Elizabeth Warren Told Elon Musk To 'Actually Pay Taxes' and 'Stop Freeloading Off Everyone Else'
Musk responded that he will pay more in taxes this year than any other American in history.

Tesla CEO and world's richest person Elon Musk, who has an estimated net worth of $251 billion, was denounced yesterday by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), who has long been in showy pursuit of getting millionaires and billionaires to pay their "fair share."
Time had just named Musk its Person of the Year, so Warren tweeted: "Let's change the rigged tax code so The Person of the Year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else." Musk tried a few different responses on for size, including "You remind me of when I was a kid and my friend's angry Mom would just randomly yell at everyone for no reason," "Please don't call the manager on me, Senator Karen," and then "Don't spend it all at once … oh wait you did already."
And if you opened your eyes for 2 seconds, you would realize I will pay more taxes than any American in history this year
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 14, 2021
Musk's best response was to counter the claim that he won't pay taxes this year—a common talking point from those who won't acknowledge that many ultra-rich founders and CEOs accrue such high net worths not via traditional salaries alone (or in some cases at all) but via a mix of stock options, capital gains, interests, dividends, and business income. Though Musk did not pay federal income taxes back in 2018 (because he took out loans against Tesla shares), he will be on the hook to pay an extreme amount this year: potentially between $9 billion and $10 billion, if he exercises soon-to-expire stock options.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Musk
faces an August deadline to convert roughly 22.9 million vested stock options into shares or let them expire worthless, according to a regulatory filing. He would need about $143 million to exercise those options, and could owe more than $9 billion in federal income and Medicare taxes upon exercising them.
Under California law, Mr. Musk also likely would face a sizable state tax burden because exercised options are treated as compensation partly earned in the state while he lived there.
Though outlets like ProPublica engage in a fair bit of finger-wagging on the matter, many of the ways ultra-rich people avoid paying extremely high tax bills are perfectly legal. And many uber-wealthy people, armed with financial advisers, do all kinds of things that "working rich" and upper-middle-class people don't: They use low-interest loans backed by their portfolios to borrow money to live on; they decide when to sell stocks based off how much they'll be dinged by capital gains taxes; they find all kinds of assets where they can park their wealth or transfer it from generation to generation without having to give a huge cut to the federal government.
While Warren was hectoring Musk for failing to "actually pay taxes," 61 percent of Americans (roughly 100 million households) actually, for real, didn't pay federal income taxes last year. Now, last year was a bit anomalous due to high unemployment and the stimulus checks, but the number typically hovers somewhere between 40 and 47 percent, comprised by people who make low incomes, take advantage of child-related tax credits, or are elderly. And roughly 20 percent of Americans end up paying neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes.
The Tax Foundation noted that in 2018, the top 25 percent of taxpayers paid 87 percent of total federal income taxes. The top 1 percent pony up roughly 40 percent of total federal income taxes. Warren's spending priorities are largely bankrolled by the richest people in America—to the extent that they're bankrolled at all, as opposed to being added to the exorbitant national debt. Part of her critique is fair: Musk's use of government subsidies does constitute freeloading off the American taxpayers. But the rest is somewhere between misleading and dishonest.
"The government is inherently not a good steward of capital," Musk told Time for its Person of the Year profile. Regrettably, Musk will likely be forking over a handsome sum this year to the very people he has correctly identified as people unlikely to spend it well.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Said the woman who is on the government payroll and produces nothing.
Hot Air and the occasional beerfart ain't "nothing".
Yes, you have just validated my thoughts! I now produce something ! Thanks to nachtwaechter, my beerfarts count!
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me... They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500... Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet...Read all about it here... READ MORE
Progressives project their own indequicies on to others. Its how the cope.
Fauxcahontas is an odious, ungrateful tax-dependent parasite.
-jcr
Fuck Pocahonntas
Fuck Joe Biden
Someone stick a salami in her mouth to plug her whining maw.
JMJ she acts like Killary.
Speaking of, heres Bill Clintons favorite song:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=08YDuzJy-Zo
I am making a good salary from home $1300-$2600/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and ADq now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
Here is what I do…. …………….. Visit Here
At least Elon works. Warren remains another pontificating political “poser”. By the way, I have more Native American ancestry than her “highness”!
The taxpayers have footed the bill for her living her entire adult life.
I have a " foot" for her...A Red Foreman " Foot in the Ass."
Gaslighting charlie uniform nancy tango
But has a net worth of around $12 million.
Said the woman who WILDLY SUPPORTED subsidizing musk's business. Ya; Democrats REALLY ARE -- THAT STUPID.
Another good response would be "You're the legislature, you decide how much I pay in taxes."
Do they really expect people to pay more in taxes than they are legally obliged to? If rich people not paying enough taxes is a problem (which it isn't), then it's a problem caused entirely by the legislature and scolding the super-rich for complying with the tax laws is pretty ridiculous.
The argument is they're rich and they're manipulating the system, and Senators and Congressbitches are put upon by the wealthy.
Well, it's still congress's problem to fix (if it's a problem).
They'll get right on it, after they blow through another 2.5 trillion.
Not while Congress is under the nefarious manipulations of rich people like Elon Musk.
They created the system. If it's being manipulated, it's their fault.
People go into government to be corrupt and make a nice life for themselves and their families. The error people make is thinking politicians are honest but naive people tempted by business and the rich.
But corruption is not an unfortunate side effect. It is government working as intended, as designed. It is anything beneficial that is the accidental side effect.
it's a problem caused entirely by the legislature...
More like an incompetent IRS. Look how they failed to find any wrongs in Mr. Trumps returns. The fix is to hire significantly more tax lawyers and accountants to scrutinize everyone's finances the way Trump's and the Teaparty's were.
What was trump guilty of?
He was guilty of hurting their feelings.
He was guilty of something wasn't he? Why else do we need to see his returns?
If Trump was "guilty" of something on his tax returns, some Liberal Public Sector Union employee would have leaked it. The media knew that there was nothing there and that Trump couldn't release them because of legal issues. That let them run with the innuendo of there being something illegal on his returns. that last thing that the MSM wanted was for him to release his returns.
There needen't be illegality, just embarrassing things to hut him with, such as he ain't all that rich, or uses insane but legal amounts of loopholes.
But that's exactly why the 4th Amendment exists -- to stop the king from filching through their opponent's papers at will to find something, anything, to tag him with.
Most rich have their fingers in many pies, and close scrutiny can probably turn up something or other, like a cop following you around waiting for a moving violation.
But not only are you supposed to have a warrant, you are not supposed to single out political opponents or other uppity people to investigate in the first place.
"Insane" would be using any number of loopholes less than all that are available.
Who doesn't take every advantage they can in tax preparation?
It's like people bitching because Musk took advantage of subsidies and tax breaks. Those are available as an incentive to do things. When they work as intended why blame him?
For the wealthy, it's next to impossible to determine how rich they are from income tax return because so much wealth doesn't show up as income until it becomes a realized capital gain. If someone becomes the sole owner of a $50 million dollar hotel, they only pay income taxes on the money the profits of the hotel, even if the hotel increases in value (thus increasing their wealth) by $10 million every year since they bought it.
We'll decide what he was doing after an illegal search.
""You're the legislature, you decide how much I pay in taxes.""
I don't think that is a great argument, because that is exactly what Warren is calling for. She is saying "It's time for you to pay your fair share, that's why I am pushing this wealth tax." The last thing Musk should do is say, "Well, you are the legislature so get started." He SHOULD be saying, "Go smoke a peace pipe, bitch. I gave at the office already. How much have you paid?"
The consequences of Warren’s wealth tax would be devastating for the US. Musk would be fine, however.
That’s the point Musk has been trying to make: “Do you want me to sell some more stock? Just say the word.”
Well, it wasn't meant to be an argument so much as a retort. Why are you scolding rich people, they don't make tax laws?
"Please don't call the manager on me, Senator Karen," and then "Don't spend it all at once … oh wait you did already."
Alpha as fuck.
Those twats are too used to rebuttals to their bullshit written by lawyers and published as press releases. They hated Trump for this too.
Elon gets banned by Twitter-DNC in 3... 2... 1...
I try my best to avoid taxes: with all this talk against deficit spending, I have to do my part to fight austerity.
All driven by envy.
What we need to make people aware of, is that people like Musk create wealth. Things in existence that wouldn't have been without their efforts.
Warren on the other hand only creates bitchy tweets and roadblocks to people like Musk.
This needs to be yelled out at the top of our lungs regularly
Indeed. People like to talk as if rich people's wealth is somehow just sitting there not doing any good. If you really want to fuck up the economy, try confiscating the wealth of billionaires. All of which would hardly make a dent in the national debt. And wouldn't even pay for a year of spending at this point.
The sad thing is that so many people equate money with wealth. Like someone worth a million bucks has a million bucks. A millionaire can be cash poor. Fucking broke. They've got to sell something to buy dinner. Because wealth isn't money.
I wish more people would learn that distinction.
A million bucks ain't that much anymore either.
A million here, a million there, eventually it all adds up to real money.
Thank you, Senator Dirksen.
Yet you support the people who don’t and rail at the people who do.
Additionally he got the wealth by producing things people want.
I traded Elon a pile of cash for a Powerwall believing it will make my standard of living better. I think I'm right.
We need to get people to understand this type of transaction is fundamental to capitalism. Removing incentives by stealing profit harms the incentives until the whole system falls apart.
I believe capitalism has done more good, for more people, than any other thing in history. These people are crippling this system and they either don't know, or don't care. Either way, they need to be called on it.
I believe capitalism has done more good, for more people, than any other thing in history.
Yup.
Even Bono came around to that fact.
After he hit that tree.
Incorporate him into the old ‘George of the Jungle’ theme song.
"Tree, I hit tree babe."
There are contributors and freeloaders at every income level. Being rich or poor has little to do with it.
Speaking of Twitter-DNC, Sqrlsy's special editorial protections are still dynamite;
Twitter to Penalize Users Who Claim Vaccinated People Can Spread Covid-19
However, it looks like Twitter is going to have to ban those kooky conspiracy theorists at the CDC just to keep the Democratic Party narrative chugging along.
CDC report shows vaccinated people can spread COVID-19
Muh pRivAtE c0mpaNy.
Elizabeth continues her warren the US against the wealthy.
But the wealthy just owned her on Twitter. (Fortunately, she's worthless, so that won't increase their tax bill).
Where did this bitch come from? You would think there'd have been some sort of warrening
It's a Red Herring.
What are you Squaw king about?
"It does not make sense to take the job of capital allocation away from people who have demonstrated great skill in capital allocation and give it to an entity that has demonstrated very poor skill in capital allocation, which is the government" E. Musk
Dec 7, 2021
Pretty sure he double majored in economics and physics. He knows what's up. Masshole in pastels? Not so much.
If you just give them more they can allocate it better.
No they can't.
"But the rest is somewhere between misleading and dishonest."
To be fair, that is her Native habitat.
+1 percent native american dna.
She must have had an indian in her at some point!
HAHa!
She has certainly accrued more power and influence than is Warren-ted. If the US economy stalls, you’ll know the culprit—Injun Trouble!
Meet Kevin Paffrath@realMeetKevin
The more I dig on @SenWarren aka #SenatorKaren, the more I laugh. She complains that @elonmusk takes too many energy credits, yet WHAT'S THIS!!!
Oh, it's Elizabeth Warren's 2018 tax return with a $46,452 solar system and $13,936 in TAX credits.
Me thinks thou protests too much
https://twitter.com/realMeetKevin/status/1470935199110230018
Unfortunately this makes no difference to the envy crowd.
To them the only way a rich person can prove that they've paid their "fair share" is to not be rich anymore.
That of course depends on politics. It's ok for someone with correct politics to be rich.
They are like incels.
Unfortunately for them, pussy is the one thing that will never be socialized.
Not until we have convincing Sexbots.
I think the White House press secretary still needs some work.
Mute button?
Jacking On!
That does not stop them from trying since at least the French Revolution.
Pay more taxes so someone else can freeload off you.
...many of the ways ultra-rich people avoid paying extremely high tax bills are perfectly legal.
The only reason any of you get to keep money is through loopholes in Warren's grand scheme.
But Congress could always jettison all of the US Tax Code and its credits, deductions and carve-outs and enact a simple, one page flat tax or a national sales tax. The thing is, they will never get rid of the tax code because that's how they socially engineer and buy votes (especially those of tax accountants).
Or, again, a death tax. The country was founded against hereditary succession. You don't actually get taxed for anything you're using or producing when you're using or producing it. An auditor shows up at their office at the IRS once every ~70 yrs. Congress, nominally, has to wait ~70 yrs. to get money to spend. "Death and taxes" becomes a more tangible axiom more accurately equating taxation with death. We wind up disincentivizing, what?, dying within the US?
"Or, again, a death tax."
I have seen too many family businesses, farms and ranches devastated by this for me to endorse. And it usually results in further concentration of wealth, rather than the disbursement of it.
"The country was founded against hereditary succession"
There wasn't a single founding father (to my knowledge) that argued a parent should not pass on their property to their children. Feel free to correct me, but I think you are conflating "succession of political power" with "succession of personal property".
The hereditary succession that was not to be part of the new republic was of title and rank, not property.
Yeah, that is what I mean by "succession of political power".
Sorry, mine was supposed to be responding to made.case
Now do The Whiskey Rebellion.
"And it usually results in further concentration of wealth, rather than the disbursement of it."
In case it wasn't clear to others, what I mean here is this:
Mom and dad build a bakery over their lives. The bakery is modest, earning a good 100 - 200k per year for their two children. Not "chalet on the riviera" but a decent income. But- bakeries being what they are- it is actually a pretty capital intensive business. Industrial mixing machinery and ovens, and warehouse space, plus distribution. All in all, this company is valued at $4-$5 Million. Now these two kids who are earning $200k TOTAL off the business, have to come up with ~$2 Million.
Where the fuck are they going to find that?
They are going to find that by selling their company for $4 Million to a big corporate conglomerate. Or selling a share of the company to the same. This is increasing the concentration of wealth.
And that is Warren's (and her fellow travelers') tax code.
Damn her, and "Let's go Brandon!"
Uh, you're arguing against taxation, not the method by which they're collected. You don't even compare two methods.
Using your numbers $2M/$5M is a 40% tax rate. So,
Option A: Mom and Dad make $100-200K per annum.
Option B: Mom and Dad $60K-120K, after taxes, per annum.
-Over ~50 yrs. Mom and Dad will make over $2M-$4M more than they otherwise would have. Where, oh where, will they come up with the ~$2M?
But wait! There's more!
Again at the 40% flat rate:
Option A: 2 Kids take corporate jobs when they're 20 and their parents are 40. They make $100K per annum.
Option B: 2 Kids take corporate jobs when they're 20 and their parents are 40. They make $60K, after taxes, per annum.
-Over 30 yrs. *each kid* will make ~$1.2M more. Where, oh where, will they come up with the extra $2M?
But wait! There's more!
Assuming it costs $10K to hire an tax attorney and/or IRS auditor for a 1 day audit:
Option A: $10K at year 0, $10K at year 70, $20K.
Option B: $10K at every year between 0 and 70, $710K.
But wait! There's more!
Since the tax auditing/collection only costs $20K rather than $710K, the government doesn't technically need the extra $690K or, more likely, can spend it elsewhere. More critically, it's not an argument against the death tax because the government was going to take the $2M either way.
But wait! There's more!
Unlike the UBI ideas where the government spends on top of spending, nobody realistically can opt in or out either way, the government borrows money from the children to pay their parents, and the government ends up rewarding people to not work... a death tax has a readily feasible means of phasing in: pay your flat tax whenever you want. It doesn't cost anything extra to not pay your taxes until after you're dead. It doesn't give the government more spending de facto. It arguably only "punishes" dead people who didn't have kids, borrowing their money to tax children less.
I absolutely agree that the idea could and would get butchered in committee, ground into sausage, and sold as filet mignon at market prices. That's not the point. FoE wishes for a one-page, flat sale or income tax with few/no carveouts. A less-frequent tax saves everyone more time and money (making them all, even the collectors, more free) inherently. Assuming 'no tax ever' is out, 'taxed once, at birth or death' is the next most logistically affordable option (assuming a one-page, flat code). The actual rate doesn't matter because it's inherently cheaper to do it less often. I can see how both living kids and parents would oppose being taxed for their life at birth could be conceptualized as a form of slavery, but taxing a corpse after death?
The only reason to tax people every year or every transaction is either because you need the money right *now*, you really like fucking with people, or both.
The actual rate doesn't matter because it's inherently cheaper to do it less often.
I should say, doesn't matter *as much*. Yes, a 90% death tax would be brutally oppressive relative to a 5% sales tax but, logistically, a 21% death tax would/could be cheaper than a 20% sales/income tax because the 20% vs. 20% numbers would be more efficient.
Liberty-wise it really is the next best option to "pay whatever taxes you like".
And it usually results in further concentration of wealth, rather than the disbursement of it.
"Enemy of the good" - The government taking anything is a consolidation of power. I'm clearly not eliminating the taking, I presume that's off the table. Analogously/derivatively, I'm assuming the rate is unchanged. A 20% death tax unequivocally consolidates more power than a 1% sales tax. With those given parameters, a death tax minimizes the overhead *and* the day-to-day intrusiveness on the taking relative to annual income, sales tax, etc., etc.
There wasn't a single founding father (to my knowledge) that argued a parent should not pass on their property to their children. Feel free to correct me, but I think you are conflating "succession of political power" with "succession of personal property".
Pretty sure every last one of them advocated that a king not be able to grant his lands to his sons. Pretty sure every last one of them regarded kings as unexceptional to ordinary men. Admittedly, I'm extrapolating, but that doesn't change the coordinates of the given points.
Billionaires create trusts and corporations and then arrange for their heirs to control them in perpetuity. They never pay significant inheritance taxes.
The people bearing the highest tax burden are people in the top few percent of income earners and small businesses, not the wealthy.
And that’s exactly how Warren and Biden like it.
Wait, you actually want to give the government a real financial incentive in people dying? This could backfire...
Only if old geezers spend too much of their kid's money and then try putting them in charge of paying the tab. Otherwise, slaughtering everyone under the age of 18 to get their parent's comparatively larger estate when they die sooner really puts all kinds of dampers on the length of your political career.
Not to mention, I see lots of potential downsides to the widespread belief that the government is here to make your life longer, better, and happier too.
Even the Tariff of 1930, bristling with forfeiture and libel language, is a slim booklet anyone can understand. And individuals are rarely targeted by tariff acts except in furtherance of prohibitionist superstition.
You forgot to mention the Comstock Act and the Gee Oh Pee.
Senator Karen making noise.
She's trying to send smoke signals to her tribe, and they're saying "Somebody go see what the white bitch is doing before she burns the whole place down."
And yet NBC is playing over and over again how Fox news folks were sending out texts to the Trump admin to send out a tweet to tell the rioters in in the capital to leave...and the news is? I'm sure Reason will be all over this..ha ha
And I'm sure Warren takes advantage of every tax loophole she can.
Remember that huge news story several weeks ago about how the rich were dodging taxes? It disappeared faster than news on mass-casualty SUV crashes in Wisconsin once they realized most of the people dodging taxes were various government leaders around the world.
Musk and every other billionaire could donate their entire wealth to the US government and it wouldn't cover the deficit for a single year. People don't understand how much the government spends and how big the deficit is. The idea that it can be addressed by a handful of people paying a few billion more is ridiculous, but attacking someone else gives the idiot leftists their two minutes of hate.
Europeans understand. That's why they tax the middle and lower classes way, way more than we do.
Yup, that is why every time someone pines openly for nordic social benefits, my first words are generally, "Why do you hate the middle class so much?"
My host family, when I spent a year studying abroad in Denmark, was in an income tax bracket of approximately 70%. They were upper middle-class, and lived in a nice townhome with a small yard. They had one car.
Of course, that was 21 years ago. I think the tax rate has actually gone down in most of Scandinavia since then.
Yes, though not much.
European socialists are adults willing to discuss the trade offs. American socialists are children who pretend none of their policies have any cost at all.
Socialism only works in Europe because of decades of indoctrination and widespread ignorance.
Socialism delivers less anywhere its tried. But the discrepancy is greater in America because our left doesn't care about service delivery. The resulting incompetence depresses performance even further than central planning does alone.
Sorry, but “works” I just meant “doesn’t provoke violent rebellion”.
It doesn’t “work” in delivering on its promises.
...and lack of firearm ownership.
Christ, what a cunt.
I prefer See You Next Tuesday, but yeah. No argument here.
Warren, nee Red Herring, Backs Expanding Supreme Court.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/12/15/sen-warren-backs-expanding-supreme-court-heres-where-the-effort-stands-now/?sh=7061b8e25d87
61 percent of Americans (roughly 100 million households) actually, for real, didn't pay federal income taxes last year.
Only if you suffer from the delusion that Social Security and Medicare taxes are not taxes.
the number typically hovers somewhere between 40 and 47 percent, comprised by people who make low incomes…
Simply having a low income does not qualify someone for tax breaks. You must also qualify for earned income credits or dependent exemptions. Low income workers without dependents who don’t qualify for the earned income credit are on the hook for the full 10% or 12% after the personal exemption and standard deduction, as well as the Social Security and Medicare taxes, which makes them among the most heavily taxed Americans as a percentage of income.
Retired seniors also pay taxes on Social Security and pay Medicare premiums.
"Individuals with a combined income between $25,000 and $34,000 are taxed on 50% of their Social Security benefit.
If your combined income exceeds $34,000, 85% of your Social Security income could be taxable."
The rates haven't been changed since this was implemented during the Reagan years.
Also Medicare Premiums have risen this year.
Social Security and Medicare are not federal income taxes; that point is simply not debatable.
Low income earners also get much more out of social security and Medicare than they pay in, while high income earners get stiffed.
Social Security and Medicare are federal income taxes; debating that point is retarded.
Nope.
Your plaid pants are in the mail.
Perhaps you are trying to say that there are like a federal income tax. True. There are lots of other things that are.
It is however “retarded” to argue that there “are” federal income taxes because that is plainly false, according to the law and the IRS.
Low income earners also get much more out of social security and Medicare than they pay in, while high income earners get stiffed.
Numbers?
As an example, I've compared my wife and my Social Security statements. Over our lifetime, I've put in 26 times as much in FICA deductions and the matching employer contributions. Now that we're retired, I get payments 5 times as large as she would be entitled to on her own account. (Instead, as my spouse she gets half as much as me - and spends most of my share, too.)
So it looks to me like SS retirement pay is about 20% based on your contributions and 80% welfare - although it's not enough welfare for someone who retired from a lifetime of part time and intermittent minimum wage jobs to actually live on.
Even if you've worked a lifetime at full-time, decent paying jobs, it's not enough to live on.
Go look them up yourself.
"61 percent of Americans (roughly 100 million households) actually, for real, didn't pay federal income taxes last year"
Thatcoincides with how many are unemployed in Joes Socialist Nirvanah.
"One cross each, line on the left"
Eh, freedom for me. They said I hadn't done anything, so I could go free and live on an island somewhere.
"1 percent of Americans (roughly 100 million households) actually, for real, didn't pay federal income taxes last year.
"Only if you suffer from the delusion that Social Security and Medicare taxes are not taxes.
First, the original quote *specifically* said federal income taxes, which Social Security and Medicare taxes are specifically not (payroll taxes are not considered to be personal income taxes). So the original was trying to be specific, and you're trying to conflate apples and oranges and make some sort of complaint.
Second, the EITC is designed to *offset* those payroll taxes. To the point where some 25% of households pay zero or even negative combined income and payroll taxes.
So 46% or so in "normal" years pay no federal income tax, 25% *also* pay no payroll taxes (or worse, have negative combined income and payroll taxes when their EITC and other refundable tax credits exceed their income tax and payroll tax liabilities).
But because they "paid" those taxes then got other credits to offset them later, they *will* be eligible for the benefit later, proving more and more that SS is little more than a ponzi-structured welfare scheme.
Holy god. Social security and medicare are income taxes, but only are used to help pay your way for two specific programs.
You pay no income taxes to help fund general government.
This is the primary bitch of the 51% from a few years back. You vote for all this spending, but pay nothing to support it.
Yes, the middle class is grossly undertaxed in this country in light of the level of government services they demand.
Liawatha thinking she's Ilhan Omar is cute.
He should throw in a "you disingenuous cunt" at the end of his tweets at her.
nah, but it would be nice if #SenatorKaren would trend
https://ahlmasr.net/
The true freeloaders are the ones demanding and collecting taxes, not the ones paying them or refusing to pay them.
First comes success. Then comes parasitic growth around it. The parasitic growth then claims it is the cause of the success.
It'd be easier to like Musk if his business wasn't subsidized by the fed and state governments.
Welcome to the real world.
I have no problem with someone who takes advantage of the tax code. We all do it.
According to the president, the income tax is voluntary.
Kewl!
I'll tell my account to just put request at full refund this year.
Are you Wesley snipes?
"I have no problem with someone who takes advantage of the tax code. We all do it."
Me neither, but Tesla existed for many years by selling the surplus e-car certs to other car companies and his factory in Fremont CA was largely a gift courtesy of Pelosi and the Fremont city government.
Crony 'capitalism' if there ever was such a thing.
Nobody stopped anybody else from doing it.
It isn't crony capitalism so much as giving a pass against confiscatory costs to prevent them from going elsewhere, or "to help the economy", which wouldn't need it but for the corruption to begin with.
Politicians live for these free passes around their own nut-kicking.
Given how much his businesses depend on government, you have to admire that he picks fights with government officials.
Well she's been a professor and then a politician. So, she does have a lot of life experience when it comes to freeloading.
Congress wrote the tax code. Warren helped "rig" the very thing she's complaining about. Bottom line, Warren is fundamentally dishonest person who is filled with envy and rage.
Will no one save her from her choices?
Shes a Dirty Rigger...
Karl Marx, Edward Bellamy, William Jennings Bryan and Richard Milhous Nixon wrote the U.S. tax code.
Yes, they all got together in Elvis's secret cave.
Er, yeah....
Sorry about that America. (Again)
Love,
Massachusetts
What's she complaining about? Congress makes the tax laws, the wealthy contribute to their campaigns and thereby influence those, and all other laws. Quelle surprise
Anyone know what 'fair share' of Sen Warren's income she paid?
Welcome to commie America
The wealthy contribute to campaigns, sure. The thing to realize is politicians are not disinterested do gooders twisted by bribes.
They are corruption incarnate, who go into politics to be corrupt and become bribed. They are the lead on the bribery two-step, not the tempted innocent Bambis.
Around the world, you go into politics to be corrupt and make a nice life for yourself and your family.
Politicians are pretty careful with their taxes, for optics. I think Sowell wrote about how they strategize their tax payments with PR in mind the whole time.
Why hasn't the corporate media qualified Sen. Warren's dumbassery by prefacing her comments with "without any evidence" or "with no proof"? They seemed to have those phrases at the ready from 2016-2020.
Because the corporate media like Warren’s policies.
Just a few notes:
If I'm understanding what they said about his stock options correctly, Elon Musk could be "on the hook" for $9-10 billion in federal taxes because he could spend $143 million to exercise stock options worth about $22 billion. (22.9 million shares - Tesla's stock closed at $975.99 today) I don't have $143 million lying around, but that certainly sounds like a good deal. Where can I go to turn $143 into $22,000?
Liz Wolfe pointed out how the ultra-wealthy have all kinds of ways to avoid taxes that us stiffs working for a paycheck simply don't have. Yes, they are legal. (Assuming that they aren't cheating and getting away with it, but then, why would they when they are that rich and avoiding taxes so well legally?) But isn't that Sen. Warren's point? If Musk's net worth is $251 billion, how much in federal taxes has he paid in total over his adult life? That might be an interesting figure to know.
Also of note is how Liz Wolfe pointed out that (in normal years) between 40 and 47% of federal tax filers owe no federal income tax. She notes that this is due to some combination of low income and various credits, like child tax credits and the Earned Income credit. She further states that around 20% will owe no federal taxes all, including payroll taxes. (Or that a net refund from refundable credits would cancel payroll taxes they paid.) Okay, that is true. But that is because those people are fucking poor. And they will still pay state and local taxes, gasoline taxes (state and federal), and some goods that they buy were subject to taxes whose cost was passed on to them, like tariffs.
Look, we all want to believe in a meritocracy. We have this vision of America as the land of opportunity, where hard work and ingenuity pays off. But the reality is that such merit is probably not even most of the difference between the wealthy and the poor. A lot of it is luck. Being at the right place at the right time to have opportunity knock in the first place. Or, simply being born into the right family, with the resources to offer you the education that will allow you to reach your full potential, and possibly even the connections to help you start that business with advantages no one else would have. And then, once you are already wealthy, it is just so much easier to increase that wealth further.
Yeah and a lot of life is due to the decisions you make.
I know we don’t live in a meritocracy. My question is: are we supposed to? Is that the point of taxes? As in, if everyone’s life wasn’t due to luck at all, then much taxes would we pay?
I’m glad we don’t live in a meritocracy. If you can. Ring a skill to market and convince someone to pay you for it, then you can making a living that way without having to prove to the world that you “deserve” it based on “merit”, whatever that is and whoever decides that.
That’s a feature, not a bug.
Where can I go to turn $143 into $22,000?
Easy. Invest all your money in a small company and work for no pay for ten years turning it into a trillion dollar enterprise , then the board will award you stock options if you hit certain financial milestones.
" If Musk's net worth is $251 billion, how much in federal taxes has he paid in total over his adult life? That might be an interesting figure to know."
A person's worth has nothing to do with Federal Taxes. Because worth isn't the same as income. Can you spend worth? No. Because to spend it, you have to sell it (income) which brings taxes.
Let's say I work my ass off every day of my life, to develop a company. That company pays me $50,000 a year and is now worth a Billion Dollars. I don't pay taxes on that company because that company isn't income. I am only LIVING on $50,000 per year.
Can I take a loan against the value of the company? Sure. But that loan still needs to be paid back. And how do I pay it back? By earning income that gets taxed before I can pay it back. All my loan did was defer my taxation to a later period in my life.
That is why people like Warren are so insidious. Musk's "Worth" isn't a boon to him. It is a boon to the world. He can't eat options. He can't spend equity. The people LIVING off his wealth are the employees of his companies, and the shareholders selling shares for income. The best he can do is take a loan...That's a LIABILITY. The idea that indebting yourself to the tits is some sort of rich man's utopia is the sort of kool-aid delusion generally only found by Amway cultists.
Can I take a loan against the value of the company? Sure. But that loan still needs to be paid back. And how do I pay it back? By earning income that gets taxed before I can pay it back. All my loan did was defer my taxation to a later period in my life.
Investment income gets taxed at a lower top rate than other income. And deferring taxes to a later time can matter, since losses on paper can be used to offset income, right? There must be a benefit to doing things that way instead of simply taking a higher salary or selling off stock to pay for consumption, or else they wouldn't do it. This is why I was interested to know how much he has paid in taxes. What is his effective tax rate on income that he has realized and used for consumption? How does that compare to the tax rate for the rest of us, or even people with large income that doesn't come from investments, like exceptional athletes and entertainers?
Musk's "Worth" isn't a boon to him. It is a boon to the world...The people LIVING off his wealth are the employees of his companies, and the shareholders selling shares for income.
That's getting into a moral argument. Does someone that owns and runs a company "deserve" more wealth and income than the people that are actually designing and making the products at that company? What is the value added by Elon Musk to the enterprise compared to what someone else could do in his place? How much of it is due to his unique talents, creativity, and effort and what could have been done by just about anyone with the same education and background that he had if they had been in the same place at the same time? I don't know the answers to these questions, or even think they could be answered. It is just part of the problem with considering people like Musk to be the heroes of capitalism. No one person can be singularly responsible for the success of something as large as a $1 trillion company. It is always going to be debatable how much of that success is due to the person at the top and how much the collective efforts of everyone under them.
"Does someone that owns and runs a company "deserve" more wealth and income than the people that are actually designing and making the products at that company?"
Yes because they take the risks - both financially and in the idea space. The vast majority of successful people are successful because they work hard. Most every high paid CEO in the US works harder than you do. Those design engineers doing work on Tesla's or his space program all get benefits and salaries, etc.
When my colleagues and I started our business, we mortgaged our houses, went w/o company provided health insurance, etc. None of the people who we hired 2 years later did any of that, they all got salaries with benefits and a stable company to work for. We built the stable company. We also shared the wealth a bit because we eventually went full ESOP. So now, I am relatively wealthy and we have about 100 millionaires (in their retirement accounts).
"This is why I was interested to know how much he has paid in taxes."
Right, because you don't want to give him any credit for deferring his income to a later date, and instead letting other people (like the employees, customers and vendors of his company) get their income from that wealth. No, you want to focus on a single point in time when people take their income to decide whether it was acceptable or not.
"losses on paper can be used to offset income, right? "
No, you cannot offset income with losses on paper. That is, if you buy stock for $1000, and "on paper" it is worth $800, you have no loss until you sell it at a loss.
Can people with variable income streams control how income is received? Of course they can.
"That's getting into a moral argument."
No it isn't- it is a fact. When Musk's money is wrapped up in an enterprise, he doesn't have it. The company has it- while it employs thousands of people, providing valuable goods and services to millions of people. This is an objective fact.
"Does someone that owns and runs a company "deserve" more wealth and income than the people that are actually designing and making the products at that company?"
This isn't a matter of deserve. It is objective fact. People have looked at the value of what Elon built vs the value of what a designer could provide, and decided that Elon is worth more. That isn't about deserve or morality or anything. It is just a fact.
To say otherwise is to get into near-medieval nonsense like Marxist "Labor theory of value". Are we really getting into the labor theory of value?
"How much of it is due to his unique talents, creativity, and effort and what could have been done by just about anyone with the same education and background that he had if they had been in the same place at the same time? "
Yeah, it seems like you are getting into marxist claptrap. Ho Hum. In any case, knowing Musk's income over time isn't going to tell you any of this. It is just going to give you some sort of single, out of context data point with which to further "just asking questions" like the above.
"I don't know the answers to these questions, or even think they could be answered."
Oh I'm sure you don't know these answers just like you don't know how capital losses are calculated. But, I'm sure that won't keep you from opining.
" No one person can be singularly responsible for the success of something as large as a $1 trillion company. It is always going to be debatable how much of that success is due to the person at the top and how much the collective efforts of everyone under them."
Nice Strawman. Nobody has denied that others contributed to that company, but everyone who HAS contributed to that company has been compensated- often with ownership shares in the company itself.
This obsequious, "oh a worker helped build Tesla, so why aren't they getting a piece of the pie" is myopic nonsense. Does some worker still own a piece of your car? Your clothes? Your house? Or did you give them something in return for yielding their ownership rights in a transaction that many refer to as, "a purchase"?
Musk built this company by staking his own capital and arranging additional capital from people staking their own money. Throughout its growth, he traded cash and ownership rights (options) to others in return for their work- risking HIS capital, not theirs. That was Musk. He created the circumstances where his capital was at risk, sunk into heavy machinery that loses value every year, converted into steady, lower risk paychecks that people freely traded their labor for. That was Musk, and the people who he in turn delegated to (many of whom are also now part owners in Tesla).
Great comments Overt. But it's likely lost on a commie. Envy runs deep in the commies and clouds any logic or reason.
That’s generally a good analysis. I’d add, though, that even what you describe is already influenced strongly by our tax and regulatory system. Whether that results in Musk making more or less than he would in a free market is hard to tell, however.
"That's getting into a moral argument."
As if the entire point of your post wasn't to make the moral argument against Musk being so rich.
"Where can I go to turn $143 into $22,000? "
Create a company that sells things people want (better if government subsidies help people buy your product, "to be sure"). Instead of taking a salary, allow the company to pay you with many shares of stock in the form of options based on the current value of the stock, options which vest years later.
Hopefully, years later, your company is now worth many many times what it was when you started and accepted those stock options.
Just a side note: The reason the "rich" take those stock options instead of a solid $1,000,000/hr like a good honest workingman, is that hero of the poors BILL CLINTON got legislation passed, during a previous "oooh them richies are too rich and I don't like it" panic, restrictions on "wages" paid to CEOs, founders, owners and Big Boss Mans.
Thereby satisfying the envious and resentful mob, and accelerating the concentration of wealth at the top of the scale. Good work, lefties!
Most people pay virtually nothing in federal taxes outside of income and income-based FICA taxes.
In 2020, 60.6% of tax units had Zero or Negative Federal Income Tax Liability. Further, 43.3% of tax units had zero or negative sum of income tax and payroll tax liability. And even further, 20.5% of tax units paid neither income nor payroll taxes.
"But they pay other taxes!" Sure, but probably barely...
Federal gas excise tax, federal excise taxes on tobacco products, and federal excise taxes on alcohol are probably the primary federal taxes that individuals pay (that aren’t income taxes). Fewer people might pay things like excise tax on airline tickets, or on firearms, etc.
Federal excise tax on cigarettes is $2.11 per pack for large cigarettes ($1.01 for small). A two-pack a day smoker pays $1540, a pack-a-week smoker pays about $110. Among smokers, the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day is about 14.5, or about 265 packs per year, so $558 per year. Of course, only about 14% of people in the US smoke regularly.
Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, so someone using 1000 gallons per year (i.e., driving 25K miles in a car getting 25MPG) will pay $184 in federal gas taxes. The average per capita consumption of gasoline is about 1.15 gallons per day in the US, so about $77.25 per year in federal gas excise taxes.
Alcohol taxes are harder to work out because the tax varies depending on the type of alcohol be it beer, still wine, sparkling wine, hard cider, or distilled spirits and the alcohol content (proof).
But it’s something close to about 21 cents per ounce of pure alcoholic content of spirits, 10 cents per ounce of alcohol of beer, and eight cents per ounce of alcohol in wine. Note that this is not per ounce of beer or wine or spirits, but per ounce of alcohol. A 12oz can of 6% ABV beer has about 0.75oz of alcohol, so a tax of about 7.5 cents. A hard-drinking man drinking a case (24 cans) of beer every day would be paying about $657 every year in federal excise taxes, someone enjoying 3 beers each on Friday and Saturday night would pay about $24.
Average beer consumption per capita in US is about 26 gallons This is about 288 cans per year, so about $22.
A person buying a $500 Glock would pay $50 in federal excise taxes, but how many handguns guns will an average person buy in a year?
It's sad that half the country is so poor, true. But it's even sadder that the half of the country which doesn't contribute any resources to the common pot (and who actually receives resources from the common pot) has the same voting power as those who contribute. You can't see where this is going?
"Part of her critique is fair: Musk's use of government subsidies does constitute freeloading off the American taxpayers."
ONLY if you ignore the long-term return-on-investment that space programs ALWAYS deliver... if you keep at them. (Looking at you, NASA, you gutless quitters).
The government is going to reap orders of magnitude more Returns than their initial investments/incentives.
"Musk's use of government subsidies "
And what " Government" was in charge of giving it to him in the first place?
Polands? I think not.
Isnt Retard Joe Lieden doing EXACTLY that right now with SUBSIDIES FOR EV CHARGING STATIONS?
Nobody was keeping you from doing the same.
Liewatha speak with Forked Tongue. Been smokem too much Peace Pipe and eat many Mushrooms.
Bitch crazy.
FJB
Who specifically has not contributed in accordance with their compensation?
Elon earned his first million by providing the world value. Separately, he may have earned legion by playing the elected government system Lizzy exists in and is a pawn among.
Now, Elon suggests we level the field and let the value-providers compete. And again, Lizzy protests. Why is she here again?
Value to the consumer? No!
Value to the taxpayer? No!
Value to the world? No!
Cupid stunt been feeding out of the govt. trough all her life…worthless, useless bitch!
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this. online courses uk
Civility Bullshit as Ann Althouse likes to call it..
"Just days removed from being named Time's "Person of the Year," Elon Musk took to Twitter to unleash a litany of personal attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren for her call that he should "actually pay taxes."
"You remind me of when I was a kid and my friend's angry Mom would just randomly yell at everyone for no reason," Musk tweeted at the Massachusetts Democrat. "Please don't call the manager on me, Senator Karen."
This isn't the first time that Musk has resorted to name-calling when he disagrees with a US senator.
Last month, following a tweet from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders arguing that the "extremely wealthy pay their fair share," Musk responded: "I keep forgetting that you're still alive."
Musk was, predictably, applauded by his acolytes for his trolling of two senators. This guy doesn't care who he offends! He'll say anything to anybody!
Sound like "praise" for anyone else you know?
Now, to be clear, Donald Trump is not solely responsible for the coarsening of our discourse and our culture. People were rude to one another long before Trump started running for president.
But, what Trump absolutely did do is drastically lower the bar on what we expect from our public figures. Rather than at least attempting to be a role model, public figures followed Trump's lead: Prioritizing rudeness and cruelty over decency and respect.
Role models were once a real thing. A person that, due to success in sports, politics or business, others -- especially kids -- looked up to. And who understood the expectations that such a status in society conveyed.
Behavior like that of Musk suggests the idea of a role model has been diminished and in its place has emerged the internet troll.
I know which one I prefer."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/politics/elon-musk-decency-warren-sanders/index.html
The legacy of a nation is not a personality contest.
Wishcast:
But, what Trump absolutely did do is drastically lower the bar on what we expect from our public figures.
Reality:
Joe Biden 2012: "They [Romney Republicans] want to put ya'll [black Americans] back in chains".
Haha, CNN. What a joke.
Those people who "attempted to be role models" were shit, just like Warren, Trump, DiBlasio, McConnell, Schiff, Pelosi, et. al.
But YOU are satisfied if they put on a polite face. F off. It ain't that world any more. You can (and probably should) mark down the value of information passed to you by people you consider rude, but the information presented by mild-speaking gentlepersons is not actually made more persuasive by their manners.
i need more money
This can be best explained with an analogy. We are all on a sinking boat (the US). The boat has a hole in it (29 TRILLION $$$). The answer is not more holes in the boat (the proposed budget spending). The answer is also not the passengers bailing water out of the boat (via taxes). The answer is to get rid of the holes in the boat (minimize special interest shovel ready spending)
It can also be explained as trying to cure cancer (national debt) with a band aide (taxing a couple dozen people disproportionately to anyone else).
Good - she's correct, everyone should pay their fair share of taxes.
Musk had led an entitled life from his very beginnings, he left South Africa for Canada, at age 17 to avoid military service, he's not really invented all that much but got wealthy off the work of others.
He spews scientifically-invalid drivel to his glazed-over fan base, and they gobble it up like junk food, he LIES and has gotten into trouble with the SEC, etc.
He's a socioeconomic and tech parasite - highly overrated.
None of that has anything to do with how much taxes someone should pay.
"everyone should pay their fair share of taxes."
IE "sensible gun control." It means precisely what they want it to mean in their head and will change depending on the argument. It just means other people should pay more and I should pay less.
"Let's change the rigged tax code so The Person of the Year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else."
Isn't it interesting that she says "let us" change the code instead of "we are" changing the code? And isn't it also interesting she calls it the "rigged tax code" instead of "our tax code"?
So: two examples of blame-shifting and abandoning responsibility, just in that one, short sentence! It really should be no surprise no one believes what she is saying. She's not saying anything at all.
Pretty sure Joy Reid could explain that to you. You see, there were no flaws or loopholes in our tax system prior to Trump.
If you didn't already know - this comment from Elizabeth Warren should make it clear - she's an idiot!
He should have just tweeted back "Fuck you, cut spending". Would have been fantastic
Better yet "stop spending other people's money".
Tariffs suffice to finance the protection of individual rights against foreign and domestic aggression. All tariff schedules are scrutinized and hotly disputed between monopoly politicians who "shall not be questioned" and plutocrats of trade and production. Musk has enough lawyers and bodyguards to sass national socialists, but in the other 99.9% of cases, reacting to the looters will get you shot and your property nationalized. The 16th Amendment is a rights-destroying mistake in need of repeal.
How does anyone know how much Musk pays? Isnt it private? And to be fair, how can a person take out a loan and not pay taxes? Musk borrows a million dollars at 1%, buys a house, repays the loan. With what income? Wouldnt it be taxed?
I put solar on my house to get a tax credit and not pay taxes on my oil and gas royalties. What a dumb way to run a country that is swimming in debt. Thank you Senator Karen
Musk could join his county Libertarian Party and instantly acquire more political clout than Whutzername. If he lives in Dallas County the cost is zero. Nothing terrifies the Kleptocracy so much as card-carrying Libertarian voters and candidates. Looter politicians understand perfectly how our spoiler votes mess up their ability to pull off a long con.
Just so we're clear, the "kleptocracy" is not the people with all the money?
Kleptocrats are those who loot and get away with it under cover of governmental power, not those who create the wealth that is looted, you ignorant cretin.
-jcr
Just so we're clear, the "kleptocracy" is not the people with all the money?
There's a reason that kleptocracy and kleptomania share the same root. The kleptocracy are the corrupt politicians stealing to engorge themselves.
He lives in Boca Chica.
Why would any actual libertarian want to join the Libertarian Party? It’s politically the kiss of death, and it’s full of fakes.
How many more beatdowns can this deranged bitch take?
Twitter makes it too tempting to be rude.
Clearly, Senator Warren, being a senator, is the more operative figure in how the tax code is written. Elon Musk has no duty to pay more tax than the law says he must, so I don't know what the point is of hectoring him personally about it.
Elon Musk is a case study against the bizarrely common assumption that being good at one thing makes you good at other things, or that being obscenely rich makes you smart. He's not smart, at least not at politics, economics, or not being an overgrown pimply dweeb. I wonder if he can even talk to women without making fun of their bewbs.
What both the "fair share" and "you're a Karen" points miss is that taxes exist, in part, to prevent people from being as obscenely rich as Musk.
If billionaires can get by borrowing against their stock, paying no taxes in the process, that is clearly not "fair" relative to what a middle class person has to do, which is actually pay a third of their nominal income in tax. And that's why raising taxes on the rich is one of the most popular policy ideas going right now.
And here I thought taxes exist so as to fund the operation of the government.
I'm still waiting for someone to put a number of "fair share".
So far, it always seems to mean only "more than you're paying now", except for one's own "fair share" which always means "less than I'm paying now".
I always thought a fair share was everyone gets the same percentage.
"If billionaires can get by borrowing against their stock, paying no taxes in the process, that is clearly not "fair" relative to what a middle class person has to do"
We should not talk about home equity loans, then.
He's not smart, at least not at politics
At the risk of damning him with faint praise, he's a hell of a lot smarter at politics than Senator Karen. She picked a fight with him, and he just framed her as the worthless, jealous asshole that she is with remarkable efficiency.
prevent people from being as obscenely rich as Musk.
This is no part of any government's legitimate powers. Government exists to protect our rights, not to pander to your pathetic jealousy.
-jcr
The function of government is to defend liberty.
He's been married twice and has 7 children.
"What both the "fair share" and "you're a Karen" points miss is that taxes exist, in part, to prevent people from being as obscenely rich as Musk."
And socialism exists to prevent all people from fulfilling their personal dreams, except retards like Tony, who dream about crushing other people.
Tony just "own-goaled" itself.
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed." - Ayn Rand
She’s like a lamprey. She senses something warm in the water and she latches onto it. Makes it her prey and feeds off of it for a bit. Everything goes into the same basket, it’s always corruption and corporate greed to blame, and the solution is always to give more power to someone whose heart is pure, motives unassailable, and honesty unparalleled. Why, someone just like Lizzie Warren, by coincidence!!!
Says the woman who just voted to remove the SALT deduction that Trump got passed into law, so she's giving the rich tens of billions of dollars but complaining? What a joke liberals truly are.
Many folks would agree that many of the ways ultra-billionaires avoid taxes are perfectly legal. But they would say this represents not an answer but a problem with the law. Maybe the law shouldn’t be giving them so many ways to avoid taxes perfectly legally.
You’re right!
The problem with the law is that we don’t abolish the income and capital gains taxes and instead go to pure tariffs and consumption taxes.
That way, everybody would pay their fair share.
Since many Trump supporters simply want to abolish entire agencies - punishing good and intelligent bureaucrats unlucky enough to work in a dysfunctional bureaucracy - wouldn’t it benefit Democrats to support a “performance reward system” for government agencies?
W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician (and former federal bureaucrat) that taught companies like Toyota how to produce quality automobiles actually has an existing system for government agencies. There is a great book titled “Deming Management At Work” by Mary Walton.
For example: in the past why have veterans that fought our wars have to wait months and years to simply receive a check from the Veterans Administration? The government employees at the VA receive their paychecks on time. The veterans themselves (along with the rest of us) pay taxes to fund these agencies.