Help the billionaires

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,058
4,486
113
You don't understand that billionaires use a different tax system than the rest of us the enables them to avoid taxes?
think about what you just said....we have a tax code....everyone pays according to that code....If a person earns $1billion in what the code calls taxable income, those monies are taxed based on that code the same as you and I. It's the same tax system.

Now if you want to change your concept to a different income system, I'm in your corner.
 
Dec 4, 2001
4,343
13,695
113
Not even close. The combined net worth of the 400 wealthiest people is approximately $6 trillion. There's no doubt that's an incredible amount of money. Assume the government confiscates 25% of that amount or $1.5 trillion. That would be enough to run the government for 2.5 months. Our deficit would drop to $500 billion for one year and then we'd be back where we started.

I'm actually being generous with those numbers. The only way we get that $1.5 trillion is to take it out of the economy (force the ultra rich to sell stock). Stock prices (pension funds, 401-k balances) would fall and jobs would be lost.

None of this would make housing, insurance, or groceries less expensive.
The. Time to start slashing funding and programs
 

Huey Grey 2

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
3,942
13,424
113
think about what you just said....we have a tax code....everyone pays according to that code....If a person earns $1billion in what the code calls taxable income, those monies are taxed based on that code the same as you and I. It's the same tax system.

Now if you want to change your concept to a different income system, I'm in your corner.
I'm calling for a change in code to make billionaires pay more.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,058
4,486
113
So I have considerable savings (401K, Brokerage Account) that I spent 30 years building that are 100% stock based. I am not wealthy.

My wife and I have taken 4 major vacations in the last 26 years (2 diving trips, a disney cruise and a trip to Disney.

I drove my Toyota Highlander for 20 years, my wife is on year 15 of her Toyota highlander. When my Toyota died, I bought a 4 year old Lexus for $24K.

I paid $100 -$200 extra on my mortgage for 20+ years and paid it off.

I am fortunate to have a 401K. I have done everything in my power to put in enough to get a company match....sometimes that was 6%, sometimes I could do 10%.

I started my brokerage account in 2004 with ShareBuilder. I put $100 a month in and bought partial shares of multiple stocks. I reinvested all the dividends. I signed up for a cash back rewards credit card. I put all my bills that I have to pay (till the day I die) on this card. This is things like utilities, gas, groceries, phone, internet. I pay it off every month...this is non-negotiable, because it is BILLS, not discretionary spending. For most people this is $1000's a year and will be there FOREVER. I took the cash back and invested in my brokerage account. This brokerage acct has grown to over $250K, with $7K in dividends annually. I pay taxes yearly on that dividend income. I estimate that at least 40-50% of that total is from growth and dividend reinvestment from the FREE money I got from paying my MUST PAY bills. Everyone on the planet has non-discretionary bills they pay and with some discipline, can use this system. Maybe not the additional $100 a month, but the free cash from bill payments. Even poor people have bills so they too can be stock investors, even if it is only $100-$200 annually. Do that for 20+ years and you will be surprised at the returns....on FREE money.

I have sacrificed time and time again to build up my net worth drip, by drip, by drip. The 401K value is nice, but it was built on a 30 year plan, day by day, week by week, year by year that I had to sacrifice to build. I will not tell you how much I have in my 401K, but is puts me squarely in the target of someone who is rich
you do know that with your 401k, which is growing through capital gains dividends and interest, will be taxed at ordinary income rates when you take it out as RMD....so the government will get their money, just not today.

Its the same for the billionaires...they're not avoiding taxes altogether. When/if they sell stock/restricted stock/options, whatever they pay taxes on that money and when they die they'll pay a hefty death tax....
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,058
4,486
113
That’s a strange interpretation. Your earned income, your dividends, and your capital gains would be taxed at the same rate. Mine would be at my rate. What would those rates be, I don’t know.
I'm not sure that for the vast majority of us that would make a significant difference. The average effective tax rate is about 14-15%. If we taxed capital gains as ordinary income, we might lose money. Yea I know, I said "average" the median is even worse only about 0-5%. Plus taxing low earners would put their capital gains rates significantly higher than their effective rate.
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,605
3,757
113
And the post you responded to said: “Your earned income, your dividends, and your capital gains would be taxed at the same rate. Mine would be at my rate. What would those rates be, I don’t know.”
You may have intended that emphasis when you wrote it but I didn't "hear" it when I read it. I just wanted to know where you stood on progressive taxes since what I "heard" sounded like you might be more of a flat tax guy.

I don't know why we're debating this.
 

Huey Grey 2

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
3,942
13,424
113
well, write you representative and senators and make your wishes known. That's the only way it happens
Or stop voting Republican. That's a huge help. Everytime they get in office their main focus is tax cuts for the rich. Trump certainly proved that both terms. Bush pulled the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,605
3,757
113
Some people would argue that you shouldn't get SS benefits because you've saved enough and don't need them.
As a lefty, I should probably be open to that argument, but I'm not. Mainly because SS is not a welfare program. It's something we paid into and are entitled to receive - in the non-pejorative meaning of entitled - aka, we earned it.

There is some means-testing in the payout level, and that probably makes sense.

Interestingly enough, there are a bunch of cons who favor making SS fully means tested. Seems strange . . . until you realize that if it's means tested, it's like welfare, not earned, and therefore easy to vote to privatize or eliminate.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,058
4,486
113
Trump has already cut a huge number of programs and yet our deficits are exploding. There's only one serious way to solve this. Tax rich people more, cut military spending, and convert to single payer healthcare.
Before you go totally down the rabbit hole of medicare for all, look at what has happened to hospitals catering to a large clientell of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The reimbursement rates for those programs are so low that hospitals can't cover their fixed costs.

I asked Google and this was the response...
yes, hospitals and medical centers with a high concentration of Medicaid and Medicare patients have closed, with hundreds more currently at risk, particularly due to financial strains from low government reimbursement rates and recent funding cuts. A 2026 report identified 446 hospitals at high risk of closing or reducing services.

the way our system is set up, non Medicare/Medicaid patients with different healthcare insurers pay higher reimbursement rates and in effect subsidize the government insured patients.

So, it sounds good...Medicare for all, but there would be some severe consequences. In fact, look at the nationalized systems in Canada and the UK....you want a doctor for a cold - OK....but you need some significant, specialized care, you might die before your name comes off the waiting list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

Huey Grey 2

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
3,942
13,424
113
Before you go totally down the rabbit hole of medicare for all, look at what has happened to hospitals catering to a large clientell of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The reimbursement rates for those programs are so low that hospitals can't cover their fixed costs.

I asked Google and this was the response...
yes, hospitals and medical centers with a high concentration of Medicaid and Medicare patients have closed, with hundreds more currently at risk, particularly due to financial strains from low government reimbursement rates and recent funding cuts. A 2026 report identified 446 hospitals at high risk of closing or reducing services.

the way our system is set up, non Medicare/Medicaid patients with different healthcare insurers pay higher reimbursement rates and in effect subsidize the government insured patients.

So, it sounds good...Medicare for all, but there would be some severe consequences. In fact, look at the nationalized systems in Canada and the UK....you want a doctor for a cold - OK....but you need some significant, specialized care, you might die before your name comes off the waiting list.
Every other developed nation uses the universal care model. And they all spend less that us while covering everyone. The only proven system that doesn't work and yet is insanely expensive is ours.
 

Rastafarian

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2025
1,233
1,734
113
From ChatGPT. You are focused on an extreme corner case that applies to ZERO Americans in some years.

In a typical year, the number of Americans reporting more than $3 billion of realized income (meaning taxable/recognized income like salaries, exercised stock options, dividends, capital gains from sold assets, business income, etc. — not unrealized paper wealth increases) is probably in the single digits, and often may be zero to low double digits.

  • Exceeding $3 billion likely means roughly:
    • 0–5 people in many years,
    • perhaps 5–15 in extraordinary bull-market / IPO years.

In practice, years with people above $3 billion of realized income are usually driven by:

  • founders selling stock,
  • IPO lockup expirations,
  • massive exercised options,
  • or unusually large asset sales.

Examples from public reporting over the years include people like:

  • Elon Musk (option exercises),
  • Jeff Bezos,
  • Warren Buffett,
  • major hedge fund founders during exceptional years.
The key word here is “realized”. Buy borrow die and pay next to nothing in taxes.
 

Rastafarian

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2025
1,233
1,734
113
you really should look up the amount of money the billionaires are allowed to give to candidates for their elections. You could give just as much, and buy yourself a congressman who will do the things you want....hint...it $3,500 per election...So think about it, based on your statement you can invest $3500 in a congressman and get whatever you want from the government. Your congressman would "have to do things" for you.

Does that seem logical?
Oh Ned. You and your simple little mind. Ever heard of a super pac?

how did Leon Musk contribute over $200 million to pedo protector’s campaign?
 

Rastafarian

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2025
1,233
1,734
113
You act like Trump created the billionaires. That they barely existed under Obama or Biden which is false. You also act like billionaires don't pay taxes which is also false. Also that the wealth gap is just a USA thing.

Serious questions.
Do you think you should pay a 25% tax on your 401-K balance?
Would you prefer that the biggest corporations like Tesla, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, etc didn't exist (or they existed offshore)?
Do you think a $30 minimum wage would have no impact on inflation?

I know, it's not your job to ask ridiculous questions. It's only your job to complain about Trump.
Go back and read my posts and find where I have said this is exclusively a pedo protector problem? It’s been going on for decades and isn’t a dem or republican thing.
 

Rastafarian

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2025
1,233
1,734
113
Or reduce the bills.

Again, everyone seems focused on billionaires or the 400 richest people. You proposed an alternative and indicated that it would target these people and not the rest of us. Let me give you a personal example:

I sold privately held stock in my company last year in a secondary funding round. I realized a LTCG of approximately $850K. I paid 20% LTCG tax on that plus 3.8% NIIT.

Under your proposal, I would pay my marginal income tax rate, which is 37% (plus NIIT). That’s an additional 17%, or $145K in federal income taxes.

You seemed to indicate that taxes shouldn’t increase outside of the super rich. So I’m asking, how much would you reduce my ordinary income tax rates in order to make your plan cost-neutral for me? Keeping in mind that I’m a tiny example and nowhere near a billionaire, or a 100 millionaire, or even a 20 millionaire. Just a normal, hardworking family of 4 with dual incomes.

Should’ve used QSBS to roll it into another investment and pay nothing.
 

DailyBuck7

Sophomore
Mar 4, 2026
180
180
43
I'd love this conversation. Billionaires operate under a completely different tax structure than the rest of us. And that structure leads to them paying super low rates. So why can't we fix this?
Easy answer. The reason you can't fix it is because most of their wealth is in unrealized capital gains. If you are talking about forcing people to sell their unrealized capital gains, ultimately you are talking about breaking up companies. It simply makes no sense and is totally impractical.
 

DailyBuck7

Sophomore
Mar 4, 2026
180
180
43
Absolutely hilarious. Citizens United created a system in which politicians need massive sums of money to get elected. In order to get that money, they have to do things for the people that give them that money. The people who have the most to give are billionaires, so they then have the most to gain. So working class folks (which I will generously define as anyone who is makes under a million a year and is worth less than $20 million) ending up paying the tab for the billionaires who bought their way into an “architecture” that minimizes their tax responsibilities.

Fatpiggy and baltimoronned’s response - “sounds fair to me!”
But somehow most of the money raised by really wealthy people (particularly the silicon valley wealthy) goes to the Democrats. In Virginia the spending by the Democrats on the redistricting measure was four times the amount the Republicans could raise.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,450
4,382
113
As a lefty, I should probably be open to that argument, but I'm not. Mainly because SS is not a welfare program. It's something we paid into and are entitled to receive - in the non-pejorative meaning of entitled - aka, we earned it.

There is some means-testing in the payout level, and that probably makes sense.

Interestingly enough, there are a bunch of cons who favor making SS fully means tested. Seems strange . . . until you realize that if it's means tested, it's like welfare, not earned, and therefore easy to vote to privatize or eliminate.
I think it's fair to cap SS taxes at ~ $200k because benefits are also capped. Unfortunately the program was set up as a Ponzi scheme and now we're in a bind and don't have much of a choice to continue being "fair". That's why I propose continuing the tax after $200k but only at a 50% rate (3.1% employee, 3.1% employer).

I don't like any program where we incentivize people to do the wrong thing and penalize people who do the right thing.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,450
4,382
113
Before you go totally down the rabbit hole of medicare for all, look at what has happened to hospitals catering to a large clientell of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The reimbursement rates for those programs are so low that hospitals can't cover their fixed costs.

I asked Google and this was the response...
yes, hospitals and medical centers with a high concentration of Medicaid and Medicare patients have closed, with hundreds more currently at risk, particularly due to financial strains from low government reimbursement rates and recent funding cuts. A 2026 report identified 446 hospitals at high risk of closing or reducing services.

the way our system is set up, non Medicare/Medicaid patients with different healthcare insurers pay higher reimbursement rates and in effect subsidize the government insured patients.

So, it sounds good...Medicare for all, but there would be some severe consequences. In fact, look at the nationalized systems in Canada and the UK....you want a doctor for a cold - OK....but you need some significant, specialized care, you might die before your name comes off the waiting list.
There's no magical answer. People who think universal healthcare is free are dead wrong.
 

Rastafarian

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2025
1,233
1,734
113
But somehow most of the money raised by really wealthy people (particularly the silicon valley wealthy) goes to the Democrats. In Virginia the spending by the Democrats on the redistricting measure was four times the amount the Republicans could raise.
Have I said anywhere this is strictly a Republican issue?

in fact, I highlighted the opposite that citizens united created the incentive for all politicians to favor the UHNW because of campaign finance “rules”.
 

Huey Grey 2

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
3,942
13,424
113
Easy answer. The reason you can't fix it is because most of their wealth is in unrealized capital gains. If you are talking about forcing people to sell their unrealized capital gains, ultimately you are talking about breaking up companies. It simply makes no sense and is totally impractical.
How are they buying mansions and yachts then? How are they paying for massive vacations, cars, private jets, and clothes? This money isn't locked up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rastafarian

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,605
3,757
113
Easy answer. The reason you can't fix it is because most of their wealth is in unrealized capital gains. If you are talking about forcing people to sell their unrealized capital gains, ultimately you are talking about breaking up companies. It simply makes no sense and is totally impractical.
I think someone else suggested taxing unrealized gains if they are used as collateral for loans or other investments. The idea being that's a way folks like Musk, et al., "realize" those gains and "spend" them as real money.

Another approach might be to levy a small tax on unrealized gains - which would then be credited toward the tax owed when the stock or other product is cashed in.

Even if you don't like either of those ideas, they make it clear there are ways to do this that can work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,450
4,382
113
Every other developed nation uses the universal care model. And they all spend less that us while covering everyone. The only proven system that doesn't work and yet is insanely expensive is ours.
That's not a fair analysis.

European countries keep cost low by limiting medical liability, limiting availability of end of life care, and limiting provider pay. They don't achieve the lower cost simply because the government is more efficient.

Different countries have different ways of paying for it. Are you OK if sales tax goes to 20% and the effective rate of your federal income tax goes from 18% to 30%?

I'm not criticizing Canadian and European healthcare. There are some positives and also some negatives. I just challenge the notion that we could get better care for 35% less just because the government is more efficient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DailyBuck7

Huey Grey 2

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
3,942
13,424
113
That's not a fair analysis.

European countries keep cost low by limiting medical liability, limiting availability of end of life care, and limiting provider pay. They don't achieve the lower cost simply because the government is more efficient.

Different countries have different ways of paying for it. Are you OK if sales tax goes to 20% and the effective rate of your federal income tax goes from 18% to 30%?

I'm not criticizing Canadian and European healthcare. There are some positives and also some negatives. I just challenge the notion that we could get better care for 35% less just because the government is more efficient.
Health insurance companies are insanely wealthy. That wealth has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is record profits. Costs would absolutely come down without this massive need for profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rastafarian

Rastafarian

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2025
1,233
1,734
113
How are they buying mansions and yachts then? How are they paying for massive vacations, cars, private jets, and clothes? This money isn't locked up.
They literally spend more on political campaigns than they do taxes and yet you have dumbasses on this board saying everything is fine. Nothing to see here.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,450
4,382
113
Oh Ned. You and your simple little mind. Ever heard of a super pac?

how did Leon Musk contribute over $200 million to pedo protector’s campaign?
Musk's contributions should be illegal but Soros contributions are OK?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,450
4,382
113
Go back and read my posts and find where I have said this is exclusively a pedo protector problem? It’s been going on for decades and isn’t a dem or republican thing.
OK, then tell us what you would change
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,605
3,757
113
I think it's fair to cap SS taxes at ~ $200k because benefits are also capped. Unfortunately the program was set up as a Ponzi scheme and now we're in a bind and don't have much of a choice to continue being "fair". That's why I propose continuing the tax after $200k but only at a 50% rate (3.1% employee, 3.1% employer).

I don't like any program where we incentivize people to do the wrong thing and penalize people who do the right thing.
Please lose the Ponzi scheme slur.

You know the main difference between a Ponzi scheme and things that also depend on delayed payout? Ponzi schemes intend to defraud.

Social security doesn't intend to defraud. 401K plans don't. Insurance coverage doesn't. Savings accounts don't....

All of those depend on other people paying in at a later date, and will fail if that doesn't happen. But they aren't set up to fail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,450
4,382
113
You struggled in school, didn’t you? Show me where I have ever said this is just a Republican problem.
But you only criticize one side and offer very little in the way of a solution. "Close loopholes" is a non answer.
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,605
3,757
113
Before you go totally down the rabbit hole of medicare for all, look at what has happened to hospitals catering to a large clientell of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The reimbursement rates for those programs are so low that hospitals can't cover their fixed costs.

I asked Google and this was the response...
yes, hospitals and medical centers with a high concentration of Medicaid and Medicare patients have closed, with hundreds more currently at risk, particularly due to financial strains from low government reimbursement rates and recent funding cuts. A 2026 report identified 446 hospitals at high risk of closing or reducing services.

the way our system is set up, non Medicare/Medicaid patients with different healthcare insurers pay higher reimbursement rates and in effect subsidize the government insured patients.

So, it sounds good...Medicare for all, but there would be some severe consequences. In fact, look at the nationalized systems in Canada and the UK....you want a doctor for a cold - OK....but you need some significant, specialized care, you might die before your name comes off the waiting list.
You can ruin most good things by under-funding them.

It's the under-funding that's the problem. (Not the only problem, but a huge one.)
 

DailyBuck7

Sophomore
Mar 4, 2026
180
180
43
How are they buying mansions and yachts then? How are they paying for massive vacations, cars, private jets, and clothes? This money isn't locked up.
Easy. If you have 150 billion dollars in unrealized capital gains like Elon musk. You have 50 million or 100 million dollars to buy whatever you want. The focus on the wealth of the very wealthy is basically a distraction because the vast majority of it is in unrealized taxable gains which are extremely difficult to tax and which theoretically in some instances could go down to zero. If it hasn't been sold, it isn't a profit.