A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Chap
God
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

Post by Chap »

ajax18 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:03 pm
Chap wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2024 11:54 am
Excuse me? Companies that extract coal, oil and gas from US soil and rocks can leave "and take their wealth with them"?

How can they do that? It would be extremely easy to ensure that anybody who extracted fossil fuel resources in the US had to pay tax on what they extracted, wherever their corporate base might be legally located - whether Michigan, the Maldive Islands, or the planet Mars. Otherwise you just shut down their extraction operations, and where is their 'wealth' then?

What you have posted seems to me to make no sense. If I have misunderstood, please explain more clearly.
Investors can just go find oil shale in a different country with lower taxes and cheaper labor.
So all that US oil and gas will just be left in the ground, and the companies that previously extracted it will just walk away from their huge investments in all the plants they are abandoning (including probably the world's largest refineries that cost billions to build)?

And then they will mysteriously locate vast reserves equivalent to the ones they are abandoning, and that no-one else is currently exploiting, and start all over again from scratch? After a few years building up from nothing, of course.

I don't usually do emojis, but you really do have a great sense of humor!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, I hope that was a joke? Because if you were serious .... :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2318
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

Post by Gunnar »

ajax18 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2024 7:48 pm
Don't you not think the federal government knows better how to spend Bill Gates donations than Bill Gates? Isn't it the government who should decide where his charity should go, not the earner? Maybe you happen to agree whichever charity Bill Gates chooses, but what if it were Mitt Romney counting his tithing as a charitable contribution? Oh well then, you'd have Harry Reid claiming on the Senate floor that Romney was a tax cheat.
As usual you are speaking nonsense. No, I don't think the federal government necessarily knows better how to spend Bill Gates donations than Bill Gates, nor do I believe that the government should decide where his charity should go (as long as it is not used for unlawful purposes). The question of who best knows where the money should go depends on what it is to be used for and what relevant expertise is possessed by the decider.

Besides that, no reasonable person maintains that anyone is precluded from making voluntary charitable donations merely because they are also obligated to pay taxes. That is why charitable donations are tax deductible!
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 2693
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm

Re: A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

Post by ajax18 »

Chap wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:16 pm
ajax18 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:03 pm
Investors can just go find oil shale in a different country with lower taxes and cheaper labor.
So all that US oil and gas will just be left in the ground, and the companies that previously extracted it will just walk away from their huge investments in all the plants they are abandoning (including probably the world's largest refineries that cost billions to build)?

And then they will mysteriously locate vast reserves equivalent to the ones they are abandoning, and that no-one else is currently exploiting, and start all over again from scratch? After a few years building up from nothing, of course.

I don't usually do emojis, but you really do have a great sense of humor!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, I hope that was a joke? Because if you were serious .... :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... 9f&ei=5829

Jeff Bezos' move to Miami shows just how hard it is to tax the rich.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

Post by Doctor Steuss »

[Verse 2: Ben Shapiro, Ben Shapiro & Tom MacDonald]
Let's look at the stats, I've got the facts
My money like Lizzo, my pockets are fat
Homie, I'm epic, don't be a WAP
Dawg, it's a yarmulke, homie, no cap
Ben doing a rap song is a perfect representation of one of the aspects of MAGA. The only thing that it takes to change one's heartfelt position on a subject is the realization one can personally make money off of it.

"This thing is bad for society, has no redeeming qualities, and is trash. Oh, wait, never mind, I just realized I can make a little money doing it, and I don't even have to do it well as long as I target MAGA marks in the grift."
Chap
God
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

Post by Chap »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:56 am
Jeff Bezos' move to Miami shows just how hard it is to tax the rich.
But your point was:
ajax18 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:03 pm
Investors [in fossil fuel extraction] can just go find oil shale in a different country with lower taxes and cheaper labor.
What Bezos owns is shares. Miami has lower taxes so he can just move there, since share income is less taxed there. People who have invested in oil shale concessions and the extractive and refining plant associated with them cannot simply up sticks and move in the same way, as I explained.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 2693
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm

Re: A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

Post by ajax18 »

Chap wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2024 5:58 pm
ajax18 wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:56 am
Jeff Bezos' move to Miami shows just how hard it is to tax the rich.
But your point was:
ajax18 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:03 pm
Investors [in fossil fuel extraction] can just go find oil shale in a different country with lower taxes and cheaper labor.
What Bezos owns is shares. Miami has lower taxes so he can just move there, since share income is less taxed there. People who have invested in oil shale concessions and the extractive and refining plant associated with them cannot simply up sticks and move in the same way, as I explained.
But wouldn't this mean that OPEC would be free to raise their prices given American companies are made less competitive by taxes?

Yes you definitely have a point. It's not the same thing but this is more along the lines of what I was trying to express about the unintended consequences of taxing the rich or any other form of socialism or nonglobal environmental regulations for that matter.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

Post by Doctor Steuss »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2024 6:03 pm
But wouldn't this mean that OPEC would be free to raise their prices given American companies are made less competitive by taxes?
OPEC has been trying to raise prices for almost 6 months now, in order to help bolster Russia's economy. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us), US oil production under Biden is higher than it has ever been in the entire history of the country. In fact, the US is currently the highest oil producing country in the entire world. We're even producing more than the Trump family's billion dollar benefactor Saudi Arabia is, as well as the only other country with socialist subsidies comparable to our own, Russia.
Chap
God
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: A Billionaire Who Makes Sense

Post by Chap »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2024 6:03 pm
Yes you definitely have a point. It's not the same thing but this is more along the lines of what I was trying to express about the unintended consequences of taxing the rich or any other form of socialism or nonglobal environmental regulations for that matter.
Thanks for playing fair. But rich people have been taxed at considerably higher levels in the past compared to ordinary working Americans, without the USA being abandoned by the rich. Is that not so?

Tax the Rich? We Did That Once

A little history might just inspire us to try that taxing again


BLOGGING OUR GREAT DIVIDE
DECEMBER 02, 2022
by Sam Pizzigati
Once upon a time, the United States seriously taxed the nation’s rich. You remember that time? Probably not. To have a personal memory of that tax-the-rich era, you now have to be well into your seventies.

Back at the tail-end of that era, in the early 1960s, America’s richest faced a 91 percent tax rate on income in the top tax bracket. That top rate had been hovering around 90 percent for the previous two decades. In the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, made no move to knock it down.

The rich felt those taxes. The high life struggled. Consider what happened to one fabled emblem of that era’s excess, the nation’s first-ever penthouse.

Marjorie Merriweather Post, an heiress who had become America’s richest woman, had that penthouse built atop a new Fifth Avenue luxury tower in 1925. The top federal tax rate then in effect as builders were putting the finishing touches on Post’s spectacular three-floor, 54-room residence: just 25 percent.

The Post clan held on to that penthouse for the next 15 years and then decided to “move on.” The American people, by that time, had decided to move on as well — from bargain-basement tax rates on high incomes. In 1940, the federal tax rate on income over $200,000 started at 66 percent. By 1944, the top tax rate on all income over $200,000 — about $3.4 million in today’s dollars — had jumped to 94 percent.

Post’s fabulous penthouse would find no new takers in this new high-tax era. The penthouse went vacant all through the 1940s. In the 1950s, with the nation’s top tax rate still above 90 percent, the luxury tower’s owners threw in the towel and broke up the former Post palace into six separate units. America’s rich, most observers figured, were adjusting to living lives significantly less rich.

But the political winds were changing. In 1963, President John Kennedy, himself the product of one of America’s grandest fortunes, asked Congress to drop the nation’s top tax rate down to 65 percent. Congress would mostly oblige, and that top tax rate would sink to 70 percent in 1965. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and his friends on Capitol Hill would shove that rate down even further, first to 50 and then to 28 percent.

This top tax rate then inched up to 31 percent in 1991 and has been bouncing around in the 30s ever since. The current top-bracket rate: 37 percent.

What has this nosedive in tax rates on the rich meant for average Americans? Nothing good, concludes veteran tax analyst James Steele in a just-published report from the Center for Public Integrity and Bloomberg Tax. Over recent decades, says Steele, “Congress after Congress has cut taxes on the richest people and corporations — billions of dollars that would otherwise have gone to the federal till for spending that could help the rest of the public get ahead.”

WE CAN’T AFFORD . . . NOT to Have a Wealth Tax

Steele’s new study acknowledges upfront that a variety of factors have contributed to the deeply unequal United States we have today, everything from deregulation and a weakened labor movement to the shrinking of our national safety net.

“But taxes,” he emphasizes, “have been a principal engine of worsening economic inequality simply because the wealthy, thanks to their success in Congress, now have more money — to buy stocks, invest in real estate, build megayachts, blast off into space, and make campaign contributions to politicians so the cycle isn’t interrupted.”

Steele’s report adds all sorts of eye-opening detail to a don’t-tax-the-rich story tax analysts have been tracking for years now. Consider his take on the tax treatment of dividend income, a concern few average-income Americans have on their radar screens.

Dividend income, in the decades before the start of the 21st century, faced the same tax rates as wages and salaries. In 2003, the Bush White House and Congress gifted the nation’s rich a new arrangement and chopped the tax rate on most dividends down to 15 percent.

In 2019, Steele points out, this neat little gift saved taxpayers making $1 million or more some $16.2 billion, “the equivalent of the federal income taxes paid by everyone earning $50,000 or less in California, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin — combined.”

The corporations rich people run have fared equally nicely under America’s now decades-old don’t-tax-the-rich regime. Major U.S. companies, Steele’s analysis notes, took particularly good advantage of the tax breaks lawmakers bestowed upon them in the 2004 “American Jobs Creation Act.” The tax breaks resulting from this legislation benefited only 4 percent of America’s businesses — mostly giants like Hewlett-Packard, Pfizer, and Merck — and did “little more than enrich corporate shareholders and executives.”

These execs and shareholders so enjoyed how the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act played out that that they went out and convinced Congress to do it all over again with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The convincing came easy. One reason: Corporations, observes Steele, annually spend “more than 85 percent of the total reported expenses associated with lobbying Congress.” Trade unions “account for less than 2 percent.”

How unequal a nation have dynamics like these created? A just-released report from the Congressional Budget Office helpfully paints a revealing picture. This new CBO study on the distribution of American income adds up all the changes “in household income, means-tested transfers, and federal taxes between 1979 and 2019.”

Between those two years, the CBO data show, household income “after transfers and taxes” — and after adjusting for inflation — grew on average by 97 percent among households in the nation’s most affluent 81st to 99th percentiles. In other words, America’s affluent but not super-rich households saw their after-tax incomes about double in the four decades after 1979.

Households in the top 1 percent have fared considerably better. Wealthy Americans in the 99th to 99.9th percentiles — the bottom 90 percent of the top 1 percent — have watched their after-tax incomes nearly triple, rising 193 percent.

Within the rest of our super rich, the top 0.1 percent, we see even more striking leaps. Households in the bottom 90 percent of this top 0.1 percent have had their inflation-adjusted, after-tax incomes shoot up a stunning 367 percent.

And what about those households at the tippy top of our nation’s income distribution? Between 1979 and 2019, average after-tax incomes in the top 0.01 percent of America’s households skyrocketed 507 percent. These top 0.01 percenters averaged $30 million in 2019 after-tax income.

Anybody looking for a 54-room penthouse?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Post Reply