44% tax rate is not too bad. Note that people with lots of money got their money by leveraging the system. A well run system is not cheap. The court system, the legal system, law enforcement, the education system, welfare, defense, etc all cost money. The higher percentage tax is only fair to pay back to the system that generates the big gain.
I got interested in the utility of money a while back and how the "value" of money is roughly logarithmic as it goes up. I found a couple of thought experiments regarding a "logarithmic flat tax". Anyway, going by that I think it's about right - it might still be a little bit high, though. Depending on how you calculate it those plans can be configured so that he should have paid more in the 35-40% range.
Basically, you take revenue, divide it by the poverty level (he's got six kids, so around $45k - $50k), take the log base 10, and multiply by some constant that would be the same for everyone to match the government spending level - that constant these days is probably around 9 or 10. The result is your fair tax rate.
For the US maybe. Income tax in the Netherlands (my country) in the top bracket is 52%. On the second hand, we have no capital gains tax so he might come out ahead when exercising options. On the third hand, we have a wealth tax of 1.2% on your entire capital above a certain floor (of about 20k) so he might not come out ahead in the end.
It's always interesting to see the opinions of different cultures about how much tax is reasonable :)
Not really. Go look at the tax-rates of the 1950's. The only way he was able to acquire that much money was because of the infrastructure paid for by tax revenue. The only reason he wasn't robbed by someone else was because of the law enforcement paid for by tax revenue. I could go on, but I think you get the point. His wealth is built upon the shoulders of tax revenue.
Worth noting: the gain on those share from here on out will be taxed at the capital gains rate, assuming he holds onto them for a year. In California I think that tops out at 33.3%.
Also, in the mid 20th century (a very high growth time for the US) personal income tax topped out around 90%. "Harsh" is definitely a matter of perspective.
The United States used to have over a 90% income tax, and many other countries even now have much higher tax rates than the current US rate. 44% is not harsh at all.
It's very strange how people now seem to feel like they are entitled to see the tax returns of public or well-known figures. Tax returns are nobody else's business! Would you demand to see their medical records as well?
The implicit subtext (especially with highly successful people like Musk) is that we do this to "make sure they pay their fair share". Here's the reality: the top 1% of US tax filers pay nearly half of all US income taxes[1]. The bottom 80% of filers (by income) pay only 15% of all taxes. This myth that the rich don't pay taxes is completely, utterly false. It is a myth promulgated for political purposes.
you're equating two unrelated issues. Nobody needs or is entitled to a private company's CEO's tax returns. However, it is totally reasonable to see the tax returns of a politician who makes decisions on a daily basis that could very easily be tailored to line his pockets. It is not about tax returns, it is about transparency and accountability.
Even in the CEO's case, if the board of his company wants to see his returns, I would not really fault them.
It is pretty basic requirement that you have to be accountable to the people you work for.
In case of the Trump (I am assuming he is the reason for your comment), he seems to be confused about the roles. People are not his employees or customers. They are his bosses. The former don't need to see his finances, the latter do.
I think people care that the rich pay a smaller proportionate rate[1] than the poor. People who make under $19k a year pay twice the rate of those making $470k+
Comparing total of taxes paid and leaving it at that is generally a tactic to distract from the proportion problem.
> the top 1% of US tax filers pay nearly half of all US income taxes
The top 1% also own more than 50% [1], so if they would pay their "fair share" they'd still need to pay more. Much more if you think that the differences should become smaller.
Sure as a percentage of total taxes paid, but they generally pay less as a percentage of their income or worth. Which is a better measure is certainly a reasonable discussion, but saying that one is unequivocally politically motivated while the other isnt, is odd.
I'm not sure that I would like to see their medical records but there was a lot of talk about medical records for public figures this past election cycle in the USA. It went so far that Mrs. Clinton offered up her records for review. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/clinton-campaign-rele...
The truth is if you're going to be a public figure like a CEO or Elected Official you better be ready to give up some if not all of your privacy.
It's not "well-known" that is the determining attribute. It's being a CEO of publicly traded company (which have fiduciary obligations to their owners to disclose things that may affect value of their property, i.e. stocks) or being top-level politicians who's influence over everyone's lives justifies some privacy violations.
The video clip seemed unusually harsh. The reporter said he'd announced the Hyperloop to "thrill and confuse"? Followed by several skeptical tones and questions all while contrasting it with saying he'd done things no one else had.
I'm not sure in what other case it's considered appropriate to lump all the subsidies together in a total just because one person happens to be involved in each. On a case by case basis, each company is fairly large, and possibly not even unusual in the amount of subsidies it gets. Large companies often get lots of subsidies, because they target them, strategically. In this respect, Tesla is no different than GM or Ford, SpaceX is no different than Boeing, and Solar City is no different than General Electric. Each of those non-musk companies were in the top five of total Federal, State and local subsidies recently[1].
Calling out Musk's companies as exceptional in this regard makes for a nice narrative, but isn't necessarily supported by the facts.
The article mentions that he kept the remaining shares (as opposed to selling them as well). I wonder what is the general strategy for founders to cash out their stocks? Of course holding the shares for 1 or 2 years to get short/long-term capital gains tax breaks makes sense. But outside of that I imagine there is a balancing act of not selling so many shares to raise investor's eyebrows, but also freeing up money to diversify your assets.
Not sure about everyone else, but I'd love to have this problem. Oh I have to pay $593 million in taxes? Boo hoo, let me cry all the way to the bank to write the check.
Funny enough, the IRS won't take a check that large. He'd have to write six of them. Definitely a problem I wish I had.
> No checks of $100 million or more accepted.
> The IRS can’t accept a single check (including a cashier’s check) for amounts of $100,000,000 ($100 million) or more. If you are sending $100 million or more by check, you’ll need to spread the payment over 2 or more checks with each check made out for an amount less than $100 million. This limit does not apply to other methods of payment (such as electronic payments). Please consider a method of payment other than check if the amount of the payment is over $100 million.
It really depends on the year. The people who top income tax payments one year will generally not be anywhere near it on subsequent years because they don't draw a steady income, but instead cash out periodically. So while none of the people you've listed are likely to be in this years top earners, at some point in the years prior, or in the years to come, you'll likely see their names pop up. And when they do, they'll have paid some massive amount of money in taxes.
I personally think that after the first 1.5 million that they tax rate should be 100%. That's still an incredibly large amount of money. After that we need the resources to tackle problems and we can't if people hoard them.
I know that it sounds simple, and lots of people on this site will disagree, but I'm having trouble justifying this kind of extreme wealth to myself anymore.
There are so many people in poverty and ignorance. What's it for any way if people are starving and illiterate?
I'm really not looking forward to some of the responses to this comment, but I find myself thinking more and more about the morality of letting people accumulate massive sums when the resources that wealth could muster go unused by the people that need them most.
I don't know. I'm genuinely interested in hearing what other people here have to say if you can keep from being condescending or mean. Please be nice.
From a strictly utilitarian/consequentialist perspective, capitalist systems has proven to be pretty good at improving the quality of life for everyone. You're suggesting essentially eliminating medium-to-large prizes for succeeding in that system. Destroying those incentives strikes me as being fairly risky. You could end up causing more harm than good.
An interesting thought experiment to go through might be to compare two worlds: One in which we do as you suggest, and another where we continue on with the current system.
In your world, we might use the extra taxes to fund a medicare-for-all style healthcare system, free college tuition for everyone, and perhaps some large infrastructure program. More people have better health care coverage, would go to school for free, and be able to subsist on government-funded jobs. However, innovators, investors and entrepreneurs would be curbed back -- we get less technological innovation, fewer improvements in communication, education, medicine, technology, food production, travel, etc. It's difficult to predict what kinds of technologies we would miss out on, but it could be massive.
Would we miss out on an important cancer drug? Or perhaps the solution to climate change? Or maybe we would miss the boat on AI-driven cars?
As a heuristic, it seems to me that the biggest improvements in the quality of life of humanity so far have come not from socially engineered programs, but have rather come from entrepreneurs and inventors. It seems unwise to take our foot of the gas in that regards.
>I personally think that after the first 1.5 million that they tax rate should be 100%
Remember, Elon funded SpaceX and Tesla with the wealth he generated from the sale of Paypal. Where would the funding have come from for those entities if he was taxed at 100% after 1.5mm?
I'm not convinced it'd work. Not to be mean at all, just realistic.
The huge bulk of this tax bill was from exercising stock options. According to another commenter here, 44% on $1.34B earnings from these options.
So given a $1.5M cap, these options simply wouldn't have been exercised. You'd use your options up to the $1.5m earnings ceiling, and then stop. So the tax 'purse' would receive the pre-ceiling rate on $1.5M instead of 44% of $1.34B.
A 100% ceiling sounds very straightforward, but the end result would have been that Musk would have paid over $592M less in taxes over the same period - and I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intent.
(sidenote: With regards to the morality - under your proposal, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation wouldn't exist. I think I'd rather any proposal allowed for such altruism.)
[+] [-] tdehollain|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ww520|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tunesmith|9 years ago|reply
Basically, you take revenue, divide it by the poverty level (he's got six kids, so around $45k - $50k), take the log base 10, and multiply by some constant that would be the same for everyone to match the government spending level - that constant these days is probably around 9 or 10. The result is your fair tax rate.
[+] [-] WJW|9 years ago|reply
It's always interesting to see the opinions of different cultures about how much tax is reasonable :)
[+] [-] idbehold|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NegativeK|9 years ago|reply
That leaves him with $747M for the year.
[+] [-] abalone|9 years ago|reply
Also, in the mid 20th century (a very high growth time for the US) personal income tax topped out around 90%. "Harsh" is definitely a matter of perspective.
[+] [-] pmoriarty|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loeg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] accountyaccount|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njharman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldpie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway999a|9 years ago|reply
The implicit subtext (especially with highly successful people like Musk) is that we do this to "make sure they pay their fair share". Here's the reality: the top 1% of US tax filers pay nearly half of all US income taxes[1]. The bottom 80% of filers (by income) pay only 15% of all taxes. This myth that the rich don't pay taxes is completely, utterly false. It is a myth promulgated for political purposes.
1. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-fede...
[+] [-] vaishaksuresh|9 years ago|reply
you're equating two unrelated issues. Nobody needs or is entitled to a private company's CEO's tax returns. However, it is totally reasonable to see the tax returns of a politician who makes decisions on a daily basis that could very easily be tailored to line his pockets. It is not about tax returns, it is about transparency and accountability. Even in the CEO's case, if the board of his company wants to see his returns, I would not really fault them. It is pretty basic requirement that you have to be accountable to the people you work for. In case of the Trump (I am assuming he is the reason for your comment), he seems to be confused about the roles. People are not his employees or customers. They are his bosses. The former don't need to see his finances, the latter do.
[+] [-] accountyaccount|9 years ago|reply
Comparing total of taxes paid and leaving it at that is generally a tactic to distract from the proportion problem.
1.http://www.itep.org/whopays/full_report.php
[+] [-] Maarten88|9 years ago|reply
The top 1% also own more than 50% [1], so if they would pay their "fair share" they'd still need to pay more. Much more if you think that the differences should become smaller.
[1] http://fortune.com/2015/10/14/1-percent-global-wealth-credit...
[+] [-] jonlucc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cprayingmantis|9 years ago|reply
The truth is if you're going to be a public figure like a CEO or Elected Official you better be ready to give up some if not all of your privacy.
[+] [-] njharman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anindha|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youdontknowtho|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aanm1988|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] engx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] submeta|9 years ago|reply
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...
[+] [-] marricks|9 years ago|reply
That 5 billion number for Musk I think is a grand total of all subsidies, spanning all time.
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...
[+] [-] kbenson|9 years ago|reply
Calling out Musk's companies as exceptional in this regard makes for a nice narrative, but isn't necessarily supported by the facts.
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/17/t...
[+] [-] embro|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkchu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joatmon-snoo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SEJeff|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wl|9 years ago|reply
> No checks of $100 million or more accepted.
> The IRS can’t accept a single check (including a cashier’s check) for amounts of $100,000,000 ($100 million) or more. If you are sending $100 million or more by check, you’ll need to spread the payment over 2 or more checks with each check made out for an amount less than $100 million. This limit does not apply to other methods of payment (such as electronic payments). Please consider a method of payment other than check if the amount of the payment is over $100 million.
https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040gi/ar01.html#d0e35370
[+] [-] user5994461|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] submeta|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r_smart|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alir3z4|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Archio|9 years ago|reply
I initially misread "company" as "country" - and in that interpretation I wholeheartedly agree.
[+] [-] econner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neaanopri|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youdontknowtho|9 years ago|reply
I know that it sounds simple, and lots of people on this site will disagree, but I'm having trouble justifying this kind of extreme wealth to myself anymore.
There are so many people in poverty and ignorance. What's it for any way if people are starving and illiterate?
I'm really not looking forward to some of the responses to this comment, but I find myself thinking more and more about the morality of letting people accumulate massive sums when the resources that wealth could muster go unused by the people that need them most.
I don't know. I'm genuinely interested in hearing what other people here have to say if you can keep from being condescending or mean. Please be nice.
[+] [-] methodover|9 years ago|reply
From a strictly utilitarian/consequentialist perspective, capitalist systems has proven to be pretty good at improving the quality of life for everyone. You're suggesting essentially eliminating medium-to-large prizes for succeeding in that system. Destroying those incentives strikes me as being fairly risky. You could end up causing more harm than good.
An interesting thought experiment to go through might be to compare two worlds: One in which we do as you suggest, and another where we continue on with the current system.
In your world, we might use the extra taxes to fund a medicare-for-all style healthcare system, free college tuition for everyone, and perhaps some large infrastructure program. More people have better health care coverage, would go to school for free, and be able to subsist on government-funded jobs. However, innovators, investors and entrepreneurs would be curbed back -- we get less technological innovation, fewer improvements in communication, education, medicine, technology, food production, travel, etc. It's difficult to predict what kinds of technologies we would miss out on, but it could be massive.
Would we miss out on an important cancer drug? Or perhaps the solution to climate change? Or maybe we would miss the boat on AI-driven cars?
As a heuristic, it seems to me that the biggest improvements in the quality of life of humanity so far have come not from socially engineered programs, but have rather come from entrepreneurs and inventors. It seems unwise to take our foot of the gas in that regards.
[+] [-] jcsnv|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seattle_spring|9 years ago|reply
Not that I'm anywhere close to this problem, but I would simply stop working after hitting that mark. Why would I work for free?
[+] [-] soneil|9 years ago|reply
The huge bulk of this tax bill was from exercising stock options. According to another commenter here, 44% on $1.34B earnings from these options.
So given a $1.5M cap, these options simply wouldn't have been exercised. You'd use your options up to the $1.5m earnings ceiling, and then stop. So the tax 'purse' would receive the pre-ceiling rate on $1.5M instead of 44% of $1.34B.
A 100% ceiling sounds very straightforward, but the end result would have been that Musk would have paid over $592M less in taxes over the same period - and I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intent.
(sidenote: With regards to the morality - under your proposal, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation wouldn't exist. I think I'd rather any proposal allowed for such altruism.)
[+] [-] youdontknowtho|9 years ago|reply
Assholes.