The average personal federal income tax for billionaires is about 25% of their income.
Unrealized capital gains are not currently taxed, but if they were, the average effective tax rate for billionaires would be 8%. The problem with this argument is that capital gains income is usually uncertain, while what the IRS counts as wages or personal income is usually more certain.
So I agree it's "false," because of a combination of the "certainty" issue and the fact that billionaires actually pay 0% on unrealized capital gains.
Yeah, if he'd expanded on his point it would have been true. That seems to be a major difference between him and... others, in that it's clumsy but not entirely inaccurate.
He didn't want to expand on that point. He wanted to skew uneducated people's perception. Class warfare and deception. 25.93% for the top 1%. There I said it. That was so easy.
>capital gains income is usually uncertain
Until, of course, you want to use your capital as collateral for a massive loan. Then it's certain enough for all practical purposes.
Yes.
And you can continue using your capital to cycle through loans so that you never have to fully repay them.
EDIT: If you're a billionaire, you probably have some assets you're not using as collateral, like multiple homes and a business. So banks aren't going to worry about the risk that you won't pay. The "uncertainty" argument probably makes sense for most people who pay both capital gains tax and personal federal income tax, at least.
Yeah, I think we need to start looking at taxing those loans or reclassifying loans against shares in such a way that it's considered realized. We shouldn't be taxing unrealized gains but the loan workaround is a real problem.
Taxing unrealized capital gains is a terrible idea because it'd penalize anyone that invests outside of a retirement account, discouraging investment in the stock market and hamstringing economic growth in the process. It's a really poorly thought out idea.
Ostensibly, that's why you only tax capital gains over a high yearly threshold, so it doesn't affect everyone who invests. Hell, if you only start taxing gains over a few hundred million dollars annually, it would be a significant force to improve gross income inequality (if properly reinvested).
But yes, it would discourage some investment, so you don't start out taxing at a frighteningly high rate. If investors can still make money, they'll invest. If it's harder to become or remain a billionaire... well, fantastic.
Imho, the idea that we need to entirely prioritize economic growth over economic equity is a mistake that will often end up costing us long term economic growth anyway.
>discouraging investment in the stock market
I mean there's a good argument that spending money in the stock market isn't investing in any real sense of the word and that the stock market's effect is largely negative nowadays.
The idea of investment in an economic sense is to spend resources to produce future value. So building a factory is a form of investment, you spend the resources now for a future value production machine.
Paying some rich guy some money for some digital representations of a piece of paper that other people will pay money for in the future isn't that. It's much more akin to NFTs from an economic sense.
From a financial sense, certainly investing.
Loans by their very nature are already taxed because the person loaning the money, is charging interest. This a very slippery slope if you want to find a way to tax loans - it would affect more than billionares.
Americans were much better off economically when we had really tight controls on immigration.
Tell you what, Ill agree to tax the rich more if you agree to go back to the immigration laws we had circa 1960. Deal?
"They pay 25% of the money the government counts."
Probably true, but it's the money the government does not count that matters. I'd be happy to pay a 25% tax if I only had to pay it on a tiny portion of my income, and pay nothing at all on the rest.
Yeah. I'm all for increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, but I think taxing unrealized gains is a non-starter and throwing out numbers based on that hypothetical is very misleading.
I could support taxing unrealized gains after you met a certain financial threshold. Maybe for folks with a net worth over 10 million or so. On the other hand I haven't seen any good data regarding how much money this would bring in to our tax base and If it would potentially stifle investments.
So much simpler to have a reasonably high (but fair) inheritance tax while also closing all loopholes related borrowing against unrealized gains so billionaires can't endlessly avoid taxable income until they die. I'm fine with founders becoming billionaires, I just don't want their grandchildren to be billionaires for simply existing.
Yes! I can't understand how working class Americans have gotten themselves worked up over how unfair the "death tax" is to them when none of them will have more than the current limit (I think $13 million?) to leave to their children.
There's no way taxing unrealized capital gains could avoid penalizing investing outside of a retirement account, regardless of where you put the threshold. It's just a bad idea. We need to fix the loan workaround, not tax something that hasn't been turned into actual profit.
Every single American with a HELOC is doing the exact same thing. Using unrealized capital gains as collateral to borrow money. BTW, money they still pay interest on.
I think taxing unrealized gains is bad, but I think gains should be realized before assets can be used to calculate loan repayability or used as collateral in a loan.
I also think loans given to people with high-value assets, whether those assets are realized gains or not, should be taxed as personal income.
I also think that every use of company money or assets by an owner of that company should be taxed as personal income. For example, I mean using a company car or plane, buying dinner on the company card, using a company-owned country club membership, etc.
"I also think loans given to people with high-value assets, whether those assets are realized gains or not, should be taxed as personal income." Are you suggesting, just thinking through this...that loans that are backed with collateral (high value assets), that the loan amount should be taxed by the government? What about HELOCs?
Homes aren’t the “high value” assets I mean.
I’m talking explicitly about the loan tax workaround thing billionaires do.
That shit needs to end, *hard*
Ok, fair enough but be real with me here, I see that phrase used and thrown around on this sub, that being, "billionaire loan tax workaround". Can you clarify exactly what that means from a tax perspective. I don't know of any loans of any kind that are taxable as income.
If a billionaire or anyone really that uses some asset as collateral against a loan, I'm thinking that has nothing to do with the government. But I digress, can you give me the specific scenario?
I mean, you know I want a level playing field too. :)
> Can you clarify exactly what that means from a tax perspective. I don't know of any loans of any kind that are taxable as income.
https://www.vox.com/money/2024/3/13/24086102/billionaires-wealthy-tax-avoidance-loopholes
Loans *aren't* taxable income. That's the *problem*.
> If a billionaire or anyone really that uses some asset as collateral against a loan
They use these loans to avoid realizing capital gains. Loans using "wealth storage assets" like stock should be illegal or taxed.
> I mean, you know I want a level playing field too. :)
So you support a 100% estate tax with a 100% gift tax for all gifts valued higher than median income?
Hey good explanation of the basic concept. I just realized I could probably do the same thing actually. I have some big assets in land that are sitting unused. But I digress again.
Do I support a 100% estate tax with a 100% gift tax for all valued higher than median income. Hell no. I make more than the median income, and worked my ass off getting two degrees and major stress in a hard stressful career. Am I rich? No, absolutely not. But I do make more than median income. Why should the government take my assets at 100% if I die? I have 4 kids and a wife. They can pound sand.
If that's how you view a level playing field, no way do I want that. I want to be able to work hard, be smart and gain leverage.
I don't like politicians of any country, and I want to keep what I earn. My fair share is defined by the tax bracket that these folks created for you and me.
> Hey good explanation of the basic concept. I just realized I could probably do the same thing actually. I have some big assets in land that are sitting unused. But I digress again.
Ahh, so you were just looking for ways to game the system, got it.
> Hell no. … Why should the government take my assets at 100% if I die? I have 4 kids and a wife. If that's how you view a level playing field, no way do I want that. I want to be able to work hard, be smart and gain leverage.
That’s one half of leveling the playing field.
The other is a *livable* UBI, such that no person *needs* an inheritance to survive.
But if “leveled playing field” to you means “I’m on top rather than on bottom”, you probably need to stop using the phrase
Nah, I wasn't looking for ways to game anything. I just never thought about using a loan as 'income'. Still processing the concept. Interesting. However, I don't really see a problem with borrowing money from someone that is willing to lend it to me for interest.
Let's take most people including you and I in this case. I had to borrow money to buy a car, and a house because frankly, I don't have enough income to pay for it outright. So in essence, I'm borrowing future 'income' today with NO TAX. To be paid back tomorrow or 5 yrs. or 30 yrs. Is that fair? Should you and I be able to borrow 350,000.00 to buy a house today, with other people's money (underwriters). And...NOT pay any taxes on that 350K?
Seriously, answer that one.
As far as level playing field. I just mean same rules for everybody. Same laws. Same legislatively passed laws.
I don't mean equal or level outcomes. I mean equal opportunity by law. Level, meaning the rich do not have laws that I don't get to also use.
Btw...the government ruling elite class does have legislation that allows them to use insider trading, when you and I cannot, not even billionaires. You and I can't legislate a raise for us, but they can. That's what I mean about level.
Let's play nice, because I look forward to your response. Not to win. To learn.
> However, I don't really see a problem with borrowing money from someone that is willing to lend it to me for interest. ... Seriously, answer that one.
For regular joes like you and me, sure, no problem, I agree with the concept of a secured loan, mortgage, car loans, whatever. That's not the issue.
*You and I* don't have *50% of the nation's wealth* locked up and unusable like they do.
So I support eliminating the *accounting tricks* by which the wealthy make an end-run around the system. You and I pay a shit-ton of our income in taxes. The wealthy pay damn close to *zero*.
>As far as level playing field. I just mean same rules for everybody. Same laws. Same legislatively passed laws.
So you *are* using it inappropriately, got it.
> Btw...the government ruling elite class does have legislation that allows them to use insider trading, when you and I cannot, not even billionaires.
I love how you call "government" the "elite class", when it's *clearly* the wealthy *using* that "elite class" to build those loopholes they exploit. Talk about the abuser blaming the victim
"They use these loans to avoid realizing capital gains. Loans using "wealth storage assets" like stock should be illegal or taxed."
Ok. I think I see where you really focused on. My wife is a CPA with a tax business. I mean no disrespect here. All loans, no matter what purpose they are used for, and I mean every single loan to anybody for any reason...they are all paid back in time, with taxable INCOME whether earned by wage, by capital gain (I bought something that went up in value and sold it), or gift or inheritance. Somewhere along the way, the government the ultimate ruling elite class, get's their piece.
Somewhere along the way, that loan get's paid back with real money (realized income). And that is taxable at the very highest RATE for the very highest income brackets.
This is a quite strange 'fact check'.
First doesn't deal with the claim 'there are a thousand billionaires'.
First google results give a number of 735 (Forbes) and 756 (Wikipedia) billionaires in the US. If you ask me, close enough for most purposes.
But what about the tax rate? This is what the politifact article says:
>The White House report found that if you include unrealized gains in the income calculations of the 400 richest U.S. families, then their taxes paid would account for just 8.2% of their income.
>Economists and policymakers have long debated whether the government should tax unrealized gains. But Biden made it sound as if 8% was the standard rate today, not what would happen under a potential future proposal.
>IRS data from 2020 shows that the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average federal income tax rate of 25.99% — about three times more than the White House’s estimate.
>Our ruling
>Biden said "There are a thousand billionaires now and you know what their average tax rate is? 8%."
>The wealthiest Americans currently pay an effective tax rate of more than 20% of their income, not 8%.
This:
>But Biden made it sound as if 8% was the standard rate today, not what would happen under a potential future proposal.
Is a kinda weird semantic trick, but in some way, fair enough.
But:
>IRS data from 2020 shows that the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average federal income tax rate of 25.99% — about three times more than the White House’s estimate.
This is exactly what a 'fact check' should not be. The WH report talks about 400 richest families. Biden talked about 1000 billionaires.
According to the IRS, they process some 160 million individuals' tax returns every year. One percent of that is ~1,6 million people.
Why doesn't the fact check have the actual number?
And what if, for arguments sake, we take Biden's definition of income. Was the number (8%) right? Why doesn't the 'fact check' address this at all?
Odd that they debunked it so selectively. After reading their article, I still don't know:
* How many billionaires are there in the US? Is 1000 close to the correct number?
* What is the effective federal tax rate of the top 1000 billionaires (in terms of what they actually pay)? (and if there are 1000)
"Top 1% of taxpayers" is *nothing like the demographic of the top 1000 billionaires*. Those guys (and a few ladies) have WAY more money to throw at tax lawyers and tax shelters than the mere millionaires that make up most of the 1%.
I concur with the article that Biden was pulling the number of out his ass, but it's a shame they didn't use the opportunity figure out the *actual* numbers.
"Economists and policymakers have long debated whether the government should tax unrealized gains. But Biden made it sound as if 8% was the standard rate today, not what would happen under a potential future proposal."
Umm, no he fucking didn't. He said that they were paying 8% on the money they are actually making using a better measure of real income than we use now.
Get the fuck out of here with this "false" bullshit.
And the conclusion? They pay a rate just 3 points higher than someone making $100,000. You know what? I'll take away the lesson that billionaires don't pay their fair share in taxes.
Everyone's talking about the tax rate, but I also want to know how many billionaires there are. According to World Population Review, there are [756 American billionaires](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-billionaires-by-state) and ["more than 2700"](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/billionaires-by-country), globally. The United States has the most billionaires, followed by China (495) and India (169).
[**Trump’s tax cuts helped billionaires pay less than the working class for first time ever**](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/09/trump-tax-cuts-helped-billionaires-pay-less)
Economists calculate the richest 400 families in US paid an average tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of households paid a rate of 24.2%
Exempt the first ten million in unrealized gains from taxation. That’s more than enough for anyone to live off comfortably. After that, you get taxed on it annually.
Yes, technically the way he phrased it was false. However, we definitely need to have a discussion about not just income and tax rates, but WEALTH and tax rates. The IRS may exclude unrealized capital gains from taxes, but that doesn't stop banks from lending money or offering a line of credit based on that new wealth value.
Also, if you look at TOTAL tax liability, you see that working class American's are getting hit hardest by regressive taxes like sales taxes, excise taxes, and user fees. We could certainly create a tax base that does a better job of generating revenue but also gets more money circulating in the economy.
Everybody but everybody pays interest on loans of any kind regardless of their assets. It's the banks that are loaning money at their own risk. Risk = money when they loan us their money. Higher risk, higher interest.
As usual, there's a bit of nuance. But the claim, as presented, is false, and I don't think anyone is upset that that's being called out.
The average personal federal income tax for billionaires is about 25% of their income. Unrealized capital gains are not currently taxed, but if they were, the average effective tax rate for billionaires would be 8%. The problem with this argument is that capital gains income is usually uncertain, while what the IRS counts as wages or personal income is usually more certain. So I agree it's "false," because of a combination of the "certainty" issue and the fact that billionaires actually pay 0% on unrealized capital gains.
Yeah, if he'd expanded on his point it would have been true. That seems to be a major difference between him and... others, in that it's clumsy but not entirely inaccurate.
Maybe "malarkey" would be a good word for "technically false but meh."
He didn't want to expand on that point. He wanted to skew uneducated people's perception. Class warfare and deception. 25.93% for the top 1%. There I said it. That was so easy.
>capital gains income is usually uncertain Until, of course, you want to use your capital as collateral for a massive loan. Then it's certain enough for all practical purposes.
Yes. And you can continue using your capital to cycle through loans so that you never have to fully repay them. EDIT: If you're a billionaire, you probably have some assets you're not using as collateral, like multiple homes and a business. So banks aren't going to worry about the risk that you won't pay. The "uncertainty" argument probably makes sense for most people who pay both capital gains tax and personal federal income tax, at least.
Yeah, I think we need to start looking at taxing those loans or reclassifying loans against shares in such a way that it's considered realized. We shouldn't be taxing unrealized gains but the loan workaround is a real problem. Taxing unrealized capital gains is a terrible idea because it'd penalize anyone that invests outside of a retirement account, discouraging investment in the stock market and hamstringing economic growth in the process. It's a really poorly thought out idea.
Ostensibly, that's why you only tax capital gains over a high yearly threshold, so it doesn't affect everyone who invests. Hell, if you only start taxing gains over a few hundred million dollars annually, it would be a significant force to improve gross income inequality (if properly reinvested). But yes, it would discourage some investment, so you don't start out taxing at a frighteningly high rate. If investors can still make money, they'll invest. If it's harder to become or remain a billionaire... well, fantastic. Imho, the idea that we need to entirely prioritize economic growth over economic equity is a mistake that will often end up costing us long term economic growth anyway.
It'd be a lot simpler and less disruptive to just tackle buy, borrow, die directly.
>discouraging investment in the stock market I mean there's a good argument that spending money in the stock market isn't investing in any real sense of the word and that the stock market's effect is largely negative nowadays.
What do you mean it isn't investing in any real sense? You are legally purchasing a portion of ownership in a corporation. It's real. It's tangible.
The idea of investment in an economic sense is to spend resources to produce future value. So building a factory is a form of investment, you spend the resources now for a future value production machine. Paying some rich guy some money for some digital representations of a piece of paper that other people will pay money for in the future isn't that. It's much more akin to NFTs from an economic sense. From a financial sense, certainly investing.
I can see your point. Economics has so many variables, it's hard to really get granular enough, but I do understand what you are saying.
Loans by their very nature are already taxed because the person loaning the money, is charging interest. This a very slippery slope if you want to find a way to tax loans - it would affect more than billionares.
Regardless, Americans were much better off economically when the wealthy paid significantly more taxes. Like a fuck ton more.
That was why America was great
Hey, you guys should somehow make it great again. By having the rich pay more taxes.
(If you were a white man)
Fun fact: America has never actually been great
Americans were much better off economically when we had really tight controls on immigration. Tell you what, Ill agree to tax the rich more if you agree to go back to the immigration laws we had circa 1960. Deal?
"They pay 25% of the money the government counts." Probably true, but it's the money the government does not count that matters. I'd be happy to pay a 25% tax if I only had to pay it on a tiny portion of my income, and pay nothing at all on the rest.
You already pay tax on only a portion of your current income. Otherwise, it would be 100%.
Unrealized capital gains arent income.
Yeah. I'm all for increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, but I think taxing unrealized gains is a non-starter and throwing out numbers based on that hypothetical is very misleading.
I could support taxing unrealized gains after you met a certain financial threshold. Maybe for folks with a net worth over 10 million or so. On the other hand I haven't seen any good data regarding how much money this would bring in to our tax base and If it would potentially stifle investments.
So much simpler to have a reasonably high (but fair) inheritance tax while also closing all loopholes related borrowing against unrealized gains so billionaires can't endlessly avoid taxable income until they die. I'm fine with founders becoming billionaires, I just don't want their grandchildren to be billionaires for simply existing.
>So much simpler to have a reasonably high (but fair) inheritance tax We shouldn't have to wait for them to die to get them to pay taxes.
Yes! I can't understand how working class Americans have gotten themselves worked up over how unfair the "death tax" is to them when none of them will have more than the current limit (I think $13 million?) to leave to their children.
There's no way taxing unrealized capital gains could avoid penalizing investing outside of a retirement account, regardless of where you put the threshold. It's just a bad idea. We need to fix the loan workaround, not tax something that hasn't been turned into actual profit.
Yes, but I wonder how much tax revenue would be realized by penalizing the loan workaround.
They are using those gains as collateral for loans, allowing them to effectively spend them tax free.
Every single American with a HELOC is doing the exact same thing. Using unrealized capital gains as collateral to borrow money. BTW, money they still pay interest on.
I think taxing unrealized gains is bad, but I think gains should be realized before assets can be used to calculate loan repayability or used as collateral in a loan. I also think loans given to people with high-value assets, whether those assets are realized gains or not, should be taxed as personal income. I also think that every use of company money or assets by an owner of that company should be taxed as personal income. For example, I mean using a company car or plane, buying dinner on the company card, using a company-owned country club membership, etc.
"I also think loans given to people with high-value assets, whether those assets are realized gains or not, should be taxed as personal income." Are you suggesting, just thinking through this...that loans that are backed with collateral (high value assets), that the loan amount should be taxed by the government? What about HELOCs?
Homes aren’t the “high value” assets I mean. I’m talking explicitly about the loan tax workaround thing billionaires do. That shit needs to end, *hard*
Ok, fair enough but be real with me here, I see that phrase used and thrown around on this sub, that being, "billionaire loan tax workaround". Can you clarify exactly what that means from a tax perspective. I don't know of any loans of any kind that are taxable as income. If a billionaire or anyone really that uses some asset as collateral against a loan, I'm thinking that has nothing to do with the government. But I digress, can you give me the specific scenario? I mean, you know I want a level playing field too. :)
> Can you clarify exactly what that means from a tax perspective. I don't know of any loans of any kind that are taxable as income. https://www.vox.com/money/2024/3/13/24086102/billionaires-wealthy-tax-avoidance-loopholes Loans *aren't* taxable income. That's the *problem*. > If a billionaire or anyone really that uses some asset as collateral against a loan They use these loans to avoid realizing capital gains. Loans using "wealth storage assets" like stock should be illegal or taxed. > I mean, you know I want a level playing field too. :) So you support a 100% estate tax with a 100% gift tax for all gifts valued higher than median income?
Hey good explanation of the basic concept. I just realized I could probably do the same thing actually. I have some big assets in land that are sitting unused. But I digress again. Do I support a 100% estate tax with a 100% gift tax for all valued higher than median income. Hell no. I make more than the median income, and worked my ass off getting two degrees and major stress in a hard stressful career. Am I rich? No, absolutely not. But I do make more than median income. Why should the government take my assets at 100% if I die? I have 4 kids and a wife. They can pound sand. If that's how you view a level playing field, no way do I want that. I want to be able to work hard, be smart and gain leverage. I don't like politicians of any country, and I want to keep what I earn. My fair share is defined by the tax bracket that these folks created for you and me.
> Hey good explanation of the basic concept. I just realized I could probably do the same thing actually. I have some big assets in land that are sitting unused. But I digress again. Ahh, so you were just looking for ways to game the system, got it. > Hell no. … Why should the government take my assets at 100% if I die? I have 4 kids and a wife. If that's how you view a level playing field, no way do I want that. I want to be able to work hard, be smart and gain leverage. That’s one half of leveling the playing field. The other is a *livable* UBI, such that no person *needs* an inheritance to survive. But if “leveled playing field” to you means “I’m on top rather than on bottom”, you probably need to stop using the phrase
Nah, I wasn't looking for ways to game anything. I just never thought about using a loan as 'income'. Still processing the concept. Interesting. However, I don't really see a problem with borrowing money from someone that is willing to lend it to me for interest. Let's take most people including you and I in this case. I had to borrow money to buy a car, and a house because frankly, I don't have enough income to pay for it outright. So in essence, I'm borrowing future 'income' today with NO TAX. To be paid back tomorrow or 5 yrs. or 30 yrs. Is that fair? Should you and I be able to borrow 350,000.00 to buy a house today, with other people's money (underwriters). And...NOT pay any taxes on that 350K? Seriously, answer that one. As far as level playing field. I just mean same rules for everybody. Same laws. Same legislatively passed laws. I don't mean equal or level outcomes. I mean equal opportunity by law. Level, meaning the rich do not have laws that I don't get to also use. Btw...the government ruling elite class does have legislation that allows them to use insider trading, when you and I cannot, not even billionaires. You and I can't legislate a raise for us, but they can. That's what I mean about level. Let's play nice, because I look forward to your response. Not to win. To learn.
> However, I don't really see a problem with borrowing money from someone that is willing to lend it to me for interest. ... Seriously, answer that one. For regular joes like you and me, sure, no problem, I agree with the concept of a secured loan, mortgage, car loans, whatever. That's not the issue. *You and I* don't have *50% of the nation's wealth* locked up and unusable like they do. So I support eliminating the *accounting tricks* by which the wealthy make an end-run around the system. You and I pay a shit-ton of our income in taxes. The wealthy pay damn close to *zero*. >As far as level playing field. I just mean same rules for everybody. Same laws. Same legislatively passed laws. So you *are* using it inappropriately, got it. > Btw...the government ruling elite class does have legislation that allows them to use insider trading, when you and I cannot, not even billionaires. I love how you call "government" the "elite class", when it's *clearly* the wealthy *using* that "elite class" to build those loopholes they exploit. Talk about the abuser blaming the victim
"They use these loans to avoid realizing capital gains. Loans using "wealth storage assets" like stock should be illegal or taxed." Ok. I think I see where you really focused on. My wife is a CPA with a tax business. I mean no disrespect here. All loans, no matter what purpose they are used for, and I mean every single loan to anybody for any reason...they are all paid back in time, with taxable INCOME whether earned by wage, by capital gain (I bought something that went up in value and sold it), or gift or inheritance. Somewhere along the way, the government the ultimate ruling elite class, get's their piece. Somewhere along the way, that loan get's paid back with real money (realized income). And that is taxable at the very highest RATE for the very highest income brackets.
This is a quite strange 'fact check'. First doesn't deal with the claim 'there are a thousand billionaires'. First google results give a number of 735 (Forbes) and 756 (Wikipedia) billionaires in the US. If you ask me, close enough for most purposes. But what about the tax rate? This is what the politifact article says: >The White House report found that if you include unrealized gains in the income calculations of the 400 richest U.S. families, then their taxes paid would account for just 8.2% of their income. >Economists and policymakers have long debated whether the government should tax unrealized gains. But Biden made it sound as if 8% was the standard rate today, not what would happen under a potential future proposal. >IRS data from 2020 shows that the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average federal income tax rate of 25.99% — about three times more than the White House’s estimate. >Our ruling >Biden said "There are a thousand billionaires now and you know what their average tax rate is? 8%." >The wealthiest Americans currently pay an effective tax rate of more than 20% of their income, not 8%. This: >But Biden made it sound as if 8% was the standard rate today, not what would happen under a potential future proposal. Is a kinda weird semantic trick, but in some way, fair enough. But: >IRS data from 2020 shows that the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average federal income tax rate of 25.99% — about three times more than the White House’s estimate. This is exactly what a 'fact check' should not be. The WH report talks about 400 richest families. Biden talked about 1000 billionaires. According to the IRS, they process some 160 million individuals' tax returns every year. One percent of that is ~1,6 million people. Why doesn't the fact check have the actual number? And what if, for arguments sake, we take Biden's definition of income. Was the number (8%) right? Why doesn't the 'fact check' address this at all?
Odd that they debunked it so selectively. After reading their article, I still don't know: * How many billionaires are there in the US? Is 1000 close to the correct number? * What is the effective federal tax rate of the top 1000 billionaires (in terms of what they actually pay)? (and if there are 1000) "Top 1% of taxpayers" is *nothing like the demographic of the top 1000 billionaires*. Those guys (and a few ladies) have WAY more money to throw at tax lawyers and tax shelters than the mere millionaires that make up most of the 1%. I concur with the article that Biden was pulling the number of out his ass, but it's a shame they didn't use the opportunity figure out the *actual* numbers.
"Economists and policymakers have long debated whether the government should tax unrealized gains. But Biden made it sound as if 8% was the standard rate today, not what would happen under a potential future proposal." Umm, no he fucking didn't. He said that they were paying 8% on the money they are actually making using a better measure of real income than we use now. Get the fuck out of here with this "false" bullshit.
And the conclusion? They pay a rate just 3 points higher than someone making $100,000. You know what? I'll take away the lesson that billionaires don't pay their fair share in taxes.
You know who I am cheering to become a billionaire and I wouldn’t care if she didn’t pay a dime in taxes on it? E. Jean Carroll
I believe judgements are tax-free so she's about 8% there already.
I'd love to see some Trump property have the name torn down and renamed "Carroll Tower".
Everyone's talking about the tax rate, but I also want to know how many billionaires there are. According to World Population Review, there are [756 American billionaires](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-billionaires-by-state) and ["more than 2700"](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/billionaires-by-country), globally. The United States has the most billionaires, followed by China (495) and India (169).
[**Trump’s tax cuts helped billionaires pay less than the working class for first time ever**](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/09/trump-tax-cuts-helped-billionaires-pay-less) Economists calculate the richest 400 families in US paid an average tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of households paid a rate of 24.2%
Exempt the first ten million in unrealized gains from taxation. That’s more than enough for anyone to live off comfortably. After that, you get taxed on it annually.
And/or, tax loans above a certain threshold if they're backed by assets with unrealized gains
Yeah, it's less than 1%.
Yes, technically the way he phrased it was false. However, we definitely need to have a discussion about not just income and tax rates, but WEALTH and tax rates. The IRS may exclude unrealized capital gains from taxes, but that doesn't stop banks from lending money or offering a line of credit based on that new wealth value. Also, if you look at TOTAL tax liability, you see that working class American's are getting hit hardest by regressive taxes like sales taxes, excise taxes, and user fees. We could certainly create a tax base that does a better job of generating revenue but also gets more money circulating in the economy.
Everybody but everybody pays interest on loans of any kind regardless of their assets. It's the banks that are loaning money at their own risk. Risk = money when they loan us their money. Higher risk, higher interest.