4 ms·
> $391,232,000 goes to the IRS. Insane! On the one hand this mistake is a rare case of the rich paying a lot of tax. But very odd not to have tried to avoid th
by quickthrower2 3y ago
> $391,232,000 goes to the IRS.
Insane! On the one hand this mistake is a rare case of the rich paying a lot of tax. But very odd not to have tried to avoid this by (whatever rich people do)
- giancarlostoro 3y agoI think we underestimate just how much the hyper rich pay in taxes overall.
- Scoundreller 3y agoIt depends. If you donate enough of your unrealized capital gains, you can cancel out all of your tax owing on what you do cashout and get your name behind whatever causes you want (as long as it counts as charity or politics). At least that's how it can work out in Canada.
- chubs 3y agoWow that really incentivises pro-wealthy-folks lobbying!
- defrost 3y agoThe donations to charitable foundations route is ripe with loopholes that make it attractive ... the charitable foundation can be one that yourself (and a few others who share a tax lawyer) control, an astonishing low proportion of "donated money" can actually flow to the claimed charitable end, and a remarkable percentage of that money can indirectly benefit the people who donate.
- kristjansson 3y agoForty percent of federal income receipts come from the first income percentile. We could try to get more from the first 1/10th or 1/100th percentile, but 'income' becomes a nebulous concept. Did Bill or Sam really ever really have any income?
- KptMarchewa 3y agoThe point is that most don't. There's easy way to avoid paying this tax, outlined in the article.
- neilv 3y agoWhat's insane is that one person can personally own billions of times more of the resources than other people do. In a better world, people would just laugh at anyone who tried to claim this (or, better yet, try to help them with their mental/social problem).
- beaned 3y agoThey don't actually own the resources, that'd be untenable for any individual or even large family. They own a token that represents a claim to resources, and realistically they can only use so much for themselves. The difference in actual material wealth between the rich and the poor isn't that excessive today. Beyond a certain threshold you're only buying novelty. And the gap is shrinking every year.
- Ferret7446 3y agoCrucially, when they spend the money, it goes to someone else. Either they do nothing with it and the money is effectively scrap, or they spend the money for $1B in resource and give others the money which they can claim for $1B in resources. Edit: money kind of represents a debt society owes to the individual. By owning the most money, it actually means that society is most indebted to them, or that they have loaned that many resources/value to society which has not yet been paid back, ironically enough.
- beaned 3y agoFurther, resources decay. Land is taxed, bananas rot, cars rust. If you purchase $1B of actual hard assets with $0 left, you will not be able to maintain the upkeep. They will be spoiled or sold by the next year.
- quickthrower2 3y agoComments seem to be from a parallel universe. You buy $1bn of commercial real estate you get $100m/y to maintain the upkeep in rent. You will be able to get line of credit to cover you for unexpected expense.