Poll of the Day > New Report says many Uber Rich People (outside of Trump) don't pay Taxes...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/propublica-many-uber-rich-pay-135751936.html

Cause for concern?

Not exactly a secret

---

Tesla founder Elon Musks income tax bill was zero in 2018.

...Musk was borrowing money so he didn't have to liquidate assets in 2018. This fake news story is misleading as fuck and fundamentally tries to misinform the general public.

https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/high-net-worth/elon-musk-short-on-cash-keeps-borrowing-more-and-more-money-even-as-tesla-stock-surges

If somebody has relatively little income coming in, they're going to be paying less in taxes. This isn't a "trick," it's literally how the system was designed to work. In the case of the others, they had substantial losses or their donations offset their tax obligation.

---

Elon Musk is not Tesla and don't have the same bank accounts Zeus. A company can be losing money and the CEO can be getting paid still, they're still an employee.

I thought this was pretty common knowledge?

---

shadowsword87 posted...

Elon Musk is not Tesla and don't have the same bank accounts Zeus. A company can be losing money and the CEO can be getting paid still, they're still an employee.

Whoops. Meant to say Elon Musk. But you'd know what I meant if you saw the article. He was borrowing cash from friends and banks to cover personal expenses. It's been a very open fact that Musk is cash-strapped and has needed to borrow money to personally stay afloat because he doesn't want to liquidate stock.

---

Ya, that's the problem.

Believe it or not but the typical millionaire legitimately pays above their fair share in taxes... but above that they have to carry the load of the even richer who don't

---

Lokarin posted...

Believe it or not but the typical millionaire legitimately pays above their fair share in taxes

not in the US they dont

---

Mead posted...

not in the US they dont

If there weren't people paying above their fair share then those who pay below would not be covered. It's a zero sum game, someone has to pay above to cover those who can't.


---

Lokarin posted...

If there weren't people paying above their fair share then those who pay below would not be covered. It's a zero sum game, someone has to pay above to cover those who can't.

im in favor of a flat tax so that everyone pays the same rate, I know a lot of people think that idea is regressive and unfair, but I dont really care

---

This just in! Rain is wet!

---

Mead posted...

im in favor of a flat tax so that everyone pays the same rate

That idea is regressive and unfair

---

faramir77 posted...

That idea is regressive and unfair

oh well

---

Flat tax is the way to go after a basic living wage deduction, which is mainly used in much of the world actually.

We have a flat 12,500 deduction in the US right now (25000 if married filing jointly), but that is not nearly enough to live on.

Instead we should have something like a 25000 deduction (50k filed jointly), then a flat 35% tax on any income over that, which you can't avoid with loopholes etc.

This would actually mean paying MORE taxes though for many middle class, but it would also mean paying MUCH MORE taxes for many making well over 1 mill a year.

Those extra taxes could help pay for tons of things that would help everyone, but especially those making a living wage, including free child care. Then you also need to create some for of cost cap for things like medical care, education etc, so people are not making billions on it, and it's affordable for everyone.

If you also create affordable housing to curtail rental prices etc, everyone should be able to easily live on 25-30k a year (which should be about what minimum wage is), meaning any additional money (Which is what your taxed on) would be for luxury items etc.

Still a capitalist society based on getting ahead the better your skills are etc, but far more fair then what we have right now.

---

Zeus posted...

Whoops. Meant to say Elon Musk. But you'd know what I meant if you saw the article. He was borrowing cash from friends and banks to cover personal expenses. It's been a very open fact that Musk is cash-strapped and has needed to borrow money to personally stay afloat because he doesn't want to liquidate stock.

So you don't have to pay taxes on money 'Given/Loaned' to you? Not big on Tax laws and whatnot, but where can I find Friends/Banks like these?

Mead posted...

im in favor of a flat tax so that everyone pays the same rate, I know a lot of people think that idea is regressive and unfair, but I dont really care

How is it unfair? Seems like it's the most fair way to do it imo

---

Zeus posted...

their donations offset their tax obligation.

That shouldn't be a thing.
---

Muscles posted...

How is it unfair? Seems like it's the most fair way to do it imo

I agree, but the counter argument in a nutshell is that if someone is low income then 20% or however much of their income is a lot tougher for them to lose then it is for some millionaires to pay 20% of their money cause they are making so much

---

Mead posted...

I agree, but the counter argument in a nutshell is that if someone is low income then 20% or however much of their income is a lot tougher for them to lose then it is for some millionaires to pay 20% of their money cause they are making so much

It's still a better net gain for society even if it is less of an impact on the individual, and it beats them exploiting tax loop holes or leaving to somewhere that doesn't tax ridiculous amounts.

---

No shit they don't

---

Lokarin posted...

Ya, that's the problem.

Believe it or not but the typical millionaire legitimately pays above their fair share in taxes... but above that they have to carry the load of the even richer who don't

Their "fair share" is based on income. If the ultra rich aren't bringing in much income -- and their increase in "net wealth" is just the estimated value of what they own going up -- then it's more than fair. The system is built on paying what you take in, not what you have. And when they do sell those assets (or those assets are inherited), then they're taxed.

The alternative to take from people who still have a lot after you've taken from them is to create a wealth tax -- a far-left idea that European nations see as folly because many extremely liberal nations have tried it with disastrous results. And honestly, there's something inherently distasteful about a wealth tax, particularly when that wealth is based on evaluations and the person doesn't necessarily have income coming in.

faramir77 posted...

That idea is regressive and unfair

There's a certain fairness to a flat tax rate, but then you'd have to figure out what to with the people who make just enough to survive (and currently pay little or nothing in way of taxes as a result)

wolfy42 posted...

Instead we should have something like a 25000 deduction (50k filed jointly), then a flat 35% tax on any income over that, which you can't avoid with loopholes etc.

A 35% tax is fucking insane and a lot higher than most people pay now. And if you're doing 35 at the federal level, what are you doing at the state level? Another 35%? And keep in mind people have a million other taxes on top of that.

A 35% tax rate would just punish traditional workers who can't hide their assets.

pionear posted...

So you don't have to pay taxes on money 'Given/Loaned' to you? Not big on Tax laws and whatnot, but where can I find Friends/Banks like these?

Gifts? Yes. Loans? Of course not. A loan is something you have to pay back. Why the hell would that be taxable?

pionear posted...

where can I find Friends/Banks like these?

You need to hang out at the right country clubs. And if you have substantial assets (ie, a means of repayment if other things fall through), people are more likely to lend you money because they know they can get it back.

---

Zeus posted...

Their "fair share" is based on income. If the ultra rich aren't bringing in much income -- and their increase in "net wealth" is just the estimated value of what they own going up -- then it's more than fair. The system is built on paying what you take in, not what you have. And when they do sell those assets (or those assets are inherited), then they're taxed.

Not precisely. What America needs is a transactions tax, something as simple as 0.5% on any transaction (akin to the Canadian GST). As an example, Jeff Bezos' personal income is so low he qualified for both welfare and child subsidy credit this last year... but as a corporation he probably made hundreds of thousands of transactions

---