To clarify. Bezos most certainly did not start with nothing. His parents alone gave him half a million. And what are you talking about half a million isn't much? That's a massive gift.
Tax The Rich
- Thread starter fatpiggy
- Start date
So you agree. He didn't start with nothing. His parents gave him a huge amount to start out.
400 richest Americans pay 8%. Meanwhile you pay 30. Going after people like me is the wrong direction to be venting your frustration.
I am not a billionaire but this is against my interests but I would support it: tax all dividends and capital gains at the same rate as earned income. So lower the earned income rate and raise it there. Would pay a lot of bills for the country and it actually makes sense.
My questions/comments were:
— Define “rich”
— If billionaires are the problem, why do democrats propose policies that attack hardworking families who make a tiny fraction compared to billionaires? Examples include the increased tax on $400k+ or frequent proposals to raise or eliminate the SS income cap ($185k).
Define rich? I gave you my definition at least in this case. The 400 richest Americans. And their tax rate is a third of yours. Hows that make you feel?
There are a host of reasons that this is a bad idea, but I will just point out that high earners already pay ~24% on long term capital gains. 20% rate plus Obama’s 3.8% NIIT.
So it’s not as if high earners aren’t already paying far more on LTCG than the average American’s effective federal tax rate (approx 14%).
When is enough, enough?
Cool. They probably should pay more. Assuming you vote Democrat, why are they proposing, and you voting for, tax increases that have absolutely nothing to do with those 400 people? Why spend time there if it’s the 400 that are the problem? Why try to take more money from my family? I honestly don’t get it.
from what I've read, the money from his parents was a loan. Now, that's the report, I have no first hand knowledge.
we do that already with annuities at least the ones I'm familiar with. And 401k and Ira accounts are taxed as ordinary income when withrawn as RMDs.
The other side of that argument is that most people have their retirement in investments that yield capital gains. Raising taxes on that gain reduces the amount of money available for retirement.
I would lower the brackets overall, but tax all income the same. It makes no sense to me that my money earning money is taxed at a lower rate than me earning money.
there are a lot of things in our tax code that don't seem to make a great deal of financial sense. But we've decided that taxes are also a social issue, so we design our system to not only raise revenue, but also address what our leaders see as social needs/benefits.
recent wall street journal report tends to disagree with this idea. Here's a recap from Google:
Recent Wall Street Journal reporting, including articles from April 2026, compares the financial, career, and lifestyle experiences of generations at similar ages, often finding that Millennials have surpassed older generations in net worth despite facing higher costs of living. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key WSJ Findings (as of April 2026)
- Millennials vs. Boomers: While Millennials frequently report feeling they have the "short end of the economic stick," data shows that Millennials in their 30s have a higher average inflation-adjusted net worth than Baby Boomers did at the same age.
- The "Phantom Wealth" Factor: Millennials' wealth growth is largely driven by rapid asset appreciation (housing and stocks) rather than higher incomes, a phenomenon some analysts call "phantom wealth".
- Generation X Stacks Up: A report on Gen X (now ages 45-61) indicates they also faced significant hurdles, such as the 2007-09 recession and dot-com bubble, yet managed to amass significant wealth despite these setbacks.
- The Cost of "Adulting": Despite higher net worths, millennials feel more pinched due to soaring housing, healthcare, and education costs compared to previous generations.
- Gen Z Savings Habits: A WSJ video highlights that Gen Z is outpacing older generations in retirement savings, beginning their savings journey on average around age 22, compared to 32 for Gen X. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
A key finding is that while Millennials are wealthier, they are also more skeptical of their financial future and face higher barriers to entry for milestones like homeownership, with the typical age for first-time buyers rising to 40
I’m more concerned with balancing the budget than not changing the tax code to keep the status quo on social issues.
The most disturbing part of this is the suggestion that someone decided to buy a second home to winter in, and that home would need to house ski equipment and snowmobiles. Who brings snowmobiles and ski equipment to the beach? Or, put another way, what kind of a nutter butter would "winter" in a cold, snowy area?
Who in this thread is demanding more money from you? I've clearly defined my arguments to billionaires.
One thing should be clear: enough is NOT enough if we can't pay the bills without borrowing.
Can we at least agree on that?
If you would rather cut spending than raise revenues, that's what you should argue for. But until you win that argument, we need to raise revenues sufficient to pay the bills (and maybe even pay down a bit on the debt).
The only times it should ever be acceptable to run a deficit is during a genuine emergency. In this millennium, that's only happened twice: the 2008 crash and the pandemic.
The under-taxed 400 wealthiest aren't the only problem, but they are a good illustration.
The problem is that we aren't doing a great job of delivering the benefits of being to greatest nation on earth to all our citizens. And we aren't even raising enough revenue to pay for those we do deliver.
If we can't get past quibbling about how to define "rich" how can we ever have the important conversations about what kind of nation we want to be and how to pay for it?
I'd like to see that also. But neither party seems to have any interest in doing that. Nobody seems up for hard decisions..take SS, every rational person know something needs to be done and has been talking about it for 10-15 years or so, but "leaders" just keep passing it to the next group of "leaders
I think most people would take the position that we need to do both, reduce cost and increase revenues. And, there are negatives (and positives)
There are some things we (as a nation) need to do more of. If we are going to tackle climate change, for example. Or prepare for the AI revolution in employment. Of deal with the rising risks of pandemics, water wars, and so on.
I mention that because I don't think cutting spending is necessarily the correct approach. But obviously we need to apportion our spending much better.
Cutting funding for education, health care, and environmental protection while dramatically increasing spending on our war machine is the exact opposite of sensible priorities for now and the future.
so how about this as a concept...we cut defense by cutting the amount we currently spend on NATO and bring our troops home from most of the overseas bases.(let our allies defend themselves) ..we cut social programs by the amount of waste and fraud we can identify. We implement some form of surcharge on earnings over a certain number (pick one) say $2million, 10million and use all that money to reduce the deficit.
implement (really re implement) the pay as you go concept in the government...you have a new program, you identify and cut an existing program of the same amount of money.
I'm sure everyone has ideas..I'm simply brainstorming
I object to defining "pay as you go" only in terms of cutting spending to make room for new programs. Amend that to cut spending or raise revenues to pay for new programs, and I'm on board with much of what you suggest.
NATO is fundamentally an anti-democratic military alliance that primarily benefits the military industrial complexes of the major western powers. It was justified as a bulwark against the USSR. Which no longer exists. The only time Article V has been invoked was for the Afghan War after the US was attacked on 9/11. NATO is involved in the Ukraine war, even though Ukraine is not a member. So, yes, I think NATO could be scaled back.
Since WWII, the US has been the defender of open seas. The world and especially the US has benefited from the booming, relatively-free trade that resulted. But that benefit has been on the decline, and the current admin seems to have very little interest in free trade. Raising the question: if we aren't benefiting from being the guardian of open seas, why are we paying for it?
This from Gemini is interesting:
The United States began running persistent, annual trade deficits in 1971.
Prior to this, the U.S. had maintained a consistent trade surplus for most of the 20th century, particularly following World War II. Several factors converged in the early 1970s to shift this balance:
- The End of the Bretton Woods System: In 1971, President Richard Nixon ended the direct convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold. This led to a devaluation of the dollar and a fundamental shift in global exchange rate mechanics.
- Industrial Recovery Abroad: By the 1970s, the economies of Japan and Western Germany had fully recovered from WWII and were producing high-quality exports (like automobiles and electronics) that competed directly with American manufacturing.
- The 1973 Oil Crisis: Spiking energy prices significantly increased the cost of imports, further widening the gap between the value of goods imported versus those exported.
you are aware I guess that the pay as you go was a Democrat effort during Pelosi's reign as speaker. Everyone recognized back then that spending was out of control. I'd be OK with cutting/raising revenue, but that just limits the amount you have available for deficit reduction.
If we're serious about reducing deficits, you can't get there by just raising taxes without damaging the economy, IMO
I'm aware and generally approved of Pay-Go at that time. Would approve again if it could be revived with honest intent.
I'm not opposed to raising revenues and cutting spending. But since we are not paying our bills without borrowing, raising revenues has to come first - simply because cutting future spending doesn't pay current bills.
Despite being a lefty, I generally favor a balanced budget - other than during genuine emergencies. But there are things our government should be doing better, and other things it should be doing that are new, that require revenues. Those who think cutting spending is the answer to everything are foreclosing on the best future for ourselves, our children, our nation, and our world.
We need to be asking "what should our government be doing" and then raise whatever revenues those things require.
Saying "we need to cut spending" without agreeing on what we are trying to get done, just doesn't make sense. Not saying that's your position, but it has been the mantra on the right for a long time (even though the Rs balloon deficits as badly as Ds when in power).
Asking "what should our government be doing" might be one of the wisest things ever written on this board. Right now we seem to be in free fall, meaning we have programs on the books that are ineffective, but we seemingly never look back to see if what was passed is really what we should be doing today. Then we add to existing or add and pay for it with more borrowed money.
I personally think our government spends too much time dealing with things that are important to them at the time and not necessarily important for the long term benefit of the country. Things like immigration, health care, SS, even the tax code, could use a lot more emphasis.
One things seems obvious to me, and the younger guys might pay attention to, is that our debt is unsustainable and we're going to pay it off in some painful ways...and taxing billionaires isn't going to do it - especially because a few of the people pushing for the tax have already identified ways to spend it.
you a boomer or retire early?
If billionaires aren't the only problem, who are the other problems? Am I one? Because that's where I get stuck. I pay a TON of taxes. I pay a high effective rate. I don't get business owner benefits, or carried interest benefits or any other loopholes. And yet, democrat tax proposals target me.
I agree with you on the deficit. But I am absolutely a "let's spend less" person vs. "let's take more money from hardworking Americans" person.
I'm asking how to define "rich" because there is a general call from the left that the rich "don't pay their fair share" and to then "tax the rich." So my point in asking is simple - who isn't paying their fair share and who do you want to tax more?
I believe I read in another thread that you are retired. Congrats. But I have a hard time discussing tax increases that target me with someone who will not be contributing more under democrat proposals (and I assume that is the case for you as a retired person). It's incredibly easy to simply pass the buck and ask others to pay for what you want. Which makes it very easy for democrats to target the "top 1%," because it's a small voting group and it's easy to appeal to voters' jealous human nature to make it seem like we are the enemy.
To me, the question isn't so much what counts as rich as what counts as fair.
It sounds like you're saying we aren't doing enough to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor and middle class. Am I correct of do I misread what you're trying ti say?
I can tell you this much. In 1999 the federal government spent $4.4 trillion and this year it's going to spend $7.4 trillion (+68% in 7 years). Revenues were $3.5 trillion in 2019 and this year they're expected to be $5.9 trillion (+ 69% in 7 years).
Medicaid spending was $607 billion in 2024 (Biden's last year) and is expected to be $708 billion this year (+16% in 2 years) yet a lot of congressmen are complaining it's not nearly enough.
I support higher taxes on the uber wealthy but I have to ask is if it's really a revenue problem?
It's a revenue problem if we are still borrowing to pay the bills.
It can be partly an efficiency problem, as well. So I support auditing to make sure we are getting our money's worth and aren't wasting money.
It can also be partly a priorities problem. So I support having smart national conversations about what kind of nation we want to be and what government's role is when trying to meet our agreed goals.
The amount of money we spend (within reason) isn't important. Whether what we decide we want as a nation costs a lot or a little, once we decide that's what we want to do, we pay what it costs.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
there's another way though. You start on the revenue side instead of the expense. By that I mean you design a "fair tax system" then add up the revenues and that's how much you have to spend.
Now before you react...here's my logic...
I served on a school board. Every year we did a budget - obviously. And every year we started exactly where you proposed...how much are we going to spend? And, every year we spent more than the year before. So then we decided how much to increase the property tax. There was no debate on where can we reduce what we spent last year, just how much do we want to spend the next. Same thing happens with the federal government. There's no reason to manage to a budget. Just spend and increase the budget
Now compare that to a business. In my experience every year we started with a budget and operational goals. It was my job to manipulate both to achieve both. And, in many, if not most years, the budget went down and the goals went up. Somehow we also seemed to accomplish what was required, or more, and stay within the budget
Then answer that question. I believe I pay more than my fair share. Democrats clearly do not since they propose tax policy that would raise my taxes.
So what is fair? Keeping in mind that most people in the country pay <10% effective federal income tax rate and the average paid is ~14%.
Agreed and I'll add two things.
1) I think the best sports team, business, or country is one where everybody contributes towards a common goal. I understand that some people struggle due to no fault of their own and I want to help. The problem is I think we're creating a society of dependents. I think that's a dangerous path.
2) The government is just like your experience with the school board. There is NEVER ENOUGH MONEY to do all the things people want to do. I guarantee that there will never be enough money for social welfare, healthcare, education, etc. I created more budgets than you can imagine throughout my business career and I assure you that we always needed more marketing support, more technology support, new and better equipment, more to develop new products, etc. This was true 100% of the time but somehow we learned to do more with less if we wanted to keep up with the competition. Unfortunately a government that has no competition and can print money will never achieve that level of fiscal responsibility.
It's not clear to me what you are agreeing and disagreeing with from my position.
In very broad strokes it seems fair that those who benefit more should contribute more to the needed revenues.
You seem to be saying raising taxes is unfair. But the bills need to be paid, so if raising the necessary revenues means taxes have to go up, that's not unfair. You may not like it, and I would share that sentiment, but that doesn't make it unfair.
You also seem to be suggesting that if your taxes exceed the average rate, that's unfair. But why would that necessarily be so?
Other people say what they pay (or may be asked to pay) is unfair because they don't agree with what the money is being used for. I definitely understand that complaint, too, but that's not a fairness issue. Once we have agreed on the programs and allocations, it's just a matter of where and how we collect the money. Getting the right programs and allocations is a separate process.
Unfairness is a little easier to characterize. If someone is being charged more (or is getting a better break) than other similarly situated people, without good reason, that's probably unfair.
That last point is why I'm not 100% on board with the billionaire tax, although I do favor it in general terms.
I'm saying that is another way to look at the situation ...starting with how much you want to spend or spending how much money you have.
Governments tend to do the first, business and families tend to do the second.