Comment by giantg2
4 hours ago
"seeing the ultra rich paying far less taxes then they are."
Is this actually true? I thought looking at the aggregates that the top 10% pay something like 1/3rd of all income/cap gain taxes.
4 hours ago
"seeing the ultra rich paying far less taxes then they are."
Is this actually true? I thought looking at the aggregates that the top 10% pay something like 1/3rd of all income/cap gain taxes.
Last year year Jeff bezos and I both paid taxes for the year of 2024. The percentage he paid on the money he made is far less than I did. I gave higher share of my income to the government than he did. Bezos's true tax rate was less than 1% and mine was around 25%.
Link - https://itep.org/washington-post-rich-not-paying-fair-share/
>(including unrealized gains)
They wrote that whole article out just to make it all meaningless with 3 words in parenthesis.
"The plane crashed and everyone lived! (not including those who died)"
IDK what Bezos made as "income" last year but paper gains in asset values are not "income" for tax purposes, though some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year. But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least.
Oh, then Bezos must be living a humble, middle-class life with very limited liquidation of his assets.
Surely, he’s not using loans, write-offs, and legal tricks to fund a Great Gatsby lifestyle while pretending to have no actual income?
Right?
> some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year
What in gods name would you call that otherwise?
> But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least
And that somehow justifies rich people paying less taxes, because they navigate the system better than regular people?
12 replies →
It seems your article is saying the same sort of thing I already stated - "The share of taxes paid by the richest 1 percent (24 percent)", right?
You are talking about effective taxes rates, which are different. To discuss that, I would have liked to see a bit more detail in the article, like what the income sources were and the deductions and losses to offset gains. I think changes around capital gains and loans against equities could use some adjustments. The other taxes like payroll are basically moot as Bezos's payroll income is only about $90k per year anyways.
> I think changes around capital gains and loans against equities could use some adjustments.
At minimum, taking out a loan based on the current value of an asset should trigger immediate realization of capital gains/losses for at least those assets used as collateral. After all, the gains are already de facto being realized for the purpose of the loan.
Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to address the other side of things - that said loans often don't have to be repaid so long as the assets continue to gain. As such, the capital gains are actually being realized continuously by the loan, but I doubt it's feasible to properly handle that in tax law.
1 reply →
This post makes the mistake of counting unrealized gains as income. That's not how taxes or investments work. Unrealized gains are NOT income. That's how they mistakenly come up with the number that he pays less than 1% in income tax. Investments, in general, are not income (unless held less than 12 months or if they pay dividends).
Imagine you had to pay income taxes every year on the unrealized gains of your 401k, house, and car value. You too would be said to be paying a very low income tax rate. But again that's not how income taxes work because none of those things are income.
If Bezos were to sell those shares and actually realize those gains then he would be rightly taxed but that would also likely tank the stock as his 8% ownership is significant enough to drop the price drastically. 55% of Amazon is owned by 401k and other retirement accounts so if the price tanks average Americans take a huge hit.
Bezos does sell shares, all the time actually. You can see this in the SEC filings. And he is rightly taxed on those realized gains. But he's not going to sell all of his shares as that would be damaging to Amazon, the workers, retirement accounts, and his own investments.
Instead, the money stays in the company paying worker wages, buying new facilities, etc. This is even better for the economy because it keeps the funds in circulation. This generates even more tax revenue than if he did a 1 time sale of his investments. That's why unrealized gains don't get taxed, because its financially a worse outcome than keeping the money in circulation.
>>This post makes the mistake of counting unrealized gains as income. That's not how taxes or investments work. Unrealized gains are NOT income.
Rich people always borrow money on the stocks they own. In effect, those unrealized gains help them borrow money which they spend like income. I will spend part of my paycheck to buy a cup of coffee and they will spend part of the loaned money to buy the same cup of coffee. They can also buy a house with that money. All they need to do is keep paying the 4-5% interest rate on that loan meanwhile the underlying stock appreciates at 15-20%.
Is this a loophole that rich people enjoy? Absolutely. Does this loophole need to be closed - absolutely.
13 replies →
This post makes the mistake of assuming that everyone is on board with the "unrealized gains are totally different from income and should never ever be taxed a penny because that would be communism and implode the economy and kill kittens" hustle. It's a good hustle, because it takes precision to argue against and it's built around a kernel or two of truth, but these two kernels are firmly planted in a gigantic monumental turd of tax avoidance by the obscenely wealthy.
3 replies →
Top 10% is the upper middle class, not the ultra rich. A successful surgeon making $1M per year is paying well over 40% a year in taxes, while Bezos is paying 1%.
The top 10% is not even upper middle class in high COL areas.
$155k is a top 10% income.
Do you have the data for that? I was wondering about tax paid (as dollars not effective rate- I know effective tends to me lower for HNW individuals due to accountants and other financial professionals they can afford).
> I thought looking at the aggregates that the top 10% pay something like 1/3rd of all income/cap gain taxes.
If we're bringing receipts, how about you start? Do you have the data for this initial statement of yours?
7 replies →
Bezos pays 40% too.
His assets are not income. Just like your assets are not taxed.
Ok, but he does that loan-against-assets hack!
Well the fact is that those loans eventually need to be paid, so at some point he will pay that 40% (unless he does the step-up basis hack when he dies)
Ok, but he should be paying annually like everyone else!
Well, technically he is, his assets, the company Amazon, pays a lot of taxes annually. The government views Amazon as a money printer, states get their sales taxes, and the federal government gets their income taxes. All of which originate with Amazon.
All of which is to say, that the uppe-middle/upper-class, the successful surgeon, is the one that needs to be paying more taxes to equilibriate society.
I want to see Bezos have all of his assets seized, and distributed to human beings instead of held onto like the goblin he is. I don't care about your defense of him. He should not be on the same planet as me.
1 reply →
> unless he does the step-up basis hack when he dies
I'm sure we can count that as a given.
> The government views Amazon as a money printer, states get their sales taxes, and the federal government gets their income taxes.
Except when states fall all over themselves to give Amazon a massive tax break to build their second HQ.
2 replies →
The ultra rich make up only a tiny minority of the top 10%. The majority is much closer to the top 90% than to the top 1%.