Still doesn't say they don't repay the loan. Says they expense the low interest that they pay on the loan.bbc more credible? at least they use the word alleges and alleged a lot
US super-rich 'pay almost no income tax'
US authorities probe leak claiming to show how billionaires including Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk pay minimal or no income tax.www.bbc.com
"That's not to say these super rich folks have no money coming in to pay their yacht bills. There is a widespread tactic employed by the rich to borrow cash secured against their vast wealth - which again is not income - it's proceeds of a loan and here's the (perfectly legal) biscuit-taking bit.
The interest on that loan can be deducted from any other income to further reduce income tax liability. It sounds egregious - but it's legal."
What is the point of paying someone more money if they're buying power is equally decreased?
Correct, I was not trying to obscure facts. The probublica article goes into detail on the income of a couple people and gives specific explanations. It's certainly more complicated than my quip.
If the press lies about the inflation rate, the higher wage makes them feel better?
What lender will allow you not to pay your loan back but only the interest on the loan? Asking for a friend.
What happens when Jeff or Elons paper money stock portfolio shits the bed and the lender says pay the loan back. They then have to sell stock to cover the loan and pay the capital gains tax on the sale. You guys seem to want them to make annual payments based on whatever the current inflated value of their portfolio is at the time. That would put an end to stocks as an investment vehicle. Probably where we are headed though.
Good point. But as pointed out, minimum wage hasn’t keep pace with inflation.
Is you point that since I'm not a tax lawyer, and cannot explain to you how people avoid taxes in perfect detail that the issue does not exists?
If you have $100 million in assets there is an entire world of banking options that open up to you that the average person has never heard of.
Can’t thumb type a long enough reply on a dying iPhone to do your question justice, but in short, consumption taxes are actually better for the rich and worse for the working class. It’s driven by the percent of your “income” that you then need to spend to live. If you make $40k a year you probably spend 90+% of it. If you just realized $100 million in stock gains you probably spend 5% of it. Plus lots of ways to game consumption for the rich.
Aka the corporate jet, car, credit card, etc
At least we should all be able to agree that midget strippers should be tax-deductible for all citizens.
Knock yourself out. Go get the Gates, Bezos, and Buffetts and make them pay their "fair share". I'll cheer you on.
I don't care that much about the few outliers - greed or envy has nothing to do with my concern. But there are tens of thousands of folks you have never heard of paying little or no taxes due to our fundamentally flawed definition of "income". And I don't want the fix to fund crazy future programs, I want the fix to reduce the current bizarre market incentives it is creating and to pay for the bills we already have coming due. I do not come from a place of liberal "tax the rich" - I would be happy to put my conservative cred up against anybody - but there is nothing conservative about arbitrarily exempting one type of compensation from taxation over another -- That is chrony capitalism at its lowest.Knock yourself out. Go get the Gates, Bezos, and Buffetts and make them pay their "fair share". I'll cheer you on.
If one can replace partisan bias with pragmatism, it isn’t hard to see the issue here. It’s messed up.
