5 ms·

“News Organization 2” is ProPublica, and they censored most names to avoid lawsuits I guess. Random fact; The top 15 is entirely new money, which was surprisin

“News Organization 2” is ProPublica, and they censored most names to avoid lawsuits I guess. Random fact; The top 15 is entirely new money, which was surprising. 1- https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...

denimnerd42 3y ago
that would make sense right? old money isn't going to take more income than required to make purchases, otherwise you pay taxes. if you include wealth gains and not just income, they will be more heavily diversified so their gains will be much smaller but hopefully more consistent. this true tax rate shenanigans drives me nuts though. so dishonest. yeah my true tax rate is like 5% too.. my house appreciated so much last few years...
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  > this true tax rate shenanigans drives me nuts though Not only you. It’s plain lying, but well, I guess the audience liked it.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I don’t know why ProPublica sullies its name by not being extra clear that they are complaining about the lack of a wealth/overall property tax. We already have property taxes. It would be simple to make an argument for or against expanding it. Or it could make an argument for marginal sales taxes (what I would prefer), to capture the rich people that borrow against their assets for their spending needs.
  - nwiswell 3y ago
    > We already have property taxes. Sort of? They're a patchwork state system and they're heavily kneecapped because in many states property tax is not really proportional to the market value. In California, effectively the longer you've owned the property the less you tend to pay as a fraction of the value, which in a sense is regressive because younger, less affluent homeowners pay more tax.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      The point is there exists a tax you have to pay for simply owning something (although the tax rate is not 1 to 1 with market value in many places). So now we are just talking about applying to other equities like stocks. > In California, effectively the longer you've owned the property the less you tend to pay as a fraction of the value, which in a sense is regressive because younger, less affluent homeowners pay more tax. For sure, it is remarkable how many ways US society screws young people (fewer voters) in favor of the old (more voters) once you start looking. And in California, it is remarkable how explicitly they screwed young people with poorer ancestors versus young people with richer ancestors.
      - nwiswell 3y ago
        > The point is there exists a tax you have to pay for simply owning something Not at the federal level, and the methodology used for computing effective tax rates in this article (both for typical households and the centibillionaires) is explicitly federal-only, so that's not really true. I agree with you broadly but the Constitution does not permit a federal wealth tax. The 16th Amendment authorizes only income tax.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        I’m referring to Americans philosophically accepting a wealth tax. There was no federal income tax at one point too.
        nwiswell 3y ago
        I'm not holding my breath. In any event I think ProPublica laying out the data in this fashion is necessary groundwork if that's going to become a part of the political consciousness. The intellectual argument for a wealth tax to control inequality has been pretty compelling ever since Capital in the Twenty-First Century, but advocating for a constitutional amendment is obviously premature.
        jandrewrogers 3y ago
concordDance 3y ago
Also doesn't include Musk's recent giant tax bill.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
Interesting article but avoids mentioning (for a dozen pages) that capital gains are not taxed until sold, conflating that with income, and not mentioning that it is problematic to do it any other way. This fact is well known among anyone paying attention. Perhaps not busy folks without any assets unfortunately. We do pay property tax on real estate in most places however, which is one strategy. Perhaps time for one on capital assets as well. While unpopular, the alternative—that the 1% hoover up everything and pay no taxes is worse IMHO.

denimnerd42 3y ago

that would make sense right? old money isn't going to take more income than required to make purchases, otherwise you pay taxes. if you include wealth gains and not just income, they will be more heavily diversified so their gains will be much smaller but hopefully more consistent. this true tax rate shenanigans drives me nuts though. so dishonest. yeah my true tax rate is like 5% too.. my house appreciated so much last few years...

boeingUH60 3y ago
> this true tax rate shenanigans drives me nuts though Not only you. It’s plain lying, but well, I guess the audience liked it.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
I don’t know why ProPublica sullies its name by not being extra clear that they are complaining about the lack of a wealth/overall property tax. We already have property taxes. It would be simple to make an argument for or against expanding it. Or it could make an argument for marginal sales taxes (what I would prefer), to capture the rich people that borrow against their assets for their spending needs.
- nwiswell 3y ago
  > We already have property taxes. Sort of? They're a patchwork state system and they're heavily kneecapped because in many states property tax is not really proportional to the market value. In California, effectively the longer you've owned the property the less you tend to pay as a fraction of the value, which in a sense is regressive because younger, less affluent homeowners pay more tax.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    The point is there exists a tax you have to pay for simply owning something (although the tax rate is not 1 to 1 with market value in many places). So now we are just talking about applying to other equities like stocks. > In California, effectively the longer you've owned the property the less you tend to pay as a fraction of the value, which in a sense is regressive because younger, less affluent homeowners pay more tax. For sure, it is remarkable how many ways US society screws young people (fewer voters) in favor of the old (more voters) once you start looking. And in California, it is remarkable how explicitly they screwed young people with poorer ancestors versus young people with richer ancestors.
    - nwiswell 3y ago
      > The point is there exists a tax you have to pay for simply owning something Not at the federal level, and the methodology used for computing effective tax rates in this article (both for typical households and the centibillionaires) is explicitly federal-only, so that's not really true. I agree with you broadly but the Constitution does not permit a federal wealth tax. The 16th Amendment authorizes only income tax.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        I’m referring to Americans philosophically accepting a wealth tax. There was no federal income tax at one point too.
        nwiswell 3y ago
        I'm not holding my breath. In any event I think ProPublica laying out the data in this fashion is necessary groundwork if that's going to become a part of the political consciousness. The intellectual argument for a wealth tax to control inequality has been pretty compelling ever since Capital in the Twenty-First Century, but advocating for a constitutional amendment is obviously premature.
        jandrewrogers 3y ago

concordDance 3y ago

Also doesn't include Musk's recent giant tax bill.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

Interesting article but avoids mentioning (for a dozen pages) that capital gains are not taxed until sold, conflating that with income, and not mentioning that it is problematic to do it any other way. This fact is well known among anyone paying attention. Perhaps not busy folks without any assets unfortunately. We do pay property tax on real estate in most places however, which is one strategy. Perhaps time for one on capital assets as well. While unpopular, the alternative—that the 1% hoover up everything and pay no taxes is worse IMHO.