>

Actively seek out loopholes... "Please tax us".
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. >

Still better than not taxing them. I dunno what you guys expect from them. >

To advocate for the removal of tax havens and empower tax authorities to work like Interpol.
A wealth tax is rather ineffective on its own. >

To those that are saying "tax us now", are they utilizing every tax loophole and deduction in order to minimize their taxes? Or are they paying 37% of their gross income and think it should be higher? >

Are they aware that they're allowed to simply donate money to governments if they really want to be taxed? >

Or, skip governments altogether and create charitable foundations that directly help those in need. Government sucks at distribution. >

There's nothing stopping them from cutting a check to the IRS for whatever amount they feel is fair. 
That's how you know this isn't about tax rates. This is misdirection to get more tax carve outs for them and less competition from the middle/upper middle class. >

I mean they can help the society by just donating a lot of their wealth, not buying yachts, fancy cars, private jets, not living a luxurious life etc. >

...if you can >

Haha yeah right.  “We want to pay more taxes but they won’t let us!” >

Basically it seems the rich are intent on killing the golden goose that made them rich- and the only thing stopping the rich is technology keeping us from starving- and they already destroyed the USA college system soooooo- >

Why don’t they just donate? You can chose to pay more taxes. 
There is something fishy going on. >

Why dont they just donate to the Treasury then >

Or, don't give all that money to a government run by corrupt officials who violate people's rights on a regular basis, and instead give the money to private charities that help disadvantaged people directly. >

A any given moment any of these billionaires can write a fat check to the IRS, they will cash it dont worry.
This is about setting a floor, controlling the industries through higher gatekeeping they alone can afford. >

Can these people not just willingly give their money away instead of being forced to by the government? >

I can't wait until the rich are fully taxed and we're still in debt and overspending. Then what do we do? Feels like we should shove the ultra-rich under the rug and take them out of the equation in some way. Then find a solution that is self-sufficient for the rest of us. >

So empty promises? Cool. We need a good ole fashion french revolution yesterday >

Just pay the taxes you owe already. >

This reminds me of the South Park episode where Comcast reps rub their nipples at the impotence of customers.
So all they have to do to get taxes more is to tell their tax lawyers to stop taking loopholes and tricks. For example, donate to charity, but don’t ask for a tax offset.
And it is amazing to see the message of “billionaires cause all of society’s ills” morph into “billionaires tell us that the middle class causes all of society’s ills” (beef, gas stoves, etc) so smoothly these past few years. >

Lip service.
They know no government will legislate to tax the ultra rich and if there were, they'd be pulling the strings in the background to stop it. >

Ultra Rich: “Tax us now.”  
Also the Ultra Rich: loopholes, tax havens, she’ll corporations, fake charities, politicians forcing tax cuts, profits over people. >

Wasn't last years plan "observe the poor and think of ways to prevent them chopping our heads off" >

It’s annoying. Revenue from those taxes could help the rest of us out with all the shit that needs fixed. Crazy we live in a world where if u have nothing u pay through nose in taxes but these rich assholes get tax cuts year after year. It’s not the answer to all our problems but it will certainly help. I have no desire to be ultra rich it’s disgusting honestly >

It's either tax them now or eat them later. >

Just donate your money if you wanna be taxed to bad. Some nonprofits are better and handling money then our own government. >

The US Treasury takes donations.  They don't need to be taxed to give their fair share.  I'm sure other countries operate in a similar fashion.  If they're serious, they could write a check.  They really could. >

I think some of them are smelling the torches and hearing the pitchforks being sharpened. >

If you believe anything these fucking demons tell you, you're delusional. >

This is like when Exxon consistently advocated for a carbon tax - knowing full well that it was a political non-starter. All a charade. >

Meanwhile in ‘merica we got Walmart workers protesting increasing tax’s on ultra wealthy because ya know…theys got them some investments….😞🤦🏼‍♀️ >

every country is afraid, that the rich will change citizenship to a country with lower taxes, as it happened in the past 40 years. and that would be even worse result for the state than getting low taxes from the superrich. you'd first need to introduce laws that prohibits you from taking wealth along when changing citizenship, and that is both superhard todo without loopholes and super unpopular. >

Increasing tax on wealthy is the one thing that actually trickles down. Look at pricing now. If the wealthy cared, they wouldn't pay a percentage to others to find ways not to. >

You know what they could do for the moment if they want serious media coverage? Take whatever amount they want to be taxed, and pay off the taxes for low income people. The money is going to the US, and they put their money where their mouth is. >

The only time they do that is when they're scared of a popular uprising. They must be feeling uncomfortable in these times. >

They aren't gonna do it anyway. >

The Ultra Rich are saying that but the Uber Rich, Very Rich, Stinking Rich and Rich do not want to be tax heavily. Those in the list are most likely philantrophic indivduals, socialist leaning ones, which is geat. But the rest are either very good at hiding their money or will fight tooth and nail to keep it >

Rich People: tax us!
Also Rich People: Ok politicians, here’s my donation, lower my taxes! >

How can you tax them when they have no salary and burrow money to avoid being taxed. 🤔 >

Ok, which ultra rich have been saying that? >

Tax me softly >

Bullshit! They can pay as much as they want in taxes. Nothing is stopping them. >

The ultra rich could easily elect to do their taxes in such a way as the government gets a lot more. >

They really should not be having these talks on Davos, Switzerland.
They should be having them in Haiti, like Colin Quinn suggests. 
Then they might realize how fucked their system is. >

If they want to help people now then why not donate to charity? >

I think some of them are realizing that one billionaire who said he sees pitchforks in the wealthy’s future in 2014 if they don’t do anything about the inequality was right.
“But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.
But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society
Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.” >

The ultra rich could single handedly upgrade the US infrastructure to go away from oil and gas, thus repairing some of the damage created by their abuse of said infrastructure that has been pushing their products all over the world while they have paid NOTHING for upkeep and repair (taxes). But, we all know their shareholders don’t want that. When you are owned by oil and gas…. >

Yeah, they say that in public, but when they talk to politicians in private, they say the opposite. >

They should ask for tax raise the same way they ask for tax cuts, by corrupting politicians. Otherwise it's just bullshit. >

They could just sell a shit ton of assets  and pay taxes on that OR just write a check to the IRS for no reason >

To me it feels performative. >

Uh, tax yourselves? There's no laws prohibiting rich assholes from getting rid of a portion of their wealth. Hell, they can just opt to pay more to governments, if they don't want the hassle of figuring out what to do with it. I'll take a couple million, and retire to find my own purpose in this world.   
Hit me up, ultra-rich. I know you're here on reddit. >

Code for: “Raise my personal income tax all you want, I’m capped at long term capital gain taxes anyways”.   The only one who ends up paying is the middle class who get actual paychecks >

So grossly perfomative >

You’d have to find a way to tax unrealized wealth fairly and logically. The ultra rich aren’t sitting on billions in cash. They have billions in assets, such as stock, private equity, property and other things. >

“Tax us now… that we have organized our assets so you get shit” >

...you can give your government money on your own you fucks. >

They are all currently free to just give that money to the govt. what they mean is they want the govt to tax other people. >

they would be smart to do so. before the pitchforks demand more than just their money. >

Watch what they do, not what they say. These people could all pay more taxes if they wanted to. >

They didn’t say that. >

You know, you can just pay more? Like voluntarily? >

This is so disingenuous that it’s insulting how stupid they think we are. If they wanted to pay more tax, they could stop hiring armies of accountants and tax attorneys. They could DONATE any amount of money they want to the national treasury. But the don’t. Why is that?
BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING AND KNOW THEY WILL NEVER PAY THE HIGHER TAXES THEY CLAIM TO WANT.
They want higher tax rates because only the nearly rich will get stuck paying them. That’s the up and coming small businessman, the doctor married to the lawyer, etc. These are people who are likely going to retire with a few million dollars or maybe 10-20 million dollars. 
See, the truly rich don’t pay income taxes because they are smart enough to not have much “income” to speak of. They don’t get W2s. They get 1099s and they have their shell corps and foundations and nonprofits and such donate to each other, wash through some offshore accounts, and presto tens of millions to hundreds of millions a YEAR at very low tax rates.
Meanwhile, some forty something doctor who has just finally paid most of his student loans off is stuck paying nearly half his money income because he’s a sucker and took a job healing people and helping them instead of getting a job in venture capital or private equity where he can make more even more money by ruining people’s lives and playing his role in the corrupt financial system.
See, the rich aren’t competing with each other. No, it’s the nearly-rich who are their rivals. And nothing helps insulate them from competition better than getting the government to protect you by lying to people and saying that higher income taxes will get the rich to pay their “fair share.”
If you want to tax the rich, tax their ASSETS. Every year. Don’t tax income. Don’t tax hard work and earning lots of money. Tax HIGH LIVING. >

Oh, good, I’m glad we finally have their permission 🙄 >

Everyone is allowed to over pay their taxes. Nothing is stopping them. >

They’re taking every tax advantage loopholes they can find, not paying their fair share and claiming it’s the systems fault they don’t pay enough in taxes.   You are able to pay more in taxes than legally required.   They would voluntarily pay more in taxes if they were sincere. >

"and watch us find new and genius ways to make that taxable income disappear" >

I call ok billionaires to shit the fuck ip and give me some money. Anyone with more than 60 million dollars is a piece of shit garbage person >

Their lobbyists will clear that "message" in private obviously. >

Abigail Disney is a drug addict who born hyper rich because her uncle is Disney. She can donate her assets to the government and try to earn a normal living but instead flies around living a luxurious life, virtue signalling to the poor about how different she is from other rich people. 
I prefer Shitlon Muskrat to irritating charlatans like this. Good for you that you are rich. Now either shut up and enjoy your money or shut up and donate it to whatever you want, your fucking choice. But this "I want to, I really want to so give me social karma because I am not like other billionaires" is honestly just fucked up.
If all the rich people from the omega billionaires to the "middle/working class" left wingers actually practice what they preach and donate all their wealth and expertise to the public, 97% of leftwing policies will be accomplished. But no, they won't. They just preach. >

Don't fucking fall for it. They also asked not to be thrown in the briar patch. >

All the people saying "they can just pay more tax if they like in the current system", or some variation of it, are missing the point.  
Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing to do, and they should do it. But if they do, you are creating an even greater self-selection process for sociopathic billionaires with no social conscience. If taxes for the very wealthy are opt-in, then those who opt out any way they can will profit and prosper. The richest people in our society will become even more and more sociopathic than they already are, with no social conscience, simply through self-selection.  
These people are calling for a tax that cannot be opted out of easily. Wealth taxes are much harder to evade, unless you want to live in a tax haven full time and have little ability to affect events outside it. >

It's a trap! >

What a fucking virtue signal from these assholes. They hide and continue to hide their wealth, becoming obscenely rich in the last few years, and they dare think that governments aren't doing enough to tax them. >

They are saying this because some of them have degrees in history, or have assistants that do. 
Give up an extra 10% now, or they'll want 50% and/or your head. What really scares them is they understand they might survive without taking the haircut/guillotine, but their children....and at that level its all about the dynasty. >

You know if they were serious they would just build the housing project themselves ie for homelessness or start their own foundation >

I'm sure every one of them knows at least one accountant who could easily calculate how much they "should" pay if they were taxed, and then donate that amount. >

Fuck billionaires.
Their existence is a plague. >

Yes, do the thing we are saying out loud and quietly “lobby” you not to do. >

They say this every year. But the not so ultra rich, but just very rich politicians don’t want to pay taxes. So it never happens. >

Or, like just donate all your money to good causes and people in need. Or pay off student loans. Or…. >

Tax the rich but don't let the rich then pass the cost to us peasants >

Why do they need a government to tax them? Stop virtue signaling and just donate it…? >

Uh-huh, I can see it now, hundreds of Billionaire protesters chanting in the streets “Tax us now, Tax us now!”       
Nothing is quite as cringy as a billionaire virtue signaling. The entire corporate apparatus that created their amassed fortunes relied specifically on lobbying both sides of the legislature to perpetuate the tax loopholes that sustained their wealth in the first place. How stupid do they think people are? >

Maybe they should stop using tax havens and loop holes then. Its easy to say this pretty much virtual signalling
Stuff when u know nothing will probably happen for years. >

Funny how they complain that the inaction of their government as the reason they have “way too much money”. 
You know, you can donate and help out in other ways… You don’t have to wait for the government to start taxing you. >

it's a shame there's not some system where rich people can somehow donate or give their money away
instead they must wait for our governments to tax them, standing on the sidelines like a sad fireman with a bucket of water
someone please help these rich people by taxing the ever living shit out of them. >

I earn 42k a year. I cannot afford a place of my own nor any additional family, I will die sad and alone in a share house or my car. Retail Worker, Australia >

"we would pay more if only those pesky laws would let us. Oh well. Shucky dang darn" - rich people totally wishing they could pay more taxes. >

You don’t have to wait on legislation, just send a check to the government. >

Or send their extra money to charities with low relative overhead costs that make a real, direct impact in the lives of the struggling poor. >

The sheer amount of cynicism in these comments is depressing. Even if they help shift the Overton window on the debate over taxation, the statement is to be applauded. >

Lip service does not deserve applause. They have the ability to make these things happen but are the reason they are at such a low tax rate themselves via lobbying and behind the scenes work >


You don't know it's lip-service - that's your assumption.
They don't have the ability to make these things happen - contributing to charity, or paying people they work with more, while laudable is not the same - or as effective as - systemic changes to tax rates.
You're claiming that the people behind the letter are privately campaigning against the policy that they are publicly calling for - again, without evidence. >

Ultra wealthy people, could practically eliminate things like homelessness in the cities they live.
They decide not to.
They are asking to be taxed more but why wait to be taxed? Just start doing something good with their wealth already! >


Just start doing something good with their wealth already!

because then it wouldn't be a problem, and absolutely nothing would change. The whole point is to get systemic changes to tax rates, brackets, etc. Removing the problem without doing that accomplishes nothing except  more easily leaving society at the whims of rich people (I get they already are, but it being less easy is better). 
Plus, it makes it a policy, so even rich people who don't want it end up paying. >

So wealth tax is something that should absolutely be changed.
I highly doubt these people in the article and people like Bezos are actively speaking to their representatives to increase their taxes, especially when they are famous for not paying their workers a decent wage and doing everything they can to avoid paying taxes in the first place.
There's nothing to stop them making a start. Set up some homeless housing and food kitchens, set up a discounted hospital or college or anything really.
But instead.... they do nothing. >

The truly rich put their money in (edit: tax free) foundations, so their children can control the wealth forever. >

This guy tips scales in his favor >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)


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 to urgently introduce wealth taxes to help tackle "Extreme inequality".
"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.
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.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: wealth^#1 world^#2 new^#3 Extreme^#4 Tax^#5 >

Title: yes please
Reality: not really.
​
Mark Ruffalo with her 35M$ net worth is not "ultra-rich". Bill Gates with his 103B$ net worth is "ultra-rich". Bill has called for more taxation. One very good way would be to get rid of tax havens. Also, countries like US should introduce more legislation against lobbying.
How can you tax someone based on wealth, if all their wealth is out of your reach and you can't even see how much there is? Also, if that law would then only apply where they live, guess what, they would just move their books.
Thus, Tax haven elimination. Also a digital system of across the globe of registered companies, who are board members and digital footprint for each. >

They know that guilloteens are being built and they are rightfully scared. >

PR move. Or making the minimum effort to sate their conscience.
And about as meaningful as a UN resolution. >

Governments : “Naw, let them eat cake” >

Why, the politicians will just steal it.  At least the rich people earned their money. >

Taxation is theft. >

This is ridiculous. If you are ultra-rich then perhaps don't take such a huge slice to begin with? Build some schools and hospitals with your money? Why is there a need to tax.. just don't be a greedy hoarder in the first place? >

I dunno about you, but I really don’t want “School: By Disney” >

You didn't wanna go to a Disney princess school growing up!?! >

LOL, easy for the "Disney Heiress" to say ... she didn't earn a single cent of her fortune.
​
Mark Ruffalo, though admittedly he worked for his money ... he was still paid way way way more than what his labour SHOULD account for. I'm not saying that acting is not a job, it is and it's hard, but it's only high paying due to volume and popularity. Compare his job to a coal miner, crab fisherman, or the guy working retail somewhere. Is he REALLY doing 10 million bucks worth of work?
​
I think some rich folks do deserve to be rich but ... Disney Heiress? Yes, tax the fuck out of her. >

You don't understand.. The parasites have already burrowed into the heads of the politicians and slowly changed laws to make themselves untouchable decades ago... 
You can't address the inequality by any normal rational means. Any time someone buys a basic essential product there's like a dozen companies that own everything, once you trace it back far enough. No, it would require fairly extreme methods to fix wealth inequality >

How about they pay their taxes instead of hoarding it abroad in hidden subsidiaries and banks