Jump to content

Rich people don't pay much in taxes (now in CR) - ProPublica

Wally Fairway

By Wally Fairway
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54004

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Just fucking tax net wealth.  Set the threshold really high and really obvious so the fucking 2nd year big law associate don't mistakenly think they're the target.  What is the UHNW really gonna do?  Offshore more of the money that they haven't already?  Rescind citizenship and take up residency in fucking Brunei? 

Skim off the top.  Do it.

They'll just write it off.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 628
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt
DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

Yeah sure thing I’ll do that the next time I’m at a john Mackey speech in Texas. In the meantime how about you tell me the story, asshole.

Brothahorn
Brothahorn

For someone always says they don't mind paying more. And would willingly pay more, he sure goes out of his way to make sure it doesn't happen.

hornbri
hornbri

That article is pretty misleading, we don't have wealth tax we have a income tax. Using unrealized gains to then try and illustrate a low tax rate is not really fair. I live in Austin, do I

Posted Images

midtown

midtown 3342

Posted
Posted

No but they are the ones writing it off

But honestly the billionaires being chided in this article in general contribute more to society than all of the politicians and people bitching times 10x combined.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24651

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Do you own your own company?  Do you pay yourself in salary or in distributions?  

In most cases, paying yourself through distributions pre-supposes that income taxes have already been paid through K-1 pass through income to individuals and now the distribution is meted out with after-tax money.  

Trying to avoid payroll taxes through distributions and not taking a regular paycheck along with paying withholding, social security and medicare has been tried by novices many times before and they did not come out the other end looking too good.

I had a friend that did the distribution thing when he first started his business and was living big, talking loud and attracting a crowd....until he did his tax return.  He got smoked by Uncle Sam and complained to me about it. 

I asked a few key questions and found out what he had been doing.  He literally thought he was getting tax free money. 

Yikes.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, deadshank said:

In most cases, paying yourself through distributions pre-supposes that income taxes have already been paid through K-1 pass through income to individuals and now the distribution is meted out with after-tax money.  

Trying to avoid payroll taxes through distributions and not taking a regular paycheck along with paying withholding, social security and medicare has been tried by novices many times before and they did not come out the other end looking too good.

I had a friend that did the distribution thing when he first started his business and was living big, talking loud and attracting a crowd....until he did his tax return.  He got smoked by Uncle Sam and complained to me about it. 

I asked a few key questions and found out what he had been doing.  He literally thought he was getting tax free money. 

Yikes.

Yeah that’s kind of my story minus the talking big about it part and didn’t think it would be tax free. I knew I’d owe a bunch but didn’t realize quite how much. Paid it but it hurt. 
 

My points is the ultra rich get off paying virtually nothing (to them) while the top 2-25 percent pays the load and then turns around and stupidly blames the lower middle class/poor who are essentially paying their own way through payroll taxes to fund Social security and Medicare when who they should be looking at is the ultra rich who are laughing their ass off at the stupidity of the 2-25 percent. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Why do you think the penalties for releasing tax information are so high? Felonies and serious jail time. Is it because of grandma’s tax return where she claims no income? Joe handyman and his H&R Block prepared return?
 

No. it’s exactly because of this. The government doesn’t want you to know the full extent of how badly you are being screwed by the ultra rich because they control it. That’s why the penalty is so high. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Bezos getting a 4K tax credit for having a kid because his “salary” is low enough to qualify. Yeah nothing wrong with our tax system.

I'm just genuinely surprised that he did it.  If there's just a 5% chance that your return will one day be hacked/released/leaked/mandated/investigated...no way you should risk $4k.  Get a PR person up there to spin K-1's, investment income, stock options covered calls to avoid AMT, whatever the fuck.  But grabbing $4k from other taxpayers for your kids under the credit that tens of millions of families rely on each year...that seems like a very strange miscalculation of risk by Bezos.  And that man doesn't do shit like that.  To me, it reads like some kinda perverse "fuck 'em if they find it" kinda taunt.  I'm guessing the ex gets $2,000 of this in the divorce?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I'm just genuinely surprised that he did it.  If there's just a 5% chance that your return will one day be hacked/released/leaked/mandated/investigated...no way you should risk $4k.  Get a PR person up there to spin K-1's, investment income, stock options covered calls to avoid AMT, whatever the fuck.  But grabbing $4k from other taxpayers for your kids under the credit that tens of millions of families rely on each year...that seems like a very strange miscalculation of risk by Bezos.  And that man doesn't do shit like that.  To me, it reads like some kinda perverse "fuck 'em if they find it" kinda taunt.  I'm guessing the ex gets $2,000 of this in the divorce?  

No way he even knew about it. Just an accountant or tax attorney doing what he thinks is his job. Save as much as possible.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

No, I don't think it was his idea.  But he strikes me as somebody that has so much on the line besides money (reputation, stockholders, media, international influence) that he hires not just accountants that can minimize his billion dollar tax bill, but the kinda people that also won't do stupid shit that could compromise him down the road.  Bezos should have the type of wise accountants that see an opportunity to get $4,000 back in credits and think, "No way we should expose him to this blowback over a mere $4k.  Let's move on to flow-thru taxes from his GP investments."  A guy worth $10.0mm may want that $4k from his accountant but no way Bezos would want the headache of that $4k, which is about to cost him $4m in headaches, bad press, attorneys, press releases, and who knows what else?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Lobo said:

No, I don't think it was his idea.  But he strikes me as somebody that has so much on the line besides money (reputation, stockholders, media, international influence) that he hires not just accountants that can minimize his billion dollar tax bill, but the kinda people that also won't do stupid shit that could compromise him down the road.  Bezos should have the type of wise accountants that see an opportunity to get $4,000 back in credits and think, "No way we should expose him to this blowback over a mere $4k.  Let's move on to flow-thru taxes from his GP investments."  A guy worth $10.0mm may want that $4k from his accountant but no way Bezos would want the headache of that $4k, which is about to cost him $4m in headaches, bad press, attorneys, press releases, and who knows what else?  

Keep in mind it was 10 years ago though. As super rich as he was then, it was nothing compared to his fame and fortune of today. New money tends to make some rookie mistakes. 

Edited by JimmyJames
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Maybe.  He's been a billionaire for 20 years, I just can't believe he'd have people that careless with his name trying to curry favor getting him an extra $4,000 back on taxes.  But yeah, who the fuck knows with these people?  Some kinda sick joke between him and Buffet or something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Maybe.  He's been a billionaire for 20 years, I just can't believe he'd have people that careless with his name trying to curry favor getting him an extra $4,000 back on taxes.  But yeah, who the fuck knows with these people?  Some kinda sick joke between him and Buffet or something.  

 Chris rocks standup on new pussy comes to mind. New pussy is ignorant. Same thing with new money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Fun fact-Laffer got his supply side idea from JFK.  But history doesn't talk about that because JFK had a trickle down problem with his brain thanks to LBJ.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Fun fact-Laffer got his supply side idea from JFK.  But history doesn't talk about that because JFK had a trickle down problem with his brain thanks to LBJ.  

Fun fact. LBJ didn’t kill Kennedy. But I bet people who needed him to be the president did.

Talk about a fun fact/rabbit hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
We’reTexas

We’reTexas 1469

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lobo said:

No, I don't think it was his idea.  But he strikes me as somebody that has so much on the line besides money (reputation, stockholders, media, international influence) that he hires not just accountants that can minimize his billion dollar tax bill, but the kinda people that also won't do stupid shit that could compromise him down the road.  Bezos should have the type of wise accountants that see an opportunity to get $4,000 back in credits and think, "No way we should expose him to this blowback over a mere $4k.  Let's move on to flow-thru taxes from his GP investments."  A guy worth $10.0mm may want that $4k from his accountant but no way Bezos would want the headache of that $4k, which is about to cost him $4m in headaches, bad press, attorneys, press releases, and who knows what else?  

I’d think it’s almost certain he signed off on it, and chuckled at the credit. I don’t care either way and find it funny as well, but there’s no way his people filed his return without his sign off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trey3216

Trey3216 15325

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, deadshank said:

In most cases, paying yourself through distributions pre-supposes that income taxes have already been paid through K-1 pass through income to individuals and now the distribution is meted out with after-tax money.  

Trying to avoid payroll taxes through distributions and not taking a regular paycheck along with paying withholding, social security and medicare has been tried by novices many times before and they did not come out the other end looking too good.

I had a friend that did the distribution thing when he first started his business and was living big, talking loud and attracting a crowd....until he did his tax return.  He got smoked by Uncle Sam and complained to me about it. 

I asked a few key questions and found out what he had been doing.  He literally thought he was getting tax free money. 

Yikes.

Big difference between your assumption and my question.  But there is a happy ground of paying yourself a respectable salary and also taking end of year distributions since you are re-investing into the operational success of the business.  You just have to play the game in a manner that doesn’t raise flags.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Big difference between your assumption and my question.  But there is a happy ground of paying yourself a respectable salary and also taking end of year distributions since you are re-investing into the operational success of the business.  You just have to play the game in a manner that doesn’t raise flags.  

In a closely held corporation or entity, disproportionate income from distributions as opposed to salary can, I believe, cause an imputed salary that will be subject to payroll taxes.

In a publicly traded (kind of the opposite of a closely held) corporation like Amazon, I am fairly sure that taking a nominal salary, and just receiving a shitload of income through ordinary dividends paid to all shareholders, or by stock transactions, means Bezos shorted SSA and Medicare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In a closely held corporation or entity, disproportionate income from distributions as opposed to salary can, I believe, cause an imputed salary that will be subject to payroll taxes.

In a publicly traded (kind of the opposite of a closely held) corporation like Amazon, I am fairly sure that taking a nominal salary, and just receiving a shitload of income through ordinary dividends paid to all shareholders, or by stock transactions, means Bezos shorted SSA and Medicare.

Yes, the IRS drops the hammer on the S-corp low wage/distribution scheme.

Social Security maxes out at $137K, Medicare doesn’t.  However, claiming that all distributed earnings should be subject to employment taxes is silly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
We’reTexas

We’reTexas 1469

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In a closely held corporation or entity, disproportionate income from distributions as opposed to salary can, I believe, cause an imputed salary that will be subject to payroll taxes.

In a publicly traded (kind of the opposite of a closely held) corporation like Amazon, I am fairly sure that taking a nominal salary, and just receiving a shitload of income through ordinary dividends paid to all shareholders, or by stock transactions, means Bezos shorted SSA and Medicare.

I was curious and pulled Amazon’s proxy. Bezos has never received equity compensation. I mean it makes sense, but I was still pretty surprised for a second. He takes a nominal $80k salary plus has company-paid security (which is standard), but has been living off his founder shares for twenty years. Damn. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24651

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Why do you think the penalties for releasing tax information are so high? Felonies and serious jail time. Is it because of grandma’s tax return where she claims no income? Joe handyman and his H&R Block prepared return?
 

No. it’s exactly because of this. The government doesn’t want you to know the full extent of how badly you are being screwed by the ultra rich because they control it. That’s why the penalty is so high. 

The ultra rich are going to get over.  They’re ultra rich.  They are in an alternate universe compared to you and me.   I don’t give a darn about them.  
 

Bezos didn’t pay income tax in his paltry $80K salary?  So what?   Did he pay in other taxes?  Amazon pay in other taxes?  Apparently so.  His tax return has absolutely nothing to do with me.  I have other things to focus on. 

Im not defending Bezos.   I just don’t care about Bezos and what he paid in taxes.  The rules are set and, like everyone else, Bezos works the rules to his advantage just as you and I do.  
 

Don’t like the outcome?  Change the rules and enforce them. 
 

Good luck and remember that the ultra rich will get over. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pearlandhorn

pearlandhorn 3269

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Yes, the IRS drops the hammer on the S-corp low wage/distribution scheme.

Social Security maxes out at $137K, Medicare doesn’t.  However, claiming that all distributed earnings should be subject to employment taxes is silly.

It’s $142,800 for 2021. Not being douchy, just pointing it out.
 

Want to know how to fully fund social security? Simply get rid of the cap on wages subject to SS tax (like Medicare tax). Boom, problem solved. Almost 50% of the US annual budget goes to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Getting rid of this cap on SS would shrink the allocation of the budget to about 25-30%. But knowing politicians, they’d just reallocate the budget to bullshit that we don’t need.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24651

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, pearlandhorn said:

It’s $142,800 for 2021. Not being douchy, just pointing it out.
 

Want to know how to fully fund social security? Simply get rid of the cap on wages subject to SS tax (like Medicare tax). Boom, problem solved. Almost 50% of the US annual budget goes to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Getting rid of this cap on SS would shrink the allocation of the budget to about 25-30%. But knowing politicians, they’d just reallocate the budget to bullshit that we don’t need.

Could, at a minimum, either drop the company side or employee side of the equation after the $142.8K threshold is met.  
 

I would suspect the Congress would make the company keep paying and let the individual off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19097

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

So those folks who are rich enough to have enough money to take out loans against their stock, how do they repay that? Not trying to be snarky or anything, I just honestly want to know how that works. 

Oversimplified example: with drips of excess funds from your low-taxed distributions -- whether from existing assets or whatever new venture you use the loan for.  all the mean while, the interest on the (cheap) loan itself is deductible. 

 

(numbers slightly rounded)

Guy 1:  Earns 500k a year on W2.  Federal income tax is something like 30%. 

Guy 2:  No W2.  Holds $10M in stock paying 5% annual dividend.  Gets 500k a year in spending money as qualified dividend, which is taxed at long-term cap gains rate.  Income tax on that is only 20%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26437

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, We’reTexas said:

I was curious and pulled Amazon’s proxy. Bezos has never received equity compensation. I mean it makes sense, but I was still pretty surprised for a second. He takes a nominal $80k salary plus has company-paid security (which is standard), but has been living off his founder shares for twenty years. Damn. 

So everything in this thread is bullshit? Shocking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19097

Posted
Posted (edited)

I moved to a jurisdiction that literally doubled my annual income tax.  Honestly, I don't feel the effects in my spending power much, and I'm just a modest desk jockey wage cuck. 

Zuckerberg's net worth fluctuates up and down 2.fucking.billion.dollars every single day, based on the price of FB stock.  He literally wouldn't even know if a some or tens of Ms were trimmed from his bank account once a year. 

The difference I do feel is a sense of security when there aren't bums crowding the street, or paying for an extravagant meal without guilt because the person issuing the check isn't sharing a studio apartment with the line cook.  But then again, people like Zuck aren't rolling around in our neighborhoods anyway, so they're just as blissfully oblivious...

 

 

Edited by 52-80
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17449

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

So those folks who are rich enough to have enough money to take out loans against their stock, how do they repay that? Not trying to be snarky or anything, I just honestly want to know how that works. 

In addition to the answer below, you may also strategically payback when losses are high. But, the reality is that there may be no reason to pay it back at all. 

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Oversimplified example: with drips of excess funds from your low-taxed distributions -- whether from existing assets or whatever new venture you use the loan for.  all the mean while, the interest on the (cheap) loan itself is deductible. 

 

(numbers slightly rounded)

Guy 1:  Earns 500k a year on W2.  Federal income tax is something like 30%. 

Guy 2:  No W2.  Holds $10M in stock paying 5% annual dividend.  Gets 500k a year in spending money as qualified dividend, which is taxed at long-term cap gains rate.  Income tax on that is only 20%. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...