ProPublica has obtained a vast cache of IRS information showing how billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett pay little in income tax compared to their massive wealth — sometimes, even nothing.
My “true tax rate” is a low single digit number too, if you measure it the same way, and I make ~$50k a year.
It’s extremely disingenuous to talk about taxes paid as a percentage of income, and as a percentage of total wealth/net worth, in the same breath, as if they are anywhere near the same thing.
It’s also extremely disingenuous to say someone is ‘avoiding tax’ by not paying tax on their unrealized gains in net worth. He doesn’t OWE any tax on that. NOBODY in the US does.
This is like calling someone a draft dodger, who was never drafted, lol.
Property taxes are not levied federally, but on the state level
Buffett pays property tax too
Not sure what point you were trying to make here, lol. There is no type of unrealized gain that “normal people” are taxed on (federally or otherwise), but Buffett isn’t.
I had hoped the point would be pretty obvious. Most people’s homes represent a significant part of their net worth, often a majority of their assets. The unrealized gains on that are taxed.
Billionaires generally (are there even any counterexamples?) do not have the majority of their net worth stored in assets that are taxed the same way. It’s a meaningful difference.
It is kinda weird that real estate gets taxed just for existing and being held, but stocks, which supposedly represent a fraction of a mass of real wealth too, don’t get taxed while just being held.
I had hoped the point would be pretty obvious. Most people’s homes represent a significant part of their net worth, often a majority of their assets. The unrealized gains on that are taxed.
But the real question is, do you think they should be? 'Cause I’m with you if you say no. Unrealized gains should not be taxed at all, it makes no sense.
You’re misunderstanding how their wealth is distributed. By and large, they’re not directly owning the land and paying taxes. They just own significant stakes in the actual companies holding property. I’m sure they own a house or three, but it’s not significant compared to their other assets.
I’m not taking a position on whether property taxes are good. I think they are. I’m just pointing out the discrepancy.
My “true tax rate” is a low single digit number too, if you measure it the same way, and I make ~$50k a year.
It’s extremely disingenuous to talk about taxes paid as a percentage of income, and as a percentage of total wealth/net worth, in the same breath, as if they are anywhere near the same thing.
It’s also extremely disingenuous to say someone is ‘avoiding tax’ by not paying tax on their unrealized gains in net worth. He doesn’t OWE any tax on that. NOBODY in the US does.
This is like calling someone a draft dodger, who was never drafted, lol.
Normal people regularly owe taxes on unrealized gains. That’s what property tax increases are.
Not sure what point you were trying to make here, lol. There is no type of unrealized gain that “normal people” are taxed on (federally or otherwise), but Buffett isn’t.
I had hoped the point would be pretty obvious. Most people’s homes represent a significant part of their net worth, often a majority of their assets. The unrealized gains on that are taxed.
Billionaires generally (are there even any counterexamples?) do not have the majority of their net worth stored in assets that are taxed the same way. It’s a meaningful difference.
It is kinda weird that real estate gets taxed just for existing and being held, but stocks, which supposedly represent a fraction of a mass of real wealth too, don’t get taxed while just being held.
Actually, there are a large number of billionaires whose primary assets are literally property.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2023/10/04/the-richest-real-estate-billionaires-in-america-2023/
But the real question is, do you think they should be? 'Cause I’m with you if you say no. Unrealized gains should not be taxed at all, it makes no sense.
You’re misunderstanding how their wealth is distributed. By and large, they’re not directly owning the land and paying taxes. They just own significant stakes in the actual companies holding property. I’m sure they own a house or three, but it’s not significant compared to their other assets.
I’m not taking a position on whether property taxes are good. I think they are. I’m just pointing out the discrepancy.
Nothing steps Warren Bufffet from taking an income instead of relying upon their wealth.
He does take an income ($100k, very modest compared to others even in the same company: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-warren-buffett-only-gets-174730982.html ).
And why shouldn’t he continue to own things that are becoming more valuable over time, exactly?