Billionaires don’t pay taxes?

[F.I.R.E User]

Declared NOL?

 

[ERD50]

You are going to make me pull out my acoustic. My recollection is it is a very straight forward Em, G, Am, C, B7 round with some easy picking.

I pulled out my electric, it was closer To my ear, your recollection is good. Great song.

Now I always thought it was interesting that people take that line two ways:

"Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more"

I figure that if they thought taxing the rich would end hunger, that line would be " 'Til there are no poor no more". But they don't say that, only that we got rid of the rich! And the poor are still around (I think Jesus had something to say about that)?

Hard to say if that was the intention or not, but I think it is the most reasonable analysis of what is given.

-ERD50

 

[marko]

That’s not really true. We’ve had capital gains cuts and income tax cuts and elimination of whole brackets. And some of that might be reversed soon.

If course! Taxes go up and down. I was referencing the outrage-- sometimes undeserved-- over billionaire's taxes. As the quotes here from songs that are now 50 years old imply, little has changed.

Meet the new status quo
Same as the old status quo

 

[Winemaker]

Didn't a lot of those British rock stars move to the US to escape the onerous UK taxes?

 

[RxMan]

This article is more of a reflection on the state of modern journalism rather than any information on tax laws and how they affect billionaires.

 

[audreyh1]

Didn't a lot of those British rock stars move to the US to escape the onerous UK taxes?

Like John Lennon?

“There’s one for you, 19 for me.”

 

[pjigar]

I pulled out my electric, it was closer To my ear, your recollection is good. Great song.

Now I always thought it was interesting that people take that line two ways:

"Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more"

I figure that if they thought taxing the rich would end hunger, that line would be " 'Til there are no poor no more". But they don't say that, only that we got rid of the rich! And the poor are still around (I think Jesus had something to say about that)?

Hard to say if that was the intention or not, but I think it is the most reasonable analysis of what is given.

-ERD50

I will one up you analysis with another meaning to this line:
"...
'Til there are no rich no more"

This line may mean Rich will simply leave the country. It reminds me of a story:

The cost of dinner
Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.


PS: Looks like I was late to the party with my interpretation!

 

[Midpack]

This article is more of a reflection on the state of modern journalism rather than any information on tax laws and how they affect billionaires.

We like to think that, but journalists give us what we want. If most of us didn’t prefer to read and share crap, selling more ads, they wouldn’t keep feeding it to all of us. The OP is easily refuted, but few bother. There are articles about billionaires paying no taxes, and articles about billionaires paying millions in taxes (post #10) - which one gets a thread (even) here?

It must be fun to be a billionaire (or MegaCorp) and pay FAR more in taxes than the rest of us, only to have misleading articles written vilifying them…

 

[pjigar]

I looked up some relevant data about the story above:

"The latest government data show that in 2018, the top 1% of income earners—those who earned more than $540,000—earned 21% of all U.S. income while paying 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes."
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

So the tenth guy in our story is actually paying $71 out of $100 tab.

 

[pjigar]

PS: Midpack beat me up to this!

 

[Andre1969]

I find it amusing that that the cry of "Make the Rich Pay Their Fair Share" is usually heard the loudest, from those who are either paying no tax at all, or even making money on the deal.

What's the statistic these days? Something like 47% paying no federal taxes at all? So in essence, you can single out any one person, who paid federal taxes, no matter how small the bill, and say that person paid more than nearly half the country! Talk about "fair share!"

One thing I'm curious about, when they throw out a number like that 47%, does that include ALL residents, or just those who actually filed a tax return? If it's only those who didn't file a tax return, then the actual number might be even higher. My uncle, for instance, hasn't filed a tax return in years. His only source of income is SS, plus drawing down an inheritance he got in 2015, when my Grandmom (his Mom) passed away. Every year, when I go to the tax man to get my taxes done, I bring my uncle's information, just in case, but the tax man always says "he doesn't have to file". I guess he might have to start filing, when he finally starts getting into his IRA, but that's a few years off (2024, if he waits until 72).

I think the problem is, the concept of "Fair" is that it's more of an idea, an opinion, rather than a cold, hard fact. Even if you try to look up the definition, there are all sorts of nuances. For instance, the first definition I found was "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism."

But when it comes to taxes, I'd say it's more like "marked by self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism : free from impartiality and honesty."

And, as has been said over and over again, in these forums and elsewhere, "Life isn't fair."

 

[stephenson]

Interesting thread.

I'm going to stick with Robber Barons - and, that they are not paying their fair share - remember this started because some pay zero or near zero, and corporations that pay zero or near zero.

The RBs have far better planning that we have, have far better staff to plan, and have far better resources to move from category to category in order to avoid paying taxes - same for many corporations.

Waving this all away, even with humor, without addressing the underlying issues - including there not being enough taxes being collected to pay for what is spend, is how we go here - and, apparently are stuck here.

There will be hell to pay - sometime.

 

[LRDave]

Like John Lennon?

“There’s one for you, 19 for me.”

"Tax Man" is a George Harrison song - music and words.

 

[ERD50]

This article is more of a reflection on the state of modern journalism rather than any information on tax laws and how they affect billionaires.

This.

We like to think that, but journalists give us what we want. …

I'm not sure what your point is. I (and many in this thread) don't want this. I want accurate, relevant, unbiased journalism.

I didn't click on the story, partly because I don't want to give them the click, mostly because from the excerpts, it's drivel, and why waste my time?

I think it may be more accurate to say these writers (I won't call them "journalists") are writing what they want. And what they want is clicks. Which means any headline that will draw the most clicks, and I'd bet those clicks come from a small segment of the population, it isn't representative of "us" (the majority).

... There are articles about billionaires paying no taxes, and articles about billionaires paying millions in taxes (post #10) - which one gets a thread (even) here? ...

Because most of us already know this. It's like asking why there wasn't a thread about there be no airline crashes today. It's not news.

I think all we can do is point out the flaws to those who might no understand how off-base the article is. Which is what most of us are doing.

Interesting thread.

I'm going to stick with Robber Barons - and, that they are not paying their fair share - remember this started because some pay zero or near zero, and corporations that pay zero or near zero. ....

Except that's not true (in general). The premise of the article is false. Ironically, there were several articles about this subject a few years ago in the revered (by some) New York Times (the "paper of record"), bemoaning individuals/corporations who paid zero Federal Income Tax (tricky wording, other taxes were paid) and at the time, the New York Times itself was paying zero FIT, due to carryover losses, or other accounting requirements.

-ERD50

 

[LRDave]

I love the music of our generation and enjoy studying the lyrics and learning about how the words and music came to be.

It is a mistake to attach too much deep profundity to popular song lyrics. Often the song writers were just looking for words that rhyme and match the meter of the song.

 

[ERD50]

I love the music of our generation and enjoy studying the lyrics and learning about how the words and music came to be.

It is a mistake to attach too much deep profundity to popular song lyrics. Often the song writers were just looking for words that rhyme and match the meter of the song.

And/or were high as a kite!

Or messing with us ( I've given up trying make anything from the lyrics of "Whiter Shade of Pale", and just enjoy the flow and iconic Bach influenced Hammond organ lines).

But in this case "Till there are no poor no more" flows/rhymes just as well.

-ERD50

 

[LRDave]

And/or were high as a kite!

Or messing with us ( I've given up trying make anything from the lyrics of "Whiter Shade of Pale", and just enjoy the flow and iconic Bach influenced Hammond organ lines).

But in this case "Till there are no poor no more" flows/rhymes just as well.

-ERD50

One can still wind up Bob Dylan by asking what a particular song "means".....

 

[stephenson]

Once one gets into discussions of carryover, and tax breaks and tax assistance and social engineering with the tax system, it is difficult to stay on the path.

The tax system is not taking in enough to pay the bills - hasn't for a long time.

Lots of reasons, but none matter much except the system is not working - and, there will be hell to pay.

So, fix he system by avoiding so much tax engineering? Not allowing some to not pay (I believe this is a larger number and larger amount than some here, contend)? Making certain everyone pays and has a stake in the government - the Federal government, so discussions about state, local, real estate, sales tax - don't apply.

 

[ERD50]

Once one gets into discussions of carryover, and tax breaks and tax assistance and social engineering with the tax system, it is difficult to stay on the path. ...

That is the path! It is all part of the system, whether we like it or not.

... The tax system is not taking in enough to pay the bills - hasn't for a long time. ....

Or stated another way, the Feds are spending more than they take in. Maybe the "spend" part is what needs to be fixed (or both, IMO).

... Lots of reasons, but none matter much except the system is not working - and, there will be hell to pay. ....

Agreed.

... So, fix he system by avoiding so much tax engineering? Not allowing some to not pay (I believe this is a larger number and larger amount than some here, contend)? ...

Got some data to back that up? It's also unhelpful to list people/corps that didn't pay in a certain year, they may have paid plenty in other years due to those tax regs and/or business cycles. Long term averages are more meaningful.

I also see corporate tax as a shell game. I'd prefer to see it go to zero, it gets paid by the consumer, and becomes a flat tax rate on everyone.

... Making certain everyone pays and has a stake in the government - the Federal government, ...

Oh would we hear the wailing if the bottom 50% were asked to pay their "fair share" (their words, not mine) of FIT.

-ERD50

 

[target2019]

Like John Lennon?
“There’s one for you, 19 for me.”

"Tax Man" is a George Harrison song - music and words.

Let's hope the billionaires are paying attention to the details.

Many of the English rock stars and groups moved out of England because of the oppressiveness of Brit tax system.

 

[Which Roger]

Rough calculation of what DW and I paid in federal income taxes in 2020:
- 5% of our income
- 0.5% of the amount our net worth increased in 2020
- 0.05% of our total net worth
So I probably shouldn't complain about the billionaires. Although when we were w*rking, the percentages were much, much, higher.

 

[stephenson]

Many have talked about solving this problem with less spending - what is spent is what is spent - it simply needs to be paid for - and, that is the political context.

 

[38Chevy454]

Many have talked about solving this problem with less spending - what is spent is what is spent - it simply needs to be paid for - and, that is the political context.

Two issues:
1. Many believe that spending is too much to begin with. Not an income problem, but a spending problem. It's the perspective, spending doesn't have to be a given.
2. When government creates dollars out of nothing, that is the political context.

Overall the discussion in this thread is great. There are obvious agendas in the articles. There are also tax laws on the books that people use to their advantage. No easy answers, especially when the "fair" term is thrown around.

 

[ERD50]

Many have talked about solving this problem with less spending - what is spent is what is spent - it simply needs to be paid for - and, that is the political context.

There are two sides to every equation.

I could just as easily flip your statement - "what is received in taxes is what is received, they simply need to spend no more than they take in".

Yes, I know, people can ask "What would we cut?". I didn't say it would be easy, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it either.

-ERD50

 

[Winemaker]

Okay, so they don't pay a high enough percentage in taxes. So what?

I live in the commonwealth of PA. DW and I have a lot in assets, and a 6 figure annual income. Due to PA tax law, we don't pay a dime in PA income tax, provided we keep our net rental income below $13,000. SS, tIRA, pensions, 403b, and 401k monies are non taxable in PA.