'Absurd!': US Billionaires Pay Lower Tax Rate Than Working Class for First Time

jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 990 points –
'Absurd!': US Billionaires Pay Lower Tax Rate Than Working Class for First Time | Common Dreams
commondreams.org
140

Their tax rate isn’t the real issue. The fact that they extract that much wealth out of the labor and production of others is the real problem.

No human being should have a billion dollars. The workers who got you to your level of privilege and status should be paid based on their worth.

A boss that pays fairly would never become a billionaire, and their workers would live good lives being paid the actual value of their labor. Increased demand from increased household discretionary income would create a boom on the supply side.

But it will never happen, because billionaires own everything and will always manufacture consent. Democracy will die to thunderous applause.

Us poors (the dumb ones, because education will be forever castrated) will clap for the billionaires and lay our thrift store hand-me-down jackets over the curb so they can cross a puddle in the street lest they get a drop of water on their 100k elephant skin boots. It's coming to a head

Although this is true, I'd like this graph on a billboard outside every polling location in November:

If we tax them they won’t be incentivized to make more money, thus depriving the market of needed jobs. /s

This is true in the way they may just move overseas, but the frees up the local market for new business and competition!

OR aggressively union-bust and lobby the hell out of congress until, well, we get what we have now: corporate plutocracy.

Wouldn’t they need to employ more people to make the same amount of money?

Not in this country…

Just like we never should have bailed out corporations we should not worry about taxing corporations or the rich. The void will be filled and more rich people will be made. That's how the "free market" works. If you do not let companies die innovation slows and the economy rots. Rich people may not be motivated but some poor people will be.

That there are even billionaires, let alone multi-billionaires. It's an immoral, unethical system that fundamentally exploited labor that allowed for this.

That productivity has gone up but wages have remained stagnant should boil everyone's blood. All the wealth stolen and sent upwards into fewer and fewer hands. Legalized theft by way of capitalism.

Great article. Nice to see an economist doing such important work. I don't really understand finances. I snipped the parts of the article that helped me understand the finding/headling. There's a great chart in the article of taxation differences since the 1960s too - staggering! Plutocracy in action!

Published in The New York Times with the headline "It's Time to Tax the Billionaires," Zucman's analysis notes that billionaires pay so little in taxes relative to their vast fortunes because they "live off their wealth"—mostly in the form of stock holdings—rather than wages and salaries.

Stock gains aren't currently taxed in the U.S. until the underlying asset is sold, leaving billionaires like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk—a pair frequently competing to be the single richest man on the planet—with very little taxable income.

"But they can still make eye-popping purchases by borrowing against their assets," Zucman noted. "Mr. Musk, for example, used his shares in Tesla as collateral to rustle up around $13 billion in tax-free loans to put toward his acquisition of Twitter."

We can tax registered securities. Stock holdings. We can take 5% or 50% of all outstanding shares, each and every year, and transfer them to IRS liquidators to be resold in small lots over time.

We can exempt the first $10 million held by a natural person, (which exempts about 99.5% of the populace from the securities tax) and establish a progressive tax schedule that causes the tax rate to exceed average gains when holding more than $100 million worth of securities.

8 more...
8 more...

BREAKING NEWS: Republican voters still learning about the Trump Era Tax Reform 8 years later!

Sometimes I think we shouldn’t have photoshop.

Then I drink more 🖖🏻

I....I mean the original is amazing...one of the best moments in television history....

But you went and made it better somehow.

One of the things I do love about Lemmy is that any post anywhere can suddenly turn into a Star Trek shitposting thread

NOONE EXPECTS THE STARFLEET INQUISITION

(one of you nerds make that into a gif)

Yeah, I saw that, but forgot to bookmark it

(before I get flamed... I like both series for what they are. But, uh... yeah. Spock wants his Lightsaber, too.)

Sisko is the best captain.

Hands down. He tko’d Q… and lived to tell about it.

What the MSM considers normal regular American I consider upperclass. What they consider poor I consider normal. What they consider homeless is actually the new poor.

Yeah, a whole lot of working folks are one missed paycheck from homelessness. I'm old enough to remember that it wasn't always like this, if you were working you didn't have nearly so much anxiety and exhaustion, you could afford to look after a kid or have the occasional holiday, maybe own a home. Not anymore. The rich are getting richer though.

I've watched some of my friends struggle with homelessness. They are amazing people with brilliant minds, but just got unlucky while working a dead end job. It's fucking terrible.

Yeah, it's really messed up. And getting worse. I'm just not sure how we change it without violence though. Voting doesn't fucking help. And, like me, most of the people who are hurting don't want violent change. Rightly, because like capitalism, revolution hurts a lot of people. But it feels like society is a balloon and the rich are squeezing it and wondering when it'll pop. It's hard to predict what's gonna happen but based on the way things have been I'd say worse.

A general, mass strike would probably never happen. But it should. More strikes in general. I feel like there are still things to try before going full Joker

I think torches, and pitchforks. We should go old school.

I wish people would say this and mean it. I'm waiting. I think we should actually eat one billionaire to make a point. I'm vegetarian but I'll take a bite to prove my commitment.

It's kind of a naive idea though. I used to think it was possible. They will literally just kill us or actively make us poor/homeless/antisocial and make some sort of loophole to make it legal and justified. I wish I didn't think it was game over for the nation but I think it's actually a lost cause. And any time I try to talk to someone in hopes they can influence me otherwise they just prove my point and make me want to give up more. It's like they create a division on purpose, or the benefit of the doubt is that they are too naive or emotional to understand what they are actually doing which is creating more of the people they claim to oppose.

It's like a natural force that keeps war in constant motion. Nobody is allowed to just "be". Doesn't matter if they contribute to society or not. People are disposable to groups and nations. It's an industry. Probably the one that maintains the backbone or foundation of each group/nation/force.

This is exactly what they want you to think. But the republican party is almost at the point where they can't win a national election even WITH all thier gerrymandering and misinformation. 2024 may be the last election where they even stand a chance.

The ultra-rich want you to believe that it's hopeless, but it is far from it. Their only options now are to create a dictatorship or give up political power to the left, who (however flawed) actually represent the people.

When I watched the movie "V for Vendetta" as a kid, I thought it was inspiring and dramatic.

Now I see it as ridiculous. At the end, when the protesters are facing the armed soldiers? And they just stand down? Yeah, that would not happen. There would be a bunch of bullet-riddled corpses in masks. And then the next day, the executions would begin.

4 more...
4 more...

This is easy to solve. Count the loans as ordinary income. Problem solved.

I had to take an insane amount of loans out to get my nursing license. I'll be paying them off for over a decade. I don't like this idea

Easy, put a 1 million dollar limit (as in tax kicks in after 1 mil)

And exclude primary residence.

eexclude value of average (maybe median) cost of a dwelling off their dwelling.

fuck this "my primary dwelling is a $10m mansion"

Update the new personal exemption to 50k. 12.5k is no longer the poverty line.

There are numerous things to make this proposal reasonable.

Count as income depending on amount of loan, nature of collateral, and usage of the loaned money.

A loan taken out against primary residence used for purchase of same residence under a million dollars? Not applicable. Proceeds used for education, within reasonable limits? Not applicable.

When a loan is taxed as income, provide for tax credits upon repayment reconcile ultimate use of "real" income. That way you avoid the "double tax" compliant they keep whining about.

I find the tax loans approach ultimately the most workable approach to close the loopholes.

Exclude students loans and anything tied to an asset. These are unique loans only offered to the super wealthy or since there are equity based loans, just tax equity based loans

Aren’t all loans tied to assets?

No.

That rich get loans that basically last their lifetime. They are income replacement. They are not tied to home, a car, etc.

They are just avoiding taxes.

I don’t blame them. It’s smart.

It’s why politicians need to eliminate it.

And it’s tied to an asset. Stocks, real estate, something. That’s how loans work. The bank doesn’t just hand you money just for an IOU. It needs something to hold you accountable.

No it’s not. They are not buying an asset with. It’s sometimes back with with an asset as collateral but it’s not tied to an asset. The loan isn’t taken out to buy a home. It’s taken out as living expenses.

It’s why a consumption tax would fuck the rich.

Oh, you mean as the destination of the money. But I wouldn’t be too quick to use this as criteria. Lots of people use loans like that because they get poor. Think HELOC, reverse mortgages,… Having a minimum value below which you are exempt seems much better.

I didn’t exclude that from my comment.

One of the differences is with a heloc you have to make payments. The loans Elon gets for example don’t have payments.

They can live this way for years.

I’m not opposed to rich people. I’m opposed to gaming the system.

Or just make loans taxable, doesn’t have to be the same as income- like capital gains tax.

Capital gains is much lower and doesn’t pay into SS, Medicare, etc.

Sounds like we could fix that too.

My point is, it doesn’t have to be “income tax”, it could be its own, much more painful tax.

(Who am I kidding, enough senators live off this stuff too.)

Taxes are not supposed to be painful. They are supposed to be fair and fund the government. Painful taxes just causes avoidance.

Tax avoidance is a crime.

Lock up the billionaires. I see nothing wrong with it.

That's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Avoidance is legal, evasion is not.

Tax avoidance isn’t a crime.

Do you use deductions on your 1040? That’s tax avoidance.

No, count unrealized asset value as income.

You gained 2 billion in stock value, but didn't sell? You get taxed on that stock gain.

I can’t support that. I myself once had 20 million in stock options but couldn’t sell it. By the time I could sell it, it was worth zero. Yet you in your system I would have paid taxes on it. Stock fluctuates in value to much. We just need way to force them sell the stock and then tax the stock as ordinary income.

Once it went to zero, it would have been a loss and canceled out?

Well if I had to pay unrealized gains I’d have zero but have to pay taxes on 20 million.

It’s why we don’t do it. It would be overly complicated.

No, you would pay taxes on the unrealized gains of your assets. So if your assets are worth 0, then you pay 0. If they are worth 20mil, then you pay taxes on 20mil.

Just a quick reminder, one of the main principles of capitalism is risk vs reward.

That’s my point. They were worth 20 million. Due to legal restrictions I couldn’t sell. As such I would have to pay taxes on 20 million. When I could sell they were worth zero.

So I would have ended up negative.

Sounds like that stock wasn't worth the risk then. That's capitalism in a nutshell brahski, people lose money betting on the market every day.

It was part of my compensation. It didn’t cost me anything.

It’s naive to think we will ever tax unearned income. Not only is it against the law, it would destroy everyone.

So only corporations and billionaires can afford to own a home?

Pretty sure that is not what I said. Anyway, you are already taxed on the value of your home on a yearly basis, regardless if you sold it or not. Take your ball and go home.

What he is saying your home is an unrealized gain which is true.

While we pay property taxes they are a small percentage and based on the tax value and not the fair market.

While not a fan of property tax they at least directly impact you by providing value to your local area. Why I don’t bitch much about property taxes. I’d rather pay those than federal taxes.

You're not taxed on the full appreciation of your home at income tax rates. If the government did, the tax on the appreciation would price people out of their homes.

Really? We should let the people in the low income areas of my city that just saw their valuations jump up know, because that is exactly what is happening to them. Property value went up 300%, so did the taxes.

Ah. I failed to consider you live outside of the United States of America. I'm sorry that low income earners are burdened by this kind of tax policy.

1 more...

for the first time

Nobody ask about the long-term capital gains rate going back to Ronald Reagan's '83 reform.

Not 100% sure but I imagine they’d count capital gains in the analysis. The full read in The NY Times was interesting but behind a paywall

Once again, the problem is that the banks aren't being taxed. The reason the billionaires don't pay taxes is that they buy everything with money they borrow from the banks.

Borrowing against assets should be income that cannot be offset by the debt.

The problem is more that one person can control billions in assets, particularly when the staff that generates the revenue that gives these assets value are in poverty.

You want to squints get rid of mortgages and thereby get rid of home ownership?

Good point.. it might have come across like that.. but that is for sure not what I meant.

A home is already taxed. An asset portfolio like stock only when realized. Borrowing against it should count as realizing the gains.

Or maybe better yet, we tax the whole portfolio like we do real estate against the value at the measuring point. Cause a portfolio is either something because it is used as collateral and thus taxed.. or it's nothing and cannot be borrowed against without realizing the gains.

Sir, this is the internet. Well explained and reasonable responses are not welcome here.

Ha! Jokes on you.. I'm actually a cat masqueradeing as a person.

Interesting, but if we did a lot of what the billionaire do suddenly the spirit of the law might be more important than the letter.

For the FIRST time? Yeah, no. How about ALL the time?

Did you see a flaw in the analysis? Not sure what you mean

This is something Warren Buffet has been complaining about for years. It's not exactly a new development.

He’s talked about not paying his fair share. I don’t recall him ever saying “billionaires literally pay a lower effective tax rate”.

From 2012:

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes

"Buffett's secretary since 1993, Debbie Bosanek, sat next to her boss just hours after being invited by the president to the State of the Union address, where the president made her the face of tax inequality in America.

Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent."

Idk, I’m not seeing anything there that he acknowledged he paid a lower rate than the average American. He was just contrasting himself with one person. He didn’t say “rich people have a lower effective tax rate than everyone else”. He just says “I have a lower tax rate than this one other person”.

It means that methodologically collected data is less accurate than popular sentiment.

Fat orange and his repuglican crew got it done

Yeah, Trump was standing on the shoulders of giants like Regan, Bush, and Bush to get us into mess. Thanks Republicans!

Biden didn't fix 40 years of Republican corruption in 3 years therefore he's just as guilty, and I'm voting Republican!!!!!! - Average American moron voter

commenter wasn't even mentioning time frames involving Biden, but way to play the victim card average democrat playbook

Do not forget Bill Clinton, he played a huge role. Essentially fulfilling republican dreams of deregulation by joining hands with them. It's when the Democratic party embraced corporate interests and neoliberalism. Clinton deregulated banking (see Glass-Steagall) which led to the financial crisis and banking/finance today.

The moneyed class wet dream come true. 🤬🤬🤬

but they graciously pay salaries of so many people, we shouldn't even tax them!

Not even our closest cousins would tolerate a member that hoarded bananas so. No, it would be fangs, and ripping and all sorts of face-eating, and a whole bunch of other stuff we should be taking inspiration from.

Taxing billionaires will just get rolled back, the problem is Capitalism itself.

Collectivize the Means of Production.

LOL this isn't going to last much longer. It's like comedy at this point, what a trend. The system will break before they're taxed appropriately.

Doubtful

So what do you see changing any time in the near future regarding this issue?

It will be a tug of war between the right and the left, leaning slightly right on economic issues pretty much forever.

America is basically run by large corporations. I don't see them just willingly changing course. We will get small wins here and there, but nothing drastic for a long time.

Edit - the spice must flow

Capitalism naturally declines over time, that's why America and other developed countries have expanded internationally via Imperialism in order to super-exploit the third world for super-profits. Capitalism cannot last forever, eventually third world countries will shake off US influence and the empire will crumble.

AI and robotics are here, more people are seeing their futures stolen. If by "pretty much forever" you mean "about 5-10 years" then I agree. I said the system will break, I didn't say I see them changing course.