“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”.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They used to push for a flat tax where everyone, billionaires and minimum wage workers alike, would pay the same rate. They did one better and now billionaires pay a lower rate than everyone else. Steve Forbes was an idiot. They managed to do it far better than he could have ever imagined when he ran for President in the 90’s. Fucking nepo babies…
When you make $30k a year, $3,000 has a much higer impact on your finances than someone who makes $3,000,000 and pays $300,000 in taxes. You keep $27,000, they keep $2,700,000. You lose a mortgage payment and a car payment. They have to buy a slightly smaller yacht.
On top of that, as already mentioned, their wealth comes from stocks and other non-wages income. Bezos famously only took $81,000 (I think?) in actual pay for many years, yet he’s one of the richest people on the planet. You think $8,100 in taxes is good enough for one of the richest people while you pay $3k out of your $30k?
Flat tax is a bad idea, and the only ones who want it are the wealthy and those who don’t understand that the wealthy could take whatever salary they want to pay as little tax as possible and just live off stocks, loans, which is how they already avoid paying taxes.
If flat tax would apply evenly to all sources, investment sales taxed at same rate as wages. No deductions. How would this not be fairer than the US current tax scheme?
If a billionaire can take a salary of $80k at the hypothetical 10% tax and pay $8k tax while an IT professional making $200k has to pay $20k how is that fair? The billionaire takes money from capital gains (lower taxes) because they pay themselves in stock and funds, and/or uses loans (zero tax on loans- you know that, right?), puts his yacht under a shell company so no personal taxes on that, probably uses it for business trips so it’s use can be written off partially…and buys whatever the hell he/she wants. But pays less tax than the IT professional.
So you’re saying that’s just fine. That’s exactly how a flat tax works. That’s how rich people pay less than regular people.
No I do not think it’s fine. I did read what you said, but from your reply it’s obvious you didn’t read what I said.
I said if “apply evenly to all sources, investment sales taxed at same rate as wages” From your reply “billionaire takes money from capital gains (lower taxes)”. That’s not the same rate is it.
I said "No deductions."From your reply “so its use can be written off partially” That’s a deduction isn’t it.
The current system where rich pay a lower tax rate because they can take advantage of things like capital gains and deductions is not fair or equitable. A flat rate system that eliminated things like capital gains and deductions would not be fair, but it would be fairer because it keep the millionaire mfrom paying a lower rate than the poor (or the software engineer).
Graduated tax that eliminated things like capital gains and deductions would be fairer still. Also gift exemption, inheritance exemption and other carveouts that unduly favor the wealthy should at least be be adjusted if not outright eliminated.
Because a business use of a yacht (hypothetically) is not income. You get your yacht but no worries about it being taxed as income. You also completely skipped loans, loans are not income and therefore not taxable under your scheme, and portfolio loans are a huge part of how the wealthy get spending money. Now before you reiterate yet again you said all sources I want you to think a minute that these taxes are going to be applied to you, too. Your 401k. That’s investment. Your home loan. You want to tax that? How about your car and student loans. More taxes? Still sound right? Do you want to make carve outs for those things? That sounds suspiciously like writeoffs or “deductions”.
We could sit here all day and quibble over what is and isn’t income, but at the end of the day you’re going to end up with exceptions, or “deductions”, and if you’re going to say “well, nobody making under ‘x’ amount should be taxed on a 401k…” and now we’re right back where we started with a rich person making less than ‘x’.
Flat taxes are not going to work.
They are not fair.
You need a wealth tax and you need a tax that attaches itself to the vehicles used by the wealthy to get money that is under- or not taxed. Tax personal or portfolio loans over 100,000 not used for housing, medical care, or education. Stock options issued in lieu of or along with salary as compensation should be taxed as income when sold. Do not tax individual personal retirement accounts that deliver less than “x” income or payout to persons of retirement age. This is how you tax wealth and protect the normal persons. Not 10% of the $81k salary the billionaire gives himself.
Not advocating for flat tax, I’ve said flat tax not fair, we’re in agreement on that.
I stand by my statement that a flat tax scheme applied evenly to all sources of income with no deductions to shield income, is fairer than the current scheme. Your arguments that flat tax scheme is unfair are all true but do not repudiate that statement.
I say it again, fairer than the current scheme. Don’t tell me not fair, I agree. Tell me how everyone paying the same rate would not be fairer than the current scheme where wealthy are able to pay a lower rate. Again, fairer than, not fair.
Ahhh you aren’t using the current definition of “flat tax”. Flat tax is a single rate across all incomes. It still includes deductions, exemptions, credits etc.
I don’t know the correct term for “no deductions tax”. No exceptions? Non adjustable?
Flat means no deductions and an equal pay. It can still be done against brackets and be a flat tax.
No brackets work with credits and deductions. Someone with 100k in income could pay zero in taxes. A flat tax makes them pay taxes by removing deductions.
Personally I’d rather see a consumption tax but that freaks most people out.
“A flat tax is a tax with a single rate on the taxable amount, after accounting for any deductions or exemptions from the tax base. It is not necessarily a fully proportional tax.” Wikipedia
Interesting! I had never heard that definition before. It’s always been a single rate across the board with deductions still included whenever I’ve heard it discussed. I’ll believe it though. Investopedia, while focused on the greediest of society, at least knows economics.
edit: weird words changed. swipe keyboard got the best of me.
I’ve never heard deductions being allowed. Maybe a few but for the most part it’s about an equal rate across everyone or at least a few small brackets.
Different plans define income differently. If we are trying to fix the astern income should be everything. Selling an investment home, dividends, selling stocks, w2. Etc.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That analysis you linked isn’t about income taxes. The NYTimes analysis is just about income taxes. It is the first time, although the report is on data that’s a few years old
Yeah I know, it is about the total effective tax rate of various income levels. It clearly demonstrates how the ultra ultra wealthy are able to pay less tax. In theory we are supposed to be on a progressive tax system. In reality at a certain income level it becomes regressive. Just focusing on income tax regardless of the rate. Will never show a full picture. There are other taxes that everybody pays. It is much more telling to understand how the whole package works instead of just focusing on one part.
And that is without tax loopholes and evasions. The ultra wealthy have more than enough money to pay the accountants and tax lawyers needed to under report their income.
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.
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.
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.
Add comment