How, exactly?

  While they benefit the most from our US economy and infrastructure, they DO NOT PAY THEIR SHARE OF THE TAXES THAT MAKE THEIR PROFITS POSSIBLE

They pay a higher percentage than the percentage they earn.  So what is "their fair share", exactly?

, SOMETIMES PAYING NOTHING .

Citation?  If it were actually true....it would put them in the same boat as almost half of all Americans.

  And their costs are usually socialized when they encounter problems.

Bill Gates got a bailout?  How did that work exactly?

  So while they are the main beneficiaries of our economy geared to enrich the top,

This is like saying NCAA rules are geared to help Alabama.  No...we all play by the same rules....they just play better.

they do not pay their share of those benefits,

Which is how much?

instead they have their spokesholes out there whining about how they deserve this windfall.  And the majority of Americans keep getting the shaft. 

You attempt to define "keeping your own money" as "windfall"...and "having to actually pay some of your own bills" as "getting the shaft".

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    6 days ago
None of the rest of us get to decide exactly how our tax dollars are spent, why should Bill Gates and other billionaires? 

He doesn't.  He is, however, permitted to object to ridiculous levels of taxation.

Gates says "don't tax me, I'll give my money away myself". 

Did he?  I haven't seen that quote.

Charitable giving is already a way to lower one's taxable income. The same sort of thing could be applied top the wealth tax. Whatever money Gates gives away would lower his taxable wealth, and thus lower the amount of the wealth tax on him.  But his personal giving should not be "instead of" the wealth tax. 

He's already paid taxes on that wealth once.  Why does he have to pay it again?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.18  Jack_TX  replied to  MUVA @4.1.7    6 days ago

I don't remember that one.  It doesn't surprise me, but I don't remember it specifically.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.19  MUVA  replied to  JBB @4.1.12    5 days ago

White tail deer

 
 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    one week ago
Gates would be down to a measly 10 billion. 

Whoa, looks like he would have to go back to single ply ass paper. Poor guy. 

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
5.1  NV-Robin6  replied to  MrFrost @5    one week ago

I have a lot of respect for Bill and Melinda due to their attempts of resolving so many major issues in poor countries, vaccinations and septic systems. They take on problems no one else has the balls to. 

I don't know what their tax burden is currently and I don't know if they shield by off shoring like many of the tax evaders do. I'm sure we can all find something wrong with him. I don't hate or envy the rich which is the rightwing moon bat's conspiracy theories but I think the rich should take care of the poor and they shouldn't get breaks because they can buy them by lobbying. It isn't their kin we send off to war. It isn't their kin building our nations or the working the cogs in the wheel. Without middle class cogs --they'd be absolutely nothing. Without them, we'd still be bartering instead of worshipping fake value. I'm not so sure I can say we've evolved. I also don't think anyone making under 100K a year should pay a dime on their income tax. FICA yes. Consumption taxes, yes. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  NV-Robin6 @5.1    one week ago

The Gates family does fine.  They are still making a lot of money. 

Hell, look at it this way.  There are those who wear a badge of honor for the limb they lost in defense of this country.  The 'super rich' can also wear a badge of honor for their financial sacrifice.  This too----a few bucks to lose is better than a pair of legs, right?  Especially if it goes to the betterment of America and Americans.

I would apply this logic of sacrifice to all Americans fortunate enough to reap the benefit this great nation can provide---if you work hard and get lucky.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
5.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.1    one week ago

They should fight her theft and redistribution tooth and nail and if she is elected they might want to consider moving to a free country where politicians don't try to buy votes using their money. 

512

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
5.1.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.1.2    6 days ago
moving to a free country where politicians don't try to buy votes using their money. 

Suggested locations?

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  NV-Robin6 @5.1    6 days ago

True. I was just trying to make a funny. They have donated piles of cash over the years.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
5.1.5  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1.3    6 days ago

Liechtenstein. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.6  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.1.5    6 days ago

One of the most prosperous....lol

Open mouth authoritarians and eat a piece of that!

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.1.2    6 days ago

Read my post.  Please dispense with the defensive rhetoric of-------------the usual defense of the most fortunate. 

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
5.1.8  NV-Robin6  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.1    6 days ago

Yep, exactly!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.9  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.1    6 days ago
-a few bucks to lose is better than a pair of legs, right?  Especially if it goes to the betterment of America and Americans.

Sadly people on this forum vote for warmongering democrat and republican neocons. They send our loyal young men and women to some shit hole for reasons that have nothing to do with defending this country.

I put the loss of life and limbs squarely on the backs of the American voters who elect these despots.

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1.10  bbl-1  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.9    6 days ago

But not on the investors of weapons of war or the world wide American Oil interests or the $8,000 three piece suit folk in the banks and Wall Street profiting off the----gambling of other people's money?   Why do they always get the 'big skate'?  Why?

American voters do not elect these people.  Wealth does--and that through the mechanism of Citizens United.  And now, propaganda, foreign and domestic is flexing it's well financed muscle.  Evan small stuff, you know, like, Sandy Hook was an act.  Stuff like that.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.11  XDm9mm  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.10    6 days ago
gambling of other people's money? 

The people that put their money in the hands of those people should know the risks involved.   NOTHING is guaranteed and if you have never read any prospectus I can assure you that every one of them indicates that your principal is not guaranteed and that past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

However, historically, the stock market has always risen beyond prior levels if invested long enough.

Here's another hint.   Regardless of 'citizens united' (which I disagree with by the way) there has and always will be foreign influence (aka propaganda) in our electoral process.  Foreign governments play the same games with our politics as we play with theirs.  Hopefully, the people are smart enough to recognize the truth vs propaganda.

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1.12  bbl-1  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.11    6 days ago

Of course.  Trump U, right?

A quote from Dr. Zhivago.  "Trust no one."

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.13  Ronin2  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.10    5 days ago
American voters do not elect these people.

Funny. Here I thought that politicians were actually elected to office. That would be the American voters casting their ballots to do so.

Wealth does--and that through the mechanism of Citizens United.  And now, propaganda, foreign and domestic is flexing it's well financed muscle.

Voters still have to cast the vote to put them in office no matter how you cut it. The money and propaganda to put Establishment politicians in office is used and abused by both major parties. 

Problem is that voters are more concerned about keeping people out of office. The lesser of two evils BS rules. We had two of the most corrupt, hated/loathed, vile, individuals running for president. One of them had to win. There were other options running as independents or third party candidates; but everyone knew they stood no chance. 

Evan small stuff, you know, like, Sandy Hook was an act.  Stuff like that.

It sucks having free speech doesn't it? You get things like the Catholic Covington students being abused by the media using a false narrative to sway people in a rush to judgement. That is the reason we have laws, and courts, to ensure their are consequences for speech that causes damages.

 
 
 
Ender
6  Ender    one week ago
“I do think if you tax too much, you do risk the capital formation, innovation, ‘U.S. is the desirable place to do innovative companies,’ I do think you risk that,” he said.

This is where I call bullshit and say they are lying through their teeth. Did a higher tax rate stop him from innovating or making a company? Doesn't seem like it to me.

The only reason he has so much to begin with is he has a hold on the market.

Maybe time for some patents to expire.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1  MUVA  replied to  Ender @6    6 days ago

Higher Tax rates are put in place to make low earners feel better.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.1  Ender  replied to  MUVA @6.1    6 days ago

Yep. I always feel better when we can pay our military....

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @6    6 days ago

On the contrary...if tax rates and penalties for being rich get too confiscatory and usurious, lots of US capital and innovation will indeed depart for foreign shores.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    6 days ago

( Usury ) and it offshoots only apply to loans-mortgages.  For the rich, it is they who are in the position to conduct, manipulate or draw the contracts.

US capital moving to foreign shores?  Really?  It is not moving, it is investing at the lower and less responsible rates. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.2  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    6 days ago

Even with the trump tax breaks only 1/6th of offshore money came back into the states. There is still trillions of dollars offshore that is not going to come back. Lowering the wealth tax has done little to nothing except raise the debt and deficit that me and you now have to pay for.

One cannot say that the higher tax rates from the great depression all the way up until the eighties stifled innovation.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    6 days ago

And the latest giveaway with the 2017 corporate tax cuts did exactly what..... fueled tax by-backs!  

Stock buybacks have gotten a bad rap in the press and on Capitol Hill in recent years, much of it due to the massive 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that gave mega corporations fabulous tax breaks that were supposed to directly produce growth, jobs, and more growth.

Instead, many companies moved jobs overseas, gave the entire C-suite bonuses, raised dividends , and, you guessed it – bought back shares by the boatload.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/stock-market-news/articles/2019-08-15/theres-a-worrisome-trend-in-share-buybacks.

Those that keep pushing the "trickle down economics Koolaid" are either those at the top that benefit from it, or are those too stupid to realize that what they're drinking is yellow, and body temperature. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6.2.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.3    6 days ago

Would my Apple stock be up sixty percent without the buybacks they performed? Looks to me like the benefits of Tim Cook’s buybacks decision trickled down to everybody that invested in Apple. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6.2.4    5 days ago

The top 10 of Americans by wealth own 84% of the stocks owned by Americans.  The bottom 80% of Americans by wealth own 6.7% of the stocks owned by Americans. 

In other words..... it didn't "Trickle Down" to the majority of Americans.  The tax cuts didn't bring a wave of domestic investment in jobs or corporate infrastructure.  It just went into the bloated bank accounts of the wealthy.

Congrats on staying true to your form of "I've got mine" Dean.....

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6.2.6  Dean Moriarty  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.5    5 days ago

That's baloney. The people in 90 to 99 percent own more equity than all of the top one percent. 

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2019/01/who-owns-all-the-stocks-bonds/

About 80% of the stocks are owned by institutions. Institutional ownership is the stock owned by mutual or pension funds  insurance companies, investment firms, private foundations, endowments or other large entities that manage funds on behalf of others.

https://www.pionline.com/article/20170425/INTERACTIVE/170429926/80-of-equity-market-cap-held-by-institutions

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.5    4 days ago
The top 10 of Americans by wealth own 84% of the stocks owned by Americans.  The bottom 80% of Americans by wealth own 6.7% of the stocks owned by Americans. 

How do you take such a simple statistic and get everything about it so wrong in so many ways?

The Trump tax cuts were passed after this study was published.  How....exactly....were they supposed to retroactively undo decades of personal decisions of individual Americans?

In other words..... it didn't "Trickle Down" to the majority of Americans.

Stocks don't "trickle down".  Americans actually have to buy the stocks for themselves.  They have to elect participation in their 401(k), or contribute to their IRA, or open an account at Fidelity or Vanguard or even USAA (for Navy flyers and their families).  In short, they actually have to get off their ass.

This means that Americans will need to be disciplined enough to use discretionary income for investments instead of spending it all in the moment.  They might need to buy a used car instead of leasing a new one.  They might need to make their own coffee instead of spending $200/mo at Starbucks.  They might need to actually make their own food instead of spending $500/mo eating out.  And maybe....just maybe....they might need to organize a plan to pay off their credit cards and save the $400/mo they're paying in revolving interest.

  The tax cuts didn't bring a wave of domestic investment in jobs or corporate infrastructure.  It just went into the bloated bank accounts of the wealthy.

The corporate tax cuts made America more competitive with other countries.  Or...more accurately....they made America less uncompetitive with other countries.

Congrats on staying true to your form of "I've got mine" Dean.....

Well if we're going to talk about this on a personal level.....  Yes.  I have mine.  I worked my ass off and saved my money for 30 years. The pressing question here is....why don't you have yours? 

What have you been doing that you do not own stocks or mutual funds and are therefore not participating in the current bull market?  What are you willing to sacrifice to become wealthy?  Why haven't you done so?  What risks have you taken in order to build your wealth?  

Why is your stock ownership somehow my responsibility?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7  Buzz of the Orient    6 days ago
 "It is highly unlikely Gates or his charitable giving will "suffer" from the wealth tax..."

I agree that Gates won't "suffer".  The recipients of his charity will:

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    6 days ago

1.  Wealth taxes are unconstitutional.

2.  They don't work.  

Other than that, great plan.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    6 days ago

The hate the rich and punish them cult simply doesn't think this through, and besides, there are not enough of the really rich to tax to even make a dent in Warren's projected some $50 trillion cost!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    6 days ago

Taxation is theft. 

The loser have-nots who are two cowardly to rob you, vote for a government to do it for them but it doesn't change what they are or what it is.

512

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @9    6 days ago

Gates didn't make 107 billion dollars without the help of the American people and the American government.  Extreme wealth should be heavily taxed. There is absolutely nothing unethical or immoral about it. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9.1.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    6 days ago

There is nothing unethical about his ability to create and develop something the market wants and your inability to do the same.

So sorry, you had your chance. He won, suck it up. Don't be sore.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @9.1.1    6 days ago

So if Gates eventually only had 50 billion instead of 100 billion, are you trying to say he no longer would have "won" ? 

The 50 billion he is taxed over the course of 30 or 40 years will help a lot of people. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9.1.3  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    6 days ago

His financial success is none of your concern. Worry about yourself and you will be far happier.

Envy is one of the seven deadly sins. I thought a good catholic would know that?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
9.1.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    6 days ago

The ones that helped did so not out of the goodness of their hearts they did it in return for a paycheck. They were properly compensated for their labor. The average salary at MS is over one hundred thousand annually. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9.1.5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @9.1.4    6 days ago

I wonder how many jobs Bill Gates has created? Technically he created and entire market including the healthy competition. What many can't understand is that while there may only be one Bill Gates, the entire market and jobs he created all pay tax.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
9.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    6 days ago
The 50 billion he is taxed over the course of 30 or 40 years will help a lot of people. 

You mean his role in life is to support deadbeats and help provide Medicare for illegal immigrants.

Maybe in your warped universe this is how it "should be", but in real life it does not work out that way.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @9.1.3    6 days ago
His financial success is none of your concern.

Those that constantly complain about what others "HAVE", are unhappy with their own lives.

Damn It....they should "Get" more than they actually work for !

Gotta luv these folks that only look forward to "Fridays". jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    6 days ago
Extreme wealth should be heavily taxed.

Do you think Bill Gates hasn't been paying his taxes? He has. And since he has already paid his taxes and organized his finances based on the existing rules, shouldn't he be allowed to live with the results following those rules?

If you want to tax new wealth he acquires in the future, I think that would be more fair than just taking something that should already be settled.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
9.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    6 days ago
"The 50 billion he is taxed over the course of 30 or 40 years will help a lot of people."

As i pointed out above, he won' t suffer. The ones his charity supports will.  Give it to the government instead, and what guarantee do you have that it will be used for charitable purposes, or to help the public?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    6 days ago
The 50 billion he is taxed over the course of 30 or 40 years will help a lot of people. 

It just won't.  

It will be misused and wasted, like most money cycled through the US Govt.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
9.1.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    6 days ago
"The 50 billion he is taxed over the course of 30 or 40 years will help a lot of people." 

And as I said above, his charities help a lot of people, but if you give what WOULD have helped those charities instead to the government, who knows where the money will be wasted?  What your government steals from Gates, all Gates needs to do is deduct it from his charity, and he can tell the government "Okay, YOU do it."

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    6 days ago

There is absolutely nothing unethical or immoral about opposing such thinking.

There is however an excellent argument as to why no one, particularly a corrupt and morally bankrupt government, should have a right to someone else's property.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10  Tacos!    6 days ago
Gates appears to be so mortified by this proposed comeuppance

Comeuppance? Seriously? Let's have a look at that word for a second.

come·up·pance
/ˌkəmˈəpəns/
INFORMAL
  1. a punishment or fate that someone deserves

Punishment? Deserves? How in the world does Bill Gates deserve punishment for making a shit ton of money in a perfectly legal way? Not to mention the fact that he simply gives a lot of it away.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11  Tessylo    6 days ago

74384562_10214361426904133_9204833257198

 
 
 
Ronin2
12  Ronin2    5 days ago

Ah, the good old days when the left loved Bill Gates for his call for higher taxes on the wealthy. Wasn't that long ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/bill-gates-suggests-higher-taxes-on-those-with-great-wealth.html

While the tax system in the United States is progressive — which means, generally, that the more money you make, the more money you pay in income taxes — “it’s not progressive enough,” Bill Gates said during a conversation with his wife Melinda and hundreds of high school students in New York City on Tuesday.

He and his wife run the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and are worth more than $90 billion .

“There’s no doubt that what we want government to do in terms of better education and better health caremeans that we need to collect more in taxes,” he said, “and there’s no doubt that as we raise taxes, we can have most of that additional money come from those who are better off.”

Gates underlined this idea Tuesday night on an appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on CBS when he was asked what he would say to those who argue that perhaps billionaires shouldn’t even be “a thing” because they represent a failure of capitalism.

“I think you can make the tax system take a much higher portion from people with great wealth,” he said, adding, “These great fortunes were not made from ordinary income, so you probably have to look to the capital gains rate and the estate tax if you want to create more equity there.”

Bill Gates has been consistent on the point that he thinks the country should ask more of those with means. As he   told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria  last year, after the passing of the GOP tax reform, “I need to pay higher taxes. I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”

Other super rich individuals agree. “I don’t think I need a tax cut,”  billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC  in 2017 regarding the tax reform efforts at the time. A handful of New York-based millionaires  are asking for a new “multimillionaire’s tax”  to fund important priorities   like affordable housing and schools.

And Howard Schultz, who is considering running for president,   told CNN this week , “I should be paying more taxes, and people who are in the bracket of making millions of dollars, or whatever the number might be, should be paying more taxes.”

When asked how much higher he would raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy, though, he said, “I don’t know,” and he called   Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed 70 percent marginal tax rate on income over $10 million “punitive.”

Gates doesn't like Warren's over the top money grab; and now he is suddenly scum to the left. Betting he isn't the only one.

You cannot negotiate with the left. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
12.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Ronin2 @12    4 days ago
You cannot negotiate with the left. 

Sure you can.  

They want all of your money.  You can easily negotiate that down to where they only take 98-99% of your money.  Sometimes.  If you're not white.  Or male.  Or straight.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Kavika
CB
Tacos!
Dean Moriarty
gooseisgone
bugsy
loki12
JohnRussell
Dulay


44 visitors