14 ms·

> It's everything we've already known. > A more interesting question is how did ProPublica get a copy of Jeff Bezos' tax returns. Seems like a leak at the IRS?

by danso 5y ago

> It's everything we've already known. > A more interesting question is how did ProPublica get a copy of Jeff Bezos' tax returns. Seems like a leak at the IRS? Yes the actual tax records are what make the story interesting, even if the data only confirms what “everyone knows” — at least there’s actual data and empirical analysis of the scope. According to this accompanying explainer, the leak is anonymous: https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the-tax-secrets-of-the-001 https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the... > A second question certain to arise is the motives and identity of the source who has provided this data to ProPublica. We live in an age in which people with access to information can copy it with the click of a mouse and transmit it in a variety of ways to news organizations. Many years ago, ProPublica and other news organizations set up secure systems that allow whistleblowers to transmit information to us without revealing their identity. > We do not know the identity of our source. We did not solicit the information they sent us. The source says they were motivated by our previous coverage of issues surrounding the IRS and tax enforcement, but we do not know for certain that is true. We have considered the possibility that information we have received could have come from a state actor hostile to American interests. In particular, a number of government agencies were compromised last year by what the U.S. has said were Russian hackers who exploited vulnerabilities in software sold by SolarWinds, a Texas-based information technology company. We do note, however, that the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration wrote in December that, “At this time, there is no evidence that any taxpayer information was exposed” in the SolarWinds hack.

koheripbal 5y ago
I don't think it's any coincidence that Jeff Bezos specifically was leaked. He has been straying into politics in DC very very heavily, and it looks like he's making enemies. I suspect that is also the reason we see near-daily anti-Amazon posts on social media.
- danso 5y ago
  He's literally the richest man in the world. If the leaker's purported motive is to expose tax avoidance by the ultrawealthy, it would be very strange for Bezos to not be in the leaked data. I don't think ProPublica describes in exact specificity the scope of the data, other than it contains "the tax returns of thousands of the nation's wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years". And it includes Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Mike Bloomberg, Carl Icahn, and Elon Musk — a group of guys who, along with Bezos, are not considered to be politically aligned.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Richest from running a public company [holding stocks] not necessarily the richest overall.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      We hope for more leaks about all these other people who are richer than Bezos.
    - rascul 5y ago
      Who is richer? Forbes says he's #1. https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
      - mc32 5y ago
        Possibly oligarchs and middle eastern royals, those kind of people.
      - bidirectional 5y ago
        People whose wealth cannot be calculated as known equity valuation * disclosed equity held. That doesn't necessarily mean anyone is richer, but they very well could be.
      - eurasiantiger 5y ago
        There are likely dozens, if not hundreds of criminal kingpins with more wealth. It’s just not in their name, only controlled by them.
        bidirectional 5y ago
        Why do you think this?
        eurasiantiger 5y ago
        Because making and selling cocaine globally (not to mention other drugs) must bring in tens of billions every year, and they have been doing it since the 60’s. The ”human banking” method is very popular in transnational organised crime. Just look at how Putin has hidden his assets.
- Mauricebranagh 5y ago
  Exactly he is stepping on the toes of those who own the media - its why the UK Press beats on the BBC and British Telecom. BT has a lot a negative press about its sports investments but Murdoch's sky doesn't
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
mc32 5y ago
I’m all for people paying taxes they owe. I’m against vigilante style leaks when the target hasn’t committed a crime. Just because the person is not a sympathetic figure doesn’t mean it gives people the right to leak this kind of info, be they Bezos, Clinton, Soros, Koch, Gates, etc. get them on actual evasion if they have. Otherwise what’s the purpose, rich people use tools to minimize their taxes? Ok, publish what the tools are and promote change in the tax code.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > I’m all for people paying taxes they owe. I’m against vigilante style leaks when the target hasn’t committed a crime. This is the obvious consequence of a system that feels unfair and unresponsive via normal channels.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    I don't think these vague emotional statements are constructive. The rules outlined in the article apply to everyone, not just the rich, and they should be fixed for everyone, not just the rich. In this case leaking Jeff Bezos' tax returns targeted one individual and provided no new useful information. It's exactly what we already expected about his taxes. ...and frankly, the "rich are evil - look how they don't pay taxes on unrealized gains" is a huge distraction from fixing the actual problems with the tax system. We need to eliminate foreign tax havens, and severely limit non-profit "Foundations".
    - whb07 5y ago
      “We need to eliminate foreign tax havens” or more succinctly: “We need to condemn the families and businesses in places like those tiny island nations in the Caribbean to more poverty” Those tax havens exist because they realize that a very real thing they can offer as a service is a place to domicile a business and capital. Not everyone wants to go to Ireland for its nice beaches you know.
      - rrss 5y ago
godshatter 5y ago
I would be outraged if someone leaked my taxes to the public. I'd be looking for someone to sue, though in this case I'd fail to find anyone I can sue I'm sure. I don't care if these are the richest people in the country or if the data is really interesting, it's not ethical. In my opinion, even though propublica didn't solicit this information, they should not have posted information derived from private tax information without the consent of those involved. I don't what the laws are here, but I'm talking about ethics. I wouldn't want my private information summarized, by name, in this manner. The other issue I have is that not only is the provenance of this data unknown, so also is it's veracity. They don't know who gave it to them or why and thus they can't confirm it wasn't made up out of whole cloth.
- secabeen 5y ago
  I actually feel the opposite. I think we should make tax returns public, as they do in Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/apr/11/when-it-comes-to-tax-transparency-norway-leads-the-field https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/apr/11/when-it-c... We'd need some small adjustments to make them not useful for identity theft (remove SSNs, stop using specific values from them as authenticators for the IRS, etc.) but with that done, I think it would be a great improvement in transparency. My public sector salary is already a matter of public record, and that has worked fine.
  - godshatter 5y ago
    Someone's public sector salary may be a matter of public record, but their deductions are not. The tax forms (in the US, anyway) cover everything from whether or not they or their spouse are blind to exactly how much they spent in health care costs from a health spending account (with receipts attached) to whether or not they added solar power to their roof. It would have to not show addresses, because of people hiding from abusive spouses, among other concerns. I'm for more aggregate data being made available as long as it couldn't be used to find one individual, and I'm okay with the IRS adding a checkbox for "make my data publicly available" as long as you could always uncheck it. But then I take privacy more seriously than many others do, not sure why. I'd be happier if we greatly simplified the tax laws so that this extra data was not necessary. Not going to complain if they reduce the tax burden as well. Edit: grammar

Retric 5y ago

Rules aren’t set in stone, they can change based on leaks like this. Assuming people find this information objectionable that’s a reasonable justification to publish. In much the same way that leaking classified documents about questionable activities is morally justified, though illegal. Otherwise stamping secret on any evidence of say torture would work.

mc32 5y ago
I find the leak objectionable. It doesn’t disclose any nefarious doings or tax evasion. All it does is verify what we already know. No revelation. So this is more about shaming the witch rather than showing the witch did witchery.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "All it does is verify what we already know." Wait. What who already knows? I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who read this article did not already know the information contained within. As such the article serves to educate a lot of people, which is a positive development.
  - mc32 5y ago
    I don’t think the author needed leaked data to present their objections to tax minimization.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      They absolutely did. That something is legally within the bounds of the US tax code is public knowledge. That ultra-wealthy utilize something to an extent is not public knowledge. Which cuts to one of the central issues with viewing the US tax code as democratic: there's almost no transparency of use. The public might feel very different about a particular tax rule if they knew small businesses primarily used it, vs if they knew major corporations used it to shield 90% of their profits. The IRS should do a better job of anonymizing actual tax reports, and reporting out on patterns in aggregate.
      - mlindner 5y ago
        Talk to any software engineer in the valley and they do a lot of the same stuff that Bezos does. The "trick" of not paying taxes until you sell the stock is something I do all the time. It's not a trick even.
    - germinalphrase 5y ago
      But it does provide direct evidence (that average people can link to prior knowledge) in support of those objections.
- zentiggr 5y ago
  Are you also opposed to the Watergate leaks? Snowden's leaks? the Pentagon Papers? and a lot of less famous leaks of restricted information that have led to exposure and sometimes even justice for people who otherwise would have hid behind "legal" defenses for immoral or flat out illegal acts of their own? I served in the Navy - I had a prety high clearance just to do the job I did. I know the value of classifying or otherwise restricting information. And I know the value of breaking those rules to expose those who would hide their crimes. I consider the current tax code a recipe/playbook/script for stealing from the American public.
  - mc32 5y ago
    You are presenting an example of government cover ups or crimes. This is not the government doing something wrong, not even a private person doing something wrong. It’s simple some vigilante having a vendetta against someone they don’t like and using illegal mans to skewer them. The case they have is known. We know the loopholes. Let's as close them. Don’t go out on personal or vendettas of virtue when it aids nothing. There is nothing new here. Jeff, as much as I dislike his company, didn’t commit a crime.
    - Retric 5y ago
      It’s your option that these people did nothing wrong. However, many legal things like adultery are still objectionable and people object to this.
      - mc32 5y ago
        the more appropriate comparison in your case would be an open marriage where one partner complains the other is cheating. They set up the rules then complain someone is taking advantage of the rules. I myself would like Jeff to pay more in taxes. I think the super wealthy pay too little in terms of parentage, but I should be upset with the Congress/IRS not the wealthy.
        Retric 5y ago
Dracophoenix 5y ago
>>Rules aren't set in stone The problem with that argument is who get to make that decision? Would you still be saying that if someone leaked you tax records to the general public?
- Retric 5y ago
  Yep, I have no objection to people leaking any of my tax details beyond identify theft.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    Anybody who has your full tax records has your name, your current and previous addresses, social security number, how much you make, your place of work, the name(s) of your children (if you file as head of household or for child tax credits), etc. What makes you think this treasure trove of information isn't going be used for identity theft? It's like saying you have no objections to someone breaking into your car or house and stealing your stuff, so long as they don't take your driver's license or registration papers and pretend to be you.
- DynamicStatic 5y ago
  Tbh i think tax records should be public. It is in Sweden for example and that works pretty well.

mc32 5y ago

It’s still not acceptable. At least the tax minimizer is following applicable laws, this vigilante is not. They are taking it upon themselves outside the law to settle disagreements, but they want to leverage new laws to make taxes more aligned with their policy (but obviously they are okay with ignoring other parts of the law —that’s a disconnect).

ashtonkem 5y ago
I’m not a huge fan of gravity hurting me when I fall either, but I’ve found that railing against it is ineffective. If you want these things to stop, you need to change the incentives that people operate on. Anything else will be like trying to plug holes in a dam with your finger; locally effective at best.
ivanbakel 5y ago
You can believe in the power of a legal system without respecting the specific legal system that you're currently living under. Would it be a disconnect to illegally oppose an immoral law - like, say, the legal protection of slaves as property - while simultaneously wanting to pass laws that you expect people to follow - like, say, making slavery illegal? Probably not. It's inaccurate to treat obedience to the law as a moral act. It can only be moral because the law itself reflects moral attitudes. Wherever there is a disconnect between the law and morality, it is the law that bends - which is exactly why laws can be rewritten in the first place.
- temp8964 5y ago
  What immoral law are you talking about? Allowing rich being rich? Too rich? You don't like rich being super rich? What immoral law is it? Be specific.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
    - subsaharancoder 5y ago
      Context!!..Context!!..Context!!
  - ivanbakel 5y ago
    I'm not calling any law out as being immoral - I'm pointing out that there's nothing hypocritical in circumventing a law you find to be unjust while still campaigning for changes to the law that you expect others to follow.
    - mlindner 5y ago
      What law though. You think all tax records should be public record?
      - ivanbakel 5y ago
        To quote my own comment: "I'm not calling any law out as being immoral". This is not about any specific law.
gilrain 5y ago
> It’s still not acceptable. At least the tax minimizer is following applicable laws, this vigilante is not. The total harm of stealing billions from the public dwarfs any concern for the thieves' privacy. They are following the law, sure... the unfair law they pay for to their advantage.
- mc32 5y ago
  Where does the leak show theft? If you earn $100 a week and tax withholding let you have $80 to yourself. That $20 didn’t belong to the government. It belonged to you. You however, having entered into an implicit agreement with society agree you will part with your money and give it to the government (which is different from its being theirs). Now, if you donated some of the $100 to charity or whatever and reduce your tax liability, that’s not “theft”. That’s part of the initial implicit agreement.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  This argument assumes wealth is zero-sum, which is false.
  - slothtrop 5y ago
    No, that's projected. It's not a comment on wealth-creation, but rather that 90% of it, the surplus value, goes to the top. The middle class is getting squeezed.

lordlimecat 5y ago

The correct response is to use your legislators to change the tax code to be more fair. Yelling at people for properly taking legal deductions, when you yourself take deductions on your taxes, reeks of hypocrisy and being mad because Joey got a cookie and you didn't.

wang_li 5y ago
>reeks of hypocrisy and being mad because Joey got a cookie and you didn't. You mean because Joey took his allowance and bought the supplies for a lemonade stand, took the money made from that to buy the ingredients to make cookies, then took the time to bake himself cookies. It's strange that people find a person who creates & grows a company and who pays hundreds of millions of dollars in legally required taxes detestable. Yet a person who fails to gain the basic education that is free to them, who has no ambition, who is literally a drain on society, cannot be criticized. It's astonishing to me that society accepts and allows people to not have a least a high school education. I wonder what the response would be to an article about how trillions in taxes are not paid because there are millions and millions of people who simply don't develop their personal capital and make decent choices that would result in them earning more and paying more in taxes.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Don't know why you're being down voted. I have no love for bezos, but insofar as he seems to mostly follow the law, contribute to society, and built a large employer, he seems more worthy of emulation than the randos we are asked to care for on the government dole
- ndiddy 5y ago
  I don’t know why you are being downvoted. If homeless people simply decided to learn Python and read PG essays for inspiration rather than being a drain on society, we could completely eliminate the homeless problem. Hopefully one day the troglodytes making up the rest of the world will catch up to our enlightened viewpoint.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not.
    - mc32 5y ago
      It’s a riff on the tone-deaf “learn to code”[1] thrown at miners and anyone else losing jobs in the transition to renewables. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/angr4k/what_is_the_deal_with_learn_to_code_being_used_as/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/angr4k/what_i...
  - wang_li 5y ago
    Good one. I do hope people recognize that homeless people constitute less than 1% of Americans. By contrast 60% of tax returns filed by Americans have negative net tax rates. They literally contribute nothing to the running of the Federal government, and for about 40% they contribute nothing to all other levels of government. This story is about how the very few extremely high earners use sophisticated personal finance strategies to minimize their tax burden. On the other hand huge numbers of people use the unsophisticated strategy of not developing any significant skills or education and not earning much money resulting in not paying any net taxes. Not talking about the super poor who earn nothing, but people who earn $30,000-$60,000/year. At the end of the day, they are not net tax payers.
  - lordlimecat 5y ago
    When the US gets overtaken by other economies in Asia, it will be because people there focused on climbing to the top by any means while we whined about how hard our life is. There are guys in Hyderabad right now in conditions worse than US homelessness learning Python, devops, cloud, virtualization, you name it because that's how they can survive. I know people in fairly poor countries with terrible crime rates and bad job prospects, and I have never heard them complain about how hard life is. They figure out how to get out of their situation and improve their life. The idea that someone else has to fix your situation because life is hard has to be one of the most crippling mentalities you could have. The sheer amount of opportunity we have in the west is unprecedented in human history; instead of crying about the fact that your stable job of 20 years is ending, yes: I'm going to say that it is fundamentally you that has to pivot (even if it would be nice if the government helped).
refurb 5y ago
Yup. Few people know that the 401k deduction is a massive loophole someone found and exploited. It was never intended to be a retirement vehicle or used in a widespread manner. There was discussion of repealing it as the tax revenue hit was not planned for.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> The correct response is to use your legislators to change the tax code to be more fair. My entire thesis is that vigilante leaks like this are a product of the perceived unwillingness of the legislature to deal with the abuse of tax loopholes or to tax the rich at anywhere close to the rate that the overwhelming majority of voters want. If my theory is correct, then saying “talk to your legislator instead” is almost hilariously tone deaf, given that these leakers are probably taking actions into their own hands in response to a belief that their legislator is lazy or corrupt. More broadly, my point is that singling out individual actors is an ineffective way to stop stochastic law breaking. Decry and punish individual law breakers all you want, but don’t expect it to stop until you at least triage the underlying causes.
- justanotherguy0 5y ago
  The tax code is the product of the legislature and the courts, both of which are accountable to voters. The bureaucrats are functionally accountable to nobody. This leak was instigated by a bureaucrat. Fuck the bureaucrats.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > The tax code is the product of the legislature and the courts, both of which are accountable to voters. That’s the theory, yes. I do not believe this to be true in practice however.

justanotherguy0 5y ago

"feels unfair" depends completely on the Overton Window. What proportion of Americans have a federal income tax liability of zero or less? (Yes, some Americans get paid to file taxes, via "refundable" tax credits) I believe it is around 42%. What proportion of the top income earners pay 80% of Federal income taxes? Our system is overall quite progressive. To complain that the five or so people mentioned in the article "only" paid billions in taxes over a five year period is a bit nonsensical.

vkou 5y ago
Given that the federal government collects its revenue through income taxes, and that 53% of Americans are children, the elderly, students, retired, disabled, or simply unemployed, how many of those people, in your opinion, should have a federal tax liability? Also, another 13% of Americans make less than $12/hour, with many of them working under 30 hours a week. Roughly how many of those people, in your opinion, should have a federal tax liability?
reedjosh 5y ago
> "only" paid billions It was millions over the period of 2014 to 2018. Not that I disagree with your overall point. Bezos did almost pay $1b himself though. In total the people in the article paid under $2b.
ethbr0 5y ago
How would top income earners feel without employees or workers (either their own or everyone in every business they patronize)? I hate paying taxes. But I'm honest about what I'm buying for my money -- the broader community I live in and happen to like and care about.
HWR_14 5y ago
Our overall system is not progressive. Once you factor in the regressive nature of social security taxes and average sales taxes, you quickly see that the rate of taxes paid on all income remains fairly consistent up until you get to people with a net worth in tens of millions plus who pay a much lower percent rate.
- bpt3 5y ago
  > Our overall system is not progressive. Yes, it is, overall: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics... > Once you factor in the regressive nature of social security taxes Social security is effectively a mandatory pension scheme where you get benefits at retirement based on what you paid in, so calling it a regressive tax seems inaccurate. > and average sales taxes Many states have exemptions for essential goods to limit the regressive nature of sales taxes, but yes they are regressive overall. > you quickly see that the rate of taxes paid on all income remains fairly consistent I'm not sure what your definition of fairly consistent is, but your first sentence is incorrect above, so it's probably not accurate here either. > up until you get to people with a net worth in tens of millions plus who pay a much lower percent rate. This is absolutely true, and is something that should be addressed in my opinion. Just taxing capital gains as income would be a great start, and might be enough.

naasking 5y ago

> It’s simple some vigilante having a vendetta against someone they don’t like and using illegal mans to skewer them. If the leak's target did nothing illegal or unethical with their taxes, then how are they being skewered? Their taxes would just show them to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, right? So sure, you can claim all you like that we already knew about these holes, but abstract arguments and aggregate data are far less persuasive and motivating than specific examples that clearly show the stark reality. Or are you forgetting how the George Floyd video galvanized a world-wide movement despite everyone already "knowing" that racism is bad, that it exists, that police training is subpar and that bad cops kill people of colour?

mc32 5y ago
You're being coy. As if Twitter and all other social media media weren't about taking things and reframing them to make targets into bad people.
- naasking 5y ago
  You mean ordinary people might develop a bad view of the untouchably wealthy because of the system they created to preserve their wealth? Cry me a river.
  - mc32 5y ago
    >preserve their wealth Like it or not, they created it. Should we extract more taxes from them, yes, arguably. But we don't have to resort to blackmail or other underworld tactics since it really accomplishes nothing other than momentary outrage by the mob. Get congress to enact laws that close loopholes.
    - naasking 5y ago
      > Get congress to enact laws that close loopholes. And we do that by exposing the problems of the existing system and galvanizing people to demand change. Which is what these articles are doing.
    - Retric 5y ago
      You don’t actually become extremely wealthy by creating wealth, you become wealthy by extracting wealth from other people’s work. Either by inheriting it or some business arrangement where you keep value created by other people. Bill Gates for example didn’t code Windows 7 himself. JK Rawlings didn’t print millions of Harry Potter books or even produce the movies etc. Sorts superstars don’t build stadiums or collect ticket sales etc. This is most obvious with investments dividends. As such thinking of capital gains as the fruit of their effort is really kind of a silly idea.