WOW, someone who understands how the systems works. Only correction, most high income earners have some ways to shelter some of the income from taxes, but those shelters were created by the government and the same people today complaining everyone is not paying their fair share. For those who do not understand this you need to put on your ignorance hat.
BTW, In 2020 61% of the citizen of this country did not pay any Federal income taxes, This mean that 39% of the balance of people and companies paid all the taxes that run the county. If you are talking about everyone paying their fair share, why aren't people complaining about the 61%, they also benefit from all the services the government provides.
yes, but how many companies did NOT pay taxes? it reads as if you are against those who are receiving help from the government--as if all illegitimately. how many companies were looking for a new/another headquarters and were receiving low to no taxes for first 10 years? also, if you look at consumptive tax, poorer people pay more in percentage than their wealthy counterparts and that small percentage is a big deal if you make little. there are too many tax loopholes that make it easy to hide money and (I could be wrong) it is probably because a great many in the halls of government are using these loopholes themselves or are heavily funded by companies/individuals who use these loopholes. in tandem with a tax overhaul there needs to be an audit of government waste.
Let separate Local from Federal and when Local governments do one time things to incentivize companies to move or grow in their local economy is not the same what the Feds are doing. Those are no a gift that keeps giving forever. Next, it is not most companies who do not pay federal taxes, most are paying federal taxes on the remaining profits (they are not taxes on total sales which people think is the case, unlike your salary which is taxed on the total, well not true, you now get to deduct your 401k and Health care costs). It is a small number of high profile companies people pick out to represent the whole who are paying little to no taxes. Again they do not pay because of tax laws writing by the complainers who say Companies are not paying. You see how this works, they pass a law which reduces taxes companies and people pay then use a campaign slogan against those who benefitted to get reelected. As long as a company is not showing profits they do not pay taxes, go take an accounting class and you will find out why this is the case. Yes companies know many ways to show they are not making profits again this got back to the tax laws and the people who wrote them.
Actually I am very much an advocate of a flat tax, I feel the tax everyone pays should help everyone, for things like infrastructure. I also believe you do not have right to say how the money is being allocate if you did not pay in. Do you allow your kids in your house tell you allow to allocate house hold income. Everyone should pay a flat amount every year with no deductions. We got half way there with the last tax law, it limited total amount of deductions, you are caped at $24K if married unless you give away lots of my money each year. In the past anyone making a reasonable income could write off a lot more than $24K and reduce their federal tax burden by a lot, some people pay little to no federal taxes but paid lots of local taxes. Even though the GDP in the US in 2020 droved significantly, meaning companies and individuals made less overall, the Federal government collect more taxes for 2020 than they did in 2019, why, the people on the higher end were forced to pay more. This was due to the change in tax laws, notice the people in government are not screaming as much about the rick not paying their fair share.
You are correct someone making $50K paying 10% taxes, which is $5K means more to them than someone making $500K and paying $50K in taxes, however, what you failed to see if the $50K represents 10 people making $50K and that one person taxes does more than the $5k one person is making. You do realize as % of their incoming they both pay 10%, it not the fact that poor are paying more, it is the fact poor people have the same basic living costs which use up the other portion of their income just to live, verse the other person has a lager $ amount of disposable incoming to by other things. But that does not mean the person making $50K should not pay, and they somehow deserve not to share in the burden of the system that supports everyone equally. Remember roads, sidewalk, water and sew system, police, fire, and list goes on has no way to discriminate. However, as soon as the system start picking who should and should not get services or who has to pay taxes the person making the decision can discriminate and it happen more times than not.
BTW, when the Fed does not have enough Tax money to pay for all their great ideas they just have the Treasury print more money, which devalues the currency and make what you buy cost more. This is why Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard for our currency. It did not allow him to print money to pay for all his bad ideas which we still paying for today. This alone make is hard for lower income individual to have better things not how much they get paid.
They got what they asked for and now are complaining that the authoritarians really meant it when they said they wanted to force everyone else to pay for their goals instead of letting people make decisions for themselves.
I’m still making decisions for myself, what’s the problem? When massive corporations aren’t paying their fair share, if any taxes ar all, and yet we have corporations like Amazon benefiting greatly from our roads, educated employees, and USPS but don’t pay taxes to further develop oir decrepit infrastructure… these are the decisions you’re so proud of?!?!?!?
No amount of lobbying will prevent the US government from becoming insolvent. The only way out of this mess is a massive shift to automation which would create infinite productivity gains to the point that it will break current economic models. (Hint: If you have a model that factors in the number of people working and that number goes to zero even as production increases greatly you get a divide by zero error.) Apple has not shown any great progress in automated factories but it is never too later for them to invest in companies that have had more long term vision.
WOW, someone who understands how the systems works. Only correction, most high income earners have some ways to shelter some of the income from taxes, but those shelters were created by the government and the same people today complaining everyone is not paying their fair share. For those who do not understand this you need to put on your ignorance hat.
BTW, In 2020 61% of the citizen of this country did not pay any Federal income taxes, This mean that 39% of the balance of people and companies paid all the taxes that run the county. If you are talking about everyone paying their fair share, why aren't people complaining about the 61%, they also benefit from all the services the government provides.
yes, but how many companies did NOT pay taxes? it reads as if you are against those who are receiving help from the government--as if all illegitimately. how many companies were looking for a new/another headquarters and were receiving low to no taxes for first 10 years? also, if you look at consumptive tax, poorer people pay more in percentage than their wealthy counterparts and that small percentage is a big deal if you make little. there are too many tax loopholes that make it easy to hide money and (I could be wrong) it is probably because a great many in the halls of government are using these loopholes themselves or are heavily funded by companies/individuals who use these loopholes. in tandem with a tax overhaul there needs to be an audit of government waste.
Let separate Local from Federal and when Local governments do one time things to incentivize companies to move or grow in their local economy is not the same what the Feds are doing. Those are no a gift that keeps giving forever. Next, it is not most companies who do not pay federal taxes, most are paying federal taxes on the remaining profits (they are not taxes on total sales which people think is the case, unlike your salary which is taxed on the total, well not true, you now get to deduct your 401k and Health care costs). It is a small number of high profile companies people pick out to represent the whole who are paying little to no taxes. Again they do not pay because of tax laws writing by the complainers who say Companies are not paying. You see how this works, they pass a law which reduces taxes companies and people pay then use a campaign slogan against those who benefitted to get reelected. As long as a company is not showing profits they do not pay taxes, go take an accounting class and you will find out why this is the case. Yes companies know many ways to show they are not making profits again this got back to the tax laws and the people who wrote them.
Actually I am very much an advocate of a flat tax, I feel the tax everyone pays should help everyone, for things like infrastructure. I also believe you do not have right to say how the money is being allocate if you did not pay in. Do you allow your kids in your house tell you allow to allocate house hold income. Everyone should pay a flat amount every year with no deductions. We got half way there with the last tax law, it limited total amount of deductions, you are caped at $24K if married unless you give away lots of my money each year. In the past anyone making a reasonable income could write off a lot more than $24K and reduce their federal tax burden by a lot, some people pay little to no federal taxes but paid lots of local taxes. Even though the GDP in the US in 2020 droved significantly, meaning companies and individuals made less overall, the Federal government collect more taxes for 2020 than they did in 2019, why, the people on the higher end were forced to pay more. This was due to the change in tax laws, notice the people in government are not screaming as much about the rick not paying their fair share.
You are correct someone making $50K paying 10% taxes, which is $5K means more to them than someone making $500K and paying $50K in taxes, however, what you failed to see if the $50K represents 10 people making $50K and that one person taxes does more than the $5k one person is making. You do realize as % of their incoming they both pay 10%, it not the fact that poor are paying more, it is the fact poor people have the same basic living costs which use up the other portion of their income just to live, verse the other person has a lager $ amount of disposable incoming to by other things. But that does not mean the person making $50K should not pay, and they somehow deserve not to share in the burden of the system that supports everyone equally. Remember roads, sidewalk, water and sew system, police, fire, and list goes on has no way to discriminate. However, as soon as the system start picking who should and should not get services or who has to pay taxes the person making the decision can discriminate and it happen more times than not.
BTW, when the Fed does not have enough Tax money to pay for all their great ideas they just have the Treasury print more money, which devalues the currency and make what you buy cost more. This is why Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard for our currency. It did not allow him to print money to pay for all his bad ideas which we still paying for today. This alone make is hard for lower income individual to have better things not how much they get paid.
a flat tax still misses the point (and let's be serious, we are not going to solve this issue here). warren buffet said he paid 12% fed income tax (cannot remember the year) while his secretary paid more. it would not disrupt his lifestyle one iota if he paid 20%, whereas those making 50k (or less) feel it far more and it does impact their lives, especially if they have children. last time was in the states I was taxed 23.5% (total) on 38k. according to the IRS wealthy people are making out like bandits (1 trillion uncollected), they have been using loopholes, and now they just pay less.
you once again appear to attack people who are not paying their fare share and seem to point to those making 50k as opposed to 500k. you do not wag the finger at rich companies or individuals who tax dodge (or use 'legitimate tax avoidance measures' only they can benefit form). if we are going to pick and choose services to miss, then any company not paying tax should also be skipped, perhaps barred from the interstate. not sure anyone can escape sewer and water though.
WOW, someone who understands how the systems works. Only correction, most high income earners have some ways to shelter some of the income from taxes, but those shelters were created by the government and the same people today complaining everyone is not paying their fair share. For those who do not understand this you need to put on your ignorance hat.
BTW, In 2020 61% of the citizen of this country did not pay any Federal income taxes, This mean that 39% of the balance of people and companies paid all the taxes that run the county. If you are talking about everyone paying their fair share, why aren't people complaining about the 61%, they also benefit from all the services the government provides.
yes, but how many companies did NOT pay taxes? it reads as if you are against those who are receiving help from the government--as if all illegitimately. how many companies were looking for a new/another headquarters and were receiving low to no taxes for first 10 years? also, if you look at consumptive tax, poorer people pay more in percentage than their wealthy counterparts and that small percentage is a big deal if you make little. there are too many tax loopholes that make it easy to hide money and (I could be wrong) it is probably because a great many in the halls of government are using these loopholes themselves or are heavily funded by companies/individuals who use these loopholes. in tandem with a tax overhaul there needs to be an audit of government waste.
If a company did not legally pay any corporate taxes, then they legally did not make any profit. Show me otherwise. You make seem as though companies are not paying any taxes on their reported profits. Corporate tax is a tax on profits, not revenue. It's no different than personal income tax, where only the income after any legal deductions, is taxed. And that income can be reduced to less than the minimum taxable amount, with enough legal deductions.
And every taxpayer should use all their legal deductions, to reduce the taxes they pay. Even if it ends up being zero. It doesn't get more American than that.
Just because a company had billions in revenue, it doesn't mean that they will have any taxable profit.
By far, the biggest contribution any corporation (large and small) can make toward the government tax revenue is the creation of jobs. Income tax and payroll tax accounts for over 85% of the 2020 $3.4T Federal tax revenue. (50% income and 35% payroll) Corporate tax historically contribute about 7%to 9%.
Small businesses accounts for about 64% of new jobs every year. Big corporations on the other hand, accounts for 36% of new jobs every year. But 99.7% of all businesses are "small businesses". Only .3% of all businesses are big corporations. So .3% of all businesses, accounts for 1 in every 3 new jobs every year.
Now of days, over 40% the people working, are working for a big corporation.
It is in the best interest of government to make sure that they do not tax big businesses, out of business. Losing the corporate tax is nothing, compared to losing the income and payroll taxes, when a big corporation goes out of business.
Here's an interesting perspective from the liberal media, "The Atlantic"
As pointed out by a previous posts, they use the land, resources, people, infrastructure of this country, (and it is in dire need of support), so they should be happy to make the country stronger... yes? no?
As an Apple share holder, Cook is worth every penny
As pointed out by a previous posts, they use the land, resources, people, infrastructure of this country, (and it is in dire need of support), so they should be happy to make the country stronger... yes? no?
You only "saw" the article, did you bother to READ it before making your ignorant comment? Tim Cook was awarded $750M in vested RSU and paid $390M in income taxes out of the $750M award. You can also bet that he also paid over 50% in incomes taxes (for Fed and State) for his $14.8M annual compensation. And most likely all the Apple executives probably paid in the neighborhood of 50% in incomes taxes on their annual salary.
If you want to collect the most in taxes from corporations, the best way to do that would be to make sure all the profits are awarded to their top executives as bonuses, instead of being taxed at the corporate rate. Bonuses are considered salary and tax deductible from corporate revenue.
Say that a corporation was looking at reporting $100M in profit, but instead decided to award that $100M to their top executives as bonuses. Now the corporation will end up paying zero corporate tax and you will have a hissy fit over this. BUT, when the $100M was awarded as bonuses, it got taxed as salary. Thus, the government collected 37% Fed income tax (as most execs are probably in the top marginal tax bracket), $1.45% Medicare tax and maybe about 8% in State income tax (in CA it would be 13%). So out of the $100M, the government got at least $45M in taxes when it was awarded as bonuses vs $21M if it were taxed at the corporate rate. And this don't include the sales tax generated when the executives spends that money.
As someone that likes collecting more taxes from others, you should be jumping with joy, that Apple is paying their executives outrages amounts of millions of dollars annual compensation, instead of complaining about it. I guarantee you, the IRS is not complaining about it.
Apple pays over $40M a year in property taxes on just their "spaceship" HQ. Property taxes (and added bonds measures) pays for local police, fire and ambulance services, parks, public transportation, street lights, sewers, etc.. But most goes toward local education. I'm not aware that Apple is not paying property taxes on any of their properties. Be it vacant land or for an Apple Store. I'm not aware that Apple is getting resources like electricity or gas or water or garbage service, for free. Nor not have to pay the gasoline tax, that pays for road maintenance (or least that's what the gas tax is suppose to be for.), bridge tolls or auto registrations for company cars. Nor are they not paying a good salary to their well educated employees. (who in turn can afford to pay back any student loans they might have gotten.)
WOW, someone who understands how the systems works. Only correction, most high income earners have some ways to shelter some of the income from taxes, but those shelters were created by the government and the same people today complaining everyone is not paying their fair share. For those who do not understand this you need to put on your ignorance hat.
BTW, In 2020 61% of the citizen of this country did not pay any Federal income taxes, This mean that 39% of the balance of people and companies paid all the taxes that run the county. If you are talking about everyone paying their fair share, why aren't people complaining about the 61%, they also benefit from all the services the government provides.
Of the 61 percent who does not pay taxes I. This country, about 90 percent of that number are Democrats .
If a company did not legally pay any corporate taxes, then they legally did not make any profit. Show me otherwise. You make seem as though companies are not paying any taxes on their reported profits. Corporate tax is a tax on profits, not revenue. It's no different than personal income tax, where only the income after any legal deductions, is taxed. And that income can be reduced to less than the minimum taxable amount, with enough legal deductions.
And every taxpayer should use all their legal deductions, to reduce the taxes they pay. Even if it ends up being zero. It doesn't get more American than that.
Just because a company had billions in revenue, it doesn't mean that they will have any taxable profit.
By far, the biggest contribution any corporation (large and small) can make toward the government tax revenue is the creation of jobs. Income tax and payroll tax accounts for over 85% of the 2020 $3.4T Federal tax revenue. (50% income and 35% payroll) Corporate tax historically contribute about 7%to 9%.
Small businesses accounts for about 64% of new jobs every year. Big corporations on the other hand, accounts for 36% of new jobs every year. But 99.7% of all businesses are "small businesses". Only .3% of all businesses are big corporations. So .3% of all businesses, accounts for 1 in every 3 new jobs every year.
Now of days, over 40% the people working, are working for a big corporation.
It is in the best interest of government to make sure that they do not tax big businesses, out of business. Losing the corporate tax is nothing, compared to losing the income and payroll taxes, when a big corporation goes out of business.
Here's an interesting perspective from the liberal media, "The Atlantic"
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/amazon-will-pay-0-in-federal-taxes-this-year.html lot's of billions in pre-tax income. just loopholes around it. even America's favourite president said so, making it doubly true. I am a fan a amazon, but super low to no tax paid by that company is not right. "Amazon is one of the world’s most valuable companies, valued at nearly $800 billion, and the e-commerce giant pulled in $232.9 billion in global revenue in 2018. And yet, Amazon’s federal tax bill this year: $0. For the second year in a row. In fact, Amazon is actually getting a federal tax refund of $129 million this year, due in part to a combination of tax credits and deductions. This is despite the fact that Amazon nearly doubled its taxable income in 2018 to $11.2 billion, from $5.6 billion a year earlier."
it is legal because the law makes it so, but there is quite a lot of money dodging taxes. but, we also do not know the waste in gov't- and I am far more concerned about that.
If you want to collect the most in taxes from corporations, the best way to do that would be to make sure all the profits are awarded to their top executives as bonuses, instead of being taxed at the corporate rate. Bonuses are considered salary and tax deductible from corporate revenue. ... As someone that likes collecting more taxes from others, you should be jumping with joy, that Apple is paying their executives outrages amounts of millions of dollars annual compensation, instead of complaining about it. I guarantee you, the IRS is not complaining about it.
Brilliant analysis in whole, but the point is made well with what I quote above. This should be textbook material taught to people who just don't get it.
BTW, when the Fed does not have enough Tax money to pay for all their great ideas they just have the Treasury print more money, which devalues the currency and make what you buy cost more. This is why Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard for our currency. It did not allow him to print money to pay for all his bad ideas which we still paying for today. This alone make is hard for lower income individual to have better things not how much they get paid.
I thought the gold standard thing was done by Nixon? Or is that separate from pegging an ounce of gold to $35 USD?
I still have a United States Note $5 bill that was printed in the 60s when Kennedy stopped having the Fed print the money with that Executive Order of his.
If a company did not legally pay any corporate taxes, then they legally did not make any profit. Show me otherwise. You make seem as though companies are not paying any taxes on their reported profits. Corporate tax is a tax on profits, not revenue. It's no different than personal income tax, where only the income after any legal deductions, is taxed. And that income can be reduced to less than the minimum taxable amount, with enough legal deductions.
And every taxpayer should use all their legal deductions, to reduce the taxes they pay. Even if it ends up being zero. It doesn't get more American than that.
Just because a company had billions in revenue, it doesn't mean that they will have any taxable profit.
By far, the biggest contribution any corporation (large and small) can make toward the government tax revenue is the creation of jobs. Income tax and payroll tax accounts for over 85% of the 2020 $3.4T Federal tax revenue. (50% income and 35% payroll) Corporate tax historically contribute about 7%to 9%.
Small businesses accounts for about 64% of new jobs every year. Big corporations on the other hand, accounts for 36% of new jobs every year. But 99.7% of all businesses are "small businesses". Only .3% of all businesses are big corporations. So .3% of all businesses, accounts for 1 in every 3 new jobs every year.
Now of days, over 40% the people working, are working for a big corporation.
It is in the best interest of government to make sure that they do not tax big businesses, out of business. Losing the corporate tax is nothing, compared to losing the income and payroll taxes, when a big corporation goes out of business.
Here's an interesting perspective from the liberal media, "The Atlantic"
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/amazon-will-pay-0-in-federal-taxes-this-year.html lot's of billions in pre-tax income. just loopholes around it. even America's favourite president said so, making it doubly true. I am a fan a amazon, but super low to no tax paid by that company is not right. "Amazon is one of the world’s most valuable companies, valued at nearly $800 billion, and the e-commerce giant pulled in $232.9 billion in global revenue in 2018. And yet, Amazon’s federal tax bill this year: $0. For the second year in a row. In fact, Amazon is actually getting a federal tax refund of $129 million this year, due in part to a combination of tax credits and deductions. This is despite the fact that Amazon nearly doubled its taxable income in 2018 to $11.2 billion, from $5.6 billion a year earlier."
it is legal because the law makes it so, but there is quite a lot of money dodging taxes. but, we also do not know the waste in gov't- and I am far more concerned about that.
The problem with this article is that it's saying that Amazon is a very profitable "global" company, but Amazon only has to pay US taxes on their US profits (and any foreign profits they bring back into the US). That is not a loophole or dodging taxes, it's the way nearly all countries corporate tax system works. And in fact, most other countries do not even tax foreign profits made by their corporations, at all. it is not "dodging" taxes when no taxes were due to begin with.
So long as Amazon (and other global US corporations) do not spend their overseas profits in the US, those profits are not subject to US corporate tax. Those profits are taxed by the foreign countries, where the profits were made. And those taxes paid on profits to foreign countries, are deducted from any US taxes owe, if they were to bring those profits into the US.
Now with the lowering of US corporate rate to 21%, a whole bunch of countries all of a sudden has a higher corporate tax rate than the US. Some of these would be
Brazil 34%, Japan 30.6%, Australia 30%, Mexico 30%, Philippines 30%, Canada 26.5%, France 26.5%, China 25%, S. Korea 25/%
What this means is that profits made in countries with a higher that 21% corporate tax rate would not be subject to any US taxes if they were to brought into the US. In fact, they might get a tax credit, if they bring foreign profits where they paid a higher than 21% tax rate, back into the US. When the corporate tax rate was at 35% (not including any State corporate taxes), at least some US taxes were owed on most foreign profits that were bought back into the US. The average global corporate tax is about 25%. Which was why many corporation left their foreign profits in oversea accounts, when the US corporate tax rate was 35% (plus any State corporate taxes), if they didn't need to spend it in the US. This is not a loophole. This is clearly spelled out in US corporate tax laws.
No way should any US global corporations, for example, have to pay France 25% of the profit they make there and then have to pay another 21% US corporate tax on it, whether they bring those profits into the US or not.
Most articles that claims that some very profitable US corporations do not pay any US taxes, don't understand how international taxation works. (or they do but explaining it would defeat their purpose for writing such an article.) Notice they never say that these corporations don't pay "any taxes", on profits. In fact most foreign countries do not tax foreign corporate profits made outside their borders, at all. Which makes sense. These countries want their corporations to spend all their profits, at home. Penalizing their home corporations for spending their foreign profits at home would make very little sense. But yet, the US will penalize US corporations for spending foreign profits, back here in the US, by making sure those profits are taxed at the US rate.
The history behind this goes back to when there were very few international corporations in the US. Back then (mid-century), the fear was that large US international corporations like GM, GE, IBM, Boeing, DuPont, Dow Chemicals, etc.., would use foreign profits that were taxed at a low foreign rate, to unfairly compete with US companies that only had a presence in the US and must pay US corporate tax rate. To level the playing field, the US tax all foreign profits at the US corporate rate (minus any foreign taxes paid on those profits), if they were spent in the US. But now of days, nearly all corporations, large and small, are or can be, international. The internet has leveled the playing field. Plus the US corporate tax rate has dropped from over 50% (in the 50's and 60's) to 21% now.
Seems pretty bonkers that companies can deduct tax paid overseas against their US tax liability to that degree. From a certain perspective the US tax payer is subsidising the tax revenues of other high tax countries. I'm surprised that doesn't get more attention.
Seems pretty bonkers that companies can deduct tax paid overseas against their US tax liability to that degree. From a certain perspective the US tax payer is subsidising the tax revenues of other high tax countries. I'm surprised that doesn't get more attention.
You're assuming they actually paid corporate taxes abroad. In many cases they completely avoid doing so by establishing residence in an autonomous location with exceptionally low to no tax obligations whatsoever and shift revenues from the country the sale occurred in to the low tax/no tax entity. See Paradise Papers for an example which is just one of a few schemes. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/08/key-revelations-from-the-paradise-papers
When Apple announces their "effective tax rates" which will of course sound perfectly reasonable it does not mean that's what they actually paid from their coffers of cash. I have little doubt that Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft (along with every big Pharma) employ similar strategies. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issues/corporate-taxes/highlights-of-apples-tax-dodging/
And lest you think Apple already brought home all their overseas held cash, repatriated $250B+ and paying 15% taxes on it, they have not. In fact they may never do so despite a law that presumably requires paying taxes on it. Apple is one of a minority of major companies that in response has stopped reporting overseas cash since the law went into effect, Google /Oracle/Facebook being a few of the others. Verification of the effectiveness of the tax legislation is nigh impossible to discern.
Seems pretty bonkers that companies can deduct tax paid overseas against their US tax liability to that degree. From a certain perspective the US tax payer is subsidising the tax revenues of other high tax countries. I'm surprised that doesn't get more attention.
That would be like saying that it's bonkers that home owners can deduct the interest on their home mortgages, their property taxes, along with their State income taxes, from their AGI, to reduce their Federal income tax liability. Even if the deductions drive down their Federal income tax liability to zero. From a certain perspective, renters are subsidizing the income of home owners with mortgages.
Imagine what products made by a US corporation would have to cost overseas, if they had to pay both the corporate tax in the foreign country where their products were sold AND the full US corporate tax, on the profits. Consumers are the ones that eventually pays the corporate taxes, for corporations. US companies would not be able to compete with international companies of other countries, that do not have to pay the full corporate taxes on their foreign profits, in their home countries. You think Apple would be able to compete with Samsung anywhere else in the World, except the US, if this were the case? If the US government were to force US corporations to pay the full US corporate tax rate on all their foreign profits, regardless that they had to pay any foreign corporate taxes, US corporations would be put at a big disadvantage when it comes to competing in countries with high corporate taxes. And if this were the case, US corporations would consider moving their HQ to another country. Much like how many CA businesses are moving their HQ to other States, that are more favorable to businesses.
WOW, someone who understands how the systems works. Only correction, most high income earners have some ways to shelter some of the income from taxes, but those shelters were created by the government and the same people today complaining everyone is not paying their fair share. For those who do not understand this you need to put on your ignorance hat.
BTW, In 2020 61% of the citizen of this country did not pay any Federal income taxes, This mean that 39% of the balance of people and companies paid all the taxes that run the county. If you are talking about everyone paying their fair share, why aren't people complaining about the 61%, they also benefit from all the services the government provides.
yes, but how many companies did NOT pay taxes? it reads as if you are against those who are receiving help from the government--as if all illegitimately. how many companies were looking for a new/another headquarters and were receiving low to no taxes for first 10 years? also, if you look at consumptive tax, poorer people pay more in percentage than their wealthy counterparts and that small percentage is a big deal if you make little. there are too many tax loopholes that make it easy to hide money and (I could be wrong) it is probably because a great many in the halls of government are using these loopholes themselves or are heavily funded by companies/individuals who use these loopholes. in tandem with a tax overhaul there needs to be an audit of government waste.
Let separate Local from Federal and when Local governments do one time things to incentivize companies to move or grow in their local economy is not the same what the Feds are doing. Those are no a gift that keeps giving forever. Next, it is not most companies who do not pay federal taxes, most are paying federal taxes on the remaining profits (they are not taxes on total sales which people think is the case, unlike your salary which is taxed on the total, well not true, you now get to deduct your 401k and Health care costs). It is a small number of high profile companies people pick out to represent the whole who are paying little to no taxes. Again they do not pay because of tax laws writing by the complainers who say Companies are not paying. You see how this works, they pass a law which reduces taxes companies and people pay then use a campaign slogan against those who benefitted to get reelected. As long as a company is not showing profits they do not pay taxes, go take an accounting class and you will find out why this is the case. Yes companies know many ways to show they are not making profits again this got back to the tax laws and the people who wrote them.
Actually I am very much an advocate of a flat tax, I feel the tax everyone pays should help everyone, for things like infrastructure. I also believe you do not have right to say how the money is being allocate if you did not pay in. Do you allow your kids in your house tell you allow to allocate house hold income. Everyone should pay a flat amount every year with no deductions. We got half way there with the last tax law, it limited total amount of deductions, you are caped at $24K if married unless you give away lots of my money each year. In the past anyone making a reasonable income could write off a lot more than $24K and reduce their federal tax burden by a lot, some people pay little to no federal taxes but paid lots of local taxes. Even though the GDP in the US in 2020 droved significantly, meaning companies and individuals made less overall, the Federal government collect more taxes for 2020 than they did in 2019, why, the people on the higher end were forced to pay more. This was due to the change in tax laws, notice the people in government are not screaming as much about the rick not paying their fair share.
You are correct someone making $50K paying 10% taxes, which is $5K means more to them than someone making $500K and paying $50K in taxes, however, what you failed to see if the $50K represents 10 people making $50K and that one person taxes does more than the $5k one person is making. You do realize as % of their incoming they both pay 10%, it not the fact that poor are paying more, it is the fact poor people have the same basic living costs which use up the other portion of their income just to live, verse the other person has a lager $ amount of disposable incoming to by other things. But that does not mean the person making $50K should not pay, and they somehow deserve not to share in the burden of the system that supports everyone equally. Remember roads, sidewalk, water and sew system, police, fire, and list goes on has no way to discriminate. However, as soon as the system start picking who should and should not get services or who has to pay taxes the person making the decision can discriminate and it happen more times than not.
BTW, when the Fed does not have enough Tax money to pay for all their great ideas they just have the Treasury print more money, which devalues the currency and make what you buy cost more. This is why Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard for our currency. It did not allow him to print money to pay for all his bad ideas which we still paying for today. This alone make is hard for lower income individual to have better things not how much they get paid.
a flat tax still misses the point (and let's be serious, we are not going to solve this issue here). warren buffet said he paid 12% fed income tax (cannot remember the year) while his secretary paid more. it would not disrupt his lifestyle one iota if he paid 20%, whereas those making 50k (or less) feel it far more and it does impact their lives, especially if they have children. last time was in the states I was taxed 23.5% (total) on 38k. according to the IRS wealthy people are making out like bandits (1 trillion uncollected), they have been using loopholes, and now they just pay less.
you once again appear to attack people who are not paying their fare share and seem to point to those making 50k as opposed to 500k. you do not wag the finger at rich companies or individuals who tax dodge (or use 'legitimate tax avoidance measures' only they can benefit form). if we are going to pick and choose services to miss, then any company not paying tax should also be skipped, perhaps barred from the interstate. not sure anyone can escape sewer and water though.
That can't be right. If this was before Trump tax plan, no way did you pay 23.5% ($8930) of $38K in Fed income in taxes. Not even if that included State income taxes. And it would be less after Trump tax plan.
The marginal tax brackets for a single filer, before Trump, was 10% up to $9275 and 15% from $9275 to $37650 and 25% from $37650 to $91,650 That should come to $5227. ($927 at 10% + $4,256 at 15% + $87.5 at 25%) That's not close to 23.5% of $38K, which would be $8930. I'm assuming the $38K was your taxable income (AGI) after taking your standard deduction of $6000. Which would mean that your effective tax rate should be based on $5227 out of $44K, which would be 12%. (If the $38K was before your standard deduction, then your taxes should only be base on $32K.)
In CA, one of the highest tax State, the taxes on $38K (in 2020) would be
$824.02 plus 6% of the amount over $33,421
or $1099. This would have been slightly less years ago.
So you total taxes on $38K (AGI) should be $5227 + $1099 or $6325.76. For an effective tax rate of both Fed and State taxes paid of no more than 16.6%. Which would probably be about normal for a single filer that don't itemize.
What buffet paid was an effective tax rate that was lower than his secretary. Most of Buffet income are in the form of long term capital gains and qualified dividends, which are taxed at a max of 20%. He only draws a $100K salary. Buffet donates a lot of money to charity every year. I mean A LOT. it's now in the tune of billions of dollars. Since charitable donations are tax deductible, this serves to lower his taxable income and thus his effective tax rate.
Buffet is not cheating anyone, by paying an effective tax rate that is lower than his secretary. Buffet is taxed exactly at the same rate on his $100K salary as anyone else making $100K in income. And his long term capital gains income is taxed exactly at the same rate as everyone else with long term capital gains. And nothing is stopping Buffet from not taking any tax deductions on his charitable donations, if he really feels that bad about it. (Plus he did not specify whether his secretary was filing as a single payer vs him as jointly married.)
Here's a run down on how much taxes the wealthy pays. Based on actual tax data from the IRS. Not some bias, uninformed opinion that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share" because they are cheating by paying a lower tax rate than those that are not considered wealthy.
Seems pretty bonkers that companies can deduct tax paid overseas against their US tax liability to that degree. From a certain perspective the US tax payer is subsidising the tax revenues of other high tax countries. I'm surprised that doesn't get more attention.
You're assuming they actually paid corporate taxes abroad. In many cases they completely avoid doing so by establishing residence in an autonomous location with exceptionally low to no tax obligations whatsoever and shift revenues from the country the sale occurred in to the low tax/no tax entity. See Paradise Papers for an example which is just one of a few schemes. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/08/key-revelations-from-the-paradise-papers
When Apple announces their "effective tax rates" which will of course sound perfectly reasonable it does not mean that's what they actually paid from their coffers of cash. I have little doubt that Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft (along with every big Pharma) employ similar strategies. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issues/corporate-taxes/highlights-of-apples-tax-dodging/
And lest you think Apple already brought home all their overseas held cash, repatriated $250B+ and paying 15% taxes on it, they have not. In fact they may never do so despite a law that presumably requires paying taxes on it. Apple is one of a minority of major companies that in response has stopped reporting overseas cash since the law went into effect, Google /Oracle/Facebook being a few of the others. Verification of the effectiveness of the tax legislation is nigh impossible to discern.
I get all that, but I'm not really talking about it, or about Apple in particular. The simple fact that companies can offset domestic taxes with taxation paid overseas in excess of the US tax rate seem like it should be more controversial. Why is the US tax code compensating for other countries' tax policies, and US companies' operations in those countries? Seems bonkers to me.
Seems pretty bonkers that companies can deduct tax paid overseas against their US tax liability to that degree. From a certain perspective the US tax payer is subsidising the tax revenues of other high tax countries. I'm surprised that doesn't get more attention.
That would be like saying that it's bonkers that home owners can deduct the interest on their home mortgages, their property taxes, along with their State income taxes, from their AGI, to reduce their Federal income tax liability. Even if the deductions drive down their Federal income tax liability to zero. From a certain perspective, renters are subsidizing the income of home owners with mortgages.
Imagine what products made by a US corporation would have to cost overseas, if they had to pay both the corporate tax in the foreign country where their products were sold AND the full US corporate tax, on the profits. Consumers are the ones that eventually pays the corporate taxes, for corporations. US companies would not be able to compete with international companies of other countries, that do not have to pay the full corporate taxes on their foreign profits, in their home countries. You think Apple would be able to compete with Samsung anywhere else in the World, except the US, if this were the case? If the US government were to force US corporations to pay the full US corporate tax rate on all their foreign profits, regardless that they had to pay any foreign corporate taxes, US corporations would be put at a big disadvantage when it comes to competing in countries with high corporate taxes. And if this were the case, US corporations would consider moving their HQ to another country. Much like how many CA businesses are moving their HQ to other States, that are more favorable to businesses.
No, you've misunderstood; what I'm saying is bonkers is how US companies are able to claim a tax credit according to tax paid overseas on tax liabilities in the USA. I don't particularly object to measures to stop double taxation.
I'm not sure that it's possible in personal finances for your state tax deductions to mean that the federal government owe you money.
That can't be right. If this was before Trump tax plan, no way did you pay 23.5% ($8930) of $38K in Fed income in taxes. Not even if that included State income taxes. And it would be less after Trump tax plan.
The marginal tax brackets for a single filer, before Trump, was 10% up to $9275 and 15% from $9275 to $37650 and 25% from $37650 to $91,650 That should come to $5227. ($927 at 10% + $4,256 at 15% + $87.5 at 25%) That's not close to 23.5% of $38K, which would be $8930. I'm assuming the $38K was your taxable income (AGI) after taking your standard deduction of $6000. Which would mean that your effective tax rate should be based on $5227 out of $44K, which would be 12%. (If the $38K was before your standard deduction, then your taxes should only be base on $32K.)
In CA, one of the highest tax State, the taxes on $38K (in 2020) would be
$824.02 plus 6% of the amount over $33,421
or $1099. This would have been slightly less years ago.
So you total taxes on $38K (AGI) should be $5227 + $1099 or $6325.76. For an effective tax rate of both Fed and State taxes paid of no more than 16.6%. Which would probably be about normal for a single filer that don't itemize.
What buffet paid was an effective tax rate that was lower than his secretary. Most of Buffet income are in the form of long term capital gains and qualified dividends, which are taxed at a max of 20%. He only draws a $100K salary. Buffet donates a lot of money to charity every year. I mean A LOT. it's now in the tune of billions of dollars. Since charitable donations are tax deductible, this serves to lower his taxable income and thus his effective tax rate.
Buffet is not cheating anyone, by paying an effective tax rate that is lower than his secretary. Buffet is taxed exactly at the same rate on his $100K salary as anyone else making $100K in income. And his long term capital gains income is taxed exactly at the same rate as everyone else with long term capital gains. And nothing is stopping Buffet from not taking any tax deductions on his charitable donations, if he really feels that bad about it. (Plus he did not specify whether his secretary was filing as a single payer vs him as jointly married.)
Here's a run down on how much taxes the wealthy pays. Based on actual tax data from the IRS. Not some bias, uninformed opinion that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share" because they are cheating by paying a lower tax rate than those that are not considered wealthy.
I know exactly what was taken out, all total was 23.5%, I was never in the States during the last four obama years or any of the trump years. my father was and his taxes went up under trump, not down, and my father is a only a thousandaire. having voted for trump he was annoyed (they only went up a tiny bi). I am not concerned about how much Buffett gave away (glad he does), it was Buffett himself who pondered why his secretary paid more, not me, I was just tossing it in. I also never said Buffett is cheating anyone- just parroting himself. he is ok with uber wealthy paying 30%, including himself. there are clearly tax loopholes as the IRS has said there is about 1T in taxes they cannot get as they are hamstrung in getting them. unless that is a farce too. maybe everyone pays their taxes except the poor stealing. everything is as it should be.
just because a tax dodge is legal does not mean it is not a tax dodge. not all rich or uber rich are dodging taxes, but I think the IRS knows how much is not coming in.
Comments
Actually I am very much an advocate of a flat tax, I feel the tax everyone pays should help everyone, for things like infrastructure. I also believe you do not have right to say how the money is being allocate if you did not pay in. Do you allow your kids in your house tell you allow to allocate house hold income. Everyone should pay a flat amount every year with no deductions. We got half way there with the last tax law, it limited total amount of deductions, you are caped at $24K if married unless you give away lots of my money each year. In the past anyone making a reasonable income could write off a lot more than $24K and reduce their federal tax burden by a lot, some people pay little to no federal taxes but paid lots of local taxes. Even though the GDP in the US in 2020 droved significantly, meaning companies and individuals made less overall, the Federal government collect more taxes for 2020 than they did in 2019, why, the people on the higher end were forced to pay more. This was due to the change in tax laws, notice the people in government are not screaming as much about the rick not paying their fair share.
You are correct someone making $50K paying 10% taxes, which is $5K means more to them than someone making $500K and paying $50K in taxes, however, what you failed to see if the $50K represents 10 people making $50K and that one person taxes does more than the $5k one person is making. You do realize as % of their incoming they both pay 10%, it not the fact that poor are paying more, it is the fact poor people have the same basic living costs which use up the other portion of their income just to live, verse the other person has a lager $ amount of disposable incoming to by other things. But that does not mean the person making $50K should not pay, and they somehow deserve not to share in the burden of the system that supports everyone equally. Remember roads, sidewalk, water and sew system, police, fire, and list goes on has no way to discriminate. However, as soon as the system start picking who should and should not get services or who has to pay taxes the person making the decision can discriminate and it happen more times than not.
BTW, when the Fed does not have enough Tax money to pay for all their great ideas they just have the Treasury print more money, which devalues the currency and make what you buy cost more. This is why Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard for our currency. It did not allow him to print money to pay for all his bad ideas which we still paying for today. This alone make is hard for lower income individual to have better things not how much they get paid.
a flat tax still misses the point (and let's be serious, we are not going to solve this issue here). warren buffet said he paid 12% fed income tax (cannot remember the year) while his secretary paid more. it would not disrupt his lifestyle one iota if he paid 20%, whereas those making 50k (or less) feel it far more and it does impact their lives, especially if they have children. last time was in the states I was taxed 23.5% (total) on 38k. according to the IRS wealthy people are making out like bandits (1 trillion uncollected), they have been using loopholes, and now they just pay less.
you once again appear to attack people who are not paying their fare share and seem to point to those making 50k as opposed to 500k. you do not wag the finger at rich companies or individuals who tax dodge (or use 'legitimate tax avoidance measures' only they can benefit form). if we are going to pick and choose services to miss, then any company not paying tax should also be skipped, perhaps barred from the interstate. not sure anyone can escape sewer and water though.
And every taxpayer should use all their legal deductions, to reduce the taxes they pay. Even if it ends up being zero. It doesn't get more American than that.
Just because a company had billions in revenue, it doesn't mean that they will have any taxable profit.
By far, the biggest contribution any corporation (large and small) can make toward the government tax revenue is the creation of jobs. Income tax and payroll tax accounts for over 85% of the 2020 $3.4T Federal tax revenue. (50% income and 35% payroll) Corporate tax historically contribute about 7%to 9%.
Small businesses accounts for about 64% of new jobs every year. Big corporations on the other hand, accounts for 36% of new jobs every year. But 99.7% of all businesses are "small businesses". Only .3% of all businesses are big corporations. So .3% of all businesses, accounts for 1 in every 3 new jobs every year.
Now of days, over 40% the people working, are working for a big corporation.
https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/article/more-americans-work-at-big-firms-than-small-ones-040717
It is in the best interest of government to make sure that they do not tax big businesses, out of business. Losing the corporate tax is nothing, compared to losing the income and payroll taxes, when a big corporation goes out of business.
Here's an interesting perspective from the liberal media, "The Atlantic"
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/learning-to-love-big-business/554096/
share holder, Cook is worth every penny
not a political statement but a factual one.
it is legal because the law makes it so, but there is quite a lot of money dodging taxes. but, we also do not know the waste in gov't- and I am far more concerned about that.
So long as Amazon (and other global US corporations) do not spend their overseas profits in the US, those profits are not subject to US corporate tax. Those profits are taxed by the foreign countries, where the profits were made. And those taxes paid on profits to foreign countries, are deducted from any US taxes owe, if they were to bring those profits into the US.
Now with the lowering of US corporate rate to 21%, a whole bunch of countries all of a sudden has a higher corporate tax rate than the US. Some of these would be
Brazil 34%, Japan 30.6%, Australia 30%, Mexico 30%, Philippines 30%, Canada 26.5%, France 26.5%, China 25%, S. Korea 25/%
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corporate-tax-rate
What this means is that profits made in countries with a higher that 21% corporate tax rate would not be subject to any US taxes if they were to brought into the US. In fact, they might get a tax credit, if they bring foreign profits where they paid a higher than 21% tax rate, back into the US. When the corporate tax rate was at 35% (not including any State corporate taxes), at least some US taxes were owed on most foreign profits that were bought back into the US. The average global corporate tax is about 25%. Which was why many corporation left their foreign profits in oversea accounts, when the US corporate tax rate was 35% (plus any State corporate taxes), if they didn't need to spend it in the US. This is not a loophole. This is clearly spelled out in US corporate tax laws.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-current-system-international-taxation-work
No way should any US global corporations, for example, have to pay France 25% of the profit they make there and then have to pay another 21% US corporate tax on it, whether they bring those profits into the US or not.
Most articles that claims that some very profitable US corporations do not pay any US taxes, don't understand how international taxation works. (or they do but explaining it would defeat their purpose for writing such an article.) Notice they never say that these corporations don't pay "any taxes", on profits. In fact most foreign countries do not tax foreign corporate profits made outside their borders, at all. Which makes sense. These countries want their corporations to spend all their profits, at home. Penalizing their home corporations for spending their foreign profits at home would make very little sense. But yet, the US will penalize US corporations for spending foreign profits, back here in the US, by making sure those profits are taxed at the US rate.
The history behind this goes back to when there were very few international corporations in the US. Back then (mid-century), the fear was that large US international corporations like GM, GE, IBM, Boeing, DuPont, Dow Chemicals, etc.., would use foreign profits that were taxed at a low foreign rate, to unfairly compete with US companies that only had a presence in the US and must pay US corporate tax rate. To level the playing field, the US tax all foreign profits at the US corporate rate (minus any foreign taxes paid on those profits), if they were spent in the US. But now of days, nearly all corporations, large and small, are or can be, international. The internet has leveled the playing field. Plus the US corporate tax rate has dropped from over 50% (in the 50's and 60's) to 21% now.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/08/key-revelations-from-the-paradise-papers
They also use "transfer pricing" strategies to artificially raise costs in say Australia so that there's little paper profit to be had, even if in actuality it might amount to hundreds of $millions.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/transfer-pricing/
When Apple announces their "effective tax rates" which will of course sound perfectly reasonable it does not mean that's what they actually paid from their coffers of cash. I have little doubt that Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft (along with every big Pharma) employ similar strategies.
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issues/corporate-taxes/highlights-of-apples-tax-dodging/
And lest you think Apple already brought home all their overseas held cash, repatriated $250B+ and paying 15% taxes on it, they have not. In fact they may never do so despite a law that presumably requires paying taxes on it. Apple is one of a minority of major companies that in response has stopped reporting overseas cash since the law went into effect, Google /Oracle/Facebook being a few of the others. Verification of the effectiveness of the tax legislation is nigh impossible to discern.
Imagine what products made by a US corporation would have to cost overseas, if they had to pay both the corporate tax in the foreign country where their products were sold AND the full US corporate tax, on the profits. Consumers are the ones that eventually pays the corporate taxes, for corporations. US companies would not be able to compete with international companies of other countries, that do not have to pay the full corporate taxes on their foreign profits, in their home countries. You think Apple would be able to compete with Samsung anywhere else in the World, except the US, if this were the case? If the US government were to force US corporations to pay the full US corporate tax rate on all their foreign profits, regardless that they had to pay any foreign corporate taxes, US corporations would be put at a big disadvantage when it comes to competing in countries with high corporate taxes. And if this were the case, US corporations would consider moving their HQ to another country. Much like how many CA businesses are moving their HQ to other States, that are more favorable to businesses.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporateinversion.asp
The marginal tax brackets for a single filer, before Trump, was 10% up to $9275 and 15% from $9275 to $37650 and 25% from $37650 to $91,650 That should come to $5227.
($927 at 10% + $4,256 at 15% + $87.5 at 25%) That's not close to 23.5% of $38K, which would be $8930. I'm assuming the $38K was your taxable income (AGI) after taking your standard deduction of $6000. Which would mean that your effective tax rate should be based on $5227 out of $44K, which would be 12%. (If the $38K was before your standard deduction, then your taxes should only be base on $32K.)
In CA, one of the highest tax State, the taxes on $38K (in 2020) would be
$824.02 plus 6% of the amount over $33,421
So you total taxes on $38K (AGI) should be $5227 + $1099 or $6325.76. For an effective tax rate of both Fed and State taxes paid of no more than 16.6%. Which would probably be about normal for a single filer that don't itemize.
What buffet paid was an effective tax rate that was lower than his secretary. Most of Buffet income are in the form of long term capital gains and qualified dividends, which are taxed at a max of 20%. He only draws a $100K salary. Buffet donates a lot of money to charity every year. I mean A LOT. it's now in the tune of billions of dollars. Since charitable donations are tax deductible, this serves to lower his taxable income and thus his effective tax rate.
Buffet is not cheating anyone, by paying an effective tax rate that is lower than his secretary. Buffet is taxed exactly at the same rate on his $100K salary as anyone else making $100K in income. And his long term capital gains income is taxed exactly at the same rate as everyone else with long term capital gains. And nothing is stopping Buffet from not taking any tax deductions on his charitable donations, if he really feels that bad about it. (Plus he did not specify whether his secretary was filing as a single payer vs him as jointly married.)
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/338189
https://marketrealist.com/p/how-much-has-warren-buffett-donated/
Here's a run down on how much taxes the wealthy pays. Based on actual tax data from the IRS. Not some bias, uninformed opinion that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share" because they are cheating by paying a lower tax rate than those that are not considered wealthy.
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
I'm not sure that it's possible in personal finances for your state tax deductions to mean that the federal government owe you money.
I am not concerned about how much Buffett gave away (glad he does), it was Buffett himself who pondered why his secretary paid more, not me, I was just tossing it in. I also never said Buffett is cheating anyone- just parroting himself. he is ok with uber wealthy paying 30%, including himself.
there are clearly tax loopholes as the IRS has said there is about 1T in taxes they cannot get as they are hamstrung in getting them. unless that is a farce too. maybe everyone pays their taxes except the poor stealing. everything is as it should be.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/GLRRZ2021.pdf
just because a tax dodge is legal does not mean it is not a tax dodge. not all rich or uber rich are dodging taxes, but I think the IRS knows how much is not coming in.