Billionaires Blast off

[Bomb#20]

...
In the U.S. Senate, progressive Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tore into the billionaire, repeating her call for a "wealth tax" and accusing Bezos and the company he founded, Amazon, of paying no taxes:

"Jeff Bezos forgot to thank all the hardworking Americans who actually paid taxes to keep this country running while he and Amazon paid nothing," Warren tweeted.
...
Across the northern border, the leader of Canada's far-left New Democratic Party echoed Warren, calculating that Bezos became $1.6 million wealthier during the 11-minute flight, and accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of allowing Amazon to pay "$0 in taxes."

Bezos' trajectory was parabolic; Warren's and the NDP's rhetoric is hyperbolic. Bezos and Amazon pay taxes, obviously.

The reason Bezos's $1-billionish tax bill is so out of proportion with his $200-billionish market cap is that he doesn't really have $200 billion. That's what he's worth "on paper". That's a phrase that refers to multiplying his shares of Amazon by the current going price of Amazon stock. In other words, it's how much money he would have had in an alternate history where other people had bought those shares from him and the price didn't plummet in reaction. It's hypothetical money. If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

 

[Jarhyn]

...
In the U.S. Senate, progressive Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tore into the billionaire, repeating her call for a "wealth tax" and accusing Bezos and the company he founded, Amazon, of paying no taxes:

"Jeff Bezos forgot to thank all the hardworking Americans who actually paid taxes to keep this country running while he and Amazon paid nothing," Warren tweeted.
...
Across the northern border, the leader of Canada's far-left New Democratic Party echoed Warren, calculating that Bezos became $1.6 million wealthier during the 11-minute flight, and accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of allowing Amazon to pay "$0 in taxes."

Bezos' trajectory was parabolic; Warren's and the NDP's rhetoric is hyperbolic. Bezos and Amazon pay taxes, obviously.

The reason Bezos's $1-billionish tax bill is so out of proportion with his $200-billionish market cap is that he doesn't really have $200 billion. That's what he's worth "on paper". That's a phrase that refers to multiplying his shares of Amazon by the current going price of Amazon stock. In other words, it's how much money he would have had in an alternate history where other people had bought those shares from him and the price didn't plummet in reaction. It's hypothetical money. If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

I'm glad you posted this. Because this, right here, is the fulcrum of a lie.

He does have that money. He can borrow against it as collateral and if the loan is defaulted, he loses stocks, not money. In this way, they are 'good as immediate cash value'

You are wrong, but this view of yours is easy to hide behind. Just pretend their money isn't "real" for the peanut gallery by ignoring the mechanism by which it is, actually, real.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think it's greatly underestimated. Neoliberalism, which has transformed society, wouldn't have happened without them.

Most of them want to go to space, clean up the oceans, support the arts, and etc.

They also like buying policies which restrict public spending and create vast inequality so that our ability to do these things becomes subject to their whims. Which is morally repugnant, not to mention dangerous.

Wow. If they are using their vast wealth to restrict public spending, then they are incredibly weak! Not sure if you've noticed, but public spending has exploded in the US!

What I've noticed is that "public spending has exploded" is a particularly common meme, especially on the Right, but it is at best misleading, and, realistically, quite wrong.

There are lots of ways to spin the numbers. For example. government SocSec and Medicare serve as a conduit funneling Trillions of dollars from current employees to retirees. (It's a very inexpensive conduit; the bureaucracy gets only 0.1%(?) of the funds passing through.) It is disingenuous to call that "government spending." The money's not spent on liberal projects; it's spent on Grandpa's food and electricity bills.

There are good reasons why some other "government spending" should be ignored if the intent is a fair accounting.

Here's a graph showing that the 1947-2009 peak in "government spending" came in 1971.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sectors_of_US_Economy_as_Percent_of_GDP_1947-2009.png

Here's a right-wing article which, in a graph near the top, admits that government spending (less federal grants-in-aid) was steady from 1970 to 2020.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, I'd say the issue is far broader and deeper than Branson and his flight to the edge of space.

Anyone who was around and awake in 1969 knows how much deeper and broader. The difference is quite palpable.
Landing on/walking on the moon was the culmination of 10+ years of national co-operative effort, and it was a success that in one moment united hippies and cops, liberals, conservatives and a-politicals, intellectuals and line workers. There was a collective sense of accomplishment and pride that these private ventures will never approach. By contrast, this Bozos in Space mini-series is mere pablum for relatively disinterested masses.

America once had bold vision. A man, a plan, a canal: Panama! The Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, Truman's Marshall Plan; Landing a Man on the Moon!!

I find it rather sad that we now leave such things to our billionaires ... and to China.

 

[Bomb#20]

If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

I'm glad you posted this. Because this, right here, is the fulcrum of a lie.

He does have that money. He can borrow against it as collateral and if the loan is defaulted, he loses stocks, not money. In this way, they are 'good as immediate cash value'

You are wrong, but this view of yours is easy to hide behind. Just pretend their money isn't "real" for the peanut gallery by ignoring the mechanism by which it is, actually, real.

If some years ago you bought a house for $400,000, but now demand is booming and Zillow says it's worth $1,000,000, you could take out a second mortgage on it. So it's as good as immediate cash value. If you default, you lose your house, not money. So does this mean you think the government should charge you income tax on that alleged $600,000 of income, right now, without waiting for you to sell your house?

 

[Shadowy Man]

If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

So this would argue that long term capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as personal income, yes?

 

[Jarhyn]

If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

I'm glad you posted this. Because this, right here, is the fulcrum of a lie.

He does have that money. He can borrow against it as collateral and if the loan is defaulted, he loses stocks, not money. In this way, they are 'good as immediate cash value'

You are wrong, but this view of yours is easy to hide behind. Just pretend their money isn't "real" for the peanut gallery by ignoring the mechanism by which it is, actually, real.

If some years ago you bought a house for $400,000, but now demand is booming and Zillow says it's worth $1,000,000, you could take out a second mortgage on it. So it's as good as immediate cash value. If you default, you lose your house, not money. So does this mean you think the government should charge you income tax on that alleged $600,000 of income, right now, without waiting for you to sell your house?

The difference is, if I default, I lose my whole house, as it will be auctioned off lazily and I will lose the difference.

With stocks, the only collateral risk is the stocks themselves, and only as much as you risk. With your house, your ante is all in. With stocks, your ante is your ante.

Another fulcrum, this time of a red herring, if I've ever seen one.

 

[Elixir]

If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

I'm glad you posted this. Because this, right here, is the fulcrum of a lie.

He does have that money. He can borrow against it as collateral and if the loan is defaulted, he loses stocks, not money. In this way, they are 'good as immediate cash value'

You are wrong, but this view of yours is easy to hide behind. Just pretend their money isn't "real" for the peanut gallery by ignoring the mechanism by which it is, actually, real.

If some years ago you bought a house for $400,000, but now demand is booming and Zillow says it's worth $1,000,000, you could take out a second mortgage on it. So it's as good as immediate cash value. If you default, you lose your house, not money. So does this mean you think the government should charge you income tax on that alleged $600,000 of income, right now, without waiting for you to sell your house?

Maybe not if they have 100 of them. But when they have a hundred and one or more, you might consider it.

 

[barbos]

...
In the U.S. Senate, progressive Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tore into the billionaire, repeating her call for a "wealth tax" and accusing Bezos and the company he founded, Amazon, of paying no taxes:

"Jeff Bezos forgot to thank all the hardworking Americans who actually paid taxes to keep this country running while he and Amazon paid nothing," Warren tweeted.
...
Across the northern border, the leader of Canada's far-left New Democratic Party echoed Warren, calculating that Bezos became $1.6 million wealthier during the 11-minute flight, and accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of allowing Amazon to pay "$0 in taxes."

Bezos' trajectory was parabolic; Warren's and the NDP's rhetoric is hyperbolic. Bezos and Amazon pay taxes, obviously.

The reason Bezos's $1-billionish tax bill is so out of proportion with his $200-billionish market cap is that he doesn't really have $200 billion. That's what he's worth "on paper". That's a phrase that refers to multiplying his shares of Amazon by the current going price of Amazon stock. In other words, it's how much money he would have had in an alternate history where other people had bought those shares from him and the price didn't plummet in reaction. It's hypothetical money. If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

I'm glad you posted this. Because this, right here, is the fulcrum of a lie.

He does have that money. He can borrow against it as collateral and if the loan is defaulted, he loses stocks, not money. In this way, they are 'good as immediate cash value'

You are wrong, but this view of yours is easy to hide behind. Just pretend their money isn't "real" for the peanut gallery by ignoring the mechanism by which it is, actually, real.

No bank will lend him $200bil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not the only indicator. The deception lies within the limitations of your graph, for the given reasons. Wages for ordinary workers have been stagnating for decades in Australia, the US and other developed nations, even while the high end of town has enjoyed gains in leaps and bounds.

How to lie with statistics, chapter 2.

"Ordinary workers" = manufacturing workers that are paid hourly. Very rarely are the graphs properly labeled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The big difference now is that we're just not doing that stuff anymore. At least not to the scale of landing on the Moon. And with the exception of Apollo 13, the public was not exactly captivated with the later missions on the same level. The viewership dropped, the program was ended, and our next big adventure into space was arguably a lot less ambitious. Now when it comes to manned space flight, we've farmed it all out to the Russians (until now), because the public support was just not there anymore. The "collective sense of accomplishment and pride" faded. NASA has been doing some great things - like flying a helicopter on Mars - but the percentage of the public that even knows about it, let alone cares? Minimal. People aren't excited about space travel anymore. Oh, some of us are, but the general population could not give a sub-orbital fuck.

I don't think we farmed it out to the Russians because we didn't care, but because too many politicians saw it as a source of pork. The budget is there, it's just been spent horribly.

 

[Bomb#20]

When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

So this would argue that long term capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as personal income, yes?

I'm not seeing how it argues that -- the two issues seem unconnected to me. Feel free to walk me through it if you care.

But all the same, yes, long term capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as personal income, I think. On the other hand, long term capital gains should be calculated with the basis adjusted for inflation. The way they do it now, the government inflates the currency and then measures purchase price in bigger units than it measures sales price in, which means part of the calculated capital gain is fictional income, but you're really taxed on it. The lower capital gains rate (very roughly) compensates for the higher alleged gain.

 

[Bomb#20]

So does this mean you think the government should charge you income tax on that alleged $600,000 of income, right now, without waiting for you to sell your house?

Maybe not if they have 100 of them. But when they have a hundred and one or more, you might consider it.

I.e., a double standard, one rule for your ingroup and a different rule for your outgroup. Standard procedure.

So does this mean you think the government should charge you income tax on that alleged $600,000 of income, right now, without waiting for you to sell your house?

The difference is, if I default, I lose my whole house, as it will be auctioned off lazily and I will lose the difference.

With stocks, the only collateral risk is the stocks themselves, and only as much as you risk. With your house, your ante is all in. With stocks, your ante is your ante.

Another fulcrum, this time of a red herring, if I've ever seen one.

I.e., a double standard with a special pleading fallacy as a lame excuse for it. Still standard procedure.

If you still have equity in your house so there's a difference for you to lose, then you won't default -- you'll sell your house before it comes to that, pay off the mortgage, and keep the difference.

 

[DBT]

...
In the U.S. Senate, progressive Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tore into the billionaire, repeating her call for a "wealth tax" and accusing Bezos and the company he founded, Amazon, of paying no taxes:

"Jeff Bezos forgot to thank all the hardworking Americans who actually paid taxes to keep this country running while he and Amazon paid nothing," Warren tweeted.
...
Across the northern border, the leader of Canada's far-left New Democratic Party echoed Warren, calculating that Bezos became $1.6 million wealthier during the 11-minute flight, and accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of allowing Amazon to pay "$0 in taxes."

Bezos' trajectory was parabolic; Warren's and the NDP's rhetoric is hyperbolic. Bezos and Amazon pay taxes, obviously.

The reason Bezos's $1-billionish tax bill is so out of proportion with his $200-billionish market cap is that he doesn't really have $200 billion. That's what he's worth "on paper". That's a phrase that refers to multiplying his shares of Amazon by the current going price of Amazon stock. In other words, it's how much money he would have had in an alternate history where other people had bought those shares from him and the price didn't plummet in reaction. It's hypothetical money. If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

The point is that the tremendous wealth that Bezos, Branson, Gates, CEO's, etc, enjoy basically comes from the prices they charge customers for goods and services, workers wages being kept to a minimum (unless pressured due to skills shortage, etc), and relatively low tax rates.

The customers, the workers and society (that would benefit if they payed significantly higher taxes), being the Milking Cows that support their lavish lifestyles.

Shameful really.

 

[Trausti]

...
In the U.S. Senate, progressive Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tore into the billionaire, repeating her call for a "wealth tax" and accusing Bezos and the company he founded, Amazon, of paying no taxes:

"Jeff Bezos forgot to thank all the hardworking Americans who actually paid taxes to keep this country running while he and Amazon paid nothing," Warren tweeted.
...
Across the northern border, the leader of Canada's far-left New Democratic Party echoed Warren, calculating that Bezos became $1.6 million wealthier during the 11-minute flight, and accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of allowing Amazon to pay "$0 in taxes."

Bezos' trajectory was parabolic; Warren's and the NDP's rhetoric is hyperbolic. Bezos and Amazon pay taxes, obviously.

The reason Bezos's $1-billionish tax bill is so out of proportion with his $200-billionish market cap is that he doesn't really have $200 billion. That's what he's worth "on paper". That's a phrase that refers to multiplying his shares of Amazon by the current going price of Amazon stock. In other words, it's how much money he would have had in an alternate history where other people had bought those shares from him and the price didn't plummet in reaction. It's hypothetical money. If he ever wants to buy anything with all that paper wealth then he'll have to sell stock. At that time the wealth will become actual instead of potential, and then he'll pay tax on it. When people say Bezos's tax rate is 1% or whatever the popular accusation is, what they are complaining about is the fact that he doesn't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on his, say, 2031 income. Oh the horror! You don't have to pre-pay tax in 2021 on your 2031 income either.

The point is that the tremendous wealth that Bezos, Branson, Gates, CEO's, etc, enjoy basically comes from the prices they charge customers for goods and services, workers wages being kept to a minimum (unless pressured due to skills shortage, etc), and relatively low tax rates.

The customers, the workers and society (that would benefit if they payed significantly higher taxes), being the Milking Cows that support their lavish lifestyles.

Shameful really.

Don't buy from Amazon. I don't. Act like an old fogy and actually go to the store.

 

[Jarhyn]

I.e., a double standard, one rule for your ingroup and a different rule for your outgroup. Standard procedure.

So does this mean you think the government should charge you income tax on that alleged $600,000 of income, right now, without waiting for you to sell your house?

The difference is, if I default, I lose my whole house, as it will be auctioned off lazily and I will lose the difference.

With stocks, the only collateral risk is the stocks themselves, and only as much as you risk. With your house, your ante is all in. With stocks, your ante is your ante.

Another fulcrum, this time of a red herring, if I've ever seen one.

I.e., a double standard with a special pleading fallacy as a lame excuse for it. Still standard procedure.

If you still have equity in your house so there's a difference for you to lose, then you won't default -- you'll sell your house before it comes to that, pay off the mortgage, and keep the difference.

Here you are banging on about bullshit, when you just don't want to cop to the FACTS that:

If I have a billion dollars in a thousand shares
I can take a million dollar loan out on one share, any day of the week
I can thumb my nose at the bank
And they get a share.

If the shares depreciate
I can thumb my nose at the bank
And they get a share.

If the share appreciates
I can leverage the additional equity.

And in all reality, I can just pass the equity to the remainder of shares.

I can, if I have shares, leverage those shares for cash, usually always. I have that money.

 

[SLD]

I.e., a double standard, one rule for your ingroup and a different rule for your outgroup. Standard procedure.


I.e., a double standard with a special pleading fallacy as a lame excuse for it. Still standard procedure.

If you still have equity in your house so there's a difference for you to lose, then you won't default -- you'll sell your house before it comes to that, pay off the mortgage, and keep the difference.

Here you are banging on about bullshit, when you just don't want to cop to the FACTS that:

If I have a billion dollars in a thousand shares
I can take a million dollar loan out on one share, any day of the week
I can thumb my nose at the bank
And they get a share.

If the shares depreciate
I can thumb my nose at the bank
And they get a share.

If the share appreciates
I can leverage the additional equity.

And in all reality, I can just pass the equity to the remainder of shares.

I can, if I have shares, leverage those shares for cash, usually always. I have that money.

Well, yes. But that’s not how Bezos and the other billionaires do it. They never sell their stock. They simply borrow against them and accumulate debt. Bezos new $500 million yacht will be 100% financed by a bank that is eager to lend him the money. When the note is due though, he won’t sell stock to pay it off, or even give them stock. That would create a substantial tax issue for him. Instead he just borrows again from eager lenders, often the same ones. On paper they’re getting rich off these loans. Bezos and Musk pay little if any tax, because on paper they do not make any money. But their net worth is soaring. They never realize the gains they’ve made this way. Their true tax rate is less than 4%. Ordinary workers are paying 15% just for social security tax!

One way to stop this merry go round is to tax estates at very, very high rates. Banks won’t let them do this if they risked losing it all due to estate taxes.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...d-musk-pay-relatively-little-in-income-taxes/

 

[barbos]

SLD, so what are you saying is that Bezos is renting his yacht? What's your problem with that?

 

[DBT]

The point is that the tremendous wealth that Bezos, Branson, Gates, CEO's, etc, enjoy basically comes from the prices they charge customers for goods and services, workers wages being kept to a minimum (unless pressured due to skills shortage, etc), and relatively low tax rates.

The customers, the workers and society (that would benefit if they payed significantly higher taxes), being the Milking Cows that support their lavish lifestyles.

Shameful really.

Don't buy from Amazon. I don't. Act like an old fogy and actually go to the store.

That's not the point, as I'm sure you know.

 

[Trausti]

The point is that the tremendous wealth that Bezos, Branson, Gates, CEO's, etc, enjoy basically comes from the prices they charge customers for goods and services, workers wages being kept to a minimum (unless pressured due to skills shortage, etc), and relatively low tax rates.

The customers, the workers and society (that would benefit if they payed significantly higher taxes), being the Milking Cows that support their lavish lifestyles.

Shameful really.

Don't buy from Amazon. I don't. Act like an old fogy and actually go to the store.

That's not the point, as I'm sure you know.

Oh, malicious envy. Right.

Who supports redistribution? Replicating and refining effects of compassion, malicious envy, and self-interest

 

[DBT]

That's not the point, as I'm sure you know.

Oh, malicious envy. Right.

Who supports redistribution? Replicating and refining effects of compassion, malicious envy, and self-interest

That's nothing more than a poor attempt at rationalizing business a practice/model that exploits tax laws, workers and consumers.

This issue has nothing to do with envy.

It has everything to do with power balance, which gives the rich and powerful the ability to extract top dollar or labour value from consumers, workers and society (which would benefit if the top tier actually paid their fair share in taxes), and wages for those who help generate wealth; underpaid workers.