hog88
Your ray of sunshine
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 114,558
- Likes
- 162,704
it matters because the terms have legal meaning - if said home sold (realized wealth) Bezos wouldn't be the one realizing it. Using someone else's asset is not unrealized wealth for the user whether said use is right or wrong.
I get the fair/not fair but part of McDad's point was whether the original article is an accurate representation of tax rate giving the shifting of terms between income and wealth.
They are always free to donate more to clear their guilty conscienceMy favorite are the Billionaires who lament their secretary pays a higher rate than they do (looking at you Mr. Warren B). If it is so troubling to your conscience, simply have your compensation structure changed to all payroll and no dividends. Then we can compare your rates.
Isn't there an argument to be made that the average Joe's are the one's making up for the billionaire's lack of tax payment? Seems like the average Joe is bearing the burden for the billionaire's tax. They pay what they're supposed to they're still billionaires, but the average Joe has more money to spend, more products are bought, more money is made.
I already bashed the original article. We're well past this. I got that out of the way with my first post. The whole time I've been talking about fairness. What's legal, and the semantics surrounding the term "realized", do not matter to this question.
Isn't there an argument to be made that the average Joe's are the one's making up for the billionaire's lack of tax payment? Seems like the average Joe is bearing the burden for the billionaire's tax. They pay what they're supposed to they're still billionaires, but the average Joe has more money to spend, more products are bought, more money is made.
I think McDaddio nailed it. Equal burden across the board. $$ spent divided by voting age citizens. Pony up!per the tweet graphic Bezos paid nearly 1 billion in taxes - how many average Joe's tax bills would it take to cover that?
nearly 50% of tax payers have zero or negative Federal income tax liability - define "average Joe"
1st Amendment - freedom of the press.How fortunate for them that they are able to easily rationalize why the “good” realized by their actions outweighs the privacy rights of the affected individuals
Freedom of the press doesn’t give way to breaking laws on protected personal data used for tax calculations you rube. And no they are not public figures. They don’t hold office. Jees…1st Amendment - freedom of the press.
These guys are all public figures so they are fair game when it comes to journalists publishing information about them. Nothing in this is malicious and privacy isn't something to be concerned about if you're a public figure.
Don't like it? Give away your money, step down from your current job, delete your social media, and stop appearing on 60 Minutes.
Individuals that make less than $200k a year or households that make less than $400k.per the tweet graphic Bezos paid nearly 1 billion in taxes - how many average Joe's tax bills would it take to cover that?
nearly 50% of tax payers have zero or negative Federal income tax liability - define "average Joe"
Ok cool, maybe you can link the US Supreme Court decision that says so.Freedom of the press doesn’t give way to breaking laws on protected personal data used for tax calculations you rube. And no they are not public figures. They don’t hold office. Jees…
And thanks for proving “by any means necessary”
What’s not fair about using the tax laws to your advantage. Just because not everyone has the ability to capitalize on them doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t have the opportunity.
Individuals that make less than $200k a year or households that make less than $400k.
Just because everybody has the same legal opportunity doesn't make it fair.
Don't you agree a flat tax rate would be more fair than our current system?