4 ms·

Last year year Jeff bezos and I both paid taxes for the year of 2024. The percentage he paid on the money he made is far less than I did. I gave higher share of

by dwa3592 5mo ago

Last year year Jeff bezos and I both paid taxes for the year of 2024. The percentage he paid on the money he made is far less than I did. I gave higher share of my income to the government than he did. Bezos's true tax rate was less than 1% and mine was around 25%. Link - https://itep.org/washington-post-rich-not-paying-fair-share/ https://itep.org/washington-post-rich-not-paying-fair-share/

giantg2 5mo ago
It seems your article is saying the same sort of thing I already stated - "The share of taxes paid by the richest 1 percent (24 percent)", right? You are talking about effective taxes rates, which are different. To discuss that, I would have liked to see a bit more detail in the article, like what the income sources were and the deductions and losses to offset gains. I think changes around capital gains and loans against equities could use some adjustments. The other taxes like payroll are basically moot as Bezos's payroll income is only about $90k per year anyways.
- atmavatar 5mo ago
  > I think changes around capital gains and loans against equities could use some adjustments. At minimum, taking out a loan based on the current value of an asset should trigger immediate realization of capital gains/losses for at least those assets used as collateral. After all, the gains are already de facto being realized for the purpose of the loan. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to address the other side of things - that said loans often don't have to be repaid so long as the assets continue to gain. As such, the capital gains are actually being realized continuously by the loan, but I doubt it's feasible to properly handle that in tax law.
  - giantg2 5mo ago
    The easy thing to do is set a limit for how much and how long you can borrow against, tax the loans as income, or outlaw loans against investment instruments entirely.
WarmWash 5mo ago
>(including unrealized gains) They wrote that whole article out just to make it all meaningless with 3 words in parenthesis. "The plane crashed and everyone lived! (not including those who died)"
SoftTalker 5mo ago
IDK what Bezos made as "income" last year but paper gains in asset values are not "income" for tax purposes, though some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year. But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least.
- 9dev 5mo ago
  > some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year What in gods name would you call that otherwise? > But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least And that somehow justifies rich people paying less taxes, because they navigate the system better than regular people?
  - phyzix5761 5mo ago
    He pays income tax just like everyone else. But the majority of his money is in investments, which many Americans already do as well with 401k and personal brokerage accounts. The people who can't afford to invest like that already pay close to 0% income tax as 40%-60% of households, historically, have paid 0% income tax in the US.
    - 9dev 5mo ago
      They still pay payroll taxes, among others, which disproportionately affect poor people.
      - giantg2 5mo ago
        Payroll taxes were capped because the related benefits were capped. We could uncap either or both ends of that. Although removing the cap should have been unnecessary if the government acted responsibly, and the removal of the cap would not force them to act responsibly in the future.
      - phyzix5761 5mo ago
        I 100% agree. Roosevelt implemented that in 1935 and it was meant as a safety net for social security. Economists estimate that by 2035 social security, as its currently structured, will no longer be able to fund the aging population. Instead, a better alternative is to invest that same amount into an ETF that tracks the S&P 500 and after a 40 year working career the individual would have almost $5 million assuming a median wage and current employer matching on payroll tax. This would give them a yearly $200k payout which grows at 6% per year if they follow the 4% rule on withdrawals, lasting them indefinitely and leaving something behind for their children when they pass away. In contrast, social security right now, on average, pays $26k per year. This would also generate federal taxes through transactions of the companies composing the S&P 500 which would give the government an additional tax revenue source.
phyzix5761 5mo ago
This post makes the mistake of counting unrealized gains as income. That's not how taxes or investments work. Unrealized gains are NOT income. That's how they mistakenly come up with the number that he pays less than 1% in income tax. Investments, in general, are not income (unless held less than 12 months or if they pay dividends). Imagine you had to pay income taxes every year on the unrealized gains of your 401k, house, and car value. You too would be said to be paying a very low income tax rate. But again that's not how income taxes work because none of those things are income. If Bezos were to sell those shares and actually realize those gains then he would be rightly taxed but that would also likely tank the stock as his 8% ownership is significant enough to drop the price drastically. 55% of Amazon is owned by 401k and other retirement accounts so if the price tanks average Americans take a huge hit. Bezos does sell shares, all the time actually. You can see this in the SEC filings. And he is rightly taxed on those realized gains. But he's not going to sell all of his shares as that would be damaging to Amazon, the workers, retirement accounts, and his own investments. Instead, the money stays in the company paying worker wages, buying new facilities, etc. This is even better for the economy because it keeps the funds in circulation. This generates even more tax revenue than if he did a 1 time sale of his investments. That's why unrealized gains don't get taxed, because its financially a worse outcome than keeping the money in circulation.
- smallmancontrov 5mo ago
  This post makes the mistake of assuming that everyone is on board with the "unrealized gains are totally different from income and should never ever be taxed a penny because that would be communism and implode the economy and kill kittens" hustle. It's a good hustle, because it takes precision to argue against and it's built around a kernel or two of truth, but these two kernels are firmly planted in a gigantic monumental turd of tax avoidance by the obscenely wealthy.
  - phyzix5761 5mo ago
    Would you rather they hoard the money under their mattress or invest it back into the economy? Like I explained, the reason unrealized gains are not taxed is because they generate more tax revenue than if the individuals pulled out the money, made a 1 time lump sum tax payment, and hoarded the rest. Its not tax avoidance at all. Its a way to multiply tax revenue as that capital is used through numerous transactions that all generate federal and state income and sales taxes.

by dwa3592 5mo ago

giantg2 5mo ago

It seems your article is saying the same sort of thing I already stated - "The share of taxes paid by the richest 1 percent (24 percent)", right? You are talking about effective taxes rates, which are different. To discuss that, I would have liked to see a bit more detail in the article, like what the income sources were and the deductions and losses to offset gains. I think changes around capital gains and loans against equities could use some adjustments. The other taxes like payroll are basically moot as Bezos's payroll income is only about $90k per year anyways.

atmavatar 5mo ago
> I think changes around capital gains and loans against equities could use some adjustments. At minimum, taking out a loan based on the current value of an asset should trigger immediate realization of capital gains/losses for at least those assets used as collateral. After all, the gains are already de facto being realized for the purpose of the loan. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to address the other side of things - that said loans often don't have to be repaid so long as the assets continue to gain. As such, the capital gains are actually being realized continuously by the loan, but I doubt it's feasible to properly handle that in tax law.
- giantg2 5mo ago
  The easy thing to do is set a limit for how much and how long you can borrow against, tax the loans as income, or outlaw loans against investment instruments entirely.

WarmWash 5mo ago

>(including unrealized gains) They wrote that whole article out just to make it all meaningless with 3 words in parenthesis. "The plane crashed and everyone lived! (not including those who died)"

SoftTalker 5mo ago

IDK what Bezos made as "income" last year but paper gains in asset values are not "income" for tax purposes, though some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year. But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least.

9dev 5mo ago
> some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year What in gods name would you call that otherwise? > But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least And that somehow justifies rich people paying less taxes, because they navigate the system better than regular people?
- phyzix5761 5mo ago
  He pays income tax just like everyone else. But the majority of his money is in investments, which many Americans already do as well with 401k and personal brokerage accounts. The people who can't afford to invest like that already pay close to 0% income tax as 40%-60% of households, historically, have paid 0% income tax in the US.
  - 9dev 5mo ago
    They still pay payroll taxes, among others, which disproportionately affect poor people.
    - giantg2 5mo ago
      Payroll taxes were capped because the related benefits were capped. We could uncap either or both ends of that. Although removing the cap should have been unnecessary if the government acted responsibly, and the removal of the cap would not force them to act responsibly in the future.
    - phyzix5761 5mo ago
      I 100% agree. Roosevelt implemented that in 1935 and it was meant as a safety net for social security. Economists estimate that by 2035 social security, as its currently structured, will no longer be able to fund the aging population. Instead, a better alternative is to invest that same amount into an ETF that tracks the S&P 500 and after a 40 year working career the individual would have almost $5 million assuming a median wage and current employer matching on payroll tax. This would give them a yearly $200k payout which grows at 6% per year if they follow the 4% rule on withdrawals, lasting them indefinitely and leaving something behind for their children when they pass away. In contrast, social security right now, on average, pays $26k per year. This would also generate federal taxes through transactions of the companies composing the S&P 500 which would give the government an additional tax revenue source.

phyzix5761 5mo ago

This post makes the mistake of counting unrealized gains as income. That's not how taxes or investments work. Unrealized gains are NOT income. That's how they mistakenly come up with the number that he pays less than 1% in income tax. Investments, in general, are not income (unless held less than 12 months or if they pay dividends). Imagine you had to pay income taxes every year on the unrealized gains of your 401k, house, and car value. You too would be said to be paying a very low income tax rate. But again that's not how income taxes work because none of those things are income. If Bezos were to sell those shares and actually realize those gains then he would be rightly taxed but that would also likely tank the stock as his 8% ownership is significant enough to drop the price drastically. 55% of Amazon is owned by 401k and other retirement accounts so if the price tanks average Americans take a huge hit. Bezos does sell shares, all the time actually. You can see this in the SEC filings. And he is rightly taxed on those realized gains. But he's not going to sell all of his shares as that would be damaging to Amazon, the workers, retirement accounts, and his own investments. Instead, the money stays in the company paying worker wages, buying new facilities, etc. This is even better for the economy because it keeps the funds in circulation. This generates even more tax revenue than if he did a 1 time sale of his investments. That's why unrealized gains don't get taxed, because its financially a worse outcome than keeping the money in circulation.

smallmancontrov 5mo ago
This post makes the mistake of assuming that everyone is on board with the "unrealized gains are totally different from income and should never ever be taxed a penny because that would be communism and implode the economy and kill kittens" hustle. It's a good hustle, because it takes precision to argue against and it's built around a kernel or two of truth, but these two kernels are firmly planted in a gigantic monumental turd of tax avoidance by the obscenely wealthy.
- phyzix5761 5mo ago
  Would you rather they hoard the money under their mattress or invest it back into the economy? Like I explained, the reason unrealized gains are not taxed is because they generate more tax revenue than if the individuals pulled out the money, made a 1 time lump sum tax payment, and hoarded the rest. Its not tax avoidance at all. Its a way to multiply tax revenue as that capital is used through numerous transactions that all generate federal and state income and sales taxes.