I don’t worship Musk. I just don’t hate him. I don’t know him. There are far far more people out there who are more worthy of being hated than someone like Elon Musk. But I have little time for hating celebrities, its a waste of energy.
And I’m a dual national British American. I declare my income to the IRS every year but I currently in the UK for the next 6 months and then im going back to Alaska (who don’t charge me any tax at all). I believe in personal privacy His tax receipts are not a concern of mine or yours. Of course this headline is obviously part of a media stunt by Musk. He’s trying to win over people like you. But the fact is he could pay 1 trillion in tax and you still would be uttering expletives about the dude. The stupidest thing Musk has ever done has been to try to win over his haters.
I do however appreciate achievement and progress regardless of how much money the person doing it has made. You can dislike Musk all you want, you cant deny his achievements have been good for all of us. Most importantly however, humans always progress through private enterprise. If we shoot down our entrepreneurs everytime they are succesful and get rich we are only going to kill innovation. One day someone is going to create a fusion reactor and make significant progress against climate change and people like you will be hurling expletives at them for having the audacity to only pay $1bn in taxes..
Oh absolutely, the media dramatize it but I cannot feel bad for someone who has access to basically unlimited money (lets be fair here, if you have access to a billion+ dollars) and pays very little tax.It sure is painful, but a lot of it is down to the misrepresentation of facts by the press and politicians who love a good headline.
First, not all billionaires are equal. Some inherited wealth, or acquired it through speculation, and many of these may have stashed this away in tax havens - I'm all for governments finding ways to tax the hell out of these.
But then you have the self-made billionaires who built their wealth through their innovation, drive and ability to execute. Their wealth is often tied up in the companies they built... like Tesla, and Amazon, and Facebook. And that wealth is constantly at risk... it is entirely possible that they would lose it all in a few months due to some other new innovation coming to the market... it has happened before and it will happen again.
To avoid selling too much of the company they built (so that they can retain control) they take loans using shares as collateral - but what nobody mentions is that if the share value goes down and the bank calls in the loans they will go bankrupt. Essentially they never own anything except their shares and their loans, and everything they have is constantly at risk.
Most of the ultra rich barely pay their fair share of taxes. He's bragging because unlike a lot of other billionaires he's actually paying. The vast majority have the money to mostly avoid tax.
Oh absolutely, the media dramatize it but I cannot feel bad for someone who has access to basically unlimited money (lets be fair here, if you have access to a billion+ dollars) and pays very little tax.
It's their choice to not sell shares and get loans, When the tax man asks me for money, he doesn't care what loans I have, what my rent is, they just see I earnt x amount of money and they want this percentage of it.
The rule shouldn't be different for billionaires. At the end of the day, they'll still be billionaires.
The real solution to this is to repeal the income tax (for everyone) and go back to a small Federal government.
Put the spending power back in the people rather than politicians that can be easily bought by the rich.
Agree. When it comes to tax breaks and raises, you can be certain that Congress makes sure it takes care of itself first. Better than playing the lottery is to run for Congress and win. I can name at least one former Congress person whose children worked for foreign governments for big bucks and "contributed to the "family coffers". How many others have the same or similar deals going plus other shenanigans.Pocahontas going after musk for not paying taxes is peak irony.
Obviously, you don't understand what is going on. You need to realize if you have a 401K, you may be or are benefitting indirectly from the same codes. If you own any stock, you can also borrow against it the way they do. Granted, it you may not be able to borrow enough to pay the grocery bill for a month, but it can be done. I did it in the past to get a better interest rate on car loans - used the stock I bought in the company's stock plan.Well this is about 11 billion more than he has ever paid while making money off of corporate welfare so, good..
They are the ignorant and stupid as they tend to love people like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc. who do pretty much the same thing. In fact, I remember one election where Warren Buffett talked about doing the same thing and paid less taxes than someone making less than $100K. AFAIK, he is still probably not paying much in the way of taxes. Maybe I could start a charitable foundation, use some of the donations to cover my cost of living when I travel to talk about or do other "related" things so they can be written off as a "business" expense. Nothing illegal in that, but it is (or was) in the tax code and the more money involved, the bigger the advantage...... But yet he is still hated. The fact is at this point there is nothing good he can do to win people over. The people who hate him now will only ever be happy if they see him fail and that says more about them than it does about Musk. His achievements stand up on their own, they don’t need to be validated by the hate brigade.
Can we all see your tax records? Please post them here so we can see if you paid your fair share - or are we just supposed to take your word for it?It sounds good but let's see him release his tax records so it can be verified .....
Only if they are sold, and that depends upon where you live. Some states tax what you earn when you sell them, like a capital gains tax, but maybe at a higher rate. I don't know off-hand how the IRS treats them, but I would guess in a similar manner.Does it included gains from Bitcoins related investment ???
Right, ok, then why did you say this:There in only ONE tax code in America, it's no different for billionaires or the homeless.
One Tax Code but apparently no one pays anyway?How is it fair that in America ~40% of the population pays no taxes at all?
That's what governments are for, unfortunately they also don't mind their rich friends getting away with not paying it.Please define "fair share"? What is an acceptable percentage of taxation that's "fair"?
I believe I completely understand the problem but it is absolutely a ethical fallacy to think that because someone chooses to be compensated with stock that they should not be taxed on the value of that income. If I have to pay 30% income tax so should a billionaire also be taxed on their income even if they are not receiving cash as compensation and choose stock instead. I don't care if it is Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or anyone else for that matter. This is a tax loophole that is putting the burden on the poor and middle class. I am glad he has to pay tax on something as he has not had to pay income taxes at all for the last several years and is currently the wealthiest person on the planet.Obviously, you don't understand what is going on. You need to realize if you have a 401K, you may be or are benefitting indirectly from the same codes. If you own any stock, you can also borrow against it the way they do. Granted, it you may not be able to borrow enough to pay the grocery bill for a month, but it can be done. I did it in the past to get a better interest rate on car loans - used the stock I bought in the company's stock plan.
Also, taxing the market value of the stock one owns doesn't work too well either. People will sell their stock and find some other way of investing their money. I did that after moving to a state that did just that - taxed value changing investments as a personal property tax (housing is a slightly different matter, but I could argue a case against it and back strictly for an income tax on all money earner/gained, using what I would call a semi-flat tax - 3 to 5 levels all income earned/gained above certain level gets taxed at higher rate. However, the topic is too complex for further discussion on a board like this.
You can't spend wealth, you can only spend cash. Can you spend the value of your house?It's one thing to be rewarded for your achievements, and quite another to possess so much wealth you couldn't possibly spend it without becoming a major or even definitive influence on your community. That's the issue here. There's nothing wrong with becoming wealthy, but it is a concern for society if too much of it's capital ends up in the hands of a small few. The risks should be too obvious to go into here..
Of course it is their choice. But my point is the primary reason they try to avoid selling shares is to retain control over their company, and not to avoid tax. As long as they remain invested in their companies their wealth is permanently at risk, and it makes no sense to tax it as it may no longer be there tomorrow.Oh absolutely, the media dramatize it but I cannot feel bad for someone who has access to basically unlimited money (lets be fair here, if you have access to a billion+ dollars) and pays very little tax.
It's their choice to not sell shares and get loans, When the tax man asks me for money, he doesn't care what loans I have, what my rent is, they just see I earnt x amount of money and they want this percentage of it.
The rule shouldn't be different for billionaires. At the end of the day, they'll still be billionaires.
Think you are missing the point here. The wealth comes from appreciation of the stock's value over time not from "compensation in stock". Any new stock awards are taxable as income, but increase in value of stock is not income. Just as if the market value of your house increases by 50K, that does not count as income.I believe I completely understand the problem but it is absolutely a ethical fallacy to think that because someone chooses to be compensated with stock that they should not be taxed on the value of that income. If I have to pay 30% income tax so should a billionaire also be taxed on their income even if they are not receiving cash as compensation and choose stock instead.
EDIT: I just realized on my drive into work that you made an argument supporting my case. You do in fact pay taxes on property and the gains that it has. I actually had an increase in property taxes this year on my house for this exact scenario. So then based on this and your statement above that is not accurate there should be taxes assessed ion those gains. It is called a tax adjustment when property tax increases due to the value increasing.Think you are missing the point here. The wealth comes from appreciation of the stock's value over time not from "compensation in stock". Any new stock awards are taxable as income, but increase in value of stock is not income. Just as if the market value of your house increases by 50K, that does not count as income.
You just said it yourself "if you sell a house for a gain you pay taxes on that income". It is exactly the same for shares. And no, large quantities of shares are not as liqiuid as you make out. Do you think Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos could just sell half their holding at today's share price? No way, the price would tank as soon as they started selling - as they would be giving up control over the company which would create a wave of panic selling.No sir, you are missing the point. His income is not a wage. He takes stock options to avoid paying taxes. So, then he, and everyone else that does this should be taxed on that gain or be forced to liquidate the gain to pay taxes on the income earned. You can't claim that there is not an income gained from accumulation of massive wealth. If you sell you house for a gain of 50K you pay taxes on that income. The problem is sitting on the wealth like a dragon sits on a hoard while claiming that you have no actual money when in fact there is a significant amount of money there. Also a house that gains 50K in value is quite different than billions in stocks and other tangible goods that can easily be liquidated.
Please see my edit as you do in fact pay taxes on increased assesment of property. At this point no matter what you say will change my mind as to the need to tax billionaires that use stock as a tax haven.You just said it yourself "if you sell a house for a gain you pay taxes on that income". It is exactly the same for shares. And no, large quantities of shares are not as liqiuid as you make out. Do you think Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos could just sell half their holding at today's share price? No way, the price would tank as soon as they started selling - as they would be giving up control over the company which would create a wave of panic selling.
Most billionaire entrepreuner wealth does not come from options, it comes from the shares that they already held when they first set up the company. Initially those shares would have been worth say $1 and they might have held say 1,000,000 of them. When that share price grows to $1000 they now own shares worth $1Bn. There is no income, there is only appreciation of market value - and it is all permanently at risk until the day they die.
The additional compensation in options you mention is not tax free. If someone has an option to buy stock worth $5,000 at $1,000 then they have already paid tax on the $1,000 that the need to exercise the option, and they pay capital gains tax on the difference in value I.e. $4,000.