In 2007 and 2011 Mr. Bezos, the CEO of Amazon Corporation, did not pay federal income tax even when Amazon's stock price doubled.
George Soros – investor and philanthropist did not pay any taxes for 3 years from 2016 to 2018 because his investments all suffered losses.
Unlike most people, most of their income often benefits from tax avoidance strategies that are beyond the reach of the average person. Furthermore, their wealth is often based primarily on rising stock and real estate prices, which are not considered taxable assets unless sold.
Topic: George Soros and Bezos have paid almost zero taxes (Read 1085 times)
The problem on an "unrealized profit" is the fact that it is unrealized as of that moment, which means that it can't be taxed properly. Normally if you are apple and you sell iphone and make a profit from it, that is income and that could be taxed, if the stock of apple goes up because they sold a lot of iphones and you do not sell your stock then you do not get taxed the same way.
This needs to change, there is basically close to zero difference the two, selling an orange gets taxed but owning the increase valued orange farm doesn't get taxed properly. If you change that and make sure that everyone pays even on unrealized profits then it will be a lot easier for the whole nation overnight.
This needs to change, there is basically close to zero difference the two, selling an orange gets taxed but owning the increase valued orange farm doesn't get taxed properly. If you change that and make sure that everyone pays even on unrealized profits then it will be a lot easier for the whole nation overnight.
This is why I am of the opinion that the current system of taxation unfairly targets the middle class. There are several loopholes for the rich, where they can evade or avoid taxes. We don't exactly need a wealth tax. But we need a system that eliminates the loopholes that are being used by the rich, such as charity and business losses. Bill Gates along caused a $20 billion loss to the US treasury, when he transferred his shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The justification being given is that the BMGF is a charity organization, mostly active in Africa and Asia. But even then, the question arises. Why should the US tax payer suffer for Bill Gates doing his charity work in Africa? And then Bill Gates got divorce from his wife, just to reduce the tax bill even further. He is one of the biggest tax frauds I have ever seen in my life.
Actually the article is talking about unrealized income because it's comparing total rise in wealth over the time period they looked at vs. income tax paid. Since the vast majority of the wealth increases were unrealized gains on assets, the "true tax rate" that the article calculates is actually a tax rate on primarily unrealized gains. When you use the actual income reported by the people they looked at (Bezos, Buffet, Musk, etc.), the tax rates on income are many times higher than the "true tax rate" they reported as being in the extremely low single digits. The income tax rate paid was generally around 20-25%. Still far too low if you ask me, but nowhere near the 3% or so numbers they were touting when doing calculations based on unrealized gains. Bloomberg is the exception where his income rate actually is 2.92%, but the others are Buffet 18.96%, Bezos 23.05%, Musk 29.93%.
The problem on an "unrealized profit" is the fact that it is unrealized as of that moment, which means that it can't be taxed properly. Normally if you are apple and you sell iphone and make a profit from it, that is income and that could be taxed, if the stock of apple goes up because they sold a lot of iphones and you do not sell your stock then you do not get taxed the same way.This needs to change, there is basically close to zero difference the two, selling an orange gets taxed but owning the increase valued orange farm doesn't get taxed properly. If you change that and make sure that everyone pays even on unrealized profits then it will be a lot easier for the whole nation overnight.
Actually the article is talking about unrealized income because it's comparing total rise in wealth over the time period they looked at vs. income tax paid. Since the vast majority of the wealth increases were unrealized gains on assets, the "true tax rate" that the article calculates is actually a tax rate on primarily unrealized gains. When you use the actual income reported by the people they looked at (Bezos, Buffet, Musk, etc.), the tax rates on income are many times higher than the "true tax rate" they reported as being in the extremely low single digits. The income tax rate paid was generally around 20-25%. Still far too low if you ask me, but nowhere near the 3% or so numbers they were touting when doing calculations based on unrealized gains. Bloomberg is the exception where his income rate actually is 2.92%, but the others are Buffet 18.96%, Bezos 23.05%, Musk 29.93%.
Wrong.
The article mentions "reported income during the period". How can unrealized capital gains be included in "reported income"? As far as I know, capital gains are not reported unless the assets are sold.
The "Wealth growth", which you are mentioning is given in a separate column. The percentage is not calculated based on "wealth growth", but based on "reported income". You are trying to confuse the readers between the two.
For example, Bloomberg's wealth grew by $22.5 billion during the period, but he reported an income of $10.0 billion. And he paid an income tax of $292 million, which represents 1% of the wealth growth and 3% of the reported income.
Anyway, the users can now see the hypocrisy. A left-wing user is trying to defend tax evasion/avoidance by the uber-rich, while a right-wing user (myself) is voicing my displeasure over it. This is the real picture of "tax the rich".
I think that the title is a bit misleading.
Especially with Buffet and others, it's likely that most of the 'unpaid' taxes simply came from the fact that they are unrealized capital gains.
When you don't dispose of assets, you don't get taxed on them - it's that simple. This is the case for everyone, high or low income.
Especially with Buffet and others, it's likely that most of the 'unpaid' taxes simply came from the fact that they are unrealized capital gains.
When you don't dispose of assets, you don't get taxed on them - it's that simple. This is the case for everyone, high or low income.
Check the article again. It doesn't refer to "unrealized income", but the income or gain that was realized. Michael Bloomberg reported an income of $10 billion, and yet paid 2.9% of that as tax. In case of Buffet it is slightly higher. He reported an income of $125 million, and paid a tax of 18%. But even in the case of Buffet, the tax that he paid is three times lower than the marginal income tax for the highest slab in the United States. Democrats are proceeding with the tax increases, because they know that it will have an impact only among the middle class (esp. upper middle class). For the top 0.01% who comprise the ultra-rich, none of this increases matters. They will continue to avoid taxes.
Actually the article is talking about unrealized income because it's comparing total rise in wealth over the time period they looked at vs. income tax paid. Since the vast majority of the wealth increases were unrealized gains on assets, the "true tax rate" that the article calculates is actually a tax rate on primarily unrealized gains. When you use the actual income reported by the people they looked at (Bezos, Buffet, Musk, etc.), the tax rates on income are many times higher than the "true tax rate" they reported as being in the extremely low single digits. The income tax rate paid was generally around 20-25%. Still far too low if you ask me, but nowhere near the 3% or so numbers they were touting when doing calculations based on unrealized gains. Bloomberg is the exception where his income rate actually is 2.92%, but the others are Buffet 18.96%, Bezos 23.05%, Musk 29.93%.
I think that the title is a bit misleading.
Especially with Buffet and others, it's likely that most of the 'unpaid' taxes simply came from the fact that they are unrealized capital gains.
When you don't dispose of assets, you don't get taxed on them - it's that simple. This is the case for everyone, high or low income.
Especially with Buffet and others, it's likely that most of the 'unpaid' taxes simply came from the fact that they are unrealized capital gains.
When you don't dispose of assets, you don't get taxed on them - it's that simple. This is the case for everyone, high or low income.
Check the article again. It doesn't refer to "unrealized income", but the income or gain that was realized. Michael Bloomberg reported an income of $10 billion, and yet paid 2.9% of that as tax. In case of Buffet it is slightly higher. He reported an income of $125 million, and paid a tax of 18%. But even in the case of Buffet, the tax that he paid is three times lower than the marginal income tax for the highest slab in the United States. Democrats are proceeding with the tax increases, because they know that it will have an impact only among the middle class (esp. upper middle class). For the top 0.01% who comprise the ultra-rich, none of this increases matters. They will continue to avoid taxes.
I think that the title is a bit misleading.
Especially with Buffet and others, it's likely that most of the 'unpaid' taxes simply came from the fact that they are unrealized capital gains.
When you don't dispose of assets, you don't get taxed on them - it's that simple. This is the case for everyone, high or low income.
Especially with Buffet and others, it's likely that most of the 'unpaid' taxes simply came from the fact that they are unrealized capital gains.
When you don't dispose of assets, you don't get taxed on them - it's that simple. This is the case for everyone, high or low income.
I do remember some advice on how to not pay taxes on your account, And if I remember correctly then you have to create a bank account with a special account "I forgot the name of that", It's linked to a business account and you're using that account to store most of your money which has to pay fewer taxes.
In the end, you can expand your business by saving more than 5% on taxes compared to classic accounts.
In the end, you can expand your business by saving more than 5% on taxes compared to classic accounts.
Not a very intelligent idea. You can transfer money from your accounts to the company account, but in the end there is no guarantee that the business will be returning a profit. You can show the transfer as an interest free loan. But if the business closes down due to bankruptcy, such loans are given the last preference. The first preference will be given for financial institutions which had given out loans to the company. And with corporate tax rates going up, I don't think that the potential returns justify the risk that is being taken.
I do remember some advice on how to not pay taxes on your account, And if I remember correctly then you have to create a bank account with a special account "I forgot the name of that", It's linked to a business account and you're using that account to store most of your money which has to pay fewer taxes.
In the end, you can expand your business by saving more than 5% on taxes compared to classic accounts.
In the end, you can expand your business by saving more than 5% on taxes compared to classic accounts.
~
Even though the charity focuses on the developing world where they feel the improvements they make in health infrastructure and sanitation will do the most good and save the most lives, in 2019 the charity spent approximately 524 million dollars on US programs with the vast majority going to educational initiatives. I have no problem with a charity helping the developing world. Charity is charity, and saving the most lives is what matters.
Even though the charity focuses on the developing world where they feel the improvements they make in health infrastructure and sanitation will do the most good and save the most lives, in 2019 the charity spent approximately 524 million dollars on US programs with the vast majority going to educational initiatives. I have no problem with a charity helping the developing world. Charity is charity, and saving the most lives is what matters.
Can you give a breakdown of this 514 million USD figure? I want to know how much of it was spent on organizing conferences and on speaking charges. Does that include speeches from politicians such as Hillary Clinton (who charge anywhere from $100,000 to $1 million as speaking fee for a single event)? I also don't have any problem in Bill Gates helping developing world. But that shouldn't be done at the expense of the tax payer in the US. Is it that hard for Mr. Gates to pay 20% of the amount as capital gains tax, and spend the remaining 80% in Africa, or wherever he want?
Go read the Gates Foundation annual reports, they give details about spending initiatives. Bill Gates never had income from the stock to pay a capital gains tax, so there's no taxes to pay. You still can't seem to grasp the difference between what constitutes income and what doesn't.
Also, what's with the ridiculous conspiracy theories? Can you even find one instance of Hillary Clinton speaking at a Gates Foundation event? Why do you think she made so much money from the Gates Foundation? In reality, nothing like you keep alleging has happened.
Not sure where these figures come from. Google search did not give me any result which would fit to these number. I would be interested too, to know how they can be broke down. Also, because the number is pretty low for the whole US for one year. Usually, such an amount in charity are made from single persons alone. And besides, the sum would be far too little for me, compared to what the super-rich save in taxes.
Read the Gates Foundation reports. I took it directly from what they reported they spent on each of their initiatives. US education isn't one of their main initiatives, they've spent billions of on clean water infrastructure and vaccination campaigns in Africa to improve the quality of life for the world's most vulnerable populations.
That also means that if the shares were transferred without Bill Gates ever selling them, then they were never income and never subject to income tax. And because they're now owned by a charity, Bill Gates doesn't have that as part of his personal wealth anymore. So there's literally nothing wrong with the example you used yourself.
I don't agree 100%. The ownership change is only nominal. Previously Bill Gates was owning these shares in his personal account (i.e direct ownership). Now he owns these shares indirectly. BMGF owns these shares and BMGF is under the control of Bill & Melinda Gates. The revenue from the sale of these shares are still being spent as per the preference of Bill Gates. If he hadn't moved them to BMGF, then these shares would have got taxed at the time of his death (he is 65 years old now).
It's not a nominal change, it's a legal distinction. Bill Gates does not own indirectly the shares after he donates them because he does not own the charity. Controlling a the charity is not the same as ownership, and he cannot do whatever he wants with the shares as a principal of the charity because charities are regulated and have to fulfill a charitable mission to keep their tax-exempt status. So it is 100% wrong to say that Bill Gates indirectly owns the shares or that he can do whatever he wants with them. So we're back to Bill Gates never realizing any income from the shares, hence no reason for him ever to pay taxes on them.
It's shady no matter how it may sound because it only looks like they are looking for a way to avoid paying the tax. Foundation had been the way to be doing this by the big corporations. This is just for the press to show the people like they are giving back the achievement they got through the people, helping the cancer patients, the poor by the charity works but in reality, they are just as crooks as robbers. They could have just told the truth like Trump who actually admits to doing it at least we know he isn't a bad liar.
It doesn't look that way at all and it only appears shady to you because you're determined to view it only as a conspiracy. Contrast the people you keep ripping on for running actual charities with trump who was forced to shut his charity down because he actually was committing fraud through the charity. Gates actually has something to show for the charity initiatives of his foundation, which is all the advancement in vaccinations in Africa.
Well that is why its called the real power is in money plus Only richer can be richest and middle-class has to stay middle-class and poor becomes more poor. If i am not wrong only middle-class has tp face the more problem in tax. They are aware they afraid thats why they paid tax. But richest people has a support of poletical parties so they don't need to worry. They have a very good relations with poletics for funding poletical parties so they got the chance to avoid taxes. Its my opinion others can be different thank you.
Not sure where these figures come from. Google search did not give me any result which would fit to these number. I would be interested too, to know how they can be broke down. Also, because the number is pretty low for the whole US for one year. Usually, such an amount in charity are made from single persons alone. And besides, the sum would be far too little for me, compared to what the super-rich save in taxes.
The loss for the US treasury is measured at around $20 billion. The figure quoted (~0.5 billion USD) represents a tiny fraction of that. But the devil lies in the details. We need to know how this $0.5 billion was spent. The US government would have used this money on food stamps or other welfare measures. If the BMGF claims that they used this amount to promote courses on gender studies and LGBT issues, it is not going to compensate what the local authorities lost. And that amount could have helped a lot of people within the states, during these tough times.
~
Even though the charity focuses on the developing world where they feel the improvements they make in health infrastructure and sanitation will do the most good and save the most lives, in 2019 the charity spent approximately 524 million dollars on US programs with the vast majority going to educational initiatives. I have no problem with a charity helping the developing world. Charity is charity, and saving the most lives is what matters.
Even though the charity focuses on the developing world where they feel the improvements they make in health infrastructure and sanitation will do the most good and save the most lives, in 2019 the charity spent approximately 524 million dollars on US programs with the vast majority going to educational initiatives. I have no problem with a charity helping the developing world. Charity is charity, and saving the most lives is what matters.
Can you give a breakdown of this 514 million USD figure?
Not sure where these figures come from. Google search did not give me any result which would fit to these number. I would be interested too, to know how they can be broke down. Also, because the number is pretty low for the whole US for one year. Usually, such an amount in charity are made from single persons alone. And besides, the sum would be far too little for me, compared to what the super-rich save in taxes.
~
Even though the charity focuses on the developing world where they feel the improvements they make in health infrastructure and sanitation will do the most good and save the most lives, in 2019 the charity spent approximately 524 million dollars on US programs with the vast majority going to educational initiatives. I have no problem with a charity helping the developing world. Charity is charity, and saving the most lives is what matters.
Even though the charity focuses on the developing world where they feel the improvements they make in health infrastructure and sanitation will do the most good and save the most lives, in 2019 the charity spent approximately 524 million dollars on US programs with the vast majority going to educational initiatives. I have no problem with a charity helping the developing world. Charity is charity, and saving the most lives is what matters.
Can you give a breakdown of this 514 million USD figure? I want to know how much of it was spent on organizing conferences and on speaking charges. Does that include speeches from politicians such as Hillary Clinton (who charge anywhere from $100,000 to $1 million as speaking fee for a single event)? I also don't have any problem in Bill Gates helping developing world. But that shouldn't be done at the expense of the tax payer in the US. Is it that hard for Mr. Gates to pay 20% of the amount as capital gains tax, and spend the remaining 80% in Africa, or wherever he want?
By transferring it to a charity, which is regulated in how it can spend it, it's no longer the rich person's money, so there's no benefit to them for doing so. The thing that keeps getting repeated over and over again is that the BMGF is controlled by Bill Gates, like that somehow makes it so he didn't actually donate the money and can spend it however he wants. That's not true, not even a little, and so continuing to repeat the lie isn't changing the fact that nothing has been done wrong, and nothing shady has happened.
For a moment, let's assume that BMGF has spent zero funds on consultation, salaries and speaking fees (popular ways to bribe politicians). How much of that money is being spent on American citizens, given the fact that the US treasury suffered a loss of $20 billion? As far as I know, less than 1% of the money was spent on US. Now what will happen, if the other billionaires follow the same example. Let's say that Elon Musk sets up a charity with $100 billion worth of shares from Tesla. He then decides to use that money, to help poor white South Africans (his own ethnic group). Will it be OK for you, or are you going to object, since he is supporting the "politically incorrect" group?
As a charity focused on vaccine development and distribution which requires the infrastructure and scientific proficiency of the US, not to mention operating in the US, the vast majority of economic activity directly attributable to the charity's activities I would expect goes to the benefit of the US economy. Your 1% "as far as you know" is laughably inaccurate, but also embarrassing since you've never tried to know the truth with any degree of accuracy. How about doing some basic research instead of making wildly inaccurate assumptions about things you don't know the slightest bit about?
Even though the charity focuses on the developing world where they feel the improvements they make in health infrastructure and sanitation will do the most good and save the most lives, in 2019 the charity spent approximately 524 million dollars on US programs with the vast majority going to educational initiatives. I have no problem with a charity helping the developing world. Charity is charity, and saving the most lives is what matters.
By transferring it to a charity, which is regulated in how it can spend it, it's no longer the rich person's money, so there's no benefit to them for doing so. The thing that keeps getting repeated over and over again is that the BMGF is controlled by Bill Gates, like that somehow makes it so he didn't actually donate the money and can spend it however he wants. That's not true, not even a little, and so continuing to repeat the lie isn't changing the fact that nothing has been done wrong, and nothing shady has happened.
For a moment, let's assume that BMGF has spent zero funds on consultation, salaries and speaking fees (popular ways to bribe politicians). How much of that money is being spent on American citizens, given the fact that the US treasury suffered a loss of $20 billion? As far as I know, less than 1% of the money was spent on US. Now what will happen, if the other billionaires follow the same example. Let's say that Elon Musk sets up a charity with $100 billion worth of shares from Tesla. He then decides to use that money, to help poor white South Africans (his own ethnic group). Will it be OK for you, or are you going to object, since he is supporting the "politically incorrect" group?
It's shady no matter how it may sound because it only looks like they are looking for a way to avoid paying the tax. Foundation had been the way to be doing this by the big corporations. This is just for the press to show the people like they are giving back the achievement they got through the people, helping the cancer patients, the poor by the charity works but in reality, they are just as crooks as robbers. They could have just told the truth like Trump who actually admits to doing it at least we know he isn't a bad liar.
I also see the same thing, they are just doing everything they can to avoid being taxed by opening their own foundation. By transferring the money they have to the foundation it will not be taxed. This is what is often found in many countries, large companies with a view of caring for the environment open foundations to avoid their taxes. Cover their bad work by opening a foundation. Isn't this a very interesting idea for companies to do on their tax deductions.
By transferring it to a charity, which is regulated in how it can spend it, it's no longer the rich person's money, so there's no benefit to them for doing so. The thing that keeps getting repeated over and over again is that the BMGF is controlled by Bill Gates, like that somehow makes it so he didn't actually donate the money and can spend it however he wants. That's not true, not even a little, and so continuing to repeat the lie isn't changing the fact that nothing has been done wrong, and nothing shady has happened.
It's shady no matter how it may sound because it only looks like they are looking for a way to avoid paying the tax. Foundation had been the way to be doing this by the big corporations. This is just for the press to show the people like they are giving back the achievement they got through the people, helping the cancer patients, the poor by the charity works but in reality, they are just as crooks as robbers. They could have just told the truth like Trump who actually admits to doing it at least we know he isn't a bad liar.
I also see the same thing, they are just doing everything they can to avoid being taxed by opening their own foundation. By transferring the money they have to the foundation it will not be taxed. This is what is often found in many countries, large companies with a view of caring for the environment open foundations to avoid their taxes. Cover their bad work by opening a foundation. Isn't this a very interesting idea for companies to do on their tax deductions.
That also means that if the shares were transferred without Bill Gates ever selling them, then they were never income and never subject to income tax. And because they're now owned by a charity, Bill Gates doesn't have that as part of his personal wealth anymore. So there's literally nothing wrong with the example you used yourself.
I don't agree 100%. The ownership change is only nominal. Previously Bill Gates was owning these shares in his personal account (i.e direct ownership). Now he owns these shares indirectly. BMGF owns these shares and BMGF is under the control of Bill & Melinda Gates. The revenue from the sale of these shares are still being spent as per the preference of Bill Gates. If he hadn't moved them to BMGF, then these shares would have got taxed at the time of his death (he is 65 years old now).
It's not a nominal change, it's a legal distinction. Bill Gates does not own indirectly the shares after he donates them because he does not own the charity. Controlling a the charity is not the same as ownership, and he cannot do whatever he wants with the shares as a principal of the charity because charities are regulated and have to fulfill a charitable mission to keep their tax-exempt status. So it is 100% wrong to say that Bill Gates indirectly owns the shares or that he can do whatever he wants with them. So we're back to Bill Gates never realizing any income from the shares, hence no reason for him ever to pay taxes on them.
It's shady no matter how it may sound because it only looks like they are looking for a way to avoid paying the tax. Foundation had been the way to be doing this by the big corporations. This is just for the press to show the people like they are giving back the achievement they got through the people, helping the cancer patients, the poor by the charity works but in reality, they are just as crooks as robbers. They could have just told the truth like Trump who actually admits to doing it at least we know he isn't a bad liar.
Jump to: