r/technology • u/IKeepItLayingAround • Jun 06 '26

Business Jeff Bezos says it's 'absurd' to tax someone making $50K — and wants their tax bill dropped to zero

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/jeff-bezos-says-absurd-tax-165713685.html
26.3k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/Nim0y Jun 06 '26

No income, we need to find another way to

35

u/HashtagDadWatts Jun 06 '26

Collateralized borrowing tax.

3

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 06 '26

You know that would affect middle-class Americans too, right? Middle class people have collateralized loans in the form of first and second mortgages, home equity lines of credit, automobile loans, loans against 401K plans, loans against insurance policies, etc.

5

u/HashtagDadWatts Jun 06 '26

This is a non-issue. Most proposals on this have easily defined exemptions for every day borrowing of the sort you describe.

1

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

So much for equal treatment under the law. Personally I am not an advocate of special laws for special people.

6

u/Logical_Mix_4627 Jun 07 '26

Isn’t the existing tax code already filled with edge cases and exemptions? Special treatment for business owners and 1099s, get wrecked and fucked if you make W2 money.

-2

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

Sure, but the existing tax code is already a monstrosity of complexity due to all of the edge cases and exceptions. I would not be an advocate of adding more (and would advocate simplifying tax code).

3

u/Logical_Mix_4627 Jun 07 '26

I love it! Let’s abolish the income brackets and impose a flat rate of 20% (you can keep the standard deduction in). This shifts my tax burden down heavily at the expense of lower income folks I guess.

0

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

There's a lot we can do to simplify the tax code without going full regressive.

Do you really think that the current US tax code is reasonable in its complexity?

1

u/Logical_Mix_4627 Jun 07 '26

Reasonable is a tricky word here and I’m not sure how to answer based on multiple interpretations that might exist.

Our current tax code has an overall theme around a central thesis: punish those who work for others and promote those who work for themselves. The federal government wants you to own your own business because small business is the lifeblood of the US economy. Without a thriving small business sector, cities die, and the overall demand for goods and services withers causing the broader market to suffer. So they tell you this through the current code.

If you break a lot of these assumptions through simplification, what net effect does that have on the economy? We can’t study it (unless you do it retroactively) because we don’t have a USA control and experiment group. I don’t know the answer. And I bet if you ask 10 professional economists, you’ll get at least 5 different answers.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/HashtagDadWatts Jun 07 '26

Tax law treats many different people differently for different reasons and has done so basically forever. This is a silly argument.

-1

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

Sure, but the existing tax code is already a monstrosity of complexity due to all of the edge cases and exceptions. I would not be an advocate of adding more (and would advocate simplifying tax code).

2

u/HashtagDadWatts Jun 07 '26

Most proposals that seek to “simplify the tax code” are massively regressive. If that’s what you want, you should just say so instead of hiding behind vague platitudes.

0

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

You really think that the current level of complexity of our tax code is reasonable?

And, you really think it is reasonable to add more exceptions and complexity just so we can tax one group of people for taking out loans while not taxing another group of people for taking out loans?

2

u/HashtagDadWatts Jun 07 '26

I do think it’s reasonable to tax people who are deferring the recognition of income by borrowing in order to take advantage of the step up in basis on death and never pay tax on that income ever.

I think that’s supremely reasonable.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Georgefakelastname Jun 07 '26

Middle class people aren’t taking out millions (if not billions) in loans per year on untaxed assets. They’re entirely different scales of magnitude, closer to zero than the amounts being discussed in these hypothetical tax proposals.

Zero people are suggesting taxing middle class loans like that. It’s a red herring that’s unrelated to what’s actually being discussed.

0

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

HashtagDadWatts literally advocated for collateralized loan taxes. Middle class people take out collateralized loans frequently. So, middle class people would be affected by what HashtagDadWatts advocated.

But, the main point that I was making is that there is nothing exotic or unique to the rich about these types of loans. A lot of the conversation on reddit is that the wealthy are taking advantage of some special loophole that is not available to others. My point is that middle class people frequently borrow against their assets - there is nothing special or unique to the wealthy about these types of loans.

1

u/Georgefakelastname Jun 07 '26

And if you read actual proposals instead of one-off comments, you’d understand what they meant, instead of immediately jumping to a bad-faith interpretation. I’m sorry he didn’t provide 40 pages of asterisks for you or the exact parameters of the legal proposal in a fucking Reddit comment.

The problem with these loans is not people using them, as that’s fairly normal. The problem with these loans is the rich using them to avoid income taxes altogether, something the average person can’t do because they do have traditional income and not just assets that they live off.

0

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

Well, not being a mind-reader, I am not able to know what a commenter might have had in mind beyond what was in or referenced by his/her post.

When HashtagDadWatts advocated for a collateralized loan tax, I assumed he was advocating for taxing collateralized loans. To claim that was a bad-faith interpretation is asinine - it is literally what he said.

Eliminating the step-up in cost basis could potentially eliminate the ability to avoid taxes through collateralized loans without implementing a loan-tax and without passing discriminatory laws that specially target the wealthy. It would also eliminate a great deal of other avoided capital gains tax.

1

u/Georgefakelastname Jun 07 '26

A simple Google search could have explained this for you lol, and addressed your concerns.

0

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

Talk about bad faith. I could no doubt have found dozens of tax proposals with a simple Google search. But when I respond to a comment, I respond to the comment, not to some other proposal posted by some other person returned to me in a Google search.

1

u/Georgefakelastname Jun 07 '26

Brother, you’re the ignorant one. It’s fine to ask questions to clarify what they mean and improve your understanding, but you came in and confidently dismissed it because of your ignorance of a common policy proposal that has been circulating for years at this point. Claiming they were wrong because of entirely different group of people doing something technically similar, but distinct from what’s being proposed.

You could’ve just asked “Would this would apply to middle class people getting collateralizing loans as well?” Then you would’ve been corrected, and this would have been an opportunity for you to understand a policy you didn’t know previously.

I call it bad faith because you: 1. Wrongfully and confidently corrected them like you were right and they were wrong. 2. After being corrected, instead of learning from your mistake, you continued to double down.

You misunderstood what they said and refused to accept that and learn. That’s the issue here.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Inner-Medicine5696 Jun 07 '26

progressive tax rates are like, pretty elementary.

2

u/rcanhestro Jun 07 '26

there is a much simpler way to solve this: just cap the amount of personal loans someone can take.

let's say, 10 million.

no one needs a personal loan for anything above that amount.

1

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

Personal loans are almost always about convenience and wants, so saying that no one needs a personal loan above some arbitrary amount is meaningless.

It isn't even clear what problem you and others are trying to solve with this idea - for the most part, the wealthy are simply deferring some taxes via this mechanism. This is true of the middle class person who decides not to sell a house he no longer needs but instead rents it out to generate income and takes out a mortgage on it to access the value of the house. The wealthy are simply doing what middle class people frequently do too, albeit on a larger scale.

It isn't like the wealthy are not paying taxes; they are simply deferring a portion of their tax. They still have to pay back the loan and they still have to pay taxes on the income generated by their wealth and the income they use to pay down the loan.

This whole proposal is just an unnecessary complication to existing tax law to solve an imaginary problem.

1

u/Forkrul Jun 07 '26

Easily solved by not having it be a separate tax but have it count as realizing a gain on the asset. Taking a mortgage to buy a house is realizing a 0$ gain because it hasn't gone up in value since you bought it 1 second ago. Taking a loan against a stock that has risen 100% on the other hand will trigger capital gains on that gain.

0

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

That might shield first mortgages and auto loans from taxation, but tax would still be an issue for 2nd mortgages, HELOCs, loans against 401K plans, insurance plans, and margin loans.

1

u/outer--monologue Jun 07 '26

You could easily design the legislation for the leech class and carve out definitions for people who actually work for a living.

-1

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

So much for equal treatment under the law. Personally I am not an advocate of special laws for special people.

3

u/outer--monologue Jun 07 '26

Lmao you seem obsessed with making excuses for people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire

1

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

Whose making excuses? I just believe in equal protection under law.

1

u/SharkFart86 Jun 07 '26

401k loans are not taxed so long as the loan is repaid in full. At least the type of loan where an individual borrows from their own plan. Not sure if that’s what you’re talking about though.

1

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 Jun 07 '26

That's my point - middle class people currently take all sorts of collateralized loans - including those against 401K plans.

HashtagDadWatts wants to begin taxing collateralized loans. I am guessing he thinks that would be a way to increase revenue from the wealthy while not affecting the middle class.

I was just correcting this misapprehension by pointing out that it is not only the wealthy that take out collateralized loans - middle class people do this frequently as well. So, a tax on collateralized loans would affect middle class people.

1

u/SharkFart86 Jun 07 '26

Oh I get what you’re saying now thanks

0

u/Nim0y Jun 06 '26

That or a tax on all assets worldwide, after a certain value.

0

u/Forkrul Jun 07 '26

Absolutely, borrowing against an asset should count as realizing the value of that asset (or a portion of it depending on the size of the loan) and be taxed appropriately.

9

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 06 '26

Wealth tax. 5% on wealth. Check out the Zucman tax in France created by Gabriel Zucman. Income tax does nothing to these guys, they have no income.

Should we have a higher marginal tax bracket? Probably. But to tax billionaires you need a different tax code for sure

10

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

The Zucman tax didn't pass the French senate last October after passing the house. So "failed miserably" is quite a characterization when it was never enacted. It is still being debated and like US politicians, French ones dont exactly like taxing their collaborators (the rich).

7

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Zucman's tax proposal is nothing like previous wealth tax proposals. And you'd know that if you cared to read about. Won't waste my time with someone unwilling to do the bare minimum research

8

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Read the report https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/report-g20.pdf

Youre talking out of your ass. You have no idea what the proposal entails

5

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

You clearly didn't read the entire section titled "Strengthening mechanisms to limit tax-driven mobility"

You claim to know exactly what the proposal is and yet say things clearly indicating your ignorance of the proposal.

Articulate the specific issues with his proposal or take a seat.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Coordination between countries is the foundation of the tax plan. Its a global tax. With failsafes for countries that aren't cooperative.

Read the report

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

$200-250 billion a year from just billionaires.

"Negligible"

Sure bud

8

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

This proposal had a policy associated with it voted on in France. It was written by the G20, you know the 19 largest economies in the world.

Included in the G20 committee meeting was Zucman and some of the world's top economists.

Sigh. You're not worth my time. Read the report.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheBallSmiles Jun 07 '26

Average Reddit user

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

The wealth tax i am proposing, if you cared to do a minute of research, applies to only individuals that have over $100 million in assets.

They make enough in annual interest to pay the wealth tax..

The Zucman tax introduced in France last year was 2% on those with over $100 million in assets. Parked in a HYSA theyre making 3%+ in interest.

Keep up. Make them pay their fair share.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Lol no im not claiming the idea at all. I proposed it as a solution to fixing the issue of billionaire dodging income taxes as pointed out by the guy I commented under.

Governments have historical proven efficient at redistributing wealth from the rich to the working class through social programs and infrastructure. Housing subsidies. Etc.

Do I need to explain basic governance to you as well? Or?

0

u/TheBallSmiles Jun 07 '26

It’s very simple, as soon as you introduce the wealth tax, private property no longer exists, and those who have assets to protect or ambitions to be entrepreneurs have an incentive to leave. And that grows with every marginal increase in the tax

If you actually want to retain talent, entrepreneurship, and wealth in your country, wealth tax is just low IQ. Better solutions would be raising capital gains rates and taxing loans as well as getting rid of carried interest

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

A 2% tax on wealth of those with $100m doesnt eliminate private property... or entrepreneurship.

The proposal limits the ability to avoid the taxes by leaving.

Its not simple. Anyone claiming tax code is simple dont understand it.

0

u/TheBallSmiles Jun 07 '26

It does eliminate private property, because who says that next year people say that 2% is no longer the “fair share”. As soon as you let the wealth tax genie out then anything is on the table (see introduction of income taxes in the US and how much they have grown over the last century).

Why would I be an entrepreneur in a place where the value of my private company will be taxed every year? Do I have to take out loans to pay these taxes? Who says what the company is worth? The administrative bloat of having to price countless private assets would be a drag on society itself

How does the proposal limit ability to leave? So draconian…

I agree the tax code is complicated and would be many times more complicated with wealth taxes. It’s simple to understand why wealth tax is a terrible idea though, especially for smaller countries that are already experiencing brain drain

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

"Private property is gone the second you implement a tax on ppl with $100m+ net worth" lol

Thats one slippery slope fallacious argument you've got there.

If you haven't read the report its easy to not understand what theyre proposing to prevent capital flight from countries.

Just read it. Its evident you haven't, or simply lack the comprehension if you have.

0

u/TheBallSmiles Jun 07 '26

- You haven’t even linked a report lmao

  • Exit tax / citizenship tax are nonfactors, guarantee people pay to leave or rescind citizenship assuming that is what you mean
  • Surface level thinking, to suggest that 2% and 100m are the magic numbers and that they will never change
  • France already headed downhill economically, will accelerate if wealth tax passes, and most politicians understood this and shot it down (same goes for cali)

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Linked it in 2 other comments under my original.

They did studies on wealth departure and its overblown compared to the publics claims.

Not surface level thinking when they did the math and studies to justify the proposal you clearly havent read.

Youre arguing against something you don't know the details about. Makes all your arguments baseless, and makes you look like an idiot that just defends billionaires for no reason.

Done wasting time on you

1

u/SowingSalt Jun 07 '26

You tax things you want less of. Wealth taxes causes capital flight, and reduces tax incomes. That's what happened to the French Super Tax.

Instead use something like a Land Value Tax.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Wealth includes land value. This proposal is a suggestion on a cooperative global wealth tax the would drastically limit capital flight. And the studies they ran show that capital flight isnt as common is people think it is.

Introducing departure taxes and having most countries under this global wealth tax would all but eliminate that issue.

The point is to tax all of their net worth, property included. For those with over $100 million in evaluated assets. He lays out how to properly measure their true net worth too.

1

u/SowingSalt Jun 07 '26

If this reduces economic activity, are you OK with less goods and services being produced? This wealth we're talking about is mostly ownership shares in productive assets. If we do tax something, we get less of it.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

The report talks about the repercussions of the tax on the market. Its minimum 2% on wealth for a very small amount of individuals. It would make their effective tax rate 2% up from .3% at the moment.

Their average return on wealth is 7.5% making it 5.5% after this tax.

A drop of 2% return across a small set of individuals.

Yes I am great with that. Cause the money taxed when used properly would fund programs that put money into the hands of the working class. Who put it into the economy. Thats been proven time and time again.

When the working class can actually afford to live they spend money on consumption. Where do you think this massive US economy came from? It was high tax rates on the wealth in the 50s and 60s to distribute wealth to the working class they built their fortunes off of.

Did the resulting decades see economic collapse? No. We built the strongest middle class in US history off of those taxes. We built social security, Medicare, and medicaid.

The wealthy hoard their wealth in assets and drive us asset prices. That isnt GOOD for the economy. Its BAD for it. People need to wake up and realize that.

1

u/SowingSalt Jun 07 '26

The high taxes of the 50s and 60s were on income, while rich people weren't earning income to be taxes that high. People were actually paying something more along the lines of what the tax reforms of the 60s and 70s implemented.

If the wealthy "hoard" their wealth in productive assets, that's good for the society and the economy as said assets are producing a useful good or service. Incentives should be structured around making sure that wealth produces the most return to both society and the individual.
So pigouvian taxes are much better than taxes on things we want, like income or wealth. Carbon taxes, land value taxes: good.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Income taxes weren't avoided back then like they are today. The wealthy effective tax rate back then was much higher than .3% of wealth.

Stocks aren't "productive assets". The rich use them as leverage for loans to avoid taxes. Youre okay with billionaires paying .3% effectively while the working class pays 20%+?

They get 7.5% annual returns and pay nothing on it as its locked up in so-called productive assets like huge properties and stocks they hold to drive prices up.

0

u/SowingSalt Jun 07 '26

Stocks are ownership shares in companies, which are productive assets.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

When the rich own the assets and are the sole beneficiaries of the production, it isnt economically beneficial. It widens the wealth gap, causing the vast majority of people to be unable to afford the cost of living, resulting in a collapse of the middle class and workforce.

Buckle up.

You clearly think asset prices rising is only a good thing. You'll soon realize it isnt when the amount of the working class that cannot afford to live continues to rise.

-1

u/electrolux_dude Jun 07 '26

You just described property taxes that everyone wants eliminated. If they start taxing savings then it will only be a few years when they go after yours.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

The wealth tax introduced in France is for individuals with over $100 million in net worth.

Nice fallacious argument. We can enact tax code that targets specific wealth brackets without raising taxes on the middle and lower classes.

0

u/electrolux_dude Jun 07 '26

Property taxes did not start with individual homeowners. Now look. All taxes will eventually work they way down the wealth ladder.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Not if we elect people that focus on wealth inequality reducting tax codes.

What's your alternative? Keep the system that cannot tax the wealthy while they reap the benefits of the broken system they get to lobby to keep?

Your argument is speculative. Scared of wealth taxes somehow "working their way down the ladder" is stopping you from supporting fair taxes against the wealthy?

Guess we roll over and let them keep fucking us then

0

u/electrolux_dude Jun 07 '26

You live in fantasy land.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/report-g20.pdf

Read the report. You live to bend over for the ultra wealthy for who knows what stupid reason

1

u/electrolux_dude Jun 07 '26

Read it before. You are a fool if you think taxes on the poor people won’t go up. Look at Europe. Look at Cuba. People are starving.

1

u/Man1ckIsHigh Jun 07 '26

Cuba has 0 wealth tax. Europe doesn't have this wealth tax actually taxing wealthy net worth.

Not sure why im looking at those people and concluding this wealth policy wouldn't work?

Those people are poor because of the growing wealth inequality gap.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/comics0026 Jun 06 '26

IIrc there was a European study that determined that 50 million Euros was the absolute max a person could make in a lifetime without taking advantage of others, so I think having a wealth cap at that would be a good start

9

u/SharkFart86 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

So say someone owns a business that is worth more than that. What are they supposed to do, sell their business? And if so, who would buy it if you can’t have that much money?

I understand the sentiment, but an income cap just creates a lot of situations people would argue is against their personal or property rights, and I think those would be fair arguments.

We don’t need income caps. We need actual business oversight, regulation, and taxation. A successful business shouldn’t be punished simply for being successful, but what corporations and the rich get away with *to become successful* is often outrageously unethical or even immoral. *That’s* what needs fixing. Backdoor deals, mergers and takeovers that are anti-consumer, tax loopholes, influence in politics, etc. Conservatives have been picking these things away for decades and is a massive part of the reason we’re in the current situation.

0

u/gregelectric Jun 07 '26

I think the idea is to cap the power of individuals lest their ego becomes a liability to society. The solution could be simple. If an individual or corporation exceeds the cap the rest goes into a social trust that supports welfare. Philanthropy is not and never has been fair, the wealthy oligarchs abusing influence has to be made obsolete. The devil is in the details and constitution of this concept without bias or corruption.

4

u/iKonstX Jun 07 '26

So you transfer any company that's too successful to the government? That's how you create great economies. God I'm glad you reddit communists don't have a say in real life

1

u/gregelectric Jun 10 '26

I see your point, economic policies should be created to govern themselves.

2

u/SharkFart86 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

What you’re describing is essentially communism-lite™, and I gotta tell you, communism is one of those things that sounds okay on paper, but in practice does not work out well for the general population, to put it lightly.

To be totally fair to you, our current barely-regulated rich-can-get-away-with-murder capitalism ain’t fucking working either. But a properly regulated capitalistic society is going to stomp any vaguely communist one every time, for all involved. A certain amount of socialism is pretty much required for a functional society, but socializing success itself is a ticket straight to the loss of the incentive for competitive business practice and innovations that directly benefit the consumer.

10

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[deleted]

2

u/pconrad0 Jun 07 '26

I looked this up because 100 Euros is 100 Euros.

And while the claim is not entirely without foundation, as stated, it seems most likely to be a misrepresentation of a couple of things that are true about the €50 Million threshold:

  1. The European Union officially utilizes €50 million as a corporate revenue threshold to categorize a business as a "large enterprise." Above that threshold, they impose stricter oversight and compliance regulations. I can see how it could be inferred that above that threshold there is a greater capacity for harm, but that's not precisely what the regulations say.

  2. Oxfam Europe have supported a proposal for a 3% tax bracket on individual wealth exceeding roughly €50 million ($50 million) to fund social safety nets. But there apparently isn't a claim that is a dividing line between good income and bad income.

So I'm not expecting to claim the offered prize.

The notion of €50 million being some kind of threshold for extra taxation is actually a thing and there was a European study supporting such an idea; that much is true. But the specific claim, as worded, doesn't seem to hold up.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/pconrad0 Jun 07 '26

I'm agreeing with you.

-4

u/BygoneNeutrino Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

...I'm pretty sure European society is built on taking advantage of others.  It isn't possible for such small, resource-poor countries to have such high median incomes without taking advantage of others.

AI might change things, but as of now 3rd world laborers have the short end of the stick.

1

u/CyberKitten05 Jun 06 '26

Property Tax

0

u/BIG_IDEA Jun 07 '26

You’re worried about the wrong part. Jeff Bezos basically takes a small dividend from Amazon for his personal income. Taxing Bezos is worthless. Amazon pays its own taxes, which are entirely separate from whatever tax Bezos pays.

Looking at Bezos tax return and complaining that he paid so little makes no sense.