>

Still better than not taxing them. I dunno what you guys expect from them.
Panama papers... These people take their untaxed money, and hide it internationally. >

if they actually felt this way they wouldn’t hide from taxes with offshore accounts, but also they shouldn’t take any of the tax loopholes and take the standard deduction instead… but obviously they don’t actually have a problem with their (technically legal) tax avoidance >

I think it's a fair point. If only good people don't use the loopholes, then we essentially have a tax on honesty, because bad people won't give a fuck. 
The proper answer is to close the loopholes and brutally prosecute tax avoiders. >

What we have is even more insidious: a tax on poverty.  It requires money to exploit the loopholes, and money to deter the IRS. >

It's expensive to be poor. >

I forget who said it but the quote” when I was poor I had to pay for everything, once I was rich everything was given for free” seems revenant here >

Ben folds once said, “when I needed it most, they tried to charge me, but now that I’m rich, they give me free coffee.” >

Rich privilege. Hell, I'm just happy to finally have enough in my account so the bank no longer charges me a fee for being broke. >

I look forward to them not pulling strings behind the scenes to undermine any increased tax proposals. >

Davos is a performance and you are the audience.  It's an event for the public to observe rich people saying the things we think rich people should say, and hopefully to stave off the pitchforks for another year.  That's why there are celebrities etc who aren't billionaires, someone has to deliver the message that "hey we aren't so bad" and have it be believed.  Better if it comes from an attractive actor or something instead of a 90-year-old ghoul with a bank account the size of a middin' nation.
It's all horseshit. >

Indeed, the billionaires all have the option of donating billions to the government based on what they feel they should be taxed.
They just don't do it. >

Most Billionaires could easily fund their own local UBI. They choose not to for the same reasons that they are rich. >

Most company CEOs could pay for yearly wage increases out of their own salary and still be incredibly wealthy. >

no they could not.
Let's take the Walmart CEO
25.7M in total compensation so not even a "salary".  
Walmart workforce: 2.5Million.    
Care to guess how much 25.7M / 2.5M is? 10 bucks a year per employee. Assuming full time, approx 2000h/yr, it's $0.005/hr
Disney: 27M of total compensation, so not salary 
Workforce: 190k 
27M / 190k = whooping 142 bucks a year, approx $0.07/hr for full time ~2000hr/yr
Feel free to do with every big corpo, look up the dollar figures of CEO compensation and the workforce headcount and slap these two numbers together. >

I like how you un-ironically revealed why their wealth is complete bullshit. They get stock in their own company for most of their pay that way it’s not fucking taxed.
So while you think you’re proving a point, you’re really just admitting that you think billionaires should get that kind of money and not pay their fair share.
r/conservative will welcome you with open arms. >

In that article it mentions how he made $46 million when he left the company last year. If memory serves me the outgoing CEO will get $20 million for leaving. There is more than enough money to pay living wages if they can afford to pay someone $20 million for quitting. >

They did the math for you already, CEO salary plus $20M severance every couple years won't make a noticeable difference in average wages for a company that size. 
It's fucked up that wages are so skewed, and should be corrected, but that's only 1 piece of many reforms needed to fix wage problems. >

That's CEO salary only. Let's start cutting ridiculous profit margins, shareholder payouts, the rest of the high-level management's and mid-level management's salaries (don't forget 'expenses') and then try again. Do you wanna do the math? >

They should start doing dick swinging contests by seeing who can donate or construct the most schools hospitals libraries etc. >

If there's anything that can get them to do that is vanity lol you're right. >

Billionaires used to build libraries, sponsor parks and public infrastructure for their PR and ego dickwaggling.
Now they just buy mainstream media to propagandize to us that they're good people. Much cheaper that way. >

They used to because union and socialist movements were militant. Rich people don’t give up their power because someone asked nicely, they do it cause they’re forced >

This is a "talk is cheap" move - as they don't have power to influence uber-wealthy. >

Nobody is preventing them from paying extra taxes right now. >

Nobody is preventing you or I paying more tax than we can get away with. It's just uber rich can get away with much less >

Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding your message, can you please reword that? >

Why would they pay more if they're not forced to? Just like you wouldn't pay more than you're forced to. I think that's what they're saying (with questionable sincerity) "Force us all to pay more". You wouldn't pay more tax when your neighbour pays the normal amount. >

Lmfao, the fuck they do.  They might be saying it in a performative way, but not a single one of them truly want their wealth taxed.
They'll do EVERYTHING in their power to stop it from happening. >

Maybe their high priced consultants are warning them of something akin to 1790s France brewing.
Of course, they could fix it themselves, but maybe it's a few trying to save the lot of them. Because 100% don't want to pay more taxes, but maybe 1% of the elite is willing to not fight their long term best interests. And they are willing to force the hand of the other 99% via laws. >

Sure, I'll believe it when I see it.  The fact that no one believes a damn word they say is their fault, and their fault alone. >

"Tax us now".
The government: "Tax the middle class? Got it." >

How about this idea. Raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes by an equal amount on the middle class.
That way the conservatives get to pass a tax cut and the liberals get to raise taxes and the middle class now has more money to spend on things which makes more people rich. 
Or does that make way to much sense to do anything. >


Raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes by an equal amount on the middle class.

Attempts to raise taxes on the rich usually ends with rich people avoiding it, one way or the other. Government then rescue their planned spending with raising taxes on middle class.

middle class now has more money to spend on things which makes more people rich

Already rich people are more ok with making poor people average than with average people rich. When people became rich, there is more competition in business. Rich people mostly prefered to be closer to monopolist than strengthen competition. >


Attempts to raise taxes on the rich usually ends with rich people avoiding it, one way or the other.

If this was true, the wealthy would pay even less in taxes than they do now, and they wouldn't have historically pushed for the tax cuts they do. Unless by "attempts to tax the rich" you mean "attempts to look like taxing the rich without actually doing so" >


If this was true, the wealthy would pay even less in taxes than they do now

If this wasn't true, the wealthy would pay even more taxes than they do now and you will never heard of things like "Panama papers".

they wouldn't have historically pushed for the tax cuts they do

Tax evasion/avoidance still costs money to spent on advisors etc. There is no reason to not push for policies that benefits you, same way as you don't pay more taxes than what government ask you to pay.

Unless by "attempts to tax the rich" you mean "attempts to look like taxing the rich without actually doing so"

It's always a debate. Are governments so bad at it purposefully or is that just incompetence of bureaucracy. Imo both things happen to some extent. >


If this wasn't true, the wealthy would pay even more taxes than they do now and you will never heard of things like "Panama papers".

Who, and where, was there any real attempt to tax the rich in any meaningful way after the panama papers? I don't recall one being made, maybe I missed it.
I do recall several tax cuts being passed in multiple countries after the panama papers came out, though - that doesn't support what you said at all. >


I do recall several tax cuts being passed in multiple countries after the panama papers came out, though - that doesn't support what you said at all.

How it contradict what I say? From rich person, tax avoidance requires effort.
Maybe you just don't understand that by saying "avoiding it", I don't mean completely avoiding but avoiding to some extent, significant enough that push government to find money elsewhere ot cut spending.
Tax cuts can be even beneficial for governments in some cases like Revenue Act of 1964 done by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson - tax revenue increased despite tax cuts, due to smaller tax avoidance. >


How it contradict what I say? From rich person, tax avoidance requires effort.

You said that "Attempts to raise taxes on the rich usually ends with rich people avoiding it, one way or the other." and cited the results of the Panama Paper reveal as an example. But no attempts were made after the Panama Paper in any major country I can think of to raise taxes on the wealthy. I didn't say it "contradicted" your first point, just that it doesn't support it.

Tax cuts can be even beneficial for governments in some cases like Revenue Act of 1964 done by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson - tax revenue increased despite tax cuts, due to smaller tax avoidance.

Again, how does this actually support your original point? Much like the previous example, it doesn't seem to.
Here, I'll simplify this for you:
You made the point that attempts to raise taxes result in the rich avoiding those tax increases (usually).
What you need to support your point, if you want people to reasonable believe that you aren't just talking out of your ass, is evidence - an example (preferably more than one, since you're attempting to describe a pattern) of an actual attempt to raise taxes that the rich successfully avoided.
You have not provided that - you have listed one scenario where a tax cut resulted in the rich paying less taxes and another where you argue a tax cut resulted in higher total revenue. Neither of these examples support your point.
Provide examples that do. >

News flash:  People who pay accountants to avoid paying taxes, pretend that they're in favor of paying more taxes, when nothing is stopping them from paying as much in taxes as they want. >

"As long as it's legal, I will pay someone to avoid paying taxes as much as I can. Please make it illegal to make me stop."
Kinda sounds like my friend who's in favor of banning alcohol because he has a problem and drinks too much. Genius. >

I think it's more selfish than that.  They think people like them should pay more taxes, but they're not going to do it until everyone else is force to also >

And how many of these people are hiding their actual weatlh in an off shore account? >

This is fucking stupid. They already get taxed and don't fucking pay it. They don't want to pay taxes, they want to make the poors think that they want to in order to keep us from coming for it all. Don't listen to this bullshit, Davis is just a giant PR event for Billionaires. >

Did they start serving cake? >

All very laudable.
Until you realise there is nothing and and never has been anything stopping them paying as much tax as they like, and never has been.
In the UK you can even choose where that tax is spent!
All you do is write a cheque to HMRC with as much extra tax as you want to pay, and if you want it to be spent on staving children or old grannies, you just include a cover letter and thats where it will be spent.
So just like all virtue signalling, this is fucking nonsense, from all of them.
You would think the grunaid would at least include an editors note on an article like this  that points this  out, but they too are just all flash and no bang. >

I imagine I, too, would be terrified to see a system I would do so well in crumble. >

You can only sit in a tower watching the world burn for so long before you start to get a little hot. >

I'll try and find it, but I remember reading an article a few years ago about this guy who got invited to speak about future technologies and he was astounded to realize when he went on stage to speak, that his audience turned out to be a bunch of billionaire tech bros that wanted to know things like:

In the event of societal collapse, how do I keep my security staff loyal and prevent them from sacrificing me to the masses or taking control themselves?
How long should I plan to stay in my bunker for?
How do I maintain food & water supplies for said bunker?

Edit: This is it. >

there are a considerable number of millionaires and billionaires that have invested in bunkers.
funny thing is, in case of a collapse, the best way to survive is belonging to a capable community not a bunker. if they had invested that money in their community their chances of survival would be higher. but millionaires and billionaires are not immune to ideology so... >

The idea of them hiding in bunkers is hilarious.  Everyone's going to know where they are.  You can have a paid force there to protect you, but someone else out there is always going to have bigger guns.  There's also a good chance you'll soon be up against criminal gangs.  Unless you have something to offer them besides your stuff, you're toast. >

the point is if there is a collapse money won't save you. who the fuck wants dollars when the world is going up in flames? only morons would sell themselves for dollars post collapse. and you don't want morons protecting you, well because they are morons. 
it's not even external threats. if you invested in a bunker, someone knows where that bunker was built and they know how to get in. the people you paid are the ones taking your stuff. >

Even if that bunker was near impenetratable and you had an army to protect it. So... you're going to live out your days and die in the bunker? Your family and descendants too?
All the people capable of building anything resembling a modern society will be outside, and even if the outside did become habitable eventually you'll be back to banging rocks together to make fire. >

people who think a bunker will save them during a total society collapse event, aren't thinking straight.
it's like someone sold them on the idea, they swallowed the propaganda, and act like they will have a nice future despite the world crumbling around them.
if i was a billionaire and post-collapse was on my mind, i would find a nice isolated place with an already established community and i would contribute for their well being before the collapse. i would then build a bunker for the community. >

But that means taxing the politicians too and they fine with the way everything is going. >

ultra-rich with all of their monies spread out over thousands of shell companies offshore: "Please increase taxes on the $500 dollars I keep at my local bank" >

You know you don't have to wait: you can donate to the IRS? >

But then you don’t give people the false argument that too marginal rates actually increase tax receipts to the government. 
Whatever will Warren Buffett do if he can’t complain that he pays less than his Secretary but refuses to simply pay the difference when he could and would equally try to avoid the higher rates if implemented. >

The problem is they will say this when the cameras are rolling but won’t spend any money to lobby members of congress/parliament to change tax structures to increase taxes on the rich. 
Meanwhile, the wealthy people not at this event are paying for members of congress/parliament to cut taxes on the wealthy. So we know who will win >

"Tax us now," say the people who've spent so much money lobbying to not be taxed, to not have to pay their workers
Lying cheating sacks of shit >

Yes, just try to tax all the money they've hidden in untaxable trusts. And notice this headline does not say corporations should be taxed, though corporations are often the means by which the wealthy enjoy their wealth!  
The last year has seen much discussion on the edges about how very wealthy owners of corporate shares take out zero-to-low interest loans, using their corporate shares as collatoral. Those loans are NOT taxable income. If the loan interest is less than the tax rate, they have dodged taxes! It's bogus. The wealthy also use trusts, and countless other tax-deductible means of transferring the benefits of money without even transferring the money itself. If you try to tax the people at Davos, you really only end up taxing people two levels below them. >

You ask why we should care because he is only worth 35 million dollars?  
You are literally saying "the more money you have, the more weight your words has", which is a form of authority bias. >

To me the following

The dude is worth 35m$ as per google, he isn't even in the first million of richest people, like what say does he have in absolutely any of this and why should anyone actually care? 

does not read at all like

No, I am just saying that he is a Hollywood actor (and not even the "heaviest" one), and as such shouldn't really have much say in things that actually matter. 

which seems like a totally different statement.
But

It is like asking a chef about his opinion on the structural stability of the building his kitchen is in. He absolutely can have an opinion on it, but that is where all relevance ends.

I fully agree with of course. >


but the point is that he is neither in the "richest" group nor does he hold any relevance in any kind of political matters.

To me you are describing any single individual. Imo. if any single person has this power then it should only come from the causal relationship of being voted in to that power.
edit: Hmm, I don't think you should even listen to people you voted into power. They should have an opinion and only have power because they got voted in, but no circularity. Else we get these positive feedback-loops. >

They say this and proceed to park their money in places where it won’t be taxed. >

Article text:
More than 200 members of the super-rich elite are calling on governments around the world to “tax us, the ultra rich, now” in order to help billions of people struggling with cost of living crisis.
The group of 205 millionaires and billionaires, including the Disney heiress Abigail Disney and The Hulk actor Mark Ruffalo, on Wednesday called on world leaders and business executives meeting in Davos for the World Economic Forum (WEF) to urgently introduce wealth taxes to help tackle “extreme inequality”.
“The current lack of action is gravely concerning. A meeting of the ‘global elite’ in Davos to discuss ‘cooperation in a fragmented world’ is pointless if you aren’t challenging the root cause of division,” they said in an open letter published on Wednesday. “Defending democracy and building cooperation requires action to build fairer economies right now – it is not a problem that can be left for our children to fix.
“Now is the time to tackle extreme wealth; now is the time to tax the ultra rich.”
In the letter entitled “the cost of extreme wealth”, the millionaires, from 13 countries, said: “The history of the last five decades is a story of wealth flowing nowhere but upwards. In the last few years, this trend has greatly accelerated …The solution is plain for all to see. You, our global representatives, have to tax us, the ultra rich, and you have to start now.”
The super-rich signatories, who brand themselves as “patriotic millionaires”, warned that inaction could lead to a catastrophe. “There’s only so much stress any society can take, only so many times mothers and fathers will watch their children go hungry while the ultra rich contemplate their growing wealth. The cost of action is much cheaper than the cost of inaction – it’s time to get on with the job.”
It comes as new research shows that almost two-thirds of the new wealth amassed since the start of the pandemic has gone to the richest 1%. The development charity Oxfam found that the best-off had pocketed $26tn (£21tn) in new wealth up to the end of 2021. That represented 63% of the total new wealth, with the rest going to the remaining 99% of people.
Oxfam said for the first time in a quarter of a century the rise in extreme wealth was being accompanied by an increase in extreme poverty, and called for new taxes to be levied on the super-rich.
Oxfam said a tax of up to 5% on the world’s multimillionaires and billionaires could raise $1.7tn a year, enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty, and fund a global plan to end hunger.
Marlene Engelhorn, a multimillionaire heiress, co-founder of campaign group taxmenow, and a signatory of the letter, said: “The whole world – economists and millionaires alike – can see the solution that is staring us all right in the face: we have to tax the ultra rich. If we care about the safety of democracy, about our communities, and our planet we have to get this done. And yet our decision-makers either don’t have the gumption or don’t feel the need to listen to all of these voices. It begs the question, ‘What, or who, is stopping them?’” >

Wonder who indeed
Who on Earth has the power and the motive to stop governments from  taxing the ultra-rich?
Its an unsolvable mistery >

They'd have to start with fixing the tax loopholes that allow ppl to somehow legally pay no income tax on the billions they make every year >

So are we taxing stock or? >

Haha yeah okay, they really mean it this time >

They literally own the politicians. They yell "Tax us now" in public, but in private they retract that with a nice donation attached to it. >

It's just a media spin to make them sound more generous than they are.
In many countries, you can voluntarily pay more taxes.
They can also set up foundations. They can donate to local charities... They can sponsor new government/ state buildings and institutions...
There are tons of things they can do to share their wealth. Yet, they just sit there on that money saying "well, it's down to the government to take it from me". If they really want it taken, they can do it themselves. >

None of those things are going to fix an unequal system. >

That's not what's being discussed here though is it?
We're talking about the hypocritical nature of the super rich saying that they want to be taxed more, while not doing anything about it themselves. >

There’s nothing hypocritical about saying “the wealthy need to be taxed more to reduce systemic inequality”.
If you read the article, you’ll see this is exactly what they’re saying. It’s not about “rich people need to give more to charity and to help others” it’s about changing the system completely. >

It's hypocritical when that is coming from the same people who can voluntarily pay more into the system but don't. >

Even if they voluntarily paid every penny into it, that wouldn’t change the system and reduce systemic inequality. >

Anyone who understands the destructive inefficiencies of government would never lobby for voluntary tax remittance.  Not without an overhaul to the government itself.  Entities should pay taxes fairly without the ability to bury taxable income using the vehicles available. However, there are other worthwhile causes that can be used for voluntary donation that would be used far more efficiently than voluntarily taxation. >

“We could just give some away but we’re gonna go ahead and make you take it.” >

There's definitely a lot of that, but it does help at least a little for some of them to publicly state it. Messaging can help with change. >

Well maybe this way the ones willing to give can force the unwilling ones to do so. >

And I bet they still pay their housekeepers minimum wage. Or less if they can. Do these people not understand that they are the cause of the problem? The solution is easy. We wouldn't need higher taxes on them if they would just pay their employees instead of taking all the money as profits. 
Whether you've built a business or inherited it and are simply a major shareholder, you have the power to increase the salaries and make all of your businesses nonprofit or close to it. >

Abigail Disney has never had a real job and has inherited a fortune built on minimum wage workers that keep the parks running. She could give back to those workers, but talk is much cheaper. >

Behind the scenes once they get back to their home countries: “you better not fucking tax us” >

But they’ll also pay politicians millions behind closed doors to ensure they never do lol >

The most infuriating tax cut is that hedge fund managers lobby to lower their tax rate. How is that possibly justified? A hedge fund owner should not pay a lower tax rate than a teacher. Their all crooks. Look at the Mets owner Steve Cohen. Complete insider trading and the buck stops at people lower than him. Prosecuted by people who will work in his firm in five years. >

they could simply write a check now rather than wait.  but that’s not really the point, is it? >

>We've figured out how to hide 80% of our wealth in tax havens, living trusts, multigenerational trust fund/life insurance schemes etc etc
>Tux our remaining pittance now.