Gun Grabbers not paying their fair share of taxes

[Paladin]

ProPublica Reveals How Soros, Bloomberg, Buffet, and Other Famous Billionaires Avoid Paying Taxes

For instance, the following individuals have allegedly paid less than a two percent “true tax” rate:

Warren Buffett 0.1 percent
Jeff Bezos 0.98 percent
Michael Bloomberg 1.30 percent

The leaked documents confirm what Breitbart News reported in 2019 that “The wealthiest 400 Americans in 2018 paid a lower tax rate than all of the income groups in the United States,” according to research from University of California, Berkeley.

The analysis also concludes the country’s top economic elite are paying lower federal, state, and local tax rates than the nation’s working and middle class.

[Paladin]

Propublica article: The Secret IRS Files

[philip964]

I will wait and see. Income means something different to everyone, especially the Bernie Sanders, AOC types.

If Jeff Bezo's stock in Amazon goes up 2 billion dollars in a year that is not income unless he sells some of it.

Bernie doesn't look at it that way.

[srothstein]

I agree. Not only are they defining things their own way, they are also playing games with "tax rate". Note that the article uses the phrase "true tax rate" which is the indicator they are lying to you with numbers. I may have the quote wrong, but I think it was Mark Twain that said that "there are three types of lies: Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics."

[Paladin]

Propublica article: The Secret IRS Files

Worth reading in detail:

George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.

But a question remained: What would count as income and what wouldn’t? In 1916, a woman named Myrtle Macomber received a dividend for her Standard Oil of California shares. She owed taxes, thanks to the new law. The dividend had not come in cash, however. It came in the form of an additional share for every two shares she already held. She paid the taxes and then brought a court challenge: Yes, she’d gotten a bit richer, but she hadn’t received any money. Therefore, she argued, she’d received no “income.”

Four years later, the Supreme Court agreed. In Eisner v. Macomber, the high court ruled that income derived only from proceeds. A person needed to sell an asset — stock, bond or building — and reap some money before it could be taxed.

Since then, the concept that income comes only from proceeds — when gains are “realized” — has been the bedrock of the U.S. tax system. Wages are taxed. Cash dividends are taxed. Gains from selling assets are taxed. But if a taxpayer hasn’t sold anything, there is no income and therefore no tax.

Contemporary critics of Macomber were plentiful and prescient. Cordell Hull, the congressman known as the “father” of the income tax, assailed the decision, according to scholar Marjorie Kornhauser. Hull predicted that tax avoidance would become common. The ruling opened a gaping loophole, Hull warned, allowing industrialists to build a company and borrow against the stock to pay living expenses. Anyone could “live upon the value” of their company stock “without selling it, and of course, without ever paying” tax, he said.

it turns out billionaires don’t have to evade taxes exotically and illicitly — they can avoid them routinely and legally.

[der Teufel]

So, according to this story, if your home appreciates in value, you should pay income tax on the increase every year?

If your investments decline in value, will the government pay you back for the "losses" ??

[03Lightningrocks]

The way they figure what is called income may seem unfair to some but paying taxes on unrealized gains would hurt far more "regular folks" than the number of wealthy ones. They are not going to implement that rule for "wealthy" people only. It would apply to all of us. We would all be paying unrealized gains on our homes, investments and anything else that increased in value.

[Paladin]

So, according to this story, if your home appreciates in value, you should pay income tax on the increase every year?

If your investments decline in value, will the government pay you back for the "losses" ??

Currently EVERY year the property district estimates the value of your property and taxes you according to that estimated value.

If you read the full article, what they are doing is #1 owning a lot of assets, #2 borrowing against the assets, #3 moving the assets into tax exempt foundations that continue after their death. That way they often NEVER pay tax. Not this year. Not during their lifetime. Not when they die.

And YOU get to pay THEIR share of the nations taxes. Most people would get a tax cut under the tax system described in the article.

They are using their windfall to steal your rights: Mike Bloomberg spent more than $1 billion on four-month presidential campaign

“Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics. Professionals talk about logistics and sustainability in warfare”

This is all about logistics and sustainability. And the anti-gunners are winning on that front:

Mike Bloomberg’s gun-control group just vastly outspent the NRA to help Democrats win in Virginia

Everytown spent $2.5 million to support the Virginia elections, easily outpacing the approximately $300,000 spent by the NRA, which has its headquarters in the state.

2020: NRA has shed 200 staffers this year as group faces financial crisis

[Chemist45]

The government will not pay you back for your losses. If you file the long form, you can offset investment losses against investment gains.
If you don't have gains to offset against - you lose.
But if your house loses value that is just your loss.

Look, math is hard and a lot of people do not understand it.
I ran two simulations with 2 different stocks over the past 5 years. I calculated what your gain or loss would be per year and the annual taxes required.
I assumed a 15% tax bracket and that the stock would be sold to cover any taxes.

Case #1: BTI (A tobacco stock) If you bought 100 shares on Jan, 1 2017 you would have spent $5628. Under the socialist tax of paying taxes on the gain every year, you would have paid $355.67 in taxes over the past 4 years. (Assume 15% tax bracket). If you had sold shares of stock to cover the tax every year, you would now have 93.4 shares of BTI which was worth a total of $3569.04 on Jan first 2021.
Got that? You would have lost $2058.96 in the market and paid $355.67 in taxes on that loss. This is what happens when the market goes up and down.

Case # 2: Tesla. If you bought 100 shares on Jan, 1 2017 you would have spent $4580. Under the socialist tax of paying taxes on the gain every year, you would have paid $$11,382.48 in taxes over the past 4 years as the price ran up to $880.02 per share in January of 2021. (Assume 15% tax bracket).
If you had sold shares of stock to cover the tax every year, you would now have 79.16 shares of of Tesla which was worth a total of $69,660.80 on Jan first 2021. OK. So you are doing good. Right?
The problem is that Tesla is now worth $598.78. If you had waited to sell your stocks until now, you would have to sell a lot more shares.

So this plan comes down to "Heads the government wins, tails you lose."
Not to mention all of the additional accounting that you will be required to do to keep track of this.

I'll share the spreadsheet if people want. PM me for it.

[jerry_r60]

So, according to this story, if your home appreciates in value, you should pay income tax on the increase every year?

If your investments decline in value, will the government pay you back for the "losses" ??

Currently EVERY year the property district estimates the value of your property and taxes you according to that estimated value.

If you read the full article, what they are doing is #1 owning a lot of assets, #2 borrowing against the assets, #3 moving the assets into tax exempt foundations that continue after their death. That way they often NEVER pay tax. Not this year. Not during their lifetime. Not when they die.

And YOU get to pay THEIR share of the nations taxes. Most people would get a tax cut under the tax system described in the article.

They are using their windfall to steal your rights: Mike Bloomberg spent more than $1 billion on four-month presidential campaign

“Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics. Professionals talk about logistics and sustainability in warfare”

This is all about logistics and sustainability. And the anti-gunners are winning on that front:

Mike Bloomberg’s gun-control group just vastly outspent the NRA to help Democrats win in Virginia

Everytown spent $2.5 million to support the Virginia elections, easily outpacing the approximately $300,000 spent by the NRA, which has its headquarters in the state.

2020: NRA has shed 200 staffers this year as group faces financial crisis

The property tax comment is true but not really relevant to this. Yes we currently pay property tax but the article is suggesting "income tax" on unrealized capital gains. So on top of the state property tax, you would in theory have federal income tax.

The idea of "borrowing against the assets" I don't think much matters. So they used assets for collateral on a loan, I don't care, that's between them and the lender.

Where it does get interesting is that the unrealized capital gains on (and original base value of) stock can be transferred into a not for profit trust (with the assets remaining in control of the donor) so the gains are never taxed and then the donor also gets to write off of their income taxes 20% of the value of that donated stock, including that unrealized capital gain. So the donor gets to deduct for a gain never realized and taxed.

Much simpler tax code would be great. The old "tax on a 3x5" card.

[Paladin]

Now we know for certain who hired Biden for the whitehouse:

Attorney General Garland vows billionaire tax leak to ProPublica will be ‘top of my list’ to investigate

“I promise you, it will be at the top of my list,” Garland assured Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

You see, according to this Garland the problem here is not that the wealthiest people in America aren't paying taxes... while the rest of us are. who cares about trillions in deficits? . By his reaction Garland confirms systemic inequity is by DESIGN. The real problem? Hard to say... is it the public getting a graduate education on how the PROS avoid paying taxes? That could be a REAL problem....Or is it that the public found out that the wealthiest really don't pay their share? Probably both.

Tax exempt foundations are a good place to start addressing the issue. I don't want any more Clinton or Rockefeller Foundations.

[jerry_r60]

What the leaks and articles "exposing" wealthy liberals is a clever way to get conservatives to advocate for the policies the liberals and those being "exposed" are actually advocating.

[Paladin]

What the leaks and articles "exposing" wealthy liberals is a clever way to get conservatives to advocate for the policies the liberals and those being "exposed" are actually advocating.

Biden, Obama, and the Clinton's would talk about taxing the wealthy... it was all smoke and mirrors... as was the "Buffett Rule"... its a con-game that the billionaires are winning. Most of what you see in the media is just a distraction from the great game that has just been laid bare.

WARNING LANGUAGE

[03Lightningrocks]

What the leaks and articles "exposing" wealthy liberals is a clever way to get conservatives to advocate for the policies the liberals and those being "exposed" are actually advocating.

Biden, Obama, and the Clinton's would talk about taxing the wealthy... it was all smoke and mirrors... as was the "Buffett Rule"... its a con-game that the billionaires are winning. Most of what you see in the media is just a distraction from the great game that has just been laid bare.

WARNING LANGUAGE

[Paladin]

If it's a subject the NYT cares about, they actually have decent coverage. NYT Opinion: The Real Tax Scandal Is What’s Legal

The new data suggests that we need to consider a different definition of taxable income.

For tax purposes in the United States, income is basically defined as money. If an investment increases in value, that does not count as taxable income. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman estimated in April that the wealthiest Americans are holding about $2.7 trillion in wealth on which they have not paid taxes.

The logic of this standard rests on a tripod of assumptions that aren’t true.

...It is easy to accumulate wealth that is never taxed. Assets can be siloed in nonprofit foundations whose main beneficiaries may be the people who run them. Assets can also be passed on to children and grandchildren. Better yet, the government allows heirs to take ownership at the present value, erasing the accumulated tax liability.

The federal income tax is designed to be progressive, meaning that those who make more money are supposed to pay taxes at higher rates. But the richest Americans don’t. Public data shows that in 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, the top 0.001 percent of taxpayers — roughly 1,400 households — paid a smaller share of income in taxes than the rest of the top 1 percent. The effective tax rate for that elite group was 22.9 percent.