>

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