23.8% < 37%
This is where you guys bust out the tax brackets and explain how they are applied.
Last edited:
The Entirely Made Up Claim That Corporations Pay No Taxes
- Thread starter m.knox
- Start date
23.8% < 37%
This is where you guys bust out the tax brackets and explain how they are applied.
yea, but this conflates the taxes..on the one hand we're talking income taxes under todays law, but with billionaires we talk/compare against all earnings..some outside current tax laws.
And what doesn't make sense, at least as part of discussions on this board, we complain because billionaires - wealth, not income - are not paying taxes because they use "non taxable" means for their income. So if that's the case, they'd have effectively a "0" taxable income and would only be paying taxes on a far fewer taxable items...
To me, the biggest part of the entire debate is that we talk about taxing billionaires not on income but wealth and then we compare their taxes against people paying taxes on income.
I don't mind taxing people with $1billion or more net worth, but without changing laws how do you do that? There may be 1 or 2 people making $1 billion/year income, so you don't generate a lot of revenue from taxing just 2 people.
Yes you pretty much said all of those things indirectly if not directly. You complained about "how they (CEOs) earn income vs a typical wage earner" then went on to claim that stock grants and options are only taxed 0% to 20% which is factually incorrect.
Then you continued by listing things that CEOs take advantage of that presumably aren't available to typical wage earners. You include things like using capital losses to offset capital gains and taking deductions for charitable contributions. Those things are available to everybody. Then you listed deferred compensation plans which might not be available to rank and file employees but to be honest things like annuities and 401-ks/IRAs are deferred plans and regular employees are able to defer a much larger percent of their income than highly paid CEOs.
There are only a few CEOs who take zero base pay. Those that do 1) Don't need the money, 2) It's good PR, and 3) They make money from stock price appreciation which is more closely aligned with shareholder interest. Yes the tax rate might be lower than with base salary but it's not guaranteed and it's not 0% or even 20%.
I think we should increase taxes on the ultra rich because every penny helps reduce the deficit as long as we don't spend it. I just fight back when people post misleading information.
P.S. I support higher taxes on the ultra wealthy but I also think there's a limit to what we can do without incurring unintended consequences.
Well, your chart indicates that the 99.9-99.99% actually pay the highest rate. Then it dips back to norm for 99.99% - top 400. Then only the top 400 drop below the range of others.
The post also states billionaires pay a 24% tax rate (unsurprisingly similar to the 23.8% LTCG rate I've mentioned). Clearly a different value than the 3% or 8% or whatever other nonsense has been stated by some posters.
I've said all along that I'm open to adjustments at the very top. But we need to use facts and logic. If the top 400 are the problem, or even the top 99.99%+, then propose a specific tax plan adjustment that addresses it without hurting hard-working families who earn much less. For example, an extra 5-10% rate on LTCG above $5M if net worth is >$100M (just off the cuff numbers).
23.8% < 37%
This is where you guys bust out the tax brackets and explain how they are applied.
23.8% > 15%, which is what you had posted and I was correcting. You are switching topics.
That seems pretty obvious, right? Now why do you think that doesn’t actually happen?
Where are the "dirty tricks"?
I have to laugh at the "party of division and hate" narrative every time I see it. That's hilarious!
Correct. I made a mistake on the capital gains rate and said 15% vs the 20%. I pay 15% since I make under $600K/year and didn't pre-google the information. You got me.
The topic and the point are the same. Their pay is structured that way in part to reduce tax liability.
Last edited:
Interesting spin.
Here's Claude's take on it:
"The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) failed primarily due to unrealistic savings targets, political isolation, and operational challenges under Elon Musk's leadership."
LOL no, you inferred those things based on your own narratives.
I stated that CEO pay is structured to reduce their tax burden, and it is. Stock awards are taxed at the capital gains rate which is lower than the income tax rate. That is correct. I got the percent wrong but the point is still the same.
I never said capital losses and charitable deductions weren't available to regular people. No ****.... those are available to everybody. I had a capital loss on my return last year.
Based on the way you talk, I'm guessing you are in finance so you should know the difference between a traditional 401k and an EDCP. Yes, a 401k is deferred compenstation but it's not an EDCP. The rules are different and I'm guessing you know this. With an EDCP there are no IRS caps. You can defer 100% of your pay including equity pay through RSUs.
CEO's taking $1 pay or minimum wage (depending on state laws) are not uncommon and yes, the public message is that they are aligning themselves with the company's success which is part of the story. I never said their tax or even effective tax rate was 0%.
Well the effective federal rate is 23.8% due to NIIT. But my point wasn’t that the structure doesn’t reduce tax liability compared to ordinary income. My point is that they aren’t completely dodging taxes like the Dems would have you believe, considering that effective rate is more than the effective federal income tax rate for 97%+ of Americans.
I wonder which is more rare - the dem boogeyman of rich people barely paying taxes or the republican boogeyman of furries with litter boxes in schools or dudes dominating girls sports?
Last edited:
it seems to me that this major debate came about because of Warren buffet's claim that he paid a lower effective rate than his secretary. Of course the reason for that was simple, he took a very low salary from the company and made his wealth through capital gains. On the other side of that debate was a couple of non discussed points, he lived like most of us in the same house for decades, didn't drive expensive cars and lived a generally "normal life".
There might be other billionaires like him, none have been so profiled in the media though.
If I read the "tea leaves" from most posters, very few argue against a higher tax rate for the really high earners. The debate is more about how that extra money would be used by the government
I think the other debate is what constitutes a high earner. Many on here seem to cling to billionaires, but voted for policies that raise taxes on people making $400K.
As I’ve said, if you want to propose something actually targeted at the rich, let’s talk. For example, 5-8% increase on LTCG >$5M for people with a net worth >$100M.
You're the one spinning the facts. It sounds like you're suggesting there isn't much room to cut spending and waste.
What I said was factually correct. Democrats / left leaning organizations sued to stop DOGE cuts and they also sued to prevent DOGE from having access to certain information that would help them uncover fraud. Are you seriously denying this?
I assume the democrats were on solid legal ground because congress approved the spending and the executive branch has no right to override it. But that doesn't mean there are no significant savings to be had. Musk made huge cuts at Twitter because he was the owner and had authority to do that. He apparently thought he could do the same thing as the head honcho for DOGE but he was wrong. But none of that means there isn't a lot of fraud and waste.
You don't seem to understand tax law. RSUs are taxed as ordinary income as they vest just like salary or cash bonus.
Incentive stock options are similar in that they are subject to a 28% AMT tax when the options are exercised. That's less than the 37% rate on ordinary income but it's not 0% and it's not 20%.
Where are the dirty tricks? C'mon man, get a grip.
Google AI answers the question adequately.
- Political Activism & Campaigns: Left-leaning groups (such as Common Cause and End Citizens United) launched campaigns demanding his removal from government advisory roles, citing conflicts of interest between his private companies and federal contracts. [1]
- Social Media & Cultural Backlash: Following Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X) and his outspoken political shifts, left-wing commentators and politicians have targeted him as a political "boogeyman". Some critics and media personalities have actively celebrated declines in Tesla stock and reported on vandalism targeting the company's vehicles and facilities. [1, 2, 3]
- Legal & Regulatory Scrutiny: Democratic lawmakers and civil rights advocates have consistently pressured regulatory agencies (including the SEC) to investigate Musk's business practices, use of his platforms for political endorsements, and labor conditions. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Consumer & Corporate Boycotts: Liberal consumers and advocacy groups have organized boycotts against Tesla and other Musk-owned enterprises, leading to a documented decline in Tesla purchasing intentions among left-leaning demographics. [1]
- International Pressure: European left-leaning political figures, particularly in Germany, have aggressively criticized his platforming of conservative viewpoints, accusing him of spreading misinformation and attempting to subvert democratic elections.
You keep making incorrect assumptions.
I receive RSUs as part of my compensation. Yes, they tax when vested. You can have the tax deducted via the "net shares" method or opt to pay the tax yourself.
I also noted that earlier in thread.
Again, I never said they paid 0%. I said the capital gains tax rate is 0, 15, and 20%. Is that incorrect?
LOL no it does not. Apparently "dirty tricks" means boycotts and social media posts.
You can certainly interpret it any way you like, but the motivation is all the same. Evidently you think that creating harm is good for society.
What facts did I spin? Again with the assumptions. There's plenty of room to cut spending and waste but I never believed Elon or Trump would be successful... and they weren't. There's a bit more context to the lawsuits against DOGE. You might want to read up on it more and from different sources.
I'm also fairly sure we will hear a lot about discovered fraud after 2028. I'm sure there's plenty to go around but Elon and Trump seemed focused on only finding "democrat fraud". They know it's there, it's just a matter of finding it!
The biggest harm to our country is tens of millions of Americans walking around with visceral hatred for our nations democratically elected president. So much so that violence is now acceptable.
RSUs are taxed as ORDINARY INCOME as they vest. For highly paid executives that would be 37% (+ state).
Your RSUs are no different. You will pay ORDANIARY INCOME TAX on the FMV of the shares on the vesting date. I assume your marginal rate is less than 37%.
The FMV of the stock on the vesting date becomes your cost basis. Any additional realized gains after the vesting date would be taxed at capital gains rates.
The top rate on realized capital gains is 23.8% because you have to include the supplemental investment income tax of 3.8%.
What you call the "net shares method" is simply your employer allowing you to immediately sell enough shares on the vesting date to cover your ORDINARY INCOME TAXES. Some people don't have cash available to pay the tax so they elect to sell shares. Others prefer to retain ownership of all the shares they received so they pay the taxes from their personal savings.
Last edited:
A lot of politicians don't want the fraud to be discovered. Just look at the pushback over things like requiring voter roles to be cleaned of people who died or who have moved. Look at the fight against things like Learing Centers or Autism centers. It's both parties because they are in the business of buying votes and eliminating the fraud will make recipient voters angry. I think it's a much greater problem with democrats but I don't think the problem is limited to democrats.
I think the issue came down to who has authority over government spending. Trump/Musk tried to do it with DOGE but the courts said they didn't have the authority. That would be OK if congress would take the lead but they won't. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment.
LOL oh you.
RSUs are Restricted Stock Units used as a method of EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION.
INCOME is where you receive money for work or through INVESTMENTS.
When you say INCOME that means your employer pays you for work performed BY YOU, usually deposited into a CHECKING ACCOUNT hosted by BANKS.
Citizens are TAXED on INCOME based on how much they EARN.
GROSS INCOME is your total income before TAXES and DEDUCTIONS.
NET INCOME is your income after taxes and DEDUCTIONS.
WTF does that have to do with anything I said?
The FMV of your RSUs on the vesting date is reported on your W-2. It's just like wages or cash bonuses received by any employee.
P.S. GROSS INCOME and NET INCOME aren't even a thing on personal income tax returns. There are lines for TOTAL INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, and TAXABLE INCOME. All of them are BEFORE taxes.
"ORANGE MASTER".. lmfao....
Remember when you said that the infographic is from some right wing website when it's simply IRS data??
What's more foolish? That or "ORANGE MASTER?"