Facts about billionaires. They don't have bank accounts like we do...

@justbob And your reply is also half true. The VAST majority of billionaire's wealth is not from after-tax salary, it's from appreciating assets. Like for Musk, say, most of his wealth growth came from his Tesla shares rising in value, gains that aren’t taxed unless sold.

@Waveney You are largely correct. And yet the top 1% wealthiest pay about 40% of all the income tax collected by the U.S. government leaving the other 60% to be spread out among the other 99% of taxpayers.

The 40% lowest earners pay no income ax at all.

The people paying less than their fair share are the lower income folks.

@Waveney Same is true with stock you hold

@justbob LOL, selective. Yes, the “top 1%" pay 40% of income taxes line u used is correct in general. What you’re doing, though, is pretending that statistic means that's the end.

It's not.

That number is about federal income tax only. It leaves out payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and everything else regular people pay. It also ignores the fact that the top 1% earn a massive share of total income, so of course they pay a large "share" of income taxes.

And saying the bottom 40% pay nothing is misleading, and i think you know it. Many don’t owe federal income tax because their incomes are low, but they absolutely pay payroll taxes and other taxes.

We’re talking about how wealth growth is taxed. You’re changing the subject to who cuts the biggest check today. Not the same argument.

@Waveney

Nope. You are not getting it.

By the time they get done with the Earned Income Credit and the refundable part of the Child Tax Credit, low income families pay less than nothing. They file tax returns and walk away with a net profit.

The bottom 40% pay literally nothing. Especially when you look at all of the states that also have refundable credits.

As far as taxing unrealized growth, that idea is controversial at best. Most people who actually look at what the result would be agree it would be a bad idea. Bernie Sanders means well, I assume, but his policies would be disasterous if enacted.

@justbob Dude you’re moving the goalposts. My point was about billionaires and unrealized gains like how they can borrow against Tesla shares, art, or real estate and defer capital gains tax. Now you’re talking about refundable credits and low-income households paying nothing?? That’s a totally different debate.

Yes, refundable credits exist and some households get more back than they paid in federal income tax. That’s policy design, not proof billionaires pay their fair share.

Now you're mentioning Bernie? You’re using him as a stand-in for all proposals onrealized wealth, instead of addressing how the current tax code actually treats ultra-rich asset growth??

I call deflection.

@Waveney The way the current tax code teats unrealized growth is not a problem. The problem would be the absurdly heavy burden of tracking the increases and decreases in asset value from year to year.

It would not only be impractical it would create bizarre eddies in the income stream of the Treasury. If Mr. Musk's stock value goes down and he claims refunds of hundreds of millions of dollars what does that do to the budget?

Do people have to get each piece of real estate appraised each year? I hope hey don't hire the guy who valued Trump's place as worth less than a vacant lot back when they were accusing him of bank fraud!

It is just not workable. It is a very silly idea. I mention Bernie because he is almost the only serious politician who advocates it.

@Waveney

Notice how tax and spend Democrats insist on taxing non-realized gains, but are silent on tax credits for unrealized losses :)

Example: Buy 1 share of ABC at $100 and a 5 years later the 1 share is worth $110, Democrats want to tax the $10 added value.

BUT, if 5 years later that 1 share is only worth $90, how many Democrats are screaming for a refundable tax credit for the $10 loss of value :)