Not the GP, but yes there is: The wealthiest people don't earn their wealth in the form of income.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/08/richest-...

the 25 richest Americans (by Forbes’ tally) paid a “true tax rate” of just 3.4% on wealth growth of $401 billion between 2014 and 2018.

because they can take loans against their paper wealth and spend that as income. and as a bonus they get to write any interest payments off of their taxes.

This isn’t true and is a nice internet trope.

Never mind that “wealth” can evaporate as quickly as it’s created, the numbers don’t make sense at for “borrow until you die”.

If you think it does I challenge you to do it. Instead of selling taxable equities during retirement, just borrow against them then let your heirs get them tax free when you die.

You can insanely cheap margin loans against your holdings if you keep the ratios high. Like 1-2%. Sure it won’t add up to much but you can do it.

Then kept rolling it over for 20+ years and tell me how 1-2% interest is less than a 25% capital gains tax.

Maybe if you’re going to die within a few years (and can time your death).

Then explain why if it works so well why Musk paid $10B in taxes when he sold Tesla stock if it works so well.

> Then explain why if it works so well why Musk paid $10B in taxes when he sold Tesla stock if it works so well.

Loans to Musk were a risky asset before the election. He was at risk of investigation in the event Trump lost. No one would have given him a loan big enough to supply the cash needs which this sale supplied.

That said, ordinary billionaires can of course make use of this strategy.

> That hardly looks regressive.

I know you're making a good faith argument, but you're twisting the definition of regressive. For example, if a country has one citizen with an income of 1 trillion, and one hundred thousand citizens with an income of $10,000 each, the trillionaire would still pay over 99% of taxes even if taxes were proportional.

The point is that with severe income inequality, it is fair that the super rich pay a very, very high proportion of taxes. The 40.4% seems high for the "top 1%" of the population, but if you replace "top 1%" with their actual average income, the comparison is less misleading.

The bottom 50% own 2.4% of American wealth [1], while paying 3% of taxes. That, to me, is regressive.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSB50215

The Tax Foundation has a well-known conservative leaning mindset when they publicize data. They project the benefits for business and lower tax policy.

It is not a legit source for progressive tax policy.

The Congressional Budget Office has been the most reputable source for tax policy data. The current director was appointed by Trump 2019 and was retained through Biden's presidency.

The CBO is very wonky and so far as withstood partisan meddling by presidents.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with how the Tax Foundation operates but their source of data is directly from the IRS website:

https://taxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FedData...

(see the footnote)

Now change it to comparing disposable income.

Impressive, very nice.

Now let's see control of assets.

This only takes into account income tax and not other taxes which are often more regressive such as sales tax, payroll tax etc. When analyzing taxes paid we should take into account all taxes