Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Ivanstone]

Edit: Well, not .1% tax rates, but tax rates well below what the median income earner pays.

It could be worse. Some of the top 25 do pay actual income tax. Michael Bloomberg in particular got paid $1.9B in 2018. He did deduct a lot because of charity but he still paid out income tax. If you factor out the income payers (9 out of the 25) it would make the other 16 look worse by comparison.

[Machismo]

There's a very simple explanation for most of this; taxes are paid on the gains/losses when stocks are sold. If people want to try and tax gains/losses when they are held, then it would obliterate the 401k portfolios of tens of millions of Americans.

[Ivanstone]

There's a very simple explanation for most of this; taxes are paid on the gains/losses when stocks are sold. If people want to try and tax gains/losses when they are held, then it would obliterate the 401k portfolios of tens of millions of Americans.

Regular people can’t take out multimillion dollar loans to further increase their wealth and use their 401k as collateral.

Furthermore, the American wealthy want everyone to have 401k’s because an individual 401k has no power yet can be harmed by investment taxation. It’s pretty much a hostage situation.

[Machismo]

Regular people can’t take out multimillion dollar loans to further increase their wealth and use their 401k as collateral.

Furthermore, the American wealthy want everyone to have 401k’s because an individual 401k has no power yet can be harmed by investment taxation. It’s pretty much a hostage situation.

Regular people can take out loans, and use their 401k as collateral. Of course they aren't going to be able to take out gigantic loans, because they wouldn't be able to cover it.

The reasoning taxed upon sales,is to ensure that they are not obligated to sell in the case of an increase in value, just to cover the tax.

Think of it like buying a baseball card pack (or a Magic card), and getting a very valuable card. Should they be taxed because got a Black Lotus in that pack?

Or, a more timely analogy, the people who bought GameStop stock (but didn't sell). Should we tax all of that, even though they won't actually see gains until they sell?

[Paranoid Android]

I saw this article posted on ProPublica's FB page and the comments are just....yikes. Folks in literally the poorest parts of the US championing these guys and their ability to skirt taxes while bleating the very same "They pay the most in taxes" nonsense the first paragraph of the article debunks.

Yes! Here we go. Let's talk about this.

Enough dumb Americans brainwashed by the ultra rich about taxes and also normal, every day people who need to shit people below them.

Cheering for people who are not playing by the same rules is moronic. Oh and they make the rules.

The idiocy of believing they will be one day with these billionaires is laughable.

[Zan15]

There's a very simple explanation for most of this; taxes are paid on the gains/losses when stocks are sold. If people want to try and tax gains/losses when they are held, then it would obliterate the 401k portfolios of tens of millions of Americans.

Or you could have a progressive scaling tax that would not touch the vast majority of the middle/lower income 401ks.....
\

- - - Updated - - -

Regular people can take out loans, and use their 401k as collateral. Of course they aren't going to be able to take out gigantic loans, because they wouldn't be able to cover it.

The reasoning taxed upon sales,is to ensure that they are not obligated to sell in the case of an increase in value, just to cover the tax.

Think of it like buying a baseball card pack (or a Magic card), and getting a very valuable card. Should they be taxed because got a Black Lotus in that pack?

Or, a more timely analogy, the people who bought GameStop stock (but didn't sell). Should we tax all of that, even though they won't actually see gains until they sell?

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations prohibit using funds in a 401(k) plan account as collateral for a loan.

Funny how that works huh?

- - - Updated - - -

Propublica does a really good job with visualizations, their charts and the whole section on wealth growth/taxes for Bezos vs. the normal person are great.

Man, it's gonna be interesting to see the Propublica pieces on Buffett. For a guy who constantly talks about wanting to pay more taxes it sure seems like he abuses and exploits literally every loophole in existence to avoid paying taxes instead of just like, paying his fuckin taxes.

I cringe that I pay more proportional taxes than all of these fucks, and that's including guestimates about my overall wealth rather than just my income. .1%? 3.2%? Fuckin joke.

He has been very open about abusing the system and saying he was going to continue to do it till someone changed it. He also stated he fully supports being taxed to hell and back but they have to make the changes.

[Ivanstone]

Regular people can take out loans, and use their 401k as collateral. Of course they aren't going to be able to take out gigantic loans, because they wouldn't be able to cover it.

The reasoning taxed upon sales,is to ensure that they are not obligated to sell in the case of an increase in value, just to cover the tax.

Think of it like buying a baseball card pack (or a Magic card), and getting a very valuable card. Should they be taxed because got a Black Lotus in that pack?

Or, a more timely analogy, the people who bought GameStop stock (but didn't sell). Should we tax all of that, even though they won't actually see gains until they sell?

The article doesn’t propose any solutions. It just illuminates that the rich have means that most of us don’t to truly take advantage of the system. Jeff Bezos, who doesn’t have any income, is somehow able to buy a $500 million yacht.

[Machismo]

Or you could have a progressive scaling tax that would not touch the vast majority of the middle/lower income 401ks.....
\

- - - Updated - - -




Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations prohibit using funds in a 401(k) plan account as collateral for a loan.

Funny how that works huh?

- - - Updated - - -



He has been very open about abusing the system and saying he was going to continue to do it till someone changed it. He also stated he fully supports being taxed to hell and back but they have to make the changes.

That would simply be another wealth tax, and when they sold those stocks, they would simply be taxed, again. That hardly seems fair

As for the loan, I have personally seen someone take out a loan against their 401k, and they paid it back, with interest, into the account.

https://www.investopedia.com/article...-401k-loan.asp

In the end, it's basically borrowing against yourself, and paying someone else money. Personally, I don't like it, but some people do it. I'd much prefer that a 401k be much more streamline, and versatile.

- - - Updated - - -

The article doesn’t propose any solutions. It just illuminates that the rich have means that most of us don’t to truly take advantage of the system. Jeff Bezos, who doesn’t have any income, is somehow able to buy a $500 million yacht.

Literally anyone who owns stocks is taking advantage of the system. Or, to put it a different way, it applies to everyone. They are simply highlighted, because they are heavily invested in stocks.

[PC2]

Last I checked the top 1% pay about 40% of the income taxes but their collective income is less than 30% of the total income. They pay more than their fair share of income taxes. However we could lower taxes on the bottom 99% if people are worried that they're paying too much compared to the rich.

Democrats are going to raise taxes on the rich though, so congratulations. Progressives got what they wanted. The Democrats here should be happy about that instead of continuing to be angry at the rich and green with envy.

[gondrin]

Last I checked the top 1% pay about 40% of the income taxes but their collective income is less than 30% of the total income. They pay more than their fair share of income taxes. However we could lower taxes on the bottom 99% if people are worried that they're paying too much compared to the rich.

Democrats are going to raise taxes on the rich though, so congratulations. You got what you wanted. The people here should happy about that instead of continuing to be angry at the rich and green with envy.

Biggest thing is they need to remove loopholes. One loophole would be you cannot carry over depreciation on investment properties year over year. You get to deduct it once and only for the year it happened in.

[Zan15]

That would simply be another wealth tax, and when they sold those stocks, they would simply be taxed, again. That hardly seems fair

As for the loan, I have personally seen someone take out a loan against their 401k, and they paid it back, with interest, into the account.

https://www.investopedia.com/article...-401k-loan.asp

In the end, it's basically borrowing against yourself, and paying someone else money. Personally, I don't like it, but some people do it. I'd much prefer that a 401k be much more streamline, and versatile.

.

You can take a "loan" out against your balance with the 401k entity but you cannot use it as collateral for an actual loan. You are confusing the two since the 401k action is not exactly the loans they are talking about in the story.

You are basically borrowing your own money. Your balance is instantly lowered by the amount you borrowed thus reducing your returns. It can hardly be called a loan and its silly that they do call it that. You do pay the interest back to yourself which is a positive but this is usually offset by fees for the loan. Its like calling a withdrawal from your investment/savings account a loan.


vs the rich using the asset as collateral but getting to keep the full balance of the asset collecting returns. They can also borrow more than the value of the asset whereas the 401ks usually limit it to a % of your assets. Mine was 40% of your balance could be loaned back to you.
With that level of assets the rich have they can get a sub 2% loan all the while still making way more then 2% back on the asset they used as collateral.

[Elegiac]

Last I checked the top 1% pay about 40% of the income taxes but their collective income is less than 30% of the total income.

Cool.

1) They own more than 90% of the wealth, income included.
2) Your "checking" ignores the fact the wealthy derive most of their wealth from capital gains, not income.

They don't pay commensurate to how much wealth they have. Period.

[Draco-Onis]

Last I checked the top 1% pay about 40% of the income taxes but their collective income is less than 30% of the total income. They pay more than their fair share of income taxes. However we could lower taxes on the bottom 99% if people are worried that they're paying too much compared to the rich.

Democrats are going to raise taxes on the rich though, so congratulations. Progressives got what they wanted. The Democrats here should be happy about that instead of continuing to be angry at the rich and green with envy.

They are not paying their fair share because since income is only 30% of their wealth which means 70% is not taxes. If a regular person shielded 70% of their income from taxes they would be thrown in jail.

[Zan15]

Last I checked the top 1% pay about 40% of the income taxes but their collective income is less than 30% of the total income. They pay more than their fair share of income taxes. However we could lower taxes on the bottom 99% if people are worried that they're paying too much compared to the rich.

Democrats are going to raise taxes on the rich though, so congratulations. Progressives got what they wanted. The Democrats here should be happy about that instead of continuing to be angry at the rich and green with envy.

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2020/

21% of the income v 24.5% federal taxes.

Once you factor in all taxes the lower half of the income scale pays substantially more than their % of income

[Draco-Onis]

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2020/

21% of the income v 24.5% federal taxes.

Once you factor in all taxes the lower half of the income scale pays substantially more than their % of income

The effective tax rate of some of the people on this list is less than 1%, no regular person would be able to get away with that.

[jonnysensible]

the billionaire defenders have logged in.

claiming child tax credits, i hope elon musk designed his spaceship

[Elegiac]

the billionaire defenders have logged in.

claiming child tax credits, i hope elon musk designed his spaceship

The first colony of the megarich that gets established on the Moon or Mars is going to end up as badly as Roanoke or Jamestown and I am so totally here for it.

Let's hope Bezos didn't pay his rocket engineers as badly as his warehouse workers or we might be seeing an o-ring or two fall out during launch.

[Machismo]

You can take a "loan" out against your balance with the 401k entity but you cannot use it as collateral for an actual loan. You are confusing the two since the 401k action is not exactly the loans they are talking about in the story.

You are basically borrowing your own money. Your balance is instantly lowered by the amount you borrowed thus reducing your returns. It can hardly be called a loan and its silly that they do call it that. You do pay the interest back to yourself which is a positive but this is usually offset by fees for the loan. Its like calling a withdrawal from your investment/savings account a loan.


vs the rich using the asset as collateral but getting to keep the full balance of the asset collecting returns. They can also borrow more than the value of the asset whereas the 401ks usually limit it to a % of your assets. Mine was 40% of your balance could be loaned back to you.
With that level of assets the rich have they can get a sub 2% loan all the while still making way more then 2% back on the asset they used as collateral.

Oh, I agree, it's not the same. one is being used as collateral, and the other is basically just digging into your own money. I would much prefer people have far more access (and have it be free) to their own money.

As for wealthy people being able to take out loans against their stocks, I have no problem with this. TO the lender, those stocks are not really any different than a house. The bottom line is that the wealthy are simply less of a risk for lenders.

[gondrin]

They are not paying their fair share because since income is only 30% of their wealth which means 70% is not taxes. If a regular person shielded 70% of their income from taxes they would be thrown in jail.

However, you just stated that their income is only 30% of their wealth therefore they aren't shielding their income from taxes. If this were a wealth tax, then yes, you would be correct but the vast majority of it is in stocks/property. Remember, a stock going up in price isn't income. It isn't even capital gains until it is sold.

Now we can talk about how they are reducing their income tax liability and things of that nature or how capital gains should be taxed higher. I do say that if a person gets stock as a form of compensation that isn't tied to a 401k they should get taxed on it like normal income, if it already isn't as that is how a lot of the extremely wealthy get compensated. I am not sure about if it is taxed like normal income or not.

[Elegiac]

However, you just stated that their income is only 30% of their wealth therefore they aren't shielding their income from taxes.

Implying the existence of capital gains as a separate category of income isn't itself a form of tax dodging.