• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Zuckerberg Never Pay Taxes Again?

Should Zuckerberg Never Pay Taxes Again?

  • Yes, Zuckerberg is an icon who deserves elevated status.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, the world wouldn't be what it is today without him.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
I'd be hard pressed to call Zuckerberg a decent person, much less a paragon of civilization. A business entirely based on getting people to post their personal data so it can be sold to advertisers is hardly a great social service. Nobody deserves to get "elevated status" with regards to taxation, but if we were handing exemptions, Zuckerberg wouldn't deserve to be on that list.
 
You're entitled to acclimation into a community you didn't ask to join as rectification for coercion, and you're especially not expected to upkeep development you had no say in deciding how it was developed.

Sorry for continuing off topic, but this sounds like perfect reasoning for a progressive income tax. At minimum people who have no choice should be able to use infrastructure they had no say in the creation or development of for free so they can earn a basic living. As you utilize the infrastructure more and more for business purposes, your utilization of that infrastructure to enrich yourself rather than earn a basic living should result in taxation. The more you earn above a certain threshold, the larger share you should pay for creation and maintenance of that infrastructure.

In fact, all companies with lobbies in Congress ought to pay a lobbying tax based on the gross profits of the company, seeing as they can use congress to create favorable legislation. Honest taxation.
 
Last edited:
Zuckerberg isn't just an internet mogul, but someone who catalyzed a social revolution in changing the way we live our lives.
He created facebook ffs. If that has drastically changed the way you live your life, I feel sorry for you.

Would you be willing to grant him tax immunity for everything he's done?
No.
 
of course. we all pay taxes on income, and the businesses we work for pay taxes, as well. this is because both the business and the employee benefits from societal structure.

Yes, but these businesses have already paid their taxes.
Infrastructure usage taxes are generally paid on a regular basis.

Many of which are not paid through the income tax.
 
News Headlines



Zuckerberg isn't just an internet mogul, but someone who catalyzed a social revolution in changing the way we live our lives.

Would you be willing to grant him tax immunity for everything he's done?
He's made millions/billions off what he's done. That's the appropriate reward. There is no reason why he should get tax immunity.
 
News Headlines



Zuckerberg isn't just an internet mogul, but someone who catalyzed a social revolution in changing the way we live our lives.

Would you be willing to grant him tax immunity for everything he's done?

No.

With regard to the bolded text, it's highly debatable if that change has been for the good of the public, which is what you are suggesting, yes? It certainly wasn't done exclusively for the the public good, if at all.
 
I never said he did. Where did you pull that from?

Yes, he has provided a lot of value to a lot of people. Using tax-provided services and infrastructure to do so. And increasingly in his own life as he enjoys the fruits of his labors.

He uses the things taxes pay for. He uses them more than most people. He should therefore pay taxes. What is so crazy about that?

If you try to justify taxes based on what people use than how can you justify ONE MAN paying more Federal income taxes than 60 million? that destroys your idiobabble-because Zuckerman does not use as much as the 60 million, he provides more value than the 60 million yet he pays more fed income taxes than all of them combined. he is subsidizing their parasitic activity
 
will he become more wealthy as an individual than he was pre-facebook?


that is a silly response bankrupt of logic. thousands of people have jobs or make more income and thus pay more taxes due to Zuckerman. shouldn't he get a rebate for that?

the rich usually provide value that is something the parasite mentality never understands
 
He's made millions/billions off what he's done. That's the appropriate reward. There is no reason why he should get tax immunity.

but he should not pay more federal income tax than millions who use the infrastructure and pay nothing. He is vastly over taxed based on either what he uses or the value the receives vs the value he provides
 
I don't know if you mean me, but I said he should pay taxes. As I said, we all have access to this great infrastructure, some people just do a lot more with it. I just disagree with the notion that, instead of appreciating someone's success and recognizing how that actually benefits others, we should rather feel morally justified in taking whatever it is we feel entitled to.

You highlighted the part I disagreed with. Not you personally. The simple fact is that any degree of success is built partially off the success and resources provided by others. S&M is right that no man is an island.
 
You highlighted the part I disagreed with. Not you personally. The simple fact is that any degree of success is built partially off the success and resources provided by others. S&M is right that no man is an island.

existing within a certain distance of me in no way justifies me having to pay for your existence though
 
existing within a certain distance of me in no way justifies me having to pay for your existence though

You are correct. But I doubt anyone but a very small minority uses this as reasoning though.
 
You are correct. But I doubt anyone but a very small minority uses this as reasoning though.

popularity is not a concern when discussing the truth. I don't owe someone something merely because they happened to be born in the same geopolitical area as I reside in. DOing well, being successful is benefiting society without having to pay high taxes just so the sloths and the slugs can live without paying for their own existence
 
popularity is not a concern when discussing the truth. I don't owe someone something merely because they happened to be born in the same geopolitical area as I reside in. DOing well, being successful is benefiting society without having to pay high taxes just so the sloths and the slugs can live without paying for their own existence

I agree somewhat. I believe we, as a community have a moral obligation to each other, and it is enough of a moral obligation that it is justified to be coded into law. This does not mean paying for someone just because they exist though as everyone also has a moral obligation to do what they can for themselves. This, I believe, should be coded into law as well, as both things are just plain good sense from a community perspective as well as a personal one. If you wish to delve into truth, which is always a subjective subject, we could do that I guess, but I don't see it going anywhere.

Also, none of this discussion addresses me earlier point.
 
but he should not pay more federal income tax than millions who use the infrastructure and pay nothing. He is vastly over taxed based on either what he uses or the value the receives vs the value he provides
He is taxed an appropriate amount. Without those millions of people having the ability to afford computers and internet access, Zuckerberg would make nothing. Next.
 
He is a hacker, a con and a thief. He needs to be in jail.
 
I agree somewhat. I believe we, as a community have a moral obligation to each other, and it is enough of a moral obligation that it is justified to be coded into law. This does not mean paying for someone just because they exist though as everyone also has a moral obligation to do what they can for themselves. This, I believe, should be coded into law as well, as both things are just plain good sense from a community perspective as well as a personal one. If you wish to delve into truth, which is always a subjective subject, we could do that I guess, but I don't see it going anywhere.

Also, none of this discussion addresses me earlier point.

charity I support. government taking from some to buy the votes of the other is not charity but the most evil form of greed. Using wealth taken from others to buy yourself power and ingratiate yourself with the dependency addicts
 
He is a hacker, a con and a thief. He needs to be in jail.

That is rather stupid. Maybe he ought to hire someone to "make you go away"? then he would be engaged in illegal activity giving your a REAL basis to whine about him
 
He is taxed an appropriate amount. Without those millions of people having the ability to afford computers and internet access, Zuckerberg would make nothing. Next.

that's an idiotic argument for parasitic taxes on the successful

do you think the government deserves more of his money and is using it wisely? or are you just mad that he is more successful than you are and want the government to get even for your sense of hurt?
 
That is rather stupid. Maybe he ought to hire someone to "make you go away"? then he would be engaged in illegal activity giving your a REAL basis to whine about him

Sorry, bub, but you're stuck with me for the time being.

In answer to the question of the OP...of course he should pay taxes. Unless he plans on doing what his buddy did.
 
that's an idiotic argument for parasitic taxes on the successful

do you think the government deserves more of his money and is using it wisely? or are you just mad that he is more successful than you are and want the government to get even for your sense of hurt?

Idiotic? Do you have a habit of name calling when someone doesn't see eye to eye with you?
 
No... why is anyone obligated to do anything to be entitled to respect?

If you're forced to join an organization, the organization owes you, not the other way around.

Well said. :bravo:
 
Sorry, bub, but you're stuck with me for the time being.

In answer to the question of the OP...of course he should pay taxes. Unless he plans on doing what his buddy did.

He shouldn't pay at a higher rate than the average person nor pay millions

he ought to pay for what he uses which is not more than what 60 million non federal income tax payers use
 
Idiotic? Do you have a habit of name calling when someone doesn't see eye to eye with you?

I don't call people idiots-at least not up here:mrgreen: but idiotic posts are called for what they are

idiotic
 
that's an idiotic argument for parasitic taxes on the successful

do you think the government deserves more of his money and is using it wisely? or are you just mad that he is more successful than you are and want the government to get even for your sense of hurt?
I think you are projecting your own anger and entitlement on others. The lame name calling and childish rhetorical questions make you seem pretty bitter, which is surprising in one so allegedly well-off.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom