Elon Musk: Dick Moves | Hacker News Reader

Elon Musk: Dick Moves

lrb.co.uk

12 pointsmitchbob23 comments

>The $27 billion would be taxed at the top federal rate of 37 per cent, plus a 3.8 per cent net investment tax. And because he earned the stock while living in California, before a recent tax-reducing move to Texas, he also faces state tax of 13.3 per cent. In total, as CNBC’s Robert Frank has calculated, the bill could top $15 billion. While the figure is enormous, it represents only 5 per cent of his estimated net worth of close to $300 billion.

>How do billionaires avoid income tax?

What an amazing non sequitur. To report he is paying $15 Billion in taxes on $27 Billion income then immediately claim this is avoiding income tax.

It switches from income taxes to wealth taxes. It's like people are on drugs and do bait and switch to make a point.

No, it's more like they know exactly what they are doing and are trying to fool people into being outraged and envious.

You have to read these kind of pieces from the frame of: the author does not think anyone should have $300 billion in net worth. Until Elon Musk is worth far less than this, the author is going to find ways to frame him as not paying sufficient tax. It's not about the income tax, or capital gains, or any of the details. It's about Elon having "money".

The article does not attempt a good-faith argument, and it's a mistake to engage with it on those terms.

Just curious but what is the significance of scare quoting "money" here?

I don't really view questionably-liquid stock in your own company, which has run up in value over the past year largely because of QE and other Fed money-pumping, as dollars in the bank.

Elon has a lot of paper money but it's not like he can trade it for $300 billion in potatoes even if the fancy struck him — any time he sells even 10% of his assets, the valuation (and thus the value of the remainder) drops massively.

So it seems like your critique here is overdetermined: you want to say that the author has certain ideological biases relating to wealth in general, which are mobilized in a certain disingenuous rhetoric towards fallacious arguments, but at the same time you want to say that even if they weren't biased or fallacious, they are wrong to attribute the amount of wealth to Elon that would justify the critiques in the first place. Is that right?

I think the statement simply highlights the fallacy of the authors argument.

There is a selective failure to differentiate wealth and income.

While that’s definitely accurate, that stock is a better asset than cash most of the time. There’s a reason most rich people have their wealth in stocks: because it’s more effective in the long run for generating wealth than hard cash.

So I don’t think saying “it’s just in a semi-illiquid asset” really detracts from the fact that it’s a huge amount of wealth. In fact, if it was all in cash, Elon would be “worse off” in the long run. (In that it wouldn’t be able to grow the way that it needs to to generate more wealth.)

Obviously there is more nuance, but “it’s not real money” is a very common counterpoint to someone saying “they are very rich,” and usually used to make it seem like the rich person isn’t as rich. But they’re actually richer for having stocks.

If you are commenting on a story, be sure to read it carefully so you can contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.

It is not in question whether he pays income tax or not, he doesn't because he doesn't have an income! If anything it is the significance of that fact or not, related to the taxes paid on stock holdings. It is quite literally the entire substance of the article!

If you don't pay income tax because you don't have income, there is no tax to avoid.

The clear implication of "How do billionaires avoid income tax" is that they are tax dodging. It is a bait and switch.

Ok it seems clear that you are reacting strongly to that line, to the point that you can't engage with what the article is actually saying. And that's fine! Sorry to waste the time even trying.

>you can't engage with what the article is actually saying

What else is the article is saying? To me, the this is the only point the article is really advocating. That Musk is somehow dodging income taxes by not having an income.

I think you should maybe read it again. The author is not making a claim anywhere near as strong, but I get that you have reasons you want to read it that way.

Just make sure there is room in your soul to recognize that principled outrage can exist, or at least careful critique; and in general, there is a space in things where there is nuance. Not everyone is looking for large stacks of money, or bitter they don't have some. One can look at the world and its dealings passionately, without that being some kind of naivete or misunderstanding.

I asked you in good faith what else you think the article had to say, and you have nothing. Perhaps it is you that needs to reread the article if you can't articulate a single point it makes.

All you have done is spout off condescending statements and life advice, completely refusing to address the topic of the article or what beliefs you hold.

The article likely is wrong on the math, but does have logic to it. I'd imagine the amount he owes will likely be taxed as "capital gains" rather than "income". So, it would be correct in saying he avoids paying income tax even though he still pays capital gains taxes.

I think the issue people like the author have (albeit poorly made by the article imo), is that this is arguably a loophole the rich use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes - not necessarily that the rich pay no taxes at all. Capital gains is taxed at lower rates than income, so the rich (e.g. CEOs) opt to get paid in equity to avoid having to pay higher tax rates that they would have if they were instead paid an income.

I actually like Elon but I do not support anyone on this Earth getting to horde wealth in insanely large amounts. I don't blame Elon or any billionaires for the USA's current financial problems though I fully blame the government for not banning lobbying and other financial impropriety that has caused these issues and many more.

Unrealized income is not real. He's not hording anything.

The economy is not zero-sum. Elon getting paid (if he sells his stock or exercises his options) takes nothing from you.

Debt issued with stock options as collateral should be taxed as much as income though, as this is basically income. And if you fall in the 37% tax bracket, tough luck.

Most people don't understand how top management earn money, and focus on "income" from stock growth, but the reality is that Musk is not the only one gaming the system, and the system should be fair for everyone.

Debt is not income, and no, it should not be taxed as such.

Do close the tax loopholes. Do fix the perverse incentives to sink money into stock speculation rather than reinvestment (goods, labor, new production).

Fix the input, don't try to equalize the output with destructive measures.

Elon doesn't own it as much as it controls it.

And who else would own it anyway if it was not it? One of the main arguments against taxes are the fact the governement is incompetent in the ways to spend it compared to industrials who actually made money BECAUSE they were creating value.

This may not be true always, but as a french person, in this case the american governement is pretty incompetent at doing stuff for the people such as universal healthcare, while elon musk is pretty efficient at creating industries.

The incompetence of the governement and the lack of universal high quality education and healthcare is not a money problem at all... Maybe it should get itself in check before stealing efficient people's money.

(not even considering that a lot of laypeople have made more money investing in Elon's industries stock than the governement will ever do for them)

The government controls significantly more wealth with questionable oversight. Being a senator is often a position for life, and even those that do get voted out still serve long terms. Most of the money that goes to the government is used on the military and spent very inefficiently. If Elon's companies spend money poorly or inefficiently they will very quickly lose market cap and his on-paper wealth will drop precipitously.

Why are we more okay with government vs. a single individual who has shown exception ability to manage resources.. managing resources?

Especially when most people agree with the goals: solving global warming and making our species multiplanetary

Reads like someone is equally bitter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com