Billionaires may pay a lower effective tax RATE than millionaires, but they still pay more in taxes than millionaires.
Millionaire Mike paid $100 thousand in taxes. Billionaire Bob paid $100 million in taxes.
In 2023 Biden's Department of Health and Human Services spent approximately $419,470 on a study to determine if "lonely" rats were more likely to seek out cocaine than happy rats.
Did Mike or Bob effectively pay out more for important studies like these?
(It turns out that lonely rats are buying much more cocaine than happy rats. Now we know.)
Why do liberals say that Billionaires don't pay their fair share?
Too many people don't understand money. The vast majority of billionaires are billionaires because they started a company and they hold significant shares of that company. On paper, those shares have a valuation that is, say, over a billion dollars. But until and unless they actually SELL those shares - which reduces their control of the company - they haven't actually realized any income, beyond what their salary might be, and they pay taxes on their salary.
Now, banks will lend them money based on the value of their shares, which is how many billionaires live day-to-day. And there are no taxes owed on the loan amount because it must be paid back, and with interest. Typically, this billionaire will own other companies or assets, and when one of them is sold or makes a big profit, they will pay down their loan (and the business will pay taxes as capital gains).
Most billionaires are not making massive salaries (i. e., cash), which would trigger income tax. Most have investments and pay capital gains taxes when they cash out something. Otherwise, their "net worth" is largely based on their shares of businesses, not cash in a bank.
Keep in mind that the businesses they partially own with their shares also pay a variety of taxes and fees, including payroll taxes, and they are employing a bunch of people who now themselves pay taxes. So these billionaires not only pay a good chunk of money (the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of the taxes), they make it so that many others have an income.
I have no issue with Bezos or Zuckerberg or Gates, or Musk or Ellison being billionaires - they led companies that have literally changed the world and improved the lives of millions, if not billions.
People should spend a LOT more time and energy worrying about (and investigating) the government. The government makes very little income beyond the taxes it takes from us and the massive loans it takes out in our names. And so much of that money goes to fraud and corruption and needless bureaucracy and bloated headcounts to justify more waste next year.
If people spent a fraction of their "billionaire" energy on government fraud and waste, we could save a trillion a year. But that's politically inconvenient...
I, for one, would not cry a single tear if the tax loophole of keeping all your money in unrealized gains such as company stocks would be taxed and force them to cash out and actually pay their dues.
Furthermore, I also see it as a massive problem that stocks are so massively overvalued that crashing that market by taxing them would even be a good thing. The side effect of having "rich" people be actually rich because of the wealth that they hold as opposed to theoretical wealth held in complicated claims of ownership and debt would just be a bonus.
So yeah, tax away and let the billionaires burn themselves to the ground unless they learn to fly real quick.
I don't care about Bill Gates' money, but I do have two gripes about him.
1. He expects us to eat crickets to save the world. But in the meantime he'll be ordering wagyu steak from japan.
2. When artificial intelligence started taking off and they needed massive amounts of energy for their server farms, Bill Gates completely reversed his opinion on climate change. Now miniature nuclear power plants are just fine. 🤪
@Syntosi Again, you don't seem to understand money.
You have personally benefitted directly from the efforts of hundreds of really wealthy people, because those people have created things that have improved your life. But if those people were forced to sell their shares - especially if this meant losing control over their company (which is a very real thing that actually happens fairly often already), then many of these people simply wouldn't do all the work and take all the risk to create these things, and progress would stagnate.
That's exactly what's happened in much of Europe, Canada, and Australia, and the result is that their economies are melting down, because you can only stagnate for so long, living off a "credit card" (massive loans from the World Bank), before you go completely insolvent.
It's the same attitude that people like Gavin Newsom or Mamdani have, and they're destroying their state/city and driving the successful people away, to places that welcome and support their success.
You cannot change one aspect of a complicated system and just assume that all the other parts will stay the same - they will not. They will adapt, and then you'll have unintended consequences that are terrible - often the opposite of what you wanted.
The problem with Gates - both the crickets and the energy policy issues - is that he runs with the Davos people, who are all wealthy ivory tower academics, and aren't grounded in reality at all, and they all bought into the climate change, "oil will end the world in a decade" insanity. But the decade came and went, and we're still here, and thanks to Elon buying Twitter and Trump putting a stop to the Biden White House's daily lists of accounts to ban on Facebook and YouTube and the like, the ACTUAL science has gotten out, and, oops, it turns out that the "climate crisis" data was largely fabricated because the people funding the studies made it very clear what they wanted the results to be, and the "scientists" delivered, even if they had to make shit up. Now that one side isn't being completely suppressed by the government, the truth has gotten out, and even Gates has admitted that he was wrong and bought into the BS.
I'm not a huge fan of Gates and never was, but he at least has publicly admitted he was wrong. That more than most ever do.
wasn't DOGE supposed to root out fraud and waste? at best they saved 1-7 billion but most analysts believe their efforts will actually cost upwards of $130billion after legal and administrative costs.
was that DOGE was just corrupt and politically motivated rather than truly seeking to cut costs, fraud and corruption OR is it that there isn't as much to cut as people often suggest?
These are the people who will tell you that Warren Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary. It's hard to believe there is anyone as dumb as that, but sadly there are millions that dumb, or pretending to be.
They must be playing dumb. One time Bill Clinton said that he wishes he could pay more in income tax. When President Bush told Bill that the IRS accepts donations, Bill stopped talking about it.
i mean questions about fairness are inherently subjective. your opinion is it is fair. my opinion is it isn't fair but it is not an opinion that the impact of a $15k tax bill on a person earning $60 is a bigger economic hurdle to deal with than a person $8 billion and paying $500k in taxes. this is not an opinion it's a veritable fact. $7.5 billion still leave a person with more than enough money to live lavishly while making $45k a year means you have to leave far more frugally
There are 40 million people in California. 200 of them pay half of the state taxes. Deliverables say that those 200 people aren't paying their Fair share. I find that absurd.
Obviously that's my opinion. But something that isn't my opinion is the fact that someone leaves California every minute and 40 seconds. Perhaps they're seeking a place with a different view of "fairness."
And thanks for the civil discussion. That's extremely rare on this site.
Because they believe whatever they are told without researching it. There is a reason why liberal politicians and media use euphemisms like "fair share". It's because if they actually told what the uber rich really pay it wouldn't fit their agenda. So they imply that the uber rich are not paying much tax, when in reality they pay a tremendous tax. Not just in absolute amounts, but as a percentage.
The two most common mistakes people make are comparing total payroll deductions with effective tax rates, and cherry picking.
They look at total payroll deductions for lower income people. That includes other taxes like state tax, city tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Then they compare that to rich people's tax, but only federal income tax after all deductions. They are comparing apples to oranges.
For example, someone making minimum wage pays ZERO federal income tax, yet they claim they are paying 25-30%. They are looking at total payroll deductions instead of the actual federal tax they pay AFTER they get their tax refund.
They also cherry pick. It gets highly publicized if a rich person pays almost no tax in a particular year. For normal people who work fairly steady jobs, they pay fairly steady income tax. With the uber rich, that is not the case. Their incomes and taxes can vary a LOT from year to year. You can't just look at one year, you have to look at the average over time. Cherry picking an individual year is meaningless.
It's easy enough to look up what people in different income brackets actually pay, but nobody bothers.
People also don't understand deductions. They mistakenly call them "loopholes" when those are two very different things. Loopholes are unintended, and they usually get changed once discovered. Deductions are intentional. Tax deductions are a way for the government to control your money. They give you a tax deduction only if you spend your money the way they want you to.
Liberals base justice on feelings. A flat tax rate would be the most judicial, but the perceived "pain" felt by the least wealthy would be greater. So, to a liberal, the sign of fairness is that everyone is equally unhappy.
As we know, the current tax structure disincentivizes people from moving out of lower tax brackets. And why would they? They're the recipient of the wealth redistribution.
This is also why the founders of the Constitution saw fit to exclude a large portion of the population from voting. They recognized that dependents being able to vote for free shit would do just that.
Personally, I think it's by necessity. Seldom will a person who actually adds value to society vote Blue. Which is why I think Trump is such a special case. A lifelong Democrat who "repented" if you will. No question he used the system for his advantage, but who better to bring down a corrupt system than someone who understands it. It's probably the reason TDS is a thing.
Of course, someone who thinks like you do hates democracy and enjoys being controlled by people who have more than you. Trump is making fascism attractive to idiots who know nothing about history. He disrespects the memory and sacrifice of all of those who died for freedom... while his rich daddy made sure he dodged the draft. I guess dying for freedom is for poor people!
You're delusional. Trump is neither a Republican or a Democrat. He's an opportunist who becomes whatever he needs to in order to get what he wants. Trump is for Trump and only values blind loyalty...
I haven't even responded to any of their stupid posts about how the rich don't pay enough... they didn't do the math.
My degree is in accounting, specifically for business law and the music industry. They have this basic bitch understanding of how rich they are and taxes paid without understanding that how rich they are are in unrealized gains or property that's paid for already. They need to shut the fuck up... but experience has already taught me they won't understand a damn thing I'm saying.
They sound like AOC at a damn international conferance... but they think they know everything. To make it worse they've been handed bullet points to argue that are retarded by mainstream media. It's annoying and I no longer even try to argue with them because they will just go on and on with bullshit that either isn't true at all or just sheer ignorance.
Liberals need money to pay for their socialist programs, yet they don't follow their own rules.
Should a rich person like Taylor Swift pay more for her steak in the fancy restaurant than the middle class family at the next table? Of course it, her steak is free, complimentary of the owner.
Marginal Tax rates were tax rates were 90% from 1951 to 1963 on individuals. CEO to worker was 3 to 1 . Rich people didn't own 90% of the Assets. A man could work and wife didn't have to and she could raise 4 children and put all four through college with little college loan debt. You paid doctors after the doctor visit with cash and didn't have high medical bills. Cost of living was lower. Houses were $7400, if you rented just $50 a month. New cars were $1500 . Greed and corruption ruined the country. Companies competed with lower prices then. We had real competition. Now you are forced into purchases at higher prices.
No one‘s effective tax rate was anywhere near 90% in the 1950s, when there were loopholes all over the place and personal expenses were often written off as business expenses.
You're welcome to try to explain why you disagree with what I posted. Not only are you an idiot, but you have no understanding of economics, meaning all you can do is parrot some nonsense.
Riddle me this, genius:
What percentage of all income taxes were paid by the top 1% of taxpayers in one of the most recent tax years and any year you can find between 1951 and 1963?
You also have the Pelosi's of the world who say the same thing, and that's because they don't consider $300 million rich. It's always somebody richer than them who doesn't pay their Fair share.
Well, that's all well and good in a flat tax system. However, we do not have a flat tax system. We have a graduated tax system. Example--I paid 15% tax against my income last year. Bezos paid 4.5%. Did he pay more than me? Yes he did, but as I stated we do not have a flat tax.
I still do not have much sympathy for billionaires. There is no way they could spend all of that money in their life. Sure some of them worked hard for it. While I will never have that problem, if I did most of the money would go to charity.
You sound like a fool who believes someone when they say ""It's raining "... while they're pissing on you! Are you one of those folks who like golden showers? Don't worry! You're not alone! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions