barbos
Contributor
From OP effective tax rate:
Buffett 19.44%
Bezos 23.06%
Bloomberg 2.92%
Musk 29.9%
Buffett 19.44%
Bezos 23.06%
Bloomberg 2.92%
Musk 29.9%
To buy that yacht he had to pay 37% income tax, then luxury tax, then sales tax and now he is paying annual property tax.
Not to mention he has to pay for maintenance, salaries to the crew. Thanks to that yacht, a lot of people have jobs now.
Now if you want to take that yacht and divide among all the people in US I doubt you will get more than 1$ for each one of them.
You can of course add a bunch of other billionaires and get maybe $50 total, but that's about it.
Billionaire's personal spending is the least of your problem.
Corporate tax loophole is the real problem and it seems they finally decided to do something about it.
The point is these guys get tax breaks unavailable to ordinary people and use them to pay no taxes to support the country they operate in.
I might not be opposed to some sort of tax on wealth or unrealized gains, at least as an alternate when it would be higher than the income tax. A disadvantage of this is that new accounting rules (and opportunities for tax fraud) would arise.
To buy that yacht he had to pay 37% income tax, then luxury tax, then sales tax and now he is paying annual property tax.
Not to mention he has to pay for maintenance, salaries to the crew. Thanks to that yacht, a lot of people have jobs now.
Now if you want to take that yacht and divide among all the people in US I doubt you will get more than 1$ for each one of them.
You can of course add a bunch of other billionaires and get maybe $50 total, but that's about it.
Billionaire's personal spending is the least of your problem.
Corporate tax loophole is the real problem and it seems they finally decided to do something about it.
No, I don't want to take his yacht. I have to pay property tax and sales tax too. I want him to pay federal income tax on his income just like everybody else. Just because his income is in the form pf stocks and not cash should make no difference. If I win a car on The Price Is Right I have to pay tax on it as if it was income.
To buy that yacht he had to pay 37% income tax, then luxury tax, then sales tax and now he is paying annual property tax.
Not to mention he has to pay for maintenance, salaries to the crew. Thanks to that yacht, a lot of people have jobs now.
Now if you want to take that yacht and divide among all the people in US I doubt you will get more than 1$ for each one of them.
You can of course add a bunch of other billionaires and get maybe $50 total, but that's about it.
Billionaire's personal spending is the least of your problem.
Corporate tax loophole is the real problem and it seems they finally decided to do something about it.
No, I don't want to take his yacht. I have to pay property tax and sales tax too. I want him to pay federal income tax on his income just like everybody else. Just because his income is in the form pf stocks and not cash should make no difference. If I win a car on The Price Is Right I have to pay tax on it as if it was income.
But this is just incorrect. Or maybe it's a misunderstanding. His income comes from when he converts some of his stocks to cash. He's not taxed until conversion because stocks are not cash. They are approximate estimations of cash value on a particular day. But it isn't cash. You can't buy a car with Amazon stock. You pay property taxes on your house at the state level, not at the federal level.
Just because it's valuable does not mean you should tax it. I mean, you can, but you should not.I might not be opposed to some sort of tax on wealth or unrealized gains, at least as an alternate when it would be higher than the income tax. A disadvantage of this is that new accounting rules (and opportunities for tax fraud) would arise.
That's the thing though, by calling it an unrealized gain makes it seem like it has no value when in truth it's extremely valuable. It should be considered income based on its value the day it was given, the same as the car in my post above.
Just because it's valuable does not mean you should tax it. I mean, you can, but you should not.I might not be opposed to some sort of tax on wealth or unrealized gains, at least as an alternate when it would be higher than the income tax. A disadvantage of this is that new accounting rules (and opportunities for tax fraud) would arise.
That's the thing though, by calling it an unrealized gain makes it seem like it has no value when in truth it's extremely valuable. It should be considered income based on its value the day it was given, the same as the car in my post above.
From economical point of view what is important is economic activity, not accumulated wealth. And taxes should be related to economic activity-consumption. You can make it progressive if you want but wealth tax is bullshit.
The big question is why is a stock given in remuneration not considered income but virtually everything else is?
The big question is why is a stock given in remuneration not considered income but virtually everything else is?
Because stock price can go up and down. Are you prepared to give collected taxes back when stock went and stayed down?
If not, then fuck off with your ridiculous ideas.
It's different because you put only 5 bucks into this lottery ticket.The big question is why is a stock given in remuneration not considered income but virtually everything else is?
Because stock price can go up and down. Are you prepared to give collected taxes back when stock went and stayed down?
If not, then fuck off with your ridiculous ideas.
The car I just won and had to pay taxes on dropped 20% as soon as I drove it off the lot. How is that any differant?
Why is it a ridiculous idea?
It's different because you put only 5 bucks into this lottery ticket.The car I just won and had to pay taxes on dropped 20% as soon as I drove it off the lot. How is that any differant?
Why is it a ridiculous idea?
In case of stock, you bought stock on $1000 it went up to $11000, then IRS made you pay $3000 (30% on unrealized gain), then next year it goes back to $1000, and you are suddenly out of real $3000.
Based on what each of these billionaires actually contribute to society, I would tax Musk the least and Bloomberg the most. After all Musk may save all of humanity and Bloomberg is just a financial money changing leach. The actual rates paid above are actually the opposite. Which strongly indicates that tax rates between billionaires themselves are not even fair!From OP effective tax rate:
Buffett 19.44%
Bezos 23.06%
Bloomberg 2.92%
Musk 29.9%
It makes no difference. Bezos could have sold all his stock to himself and claim cash enumeration and avoid all your proposed "founders" tax.It's different because you put only 5 bucks into this lottery ticket.The car I just won and had to pay taxes on dropped 20% as soon as I drove it off the lot. How is that any differant?
Why is it a ridiculous idea?
In case of stock, you bought stock on $1000 it went up to $11000, then IRS made you pay $3000 (30% on unrealized gain), then next year it goes back to $1000, and you are suddenly out of real $3000.
That's a differant situation than what is being discussed in the OP. The people in the OP are being remunerated in stocks, not cash. They didn't buy them as an investment.
It's clear that Bloomberg had carried out losses from previous years when he sold on $10bil.Based on what each of these billionaires actually contribute to society, I would tax Musk the least and Bloomberg the most. After all Musk may save all of humanity and Bloomberg is just a financial money changing leach.From OP effective tax rate:
Buffett 19.44%
Bezos 23.06%
Bloomberg 2.92%
Musk 29.9%
Based on what each of these billionaires actually contribute to society, I would tax Musk the least and Bloomberg the most. After all Musk may save all of humanity and Bloomberg is just a financial money changing leach. The actual rates paid above are actually the opposite. Which strongly indicates that tax rates between billionaires themselves are not even fair!
It makes no difference. Bezos could have sold all his stock to himself and claim cash enumeration and avoid all your proposed "founders" tax.That's a differant situation than what is being discussed in the OP. The people in the OP are being remunerated in stocks, not cash. They didn't buy them as an investment.
The fact that he arranged certain amount of stock for himself as a founder, virtually for free, makes no difference.
The best you can do is to have small wealth tax. Basically make everybody to give government certain and very small percentage of their stock.
Tax on stock price fluctuations is not going to work. It would destroy the stock market.
Note the number they are comparing it to is "total wealth growth". Three of these four have the vast majority of their wealth in shares of their company (not addressing the fourth, I simply don't know.) Taxes are only due when those shares are sold, pretending that that's their income is being very deceptive.
To buy that yacht he had to pay 37% income tax,
then luxury tax, then sales tax and now he is paying annual property tax.
Because income tax loopholes simply don't exist.Corporate tax loophole is the real problem and it seems they finally decided to do something about it.
Why do you think corporate tax loopholes can be a problem but loopholes for the oncome of the super rich can't be a problem?