>

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