121–130 of 155 posts
That's $593M taxes on $1.34B earnings on exercising stock options...44% tax rate is pretty harsh!
It's very strange how people now seem to feel like they are entitled to see the tax returns of public or well-known figures. Tax returns are nobody else's business! Would you demand to see their medical records as well? The implicit subtext (especially with highly successful people like Musk) is that we do this to "make sure they pay their fair share". Here's the reality: the top 1% of US tax filers pay nearly half o…
> the top 1% of US tax filers pay nearly half of all US income taxes The top 1% also own more than 50% [1], so if they would pay their "fair share" they'd still need to pay more. Much more if you think that the differences should become smaller. [1] http://fortune.com/2015/10/14/1-percent-global-wealth-credit...
I wonder how much of the world's burden those 1% actually are paying? Why do you think they would still need to pay more?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people care that the rich pay a smaller proportionate rate[1] than the poor. People who make under $19k a year pay twice the rate of those making $470k+ Comparing total of taxes paid and leaving it at that is generally a tactic to distract from the proportion problem. 1. http://www.itep.org/whopays/full_report.php
45% of Americans pay 0 federal income tax. That is a very small rate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got interested in the utility of money a while back and how the "value" of money is roughly logarithmic as it goes up. I found a couple of thought experiments regarding a "logarithmic flat tax". Anyway, going by that I think it's about right - it might still be a little bit high, though. Depending on how you calculate it those plans can be configured so that he should have paid more in the 35-40% range. Basically,…
Do you mean "fair" in the sense that it tries to be equally painful for everyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Go look at the tax-rates of the 1950's. The only way he was able to acquire that much money was because of the infrastructure paid for by tax revenue. The only reason he wasn't robbed by someone else was because of the law enforcement paid for by tax revenue. I could go on, but I think you get the point. His wealth is built upon the shoulders of tax revenue.
Worth noting that he'd likely have netted about the same in the 1950s. Despite the constant assertions of those who fondly reminisce about the days of 90%+ income tax rates, there were so many more deductions that it all basically came out the same, while disincentivizing the outright hiding of wealth. Moreover, the law enforcement that prevents him from being robbed is paid for by tax revenue, but not federal tax re…
Not only are his financial institutions protected by federal law enforcement, but state and local law enforcement recieves federal funds, so the above claim is false on several grounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Go look at the tax-rates of the 1950's. The only way he was able to acquire that much money was because of the infrastructure paid for by tax revenue. The only reason he wasn't robbed by someone else was because of the law enforcement paid for by tax revenue. I could go on, but I think you get the point. His wealth is built upon the shoulders of tax revenue.
Worth noting that he'd likely have netted about the same in the 1950s. Despite the constant assertions of those who fondly reminisce about the days of 90%+ income tax rates, there were so many more deductions that it all basically came out the same, while disincentivizing the outright hiding of wealth. Moreover, the law enforcement that prevents him from being robbed is paid for by tax revenue, but not federal tax re…
I personally think that after the first 1.5 million that they tax rate should be 100%. That's still an incredibly large amount of money. After that we need the resources to tackle problems and we can't if people hoard them. I know that it sounds simple, and lots of people on this site will disagree, but I'm having trouble justifying this kind of extreme wealth to myself anymore. There are so many people in poverty an…
The huge bulk of this tax bill was from exercising stock options. According to another commenter here, 44% on $1.34B earnings from these options.
So given a $1.5M cap, these options simply wouldn't have been exercised. You'd use your options up to the $1.5m earnings ceiling, and then stop. So the tax 'purse' would receive the pre-ceiling rate on $1.5M instead of 44% of $1.34B.
A 100% ceiling sounds very straightforward, but the end result would have been that Musk would have paid over $592M less in taxes over the same period - and I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intent.
(sidenote: With regards to the morality - under your proposal, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation wouldn't exist. I think I'd rather any proposal allowed for such altruism.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not bad, but doesn't that come with social services like free medical care and greatly subsidized education? Here in he US the middle income pays taxes and receives almost no directive social benefit, as most social programs are geared towards lower income and the rich can afford accountants and lawyers to keep their tax burden very light.
I'm not sure how you can say that the rich keep their tax burden light when the topic of this thread is how Musk paid tax amounting to 44% of his income totalling over half a billion dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FBI? Also, who mentioned federal tax revenue or income tax? It wasn't me.
I'm not sure I understand the point. Are you asserting that the FBI is keeping muggers and highwaymen away from Elon Musk's money? Edit, to respond to your edit, which added "Also, who mentioned federal tax revenue or income tax? It wasn't me." The title of the article we are ostensibly discussing.
Assuming some keeps some share of his money in US banks, or invested in firms which keep their money in US banks, absolutely. Well, "bank robbers" instead of "muggers and highwaymen", but I'm assuming that Musk doesn't carry enough cash on him that the latter are nearly as important as the former in terms of risk to his money, though they might be a bigger threat to his personal safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to deny the (until very recently legally enforced) class difference between whites and blacks in South Africa, nor the social issues causing hiring discrepancies in the States. However, it's not a narrow reading of events. Musk is African. Head a bit out of the way in South Africa and you'll find white kids who spend all day running around with black friends with the whole group speaking fluent Zulu. T…
The problem here lies with the imprecise term 'African American', a designation which, according to customary usage, includes many native-born Americans who have never been to Africa, as well as excludes many native-born Africans (like Musk) who are also Americans.