New IRS Data Leak Shows America's Wealthiest Individuals Regularly Pay Little to No Federal Income Taxes.

[CoffeeTiger 5,145]

https://apnews.com/article/personal-taxes-business-ab6466a9dcc211907a753ccfb7660959

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — The rich really are different from you and me: They’re better at dodging the tax man.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos paid no income tax in 2007 and 2011. Tesla founder Elon Musk’s income tax bill came to zero in 2018. And financier George Soros went three straight years without paying federal income tax, according to a report out Tuesday from the nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica.

Overall, the richest 25 Americans pay less in tax — an average of 15.8% of adjusted gross income — than many ordinary workers do, once you include taxes for Social Security and Medicare, ProPublica found.

An anonymous source delivered to ProPublica reams of Internal Revenue Service data on the country’s wealthiest people, including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg.

ProPublica compared the tax data it received with information available from other sources. It reported that “in every instance we were able to check — involving tax filings by more than 50 separate people — the details provided to ProPublica matched the information from other sources.”

Using perfectly legal tax strategies, many of the uber-rich are able to whittle their federal tax bills down to nothing or close to it. Soros went three straight years without paying federal income tax; billionaire investor Carl Icahn, two, ProPublica finds.

A spokesman for Soros, who has supported higher taxes on the rich, told ProPublica that the billionaire had lost money on his investments from 2016 to 2018 and so did not owe federal income tax for those years.

Musk responded to ProPublica’s initial request for comment with a punctuation mark — “?″ — and did not answer detailed follow-up questions.

The federal tax code is meant to be progressive — that is, the rich pay a steadily higher tax rate on their income as it rises. And ProPublica found, in fact, that people earning between $2 million and $5 million a year paid an average of 27.5%, the highest of any group of taxpayers.

Above $5 million, though, tax rates fell: The top .001% of taxpayers — 1,400 people who reported income above $69 million — paid 23%.

And the 25 very richest people paid still less.

The rich can reduce their tax bills through the use of charitable donations or by avoiding wage income (which can be taxed at up to 37%) and benefiting instead mainly from investment income (usually taxed at 20%).

ProPublica’s findings are likely to heighten the national debate over the vast and widening inequality between the very wealthiest Americans and everyone else.

President Joe Biden, in seeking revenue to finance his spending plans, has proposed higher taxes on the wealthy. Biden wants to raise the top tax rate to 39.6% for people earning $400,000 a year or more in taxable income, estimated to be fewer than 2% of U.S. households. The top tax rate that workers pay on salaries and wages now is 37%.

Biden is proposing to nearly double the tax rate that high-earning Americans pay on profits from stocks and other investments. In addition, under his proposals, inherited capital gains would no longer be tax-free.

The president, whose proposals must be approved by Congress, would also raise taxes on corporations, which would affect wealthy investors who own corporate stocks.

ProPublica reported that the tax bills of the rich are especially low when compared with their soaring wealth — the value of their investment portfolios, real estate and other assets.

ProPublica’s data “reveals that the country’s wealthiest, who have profited handsomely during the pandemic, have not been paying their fair share of taxes,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who leads the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, said at the start of a hearing on the IRS’ budget with Commissioner Charles Rettig.

Wyden has proposed legislation that would tighten enforcement of tax collection against wealthy individuals and corporations that use artifices and loopholes to skirt paying taxes.

For his part, Rettig said the IRS is investigating the leak of the tax data to ProPublica and said any violations of law would be prosecuted. ProPublica reported that it does not know the identity of the source who provided the data.

“We will find out about the ProPublica article,” Rettig said. “We have turned it over to the appropriate investigators, both external and internal.”

 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

This falls into the category of "don't hate the player, hate the game." 

I imagine most of us take every legal deduction possible, at the minimum, and more than a few, ahem, "cut corners." Wealthier people have more resources to turn over those stones so that they can keep more of their money, and have means to cover their tracks when they do shady stuff...been that way for a looooong time.

If I were in their shoes, I'd take every deduction I had afforded to me by the tax code, too. Anyone who wants to pay more tax than they are obligated to pay is free to write a check to the IRS at any time.

[AuburnNTexas 7,165]

The problem is our tax code both for people and companies has so may loopholes some for legitimate reasons some because of special interests. It is so convoluted it would take years to analyze it and clean it up. Leave it for time being with all the tax loopholes but put a cap on it that basically says based on how much a person or company's net is there is a minimum percent they have to pay on that net. The minimum percent would have tiers based on how much your net is and would only affect the top end types. 

Lets say you are in the 36% bracket based on net Income but in todays world using all the legal loopholes you don't pay anything.  what I would like is that you would still have to pay some percent like 15% or 20%.  You still get some breaks as there are some legitimate loopholes that help support bringing jobs to inner city, or environment cleanup, etc. There are also some that are little more than special interest scams. Do it the way I am saying and we get more money and buy time to cleanup the code to try and get rid of the breaks that are little more than special interest scams.

The loopholes are why I laugh when I hear a politician talk about raising the top rate. The Bezos's of this world should already be in the top rate but are paying nothing raise the top rate and don't cleanup the loopholes or do something like I am saying and these people will still be paying nothing or almost nothing.

[abw0004 10,125]

So I will speak on this because it is exactly what I do for a living.  I deal with tax on the wealthy everyday and help families reduce their estate tax as much as possible.  The tools the ultra rich families use are available to everyone.  It isn't that you have no way to access them.  I don't like the narritive you see in the news that the ultra rich are trust fund babies that get away with everything and had money fall into their laps.  This is their business they built from the ground up and want to be able to pass their business on to their children without losing 40% of the company to the IRS, after they already paid tax on it once before.

What you see above is owners of companies using the losses they incurred up to the last three years to offset any gains or income.  You have the ability to do the same if you took a loss in your advisory account.  If you think about it, that makes sense because you took a loss on something, so why pay tax on something of value that is no longer there.  These people also made charitable contributions, which are write-offs.  Lastly, any business expenses are write-offs.  For example, I am traveling today to Savannah to meet with some of these clients.  I can write off my meals, hotel, and miles on my car.  BUT, I only get back 50% of what I spent.

All of these tools are available to you, but it just seems like a scam to these ultra-wealthy because their numbers are very big.  Your CPA is probably doing these things for you (minus the estate tax if your estate is less than $11.7 million) and you don't even know it.

[CoffeeTiger 5,145]

2 hours ago, abw0004 said:

So I will speak on this because it is exactly what I do for a living.  I deal with tax on the wealthy everyday and help families reduce their estate tax as much as possible.  The tools the ultra rich families use are available to everyone.  It isn't that you have no way to access them.  I don't like the narritive you see in the news that the ultra rich are trust fund babies that get away with everything and had money fall into their laps.  This is their business they built from the ground up and want to be able to pass their business on to their children without losing 40% of the company to the IRS, after they already paid tax on it once before.

What you see above is owners of companies using the losses they incurred up to the last three years to offset any gains or income.  You have the ability to do the same if you took a loss in your advisory account.  If you think about it, that makes sense because you took a loss on something, so why pay tax on something of value that is no longer there.  These people also made charitable contributions, which are write-offs.  Lastly, any business expenses are write-offs.  For example, I am traveling today to Savannah to meet with some of these clients.  I can write off my meals, hotel, and miles on my car.  BUT, I only get back 50% of what I spent.

All of these tools are available to you, but it just seems like a scam to these ultra-wealthy because their numbers are very big.  Your CPA is probably doing these things for you (minus the estate tax if your estate is less than $11.7 million) and you don't even know it.

The problem isn't that they are using tools and tricks available to them, it's that the law allows it in the first place. 

I don't think this story should be viewed as an attack on rich people or how they obtain their wealth, but more as proof of how perverted our tax codes are that the wealthiest people in the country are allowed to pay nothing in income taxes and relatively low taxes on investments while the average joe making $45k year has to pay 20% of his income to the feds because he wasn't rich enough to cancel it all out with business expenses, write offs, and 'investment losses' .

[auburn41 492]

24 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The problem isn't that they are using tools and tricks available to them, it's that the law allows it in the first place. 

I don't think this story should be viewed as an attack on rich people or how they obtain their wealth, but more as proof of how perverted our tax codes are that the wealthiest people in the country are allowed to pay nothing in income taxes and relatively low taxes on investments while the average joe making $45k year has to pay 20% of his income to the feds because he wasn't rich enough to cancel it all out with business expenses, write offs, and 'investment losses' .

The average Joe making $45K per year is not paying 20% to the feds on income taxes.  The tax brackets for single filers are 10% up to $9,875 of income, 12% up to $40,125 and 22% up to $85,525.  So the average Joe will only pay 22% on the about $5K he makes after $40,125.  All the rest of his income taxes are paid at 12% and 10% respectively.  It is very similar for a married couple that both make about $45K per year.  And just to make it clear.....the top 1% of income earners in the US pay almost 40% of the income taxes that are paid to the feds.......the bottom 50% income earners pay about 4% of the income taxes to the feds.  So to say the rich don't pay their fair share is a big lie to pit everybody against what they perceive are "rich" people.  

 

[abw0004 10,125]

34 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The problem isn't that they are using tools and tricks available to them, it's that the law allows it in the first place. 

I don't think this story should be viewed as an attack on rich people or how they obtain their wealth, but more as proof of how perverted our tax codes are that the wealthiest people in the country are allowed to pay nothing in income taxes and relatively low taxes on investments while the average joe making $45k year has to pay 20% of his income to the feds because he wasn't rich enough to cancel it all out with business expenses, write offs, and 'investment losses' .

Understood.  The thing is though, wealthy people are writing off their losses to be able to do that.  This is why it appears they have no taxes, plus their charitable contributions.  It is just a strategy that anyone can take advantage of, including you.  For example, you most likely are writing off your mortgage interest and/or student loans every year, correct?  It is the same thing.

Now I do agree there are some shady CPA's and estate planners in my field that bend the law so much that Congress changes the rules.  Unfortunately I get painted with the same brush as them, even when I go strictly by the book.

[CoffeeTiger 5,145]

8 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

The average Joe making $45K per year is not paying 20% to the feds on income taxes.  The tax brackets for single filers are 10% up to $9,875 of income, 12% up to $40,125 and 22% up to $85,525.  So the average Joe will only pay 22% on the about $5K he makes after $40,125.  All the rest of his income taxes are paid at 12% and 10% respectively.  It is very similar for a married couple that both make about $45K per year.

That is true. a 45k income with a standard tax deduction would pay about 8.25% in federal income. That of course doesn't include payroll taxes, state taxes, and then if you live in a regressive state like Alabama, sales taxes you pay on everything.  

8 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

 

 And just to make it clear.....the top 1% of income earners in the US pay almost 40% of the income taxes that are paid to the feds.......the bottom 50% income earners pay about 4% of the income taxes to the feds.  So to say the rich don't pay their fair share is a big lie to pit everybody against what they perceive are "rich" people.  

 

Those numbers don't prove that 'rich people pay their fair share' or that they shouldn't pay more, but what it DOES show is that a vast majority of the wealth in the United States belongs to a relatively small group of people. The fact that that small group of people pay the majority of taxes (because they make a majority of the money) isn't really the 'gottcha' argument that Conservative commentators think it is. 

Also keep in mind that Income taxes make up only 50% of all tax revenue collected by the federal government. 36% of all taxes collected are payroll like Social security and Medicare taxes, which are mostly Regressive taxes with a higher burden placed on the lower income brackets. 

For social security taxes a person making 45k/yr will pay 6.2% of their income to SS, but because there is a wage limit on the tax, a person who makes $5million/yr will only pay 0.18% of their income towards SS taxes. The ultra rich pay virtually nothing to SS taxes. If you want to be generous and say the $5million a year guy is self employed and pays the full SS payroll tax then their SS tax burden will raise to 0.35% of their income. 

 

Really though, the big thing in my opinion is to get more taxes out of the major corporations that are the real thieves in regards to tax tricks and evasion, and to eliminate the ability for the wealthiest people on earth like Jeff Bezos to write off so many losses that he ever owes no income taxes. 

[auburn41 492]

21 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

That is true

At least we have found one thing we agree on, that I was right!

 

23 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Those numbers don't prove that 'rich people pay their fair share' or that they shouldn't pay more, but what it DOES show is that a vast majority of the wealth in the United States belongs to a relatively small group of people. The fact that that small group of people pay the majority of taxes (because they make a majority of the money) isn't really the 'gottcha' argument that Conservative commentators think it is. 

You're gonna have to explain this comment more.  I'm not sure what you are saying.  And I damn sure don't know which conservative commentators you're talking about. 

What those numbers say to me is that the top 50% of income earners in the US pay 96% of all Federal Income Taxes.  Stated another way, if you are in the bottom 50% of income earners in the US, you virtually pay no Fed Income Tax.  

If you wanted to discuss Soc Sec tax you should have posted an article that discussed that.  This article was trying to make normal people hate the really wealthy people.  But consider this......how much income tax revenue do you think the government gets from Amazon, Blue Origin, Tesla etc. employees?  Not only that, how much money in capital gains does the fed govt get from people that have earned income on dividends and stock sales from those companies and others like them.  I don't give two rips for Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. but they are doing the exact thing I do every year in trying to keep as much of their money as they can.  If you really believe the US Govt knows better how to spend your money, you can always pay more than your required tax bill every year! 

   

[McLoofus 35,182]

Oh, wow. The homie really doesn't understand how percentages work. 

 

[auburn41 492]

50 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Oh, wow. The homie really doesn't understand how percentages work. 

 

Oh now McDoofus, I understand it completely and stated it correctly.  Here it is in chart form for you!  This chart even shows how much adjusted gross income you had to earn to be in the % income category during the 2017 tax year.  This chart shows that the top 5% of income earners, even though they earned only 36% of the income, paid 59% of the income tax.  Now why don't you explain how YOU THINK I don't understand it!

 

Income Category	2017 AGI	Percent of All Income	Percent of Income Taxes Paid
Top 1%	Over $515,371	21.0%	38.5%
Top 5%	Over $208,053	36.5%	59.1%
Top 10%	Over $145,135	47.7%	70.1%
Top 25%	Over $83,682	69.1%	86.1%
Top 50%	Over $41,740	88.8%	96.9%
Bottom 50%	Below $41,740	11.3%	3.1%

Edited June 9, 2021 by auburn41

[CoffeeTiger 5,145]

 

Quote

 

You're gonna have to explain this comment more.  I'm not sure what you are saying.  And I damn sure don't know which conservative commentators you're talking about. 

I'm not trying to be snarky or argumentative here, but I honestly don't know what you want me to explain. I was just pointing out how the percentages you gave show how bad income and wealth inequality is in America,. 

Quote

What those numbers say to me is that the top 50% of income earners in the US pay 96% of all Federal Income Taxes.  Stated another way, if you are in the bottom 50% of income earners in the US, you virtually pay no Fed Income Tax.  

Uh yeah, because if you are in the bottom 50% of income earners in the U.S. in a lot of cases you're going to be struggling just to survive. The Federal Gov decides they shouldn't take a ton of money in income taxes from people on the verge of poverty anyway.  I don't know why you keep pointing this out as a reason for why the wealthiest individuals and companies shouldn't have to pay more than they do.

 

Quote

If you wanted to discuss Soc Sec tax you should have posted an article that discussed that.  This article was trying to make normal people hate the really wealthy people.

This was absolutely not the point of the article. It was showing how the ultra wealthy are able to use tax loopholes and deductions to bring their tax bills down to nothing in some years, while they simultaneously run some of the largest corporations in the US. If you don't think this is a problem, then that's fine, but we're not here to hate on the wealthy, we're here to hate on the tax codes that allow stuff like this. 

Quote

 But consider this......how much income tax revenue do you think the government gets from Amazon, Blue Origin, Tesla etc. employees?  Not only that, how much money in capital gains does the fed govt get from people that have earned income on dividends and stock sales from those companies and others like them.  I don't give two rips for Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. but they are doing the exact thing I do every year in trying to keep as much of their money as they can.

Ah, yes the tried and true argument of "But we can't tax them, they are the job creators!"  Next you're going to tell me you actually believe that "Trickle Down Economics" works. 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[metafour 4,969]

I work in tax accounting.

The amount of idiotic "hot takes" I see from people, including in this thread, who clearly have ZERO fundamental knowledge of the tax system, or money in general, is staggering.

No, the poor McDonald's worker does NOT "pay more in taxes" than Jeff Bezos or whatever other idiotic statement some blogger wants to make.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Oh dear sweet jeebity jeebus. The homie doesn't know what AGI means, either. 

 

[auburn41 492]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Oh dear sweet jeebity jeebus. The homie doesn't know what AGI means, either. 

 

I do know what AGI means, and I'm still waiting for your explanation, McDoofus!

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 minutes ago, metafour said:

No, the poor McDonald's worker does NOT "pay more in taxes" than Jeff Bezos or whatever other idiotic statement some blogger wants to make.

So Bezos and the like are paying a percentage of their income in taxes equal to that of middle and lower class workers?

[metafour 4,969]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

So Bezos and the like are paying a percentage of their income in taxes equal to that of middle and lower class workers?

What is the source of their income? Where is their income derived? What credits and deductions are they utilizing?

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, metafour said:

What is the source of their income? Where is their income derived? What credits and deductions are they utilizing?

Any chance you want to answer the question before trying to explain to me why the answer doesn't mean what I think it means?

If you're going to come in here all guns blazing about how stupid everyone else is and how much smarter you are, as is your shtick with every thread you post in no matter the subject, then I'd think you'd be able to say yes or no and then proceed to the condescending and patronizing. 

[auburn41 492]

17 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

I'm not trying to be snarky or argumentative here, but I honestly don't know what you want me to explain. I was just pointing out how the percentages you gave show how bad income and wealth inequality is in America,. 

Uh yeah, because if you are in the bottom 50% of income earners in the U.S. in a lot of cases you're going to be struggling just to survive. The Federal Gov decides they shouldn't take a ton of money in income taxes from people on the verge of poverty anyway.  I don't know why you keep pointing this out as a reason for why the wealthiest individuals and companies shouldn't have to pay more than they do.

 

This was absolutely not the point of the article. It was showing how the ultra wealthy are able to use tax loopholes and deductions to bring their tax bills down to nothing in some years, while they simultaneously run some of the largest corporations in the US. If you don't think this is a problem, then that's fine, but we're not here to hate on the wealthy, we're here to hate on the tax codes that allow stuff like this. 

Ah, yes the tried and true argument of "But we can't tax them, they are the job creators!"  Next you're going to tell me you actually believe that "Trickle Down Economics" works. 

 

 

Um, the bottom 50% are net recipients from the Federal Gov.  I am not saying they should pay more.  I am also not pointing to any reason why the wealthiest individuals or companies shouldn't pay more taxes.  I am explaining why it is the way it is. If you want to change the current tax laws, have at it.   We have an "income tax" and not a "wealth tax."  And lastly, no one said anything about "we can't tax them" or "trickle down economics."  Unlike others on this thread, I'm sure you at least understand what you are posting about and I wish you would quit trying to have discussions about things I never stated.

[CoffeeTiger 5,145]

29 minutes ago, metafour said:

What is the source of their income? Where is their income derived? What credits and deductions are they utilizing?

One reason why I support Biden's tax plan. It focuses less on just income taxes and also looks at Investment income and estate taxes to address other areas that wealth is gained and maintained. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

One reason why I support Biden's tax plan. It focuses less on just income taxes and also looks at Investment income and estate taxes to address other area's the that wealth is gained and maintained. 

That's my thing. I don't understand why we're differentiating between sources of income. As if earning interest on interest somehow shouldn't count. 

[metafour 4,969]

16 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Any chance you want to answer the question before trying to explain to me why the answer doesn't mean what I think it means?

If you're going to come in here all guns blazing about how stupid everyone else is and how much smarter you are, as is your shtick with every thread you post in no matter the subject, then I'd think you'd be able to say yes or no and then proceed to the condescending and patronizing. 

Why would I answer your absurdly simplistic question that turns a multi-dimensional concept (TAX) into a linear concept? The questions I asked have everything to do with your initial question because it's all tied and relevant to what you're trying to get at.

Taxation is incredibly complex. Have you seen what the tax act looks like? It's always comical to me seeing people who don't even know how to prepare their own tax return "explain" the inequity of taxation.

 Furthermore, the supposed "loopholes" make perfectly good logical sense when explained in relation to their OWN income - but as soon as they're applied to someone wealthy, it's apparently an affront that these concepts are allowed.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, metafour said:

Why would I answer your absurdly simplistic question that turns a multi-dimensional concept (TAX) into a linear concept? The questions I asked have everything to do with your initial question because it's all tied and relevant to what you're trying to get at.

Taxation is incredibly complex. Have you seen what the tax act looks like? It's always comical to me seeing people who don't even know how to prepare their own tax return "explain" the inequity of taxation.

 Furthermore, the supposed "loopholes" make perfectly good logical sense when explained in relation to their OWN income - but as soon as they're applied to someone wealthy, it's apparently an affront that these concepts are allowed.

I haven't attempted to explain the inequity of taxation. Nor have I suggested that the same loopholes I might take advantage of shouldn't also apply to wealthy people.

You said Bezos pays more in taxes than a poor McDonald's worker. That's obviously true, even if he only pays .000000000000000001% on whatever source of income you choose. What I asked you is, does he pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes? I'm not sure why you're bringing in loopholes and tax acts and such. I'm not asking for why. I'm only asking for if. It seems you either don't know or don't wish to answer. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,145]

 

54 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Um, the bottom 50% are net recipients from the Federal Gov.  I am not saying they should pay more.  I am also not pointing to any reason why the wealthiest individuals or companies shouldn't pay more taxes.  I am explaining why it is the way it is. If you want to change the current tax laws, have at it.   We have an "income tax" and not a "wealth tax."  

You have expressly stated that the expression "The wealthy do not pay their fair share" is a lie, which I interpreted as you saying you believe the rich DO pay a fair share of taxes, and thus it wouldn't be unfair to levy more on them. You also keep emphasizing that the rich pay xx% of federal taxes and poor pay xx% of federal taxes which isn't what this thread was ever even about originally. You don't have to explain anything, because we know how it is....the discussion is based around whether it should STAY the way it is. 

Quote

And lastly, no one said anything about "we can't tax them" or "trickle down economics." 

But you did... 

Quote

But consider this......how much income tax revenue do you think the government gets from Amazon, Blue Origin, Tesla etc. employees?  Not only that, how much money in capital gains does the fed govt get from people that have earned income on dividends and stock sales from those companies and others like them.

This is the very definition of what trickle down economics means. Here is a link if you are confused https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp .

The idea that the less taxes that are paid by the wealthy/their companies lead to more jobs that create a larger tax base, large investment income, and more economic activity that benefits everyone is trickle down economics. 

 

Quote

 Unlike others on this thread, I'm sure you at least understand what you are posting about and I wish you would quit trying to have discussions about things I never stated.

 

I don't know what to tell you man, so far you're the only one here that has continuously expressed confusion about what's being said or discussed. 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by CoffeeTiger
spelling and grammar

[auburn41 492]

13 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

You have expressly stated that the expression "The wealthy do not pay their fair share" is a lie, which I interpreted as you saying you believe the rich DO pay a fair share of taxes, and thus it wouldn't be fair or practice to levy more on them. You also keep emphasizing that right pay xx% of federal taxes and poor pay xx% of federal taxes which isn't what this thread was ever even about originally. You don't have to explain anything, because we know how it is....the discussion is based around where it should STAY the way it is. 

But you did... 

This is the very definition of what trickle down economics means. Here is a link if you are confused https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp .

The idea that the less taxes that are paid by the wealthy/their companies lead to more jobs that create a larger tax base, large investment income, and more economic activity that benefits everyone is trickle down economics. 

 

 

 

Damn dude, I'm just pointing to the numbers.  Those are facts.  My statement about the employees of large companies, started by people that were subjects of the article, rightly point out the the US government and the US economy benefits greatly from having those jobs in the US.  Is it better to have those jobs in the US or in another country?  It was nothing other than a statement of fact.  That is all.  You can be as condescending as you want, it won't change the facts.

18 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I don't know what to tell you man, so far you're the only one here that has continuously expressed confusion about what's being said or discussed. 

 I have expressed confusion with some of your written statements and asked for clarification.  It's not my fault you are not more clear and that has nothing to do with the material under discussion.