Connect with us

Business

ProPublica Releases Years of Data Showing Just How Little the Top 25 Richest Americans Have Paid in Taxes

Published

2 years ago

on

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg are all among the list of billionaires who have avoided paying any federal taxes for certain years, according to the outlet.

How Little the Top 25 Actually Pay

ProPublica released private tax information on Tuesday of some of the country’s wealthiest people, including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, and Mike Bloomberg.

The report details just how little they’ve paid in federal taxes and how they have managed to do so. 

For example, Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, paid $68,000 in federal income taxes for 2015. For 2017, he paid $65,000. For 2018, he paid nothing. ProPublica also noted that, between 2014 and 2018, Musk’s total taxes paid amounted to only 3.27% of his personal wealth — even though his wealth during that same time period grew by nearly $14 billion. 

Meanwhile, the outlet reported that Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York City, has paid a “true tax rate” of only 1.30% compared to his wealth growth. Even slimmer than that, Amazon CEO Bezos clocked in at 0.98% and business magnate Buffet paid an ultralow 0.10%. 

Like Musk, several of those billionaires have also managed to avoid paying anything in federal taxes for certain years. For example, in 2007 and 2011, Bezos paid nothing. Neither has Bloomberg in recent years. 

“Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most,” the reporters behind the ProPublica article said. “The IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.”

It’s no secret that there’s a staggering divide between the country’s richest and the median American household, which earns around just $70,000 in wages a year and pays 14% in federal taxes, but ProPublica’s findings demonstrate just how extensive it can be.

By the end of 2018, the top 25 were worth $1.1 trillion. Notably, it takes the wages of 14.3 million ordinary American workers to equal that same amount, yet the top 25 only paid a total of $1.9 billion in federal taxes that year, while the ordinary workers paid $143 billion. 

How Billionaires are Avoiding Federal Taxes

As ProPublica reports, the key to how these billionaires pay so little lies in the difference between wages and total income.

For example, wages are a part of income, but just one part. Stocks, bonds, and other investments are also included in total income but are taxed at lower rates.

That’s how people like Bezos can become the richest person in the world while still only receiving a salary of $80,000 a year from Amazon. In fact, in 2018, the top 25 wealthiest Americans reported $158 million in wages, but that was just 1.1% of their total reported income. 

Instead, these billionaires retain their wealth by holding shares of companies they own. Two economists from the University of California, Berkeley have estimated that U.S. billionaires are sitting on $2.7 trillion in unrealized gains. 

Still, that begs the question: How do these billionaires actually spend money if they’re earning small salaries and hoarding massive amounts in the stock market?

According to ProPublica, the answer lies in loans. 

“The tax math provides a clear incentive for this,” reporters for the outlet said. “Take out a loan, and these days you’ll pay a single-digit interest rate and no tax; since loans must be paid back, the IRS doesn’t consider them income. Banks typically require collateral, but the wealthy have plenty of that.”

Further, those billionaires can often deduct the interest they’ve paid on loans from their taxes.

Last year, Musk pledged around 92 million Tesla shares as collateral for personal loans.

Is Publishing Private Tax Info Ethical?

As ProPublica noted, the publishing of this tax information hasn’t been without pushback.

When the outlet asked billionaire Carl Icahn whether it was appropriate that he hadn’t paid any income tax in certain years, he responded, “There’s a reason it’s called income tax. The reason is if, if you’re a poor person, a rich person, if you are Apple — if you have no income, you don’t pay taxes. Do you think a rich person should pay taxes no matter what? I don’t think it’s germane. How can you ask me that question?”

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Bloomberg said he “pays the maximum tax rate on all federal, state, local and international taxable income as prescribed by law. Taken together, what Mike gives to charity and pays in taxes amounts to approximately 75% of his annual income.”

“The release of a private citizen’s tax returns should raise real privacy concerns regardless of political affiliation or views on tax policy…” the spokesperson added. “We intend to use all legal means at our disposal to determine which individual or government entity leaked these and ensure that they are held responsible.”

While ProPublica didn’t reveal its source, it did say that it believes “the public interest in knowing this information at this pivotal moment outweighs that legitimate concern.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Chicago Tribune) (Associated Press)

Related Topics:

Business

TikTok to Require Labels on Manipulated Media, Ban Deepfakes of Children

Published

4 days ago

on

March 22, 2023

By

The social media platform says it wants to embrace the creativity AI can offer while being cautious of the “societal and individual risks” that come with it.

TikTok is rolling out a slew of limitations regarding synthetic deepfake videos, including a ban on deepfake content of children.

In an update on Tuesday, the social media platform said it wants welcome “the creativity that new artificial intelligence and other digital technologies may unlock” while also being careful of the “societal and individual risks” that come with it. To mitigate those risks, TikTok will require users to label manipulated media depicting “realistic scenes.” Users can do so in stickers, captions, or other means that make it clear the video is “synthetic,” “fake,” “not real,” or “altered.”

On top of that, there are new restrictions about who can be the subject of these manipulated videos. TikTok will not allow deepfake media that shows the likeness of a “young person” or any private person, including adults. It is also barring deepfakes that depict adult public figures giving political or commercial endorsements, as well as deepfakes that violate one of the platform’s other rules.

“While we provide more latitude for public figures, we do not want them to be the subject of abuse, or for people to be misled about political or financial issues,” the company’s updated guidelines say. 

As TikTok’s policies previously stated, synthetic media that has been edited to mislead audiences about real-world events is also not allowed on the platform. 

As far as what kind of deepfake media is allowed on TikTok, the company said videos showing adult public figures in “certain contexts, including artistic and educational content,” get the green light. This can include a video of a celebrity doing a TikTok dance, or a historical figure being depicted in a history lesson. 

The rules will be enforced starting April 21. Between now and then, TikTok says it will be training its moderators to better implement the guidelines.

See what others are saying: (The Verge) (The Associated Press) (TechCrunch)

Continue Reading

Business

Adidas Financial Woes Continue, Company on Track for First Annual Loss in Decades

Published

3 weeks ago

on

March 8, 2023

By

Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company. 

Yeezy Surplus 

Adidas’ split with musician Kanye West has left the company with financial problems due to surplus Yeezy products, putting the sportswear giant in the position to potentially suffer its first annual loss in over 30 years. 

Adidas dropped West last year after he made a series of antisemitic remarks on social media and other broadcasts. His Yeezy line was a staple for Adidas, and the surplus product is due, in part, to the brand’s own decision to continue production during the split.

According to CEO Bjorn Gulden, Adidas continued production of only the items already in the pipeline to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs. However, that has led to the unfortunate overabundance of Yeezy sneakers and clothes. 

On Wednesday, Gulden said that selling the shoes and donating the proceeds makes more sense than giving them away due to the Yeezy resale market — which has reportedly shot up 30% since October.

“If we sell it, I promise that the people who have been hurt by this will also get something good out of this,” Gulden said in a statement to the press. 

However, Gulden also said that West is entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the sale of Yeezys per his royalty agreement.

The Numbers 

Adidas announced in February that, following its divergence from West, it is facing potential sales losses totaling around $1.2 billion and profit losses of around $500 million. 

If it decides to not sell any more Yeezy products, Adidas is facing a projected annual loss of over $700 million.

Outside of West, Adidas has taken several heavy profit blows recently. Its operating profit reportedly fell by 66% last year, a total of more than $700 million. It also pulled out of Russia after the country’s invasion of Ukraine last year, which cost Adidas nearly $60 million dollars. Additionally, China’s “Zero Covid” lockdowns last year caused in part a 36% drop in revenue for Adidas compared to years prior.

As a step towards a solution, Gulden announced that the company is slashing its dividends from 3.30 euros to 0.70 euro cents per share pending shareholder approval. 

Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company. 

“Adidas has all the ingredients to be successful. But we need to put our focus back on our core: product, consumers, retail partners, and athletes,” Gulden said. “I am convinced that over time we will make Adidas shine again. But we need some time.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk Bashes Disabled Ex-Twitter Employee, Gets Blowback

Published

3 weeks ago

on

March 7, 2023

By

After Musk claimed the former employee “did no actual work,” the staffer calmly directed passive-aggressive insults right back at the billionaire.

Excuse Me, Do I Still Work Here?

Elon Musk brawled online with a former Twitter employee who didn’t know whether he was fired Tuesday, accusing the staffer of exploiting his disability.

Haraldur “Halli” Thorleifsson, who has muscular dystrophy, joined Twitter in 2021 after it acquired the creative agency he founded: Ueno.

He said on Twitter that he was unable to confirm whether he was still a Twitter employee nine days after being locked out of his work computer, despite reaching out to the head of HR and Musk himself through email.

At the time, Twitter had laid off at least 200 workers, or some 10% of its remaining workforce.

In search of an answer, Thorleifsson tweeted at Musk, who responded with the question: “What work have you been doing?”

After being given permission by Musk to break confidentiality, Thorleifsson listed several of his accomplishments, including leading “design crits to help level up design across the company.”

“Level up from what design to what? Pics or it didn’t happen,” Musk replied.

“We haven’t hired design roles in 4 months. What changes did you make to help with the youths?”

Thorleifsson reminded Musk that he couldn’t access any pictures because he was locked out of his work computer.

Musk stopped replying to the tweets, but hours later he returned to the platform to lob invective at his former employee.

Musk Vs. Halli

“The reality is that this guy (who is independently wealthy) did no actual work, claimed as his excuse that he had a disability that prevented him from typing, yet was simultaneously tweeting up a storm,” Musk tweeted, apparently referring to Thorleifsson. “Can’t say I have a lot of respect for that.”

“But was he fired? No, you can’t be fired if you weren’t working in the first place,” he added.

In a later Twitter thread, Thorleifsson said he could type for one or two hours at a time before his hands cramped, but that in pre-Musk Twitter, that wasn’t a problem because he was a senior director.

He added that despite his crippling disability, he worked hard for years to build Ueno.

“We grew fast and made money,” he said. “I think that’s what you are referring to when you say independently wealthy? That I independently made my money, as opposed to say, inherited an emerald mine.”

Thorleifsson made several more passive-aggressive jabs at Musk.

“I joined at a time when the company was growing fast,” he wrote. “You kind of did the opposite. The company had a fair amount of issues, but then again, most bigger companies do. Or even small companies, like Twitter today.”

Thorleifsson said that immediately following his back-and-forth with Musk, Twitter’s head of HR confirmed that he had indeed been fired from the company.

See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (CNN) (Yahoo)

Continue Reading