World's Second Richest Man Objects To Wealth Tax
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.
Gates is right.
he remains unsure if he could get Elizabeth Warren to have a conversation with him
Would it hurt for him to even try?
He probably knows it would be like banging his head on a wall trying to get her to see how wrong she is.
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.
So why didn't they all leave in the 50's when taxes for the rich, were as high as 90%? Hmmmm?
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.
Liberal Types are wanting "imagination land" to become a reality....for sure !
Let's just say....for giggles sake , 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 !
Who the fuck does that?
So you are claiming that all the loopholes will also be removed with the "wealth tax"? Is that really what you're claiming???
Many of the loopholes were closed with the tax reform act in 1986.
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".
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.
And many more have been created.
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.
They won't emigrate.
Their money will, but they won't.
They haven't been skewed.
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
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.
Given your posts, you probably want to be really careful about accusing somebody else of not understanding the tax code.
Well why don't you try an example or two. Be sure to indicate how said "loopholes" are only available to wealthy people.
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.
Yes, but they still have money left, so they haven't paid their "fair share".
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.
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!
From your lips to God's ears.
I could live with that.
She is pragmatic, and I think Biden can beat Trump, but an awful lot can happen between here and there.
Too early to say, IMO. Again, an awful lot can happen between here and there.
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.
That kinda narrows the field. Haha
I know, right?
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?
So we should continue to punish the rich because liberals envy them?
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.
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.
Huh?
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.
What in heck is a "white hunting camp"? And, is there a limit on how many whites you can bag?
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."
A very wise man? Henry Ford? The antisemitic Nazi sympathizer Henry Ford? That Henry Ford?
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.
Riiiiiight.
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?
They pay a higher percentage than the percentage they earn. So what is "their fair share", exactly?
Citation? If it were actually true....it would put them in the same boat as almost half of all Americans.
Bill Gates got a bailout? How did that work exactly?
This is like saying NCAA rules are geared to help Alabama. No...we all play by the same rules....they just play better.
Which is how much?
You attempt to define "keeping your own money" as "windfall"...and "having to actually pay some of your own bills" as "getting the shaft".
He doesn't. He is, however, permitted to object to ridiculous levels of taxation.
Did he? I haven't seen that quote.
He's already paid taxes on that wealth once. Why does he have to pay it again?
I don't remember that one. It doesn't surprise me, but I don't remember it specifically.
Whoa, looks like he would have to go back to single ply ass paper. Poor guy.
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.
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.
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.
Suggested locations?
True. I was just trying to make a funny. They have donated piles of cash over the years.
Liechtenstein.
Read my post. Please dispense with the defensive rhetoric of-------------the usual defense of the most fortunate.
Yep, exactly!
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.
Of course. Trump U, right?
A quote from Dr. Zhivago. "Trust no one."
Funny. Here I thought that politicians were actually elected to office. That would be the American voters casting their ballots to do so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
( 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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
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.....
That's baloney. The people in 90 to 99 percent own more equity than all of the top one percent.
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.
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?
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 corporate tax cuts made America more competitive with other countries. Or...more accurately....they made America less uncompetitive with other countries.
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?
I agree that Gates won't "suffer". The recipients of his charity will:
1. Wealth taxes are unconstitutional.
2. They don't work.
Other than that, great plan.
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!
Comeuppance? Seriously? Let's have a look at that word for a second.
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.
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.
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.
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.