goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: MakeItRain on June 20, 2021, 10:32:13 PM
-
This is a couple of weeks old but this ProPublica piece about the uber rich in this country and how little they pay in taxes should have been all over the news, it was largely ignored, I have to think due to the overwhelming corporate ownership of news outlets.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grandfatherly centibillionaire. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. According to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 billion between 2014 and 2018. Over those years, the data shows, Buffett reported paying $23.7 million in taxes.
That works out to a true tax rate of 0.1%, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth.
A spokesman for Soros said in a statement: “Between 2016 and 2018 George Soros lost money on his investments, therefore he did not owe federal income taxes in those years. Mr. Soros has long supported higher taxes for wealthy Americans.”
Our analysis of tax data for the 25 richest Americans quantifies just how unfair the system has become.
By the end of 2018, the 25 were worth $1.1 trillion.
For comparison, it would take 14.3 million ordinary American wage earners put together to equal that same amount of wealth.
The personal federal tax bill for the top 25 in 2018: $1.9 billion.
The bill for the wage earners: $143 billion.
-
It’s not surprising, IMO. Buffet especially comes across as one of the most pragmatic public figures I can think of. Even if he thinks the tax policy is ridiculous he’s not going to pay in more than he’s required (especially into a hilariously inefficient system).
That out of the way it is laughable how little we have done to get a higher tax rate out of the super rich. I get the arguments about “you would only get $X out of it” but I don’t see that as a legitimate argument against something entirely common sense that has a net benefit on taxpayers.
-
It’s not surprising, IMO. Buffet especially comes across as one of the most pragmatic public figures I can think of. Even if he thinks the tax policy is ridiculous he’s not going to pay in more than he’s required (especially into a hilariously inefficient system).
That out of the way it is laughable how little we have done to get a higher tax rate out of the super rich. I get the arguments about “you would only get $X out of it” but I don’t see that as a legitimate argument against something entirely common sense that has a net benefit on taxpayers.
What's crazy is the tax rate for the rich doesn't even need to be the least bit exorbitant, it just needs to exist and do so without loopholes, which isn't a thing right now.
The most frustrating thing about this is that a large majority of Americans either don't know, don't care, and/or completely tolerant of this. It's easy to point to and blame politicians for completely ceding power to the ultra wealthy, but it's us the taxpayers, the electorate, who allow this to happen. We could absolutely fix this. We can elect people of either party who insist on correcting it, but we haven't, we won't, and it's maddening that we allow these so few people dictate every single aspect of our fiscal policy.
-
The ultra-rich accept little to no annual income in the form of wages. They use their stock holdings to build their wealth and use it as a tax shelter.
-
Thus, tax codes need to be reformed. You get taxed based on value of stock at time of transfer. After that, you get taxed on gains should you sell them for profit.
-
They are probably able to transfer holdings outside the U.S. as well in order to avoid that, right?
-
do people on here actually think we should tax unrealized gains?
-
feel free to make arguments for or against here, but i'm going to make the question a poll too.
-
Hasn't Yglesias been all over the stepped up basis around this topic (heirs selling stocks ect and what gains they are tax responsible for if the previous person basically never sold but took out loans as income based on their value)?
not that i've noticed.
-
I don’t really understand why these articles compare the taxes some rich guy paid to his net worth given that we don’t tax net worth. I understand why the writers of the articles do it, but they are intentionally misleading.
-
do people on here actually think we should tax unrealized gains?
I think having large tax rates on lines of credit extended on equities and crypto would help not only tax coffers but probably reduce a fair bit of volatility and fragility in the system as it could limit some margin calls.
-
do people on here actually think we should tax unrealized gains?
I think having large tax rates on lines of credit extended on equities and crypto would help not only tax coffers but probably reduce a fair bit of volatility and fragility in the system as it could limit some margin calls.
i think it'd be simpler (and i think simple is good) to just tax consumption if getting revenue in a timely manner is a large concern. i personally don't see a problem with waiting till someone dies either.
-
do people on here actually think we should tax unrealized gains?
I think having large tax rates on lines of credit extended on equities and crypto would help not only tax coffers but probably reduce a fair bit of volatility and fragility in the system as it could limit some margin calls.
i think it'd be simpler (and i think simple is good) to just tax consumption if getting revenue in a timely manner is a large concern. i personally don't see a problem with waiting till someone dies either.
Yeah consumption taxes are just another game of whack-a-mole imo if you are trying to target the rich. I think a higher inheritance tax would be really good.
-
Consumption seems like it should be the tax of choice for a lot of obvious reasons. But as long as income tax is the main tax of choice I’m not at all opposed to a “wealth tax” above something stupid like $200 million.
-
I don’t really understand why these articles compare the taxes some rich guy paid to his net worth given that we don’t tax net worth. I understand why the writers of the articles do it, but they are intentionally misleading.
Did you read part of it and take this away or did you just assume the premise of the article because that's not at all what they did. The point of the article is specifically the ways 25 specific people avoid paying taxes. Net worth is only used as a starting point because whomever leaked these documents used these people.
I'm sure ProPublica would have no problem reporting the tax rate on the top 25 reported incomes in America if they had that data, but that defeats the purpose given reported income is just income people are willing to claim for tax purposes or in the case of most Americans income they cannot legally hide for tax purposes.
-
I don’t really understand why these articles compare the taxes some rich guy paid to his net worth given that we don’t tax net worth. I understand why the writers of the articles do it, but they are intentionally misleading.
Did you read part of it and take this away or did you just assume the premise of the article because that's not at all what they did. The point of the article is specifically the ways 25 specific people avoid paying taxes. Net worth is only used as a starting point because whomever leaked these documents used these people.
I'm sure ProPublica would have no problem reporting the tax rate on the top 25 reported incomes in America if they had that data, but that defeats the purpose given reported income is just income people are willing to claim for tax purposes or in the case of most Americans income they cannot legally hide for tax purposes.
I just read the quotes you selected and posted, but I think I’ve read a half-dozen articles with a similar premise in the last couple years.
The “true tax rate” cited in your first quote is specifically nonsense.
-
I don’t really understand why these articles compare the taxes some rich guy paid to his net worth given that we don’t tax net worth. I understand why the writers of the articles do it, but they are intentionally misleading.
Did you read part of it and take this away or did you just assume the premise of the article because that's not at all what they did. The point of the article is specifically the ways 25 specific people avoid paying taxes. Net worth is only used as a starting point because whomever leaked these documents used these people.
I'm sure ProPublica would have no problem reporting the tax rate on the top 25 reported incomes in America if they had that data, but that defeats the purpose given reported income is just income people are willing to claim for tax purposes or in the case of most Americans income they cannot legally hide for tax purposes.
I just read the quotes you selected and posted, but I think I’ve read a half-dozen articles with a similar premise in the last couple years.
The “true tax rate” cited in your first quote is specifically nonsense.
I'm certain you have never read an article written by an entity with the tax returns in hand for the 25 richest Americans, but whatever.
-
do people on here actually think we should tax unrealized gains?
In my example, yes. I disagree with the way compensation is done with stock payments. They are avoiding income tax and paying tax only when they cash at a likely lower tax rate.
Tax code should be written differently. Tax at market value as income. Then you can pay on gains or take a deduction if you sell for a loss.
-
And importantly you can “realize” a lot of those gains without paying tax on them. The most obvious example being donating stock. You get to deduct the full value of the shares donated without ever paying tax on the appreciation. (Side note: Betterment has this as a feature and I feel fancy af when I use it.)
-
not to come out on either side of the should charitable donations be tax-deductable debate, but when the sell is "the ultra-rich have tax loopholes you can't even begin to imagine" and the reveal is "they give their money away rather than pay taxes" i feel like i've been oversold a bit.
-
My personal position on taxing the rich is not centered around the notion of treating everyone the same. I just think the super rich should pay a much larger proportion of their income in taxes than pretty much any other American and that a wealth tax is an efficient way to accomplish that.
-
I just think the super rich should pay a much larger proportion of their income in taxes than pretty much any other American and that a wealth tax is an efficient way to accomplish that.
hard to imagine it'd be a more efficient way to accomplish that goal than just taxing the income at whatever rate you think is best.
-
Ultra rich don't have too much income, as already noted. In order to implement the "wealth tax" being discussed ITT, it would take a radical departure from centuries of property law related to trusts. Could be dicey. Or could maybe be as simple as amending the definition of "income" under the IRS code. Never really studied it. Personally, I don't believe Congress will ever close such a door without opening a window.
-
Ultra rich don't have too much income, as already noted.
he specifically said he wanted to increase taxes on their income, which is why i suggested increasing taxes on their income.
-
Ultra rich don't have too much income, as already noted.
he specifically said he wanted to increase taxes on their income, which is why i suggested increasing taxes on their income.
You misread. I said they should pay a much larger proportion of their income in taxes than any other American. And even then I should have said percentage, because I have no issue with the tax being a multiple of what they actually make in “income.”
-
I have no issue with the tax being a multiple of what they actually make in “income.”
huh.
-
You are still fixated on the concept of traditional income tax when I keep saying that’s not what I’m talking about when I say “wealth tax.”
Mr. Moneybags makes $500k a year in taxable income but has $1 billion in other investments. I have no issues with a yearly tax of $1 million+ even though that would be more than 200% (two times) his income.
-
income is not equal to taxable income. since this whole exercise revolves around massaging tax policy in one way or another, it doesn't make much sense to me to reference taxable income as a constant when much of the discussion of necessity will involve changing how different types of income are treated.
-
Ok well that explains it if your confusion stems from the fact that you’re assuming “income” has no particular meaning in this context. You seemed to understand when responding to the point that the mega rich don’t have much income.
-
Ok well that explains it if your confusion stems from the fact that you’re assuming “income” has no particular meaning in this context. You seemed to understand when responding to the point that the mega rich don’t have much income.
yeah, after i posted, i decided i didn't express myself well and was too critical of your post when i was doing the same thing. there are a lot of terms involved that have very precise meanings with respect to u.s. taxation and also have more general meanings in regular speech or are related to terminology used more generally and unless one is pretty pedantic is carefully crafting a post it's pretty likely that other posters will not understand exactly what you are trying to communicate.
-
Ok well that explains it if your confusion stems from the fact that you’re assuming “income” has no particular meaning in this context. You seemed to understand when responding to the point that the mega rich don’t have much income.
yeah, after i posted, i decided i didn't express myself well and was too critical of your post when i was doing the same thing. there are a lot of terms involved that have very precise meanings with respect to u.s. taxation and also have more general meanings in regular speech or are related to terminology used more generally and unless one is pretty pedantic is carefully crafting a post it's pretty likely that other posters will not understand exactly what you are trying to communicate.
I don't follow...
-
Hasn't Yglesias been all over the stepped up basis around this topic (heirs selling stocks ect and what gains they are tax responsible for if the previous person basically never sold but took out loans as income based on their value)?
not that i've noticed.
just most recent yglesias mention I've seen so OT
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1408558231883071488
-
MAGA Twitter hopeful but skeptical.
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1658091346677186561?s=20
-
who is the new boogeyman?
-
He already tweeted out he is alive and well
-
He already tweeted out he is alive and well
The upload to Twitter worked!
-
Soros may die, but "Soros-backed" and "Soros-funded" will live forever.
-
Soros may die, but "Soros-backed" and "Soros-funded" will live forever.
Well that would be a lame cop out and prove the term means nothing but trying to scare old morons
-
who is the new boogeyman?
Not sure, but it will certainly be a rich jew, woman, or racial minority.
-
3 or 4 years ago - The Republicans are killing us in the dark money game :curse: :bawl: :curse: :bawl: :curse: :bawl:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html
You can't question our mega donors!! (#blueanon/#blueanongE)
We accept that Wall Street owns our party (but it's just like 1992 @turnbull) . . . (#blueanon/#blueanongE)
-
:Rusty:
3 or 4 years ago - The Republicans are killing us in the dark money game :curse: :bawl: :curse: :bawl: :curse: :bawl:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html
You can't question our mega donors!! (#blueanon/#blueanongE)
We accept that Wall Street owns our party (but it's just like 1992 @turnbull) . . . (#blueanon/#blueanongE)
@sonofdaxjones.....I think maybe politics isn't a thing for you, have you actually thought about getting a hobby that doesn't involve thinking you're the only one who has seen through the looking glass? Go ride a bike, bird watch, watch K-State reruns, but trust me when I say this as the resident DC cat.....Politics isn't your thing, you're the person people make fun of in a bar on K-street saying can you believe this idiot called me about Blue Anon lolz, you're the one that staffers laugh at in Dupont Circle saying these people believe whatever horseshit we sell, you're the mark in the Rayburn building how they brag that they can get these people to believe in anything by saying lookie over there at that shiny Blue Anon stuff like saying the Capitol was really an FBI op, you're the one that Alex Jones sells "vitamins" to because he views you as easily gullible. Like professional advice....check out of politics....and whatever brain worm of a news source you have.
Also a solid question for you, why are you so obsessed with me? Like you randomly invoke my name at times. Cause at this point every time you mention me...i'll just say pass the potatoes because this conversation isn't worth wasting a brain cell.
-
It’s the same old tired act, Randy.
Everything that cuts against your political dogma is a conspiracy. It’s pathetic.
Your locale name drops are also tired and harken back to your schtick on the Mercury forum.
-
It’s the same old tired act, Randy.
Everything that cuts against your political dogma is a conspiracy. It’s pathetic.
Your locale name drops are also tired and harken back to your schtick on the Mercury forum.
Speaking of conspiracy's, Dax are there any right wing conspiracies you don't ascribe to? Legit can you name a right wing extremist fever dream that even you can't believe?