Except for there's no way he regularly pays (or has paid, or will pay) nearly half of what he actually makes makes in taxes. The article explicitly says he's going to pay himself 1 dollar next year; like many other super-rich people, he'll make his money in retained earnings. So he might be paying 28% income tax, but it'll be on an income not of three billion or even three million, but three hundred thousand (or whatever). The point is, simply spouting numbers does nothing to tell the real story, and shows as much understanding of the tax system as your assertion that the government's "gross inefficiencies (corrected your spelling there--you're welcome) will squander the majority of that money."Ranger12 said:
Because the popular opinion amongst young Americans seems to be that the rich don't pay their "fair share". It might surprise some that this guy, though rich, still has to give up nearly half what he makes to the government, who's gross ineffiencies will squander the majority of that money.
Because he is alright with paying at that rate, and if I'm not mistaken is even cool with a tax increase on the 'uber' wealthy. Pretty sure he also pledged to give the majority of his fortune away over his lifetime like Buffett and Gates.dms96960 said:
If he is so smart, why didn't he move to, say, Nevada, or Texas, or some state with a lower tax rate before this happened?