Man its really annoying to see people constantly make up this whole "rich people dont pay taxes" nonsense.. If you review their actual tax records you'll see Elon paid about 1/3 of his income as taxes and Bezos about 1/4, which is actually quite high. But yea lets just make shit up instead and manipulate the numbers to show some "true" tax rate that is really just some fantasy as close to 0 as we can distort, cant just make up fake numbers and think its useful to addressing any problems that might exist.
@freemo but the issue isn't the taxes paid vs the reported income. The issue is that the reported income is so much less then the wealth growth.
Yes Bezos paid about 1/4 of his reported income in taxes, which I guess would be his "actual tax records", but his reported (taxable) income is only about 4% of what he actually made.
That is the issue at hand. That these mechanisms are in place that allow for the taxable income tobe a small fraction of their actual income.
@ejg Can you be more specific. What source of income does he have that is 25x greater than the one he reported and doesnt show as income?
@freemo @ejg I agree with what @freemo points out. People get outraged about how rich somebody is. And that is true. Except huge part of that wealth is only on paper in the fluctuating value of financial (and other assets). But nobody pays taxes over their net worth increases, we pay taxes from realised income.
Anyhow, these concepts have issues. For instance where I live, it can happen that you own say 50 shares of a startup (let it be 50%) which is worth 1000 bucks starting capital, then the next day investor comes along, buys another half for 1Mio bucks and the third day you have the tax office on your neck to pay taxes from a wealth increase (income) of 999k bucks, while all along your cash position did not change at all.
What I am trying to point out is this: Whenever people complain about rich people not paying tax on their wealth increases, the real question to them should be:
1. So how exactly will you legislate it so as not to harm everybody along the way?
2. And suppose if we all pay taxes even over wealth increases which are only on paper (because the stock you own or control went up due to market fluctuations, or geopolitics), what will we do when next year a person's net worth actually decreases? Will the tax office reimburse us, or what?
These are just headlines to cause outrage, nothing else. What actually helps is to tighten up the laws about income taxation and also classification what constitutes income and what does not. If e.g., Bezos has a salary of 1000 bucks and that's all he lives off, he shall pay taxes as a 1k income guy. But if he besides that lives in a house owned by Amazon Inc, drives a car owned by Amazon Inc. and flies Amazon-owned aircraft in his private capacity, then those effects should be counted as his income too. There are countries where this is sorted (at least on smaller scale) better.
Yes, e.g., the Netherlands has that too. Over about €60k the government assumes that you had capital increase of 4% annual interest (whether that's true or not does not matter) and then tax you 30% of that (fictional) increase. Effectively it means 1.2% tax on capital wealth per year. That is, typically cash savings. In other EU countries, you have a tax applied directly on the interest you gain in the bank. But note, all these are taxing capital gains of a person when you had cash and then you receive interest in money too. If you own shares of a company worth $100 one year and $1Mio the next year, these "wealth" taxes are not touching that. And actually when we speak about Bezos, ro Buffet, we speak about their wealth stored mostly in their shares in various companies.
As I wrote in another comment to the original toot, the issue really is this:
* Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are on the record that they actually SHALL and WANT to pay more taxes. C.f., e.g., here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cartercoudriet/2019/10/15/billionaires-more-taxes-gates-buffett-bloomberg/
* the thing is, their wealth is stored in shares, and other perfectly legal and practical constructions which serve a legal and positively pragmatic purpose
* even if they wanted to, they cannot just send an invented gift bill to the state. Even without tax optimisation tricks, they pay the max they can and it ends up being a paltry figure
* so it actually is the society/state which fails to extract the money from them
* and here we go with outrage at filthy rich billionaires.
Seriously, if somebody owns most of their wealth only on paper, how shall we tax them?
Personally I think it's the fault of the mid-level wealthy people (your usual backyard millionaires, which is maybe you, or your neighbour) who are blocking the right laws to be passed because they are afraid that their small nest egg will diminish.
> Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are on the record that they actually SHALL and WANT to pay more taxes
They can donate more taxes then they owe if they want, nothing stopping them. No reason they have any right to speak for all rich people.
Moreover it is telling that the 2 people who are rich and ok with more taxes are the ones who are very old and on the verge of dying, and care a lot about their legacy and how they will be seen on their way out. But it will be the younger generation of rich who will bear this burden, not them.
> even if they wanted to, they cannot just send an invented gift bill to the state.
Of course they can, they can donate whatever they want to the state.. why not?
> Seriously, if somebody owns most of their wealth only on paper, how shall we tax them?
The same way we always have, by taxing a percentage of that wealth when it "moves"... rich eople are already taxed for the money they gained when it was income.
> Personally I think it’s the fault of the mid-level wealthy people (your usual backyard millionaires, which is maybe you, or your neighbour) who are blocking the right laws to be passed because they are afraid that their small nest egg will diminish.
More like we care about fairness and justice. Being taxed the extraordinary rate anyone in the upperclass already is, isnt fair and it isnt solving anything.. what problem is it your even trying to solvE? Most of the answer to this question make it clear that the problems being imagined are in some cases non existent and in others arent a problem where the solution is "we need to make rich people less rich"
In the end people are trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist and in doing so would make things worse IMO
@FailForward interesting