>

So are we taxing stock or?
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.” >

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. >

For the vast majority of companies, it would be an insulting few cents an hour raise per employee. Yes, CEOs tend to make stupid money in the millions, but divided between all the employees, it's maybe a couple hundred to a couple thousand per year on the high end. Go ahead, pick a company and do the math. >

That’s one person, though, these companies have board rooms full of these guys, and that’s also a shitty excuse, they are still not putting forth their fare share for the take home pay, and even if it’s not much that money would end up in the pockets of working people and back into the moving money of the economy regardless, whereas them not doing it just isolates that wealth and drives up interest on everyone else while actively lowering the value of the currency. That’s not an excuse, it’s just a deflection. >

To add to this, ceo benefits also include yearly, quarterly, or even monthly bonuses, which add wealth that is not necessarily added as something that you would typically divide out to workers. Additionally, companies utilize profit in ways that aren't just exorbitant paychecks for their board, including vacations disguised as work trips, private jets or fleets of company cars, and stock buy backs which keep stocks artificially high while keeping the lowest paid laborers poor. It's ridiculous. >


To add to this, ceo benefits also include yearly, quarterly, or even monthly bonuses, which add wealth that is not necessarily added as something that you would typically divide out to workers.

Sure it is. Salary is usually pretty low for CEOs, it's their total comp numbers that are high. 
Taking the CEO compensation and dividing it up among a typical company's workforce would not even be a noticeable difference in their pay. >

It would be a noticeable difference to the economy.
Edit: also, “woN’t AnYboDY THiNk aBOuT tHe PoOr CEOs?!” That’s you, that’s what you sound like. >

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. >

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. >

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. >

"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. >

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? >

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

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 >

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. >

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. >

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" >

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 >

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. >

"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 >

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. >


she was voted in by her colleagues and not the public. 

Not sure if you read my edit or not. But I don't think you should even listen to people in power. That just creates a feedback loop where we continue to vote these people in.
People should have an opinion, be voted into power if that is a reasonable one, and that is it, end of the loop.
Just because they currently are in power should not make their words more autoritative in what you should vote for or how important their opinion is.
If that makes sense. Also not english as first language, although I think I communicate better in it than my mother tongue. I blame software engineering. >

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