和億萬富翁們的收入相比,他們向國家繳納的稅款幾乎是滄海一粟。這一點絲毫不讓人意外,但令人意外的是他們的避稅手段:周二,調查新聞網站ProPublica詳細披露了美國25位億萬富翁是如何做到的。這也是美國總統(tǒng)拜登提出一項關鍵稅收議案的論據——對所謂的“未實現資本收益”征稅。長期以來,超級富豪們一直以此為由,避免他們在死后還要被征稅。
曝光的內容揭示了這些億萬富翁向美國國稅局報告的收入以及他們的資產增值,即所謂的“未實現的資本收益”。大多數經濟學家認為,這種“未實現的資本收益”也是一種收入,即使根據美國現行的法律,這部分資產不需要被征稅。
例如,如果某人去年的凈資產為400萬美元,今年為500萬美元,經濟學家會說,這個人一定獲得了至少100萬美元的收入。但是,如果該人的凈資產僅是因為資產升值而增加,那么根據稅收規(guī)則,那100萬美元就不會被計為收入。
根據稅收規(guī)則,只有當資產所有者出售資產時,“資本收益”才會被計為“收入”,此時,增值的數額會算作出售資產的利潤,也即所謂的“已實現”資本收益。像沃倫?巴菲特、杰夫?貝佐斯、邁克爾?布隆伯格和埃隆?馬斯克這樣的億萬富翁只要牢牢地把資產掌握在自己手里,就可以輕而易舉地避免繳納所得稅。
這個隱秘的點是非常重要的。例如,ProPublica的文章顯示,他們調查了貝佐斯五年的財務狀況,在這段時間里,他向美國國稅局報告了42億美元的收入,以大多數衡量標準來看,這確實是一筆可觀的收入。但在此期間,貝佐斯的資產增值了990億美元。因此,經濟學家會說,貝佐斯在五年內的收入超過了1000億美元,但他只給國家繳納了42億美元的稅。他繳納的聯邦稅收在其真實總收入中的占比都不到1%。
稅務專家早就知道富人可以通過這種方式避稅,但就如何解決這一問題,他們常常存在分歧。大部分人的收入來自工作,每年,這部分個人所得都要被征稅。然而富人每年的大部分收入卻都不用納稅,這也使他們的資產能以更快的速度增長。
例如,在2015 年,美聯儲官員大衛(wèi)?S?米勒解釋說,巴菲特當時的凈資產接近700億美元,而如果每年都對他的資本收益征稅,無論他是否出售資產,他的身家就只會剩下95億美元。
米勒指出,解決這個問題的最好方法是改變稅收規(guī)則,每年將“未實現的資本收益”作為收入的一部分,納入征稅范圍,這種方法稱為“按市值計稅”。參議院財政委員會主席羅恩?魏登(Ron Wyden)對此十分贊同,并于2019年發(fā)布了一份白皮書,呼吁進行這項改革。
現行稅法還會給“未實現的資本收益”提供另一條問題更大的避稅途徑:某人死亡后,其資產就能永遠免稅。這就是稅收中所謂的“遞增基數”。即如果某人終生持有這些資產,并在去世后把資產留給他們的繼承人,那這些富人們就永遠不需要為他們持有資產的升值部分繳納所得稅了。
在計算出售資產的資本收益時,用的是納稅人出售資產的價格減去一個基數——通常是購得資產時支付的價格。對繼承人來說,在他們繼承資產之日,這一基數就“遞增”到繼承資產的價值中。以稅法的規(guī)則來看,在傳給繼承者之前積累的“未實現資本收益”都忽略不計、不用納稅了。
為了確保富人最終要為他們的所有收入都繳納所得稅,國會起碼必須廢除這種“遞增”式稅基的規(guī)則,并對富人去世后的“未實現收益”征稅。
拜登已將這項改革作為其《美國家庭計劃》中稅收部分的一項條款。如果某人死亡時未實現資本收益超過100萬美元(已婚夫婦為200萬美元),他將對此征稅。此前,房屋收益也是可以免稅的例外,現在,新的征稅規(guī)則將同樣適用于這部分資產。
這項提議的反對者稱,如果對資產持有者死亡時的資本收益征稅,將迫使人們出售家族農場和家族企業(yè)。這種說法站不住腳。政府表示,除非這些農場和企業(yè)不再是由家庭所有和家庭經營,否則,征稅對象不會包括此類農場和企業(yè),而在后一種情況下,納稅人可以在15年內繳納稅款。
對該提案的反對聲并不是為了農場主和小企業(yè)主的利益;而是為了保證像巴菲特、貝佐斯、布隆伯格和馬斯克這樣的人永遠不必像中產階級家庭那樣,所有收入都要被征稅。國會至少必須通過拜登提議的改革,否則ProPublica曝光的一切都不會帶來任何重大的變化。(財富中文網)
史蒂夫?沃霍夫(Steve Wamhoff)是美國稅收和經濟政策研究所的聯邦稅收政策部主任。
編譯:陳聰聰
和億萬富翁們的收入相比,他們向國家繳納的稅款幾乎是滄海一粟。這一點絲毫不讓人意外,但令人意外的是他們的避稅手段:周二,調查新聞網站ProPublica詳細披露了美國25位億萬富翁是如何做到的。這也是美國總統(tǒng)拜登提出一項關鍵稅收議案的論據——對所謂的“未實現資本收益”征稅。長期以來,超級富豪們一直以此為由,避免他們在死后還要被征稅。
曝光的內容揭示了這些億萬富翁向美國國稅局報告的收入以及他們的資產增值,即所謂的“未實現的資本收益”。大多數經濟學家認為,這種“未實現的資本收益”也是一種收入,即使根據美國現行的法律,這部分資產不需要被征稅。
例如,如果某人去年的凈資產為400萬美元,今年為500萬美元,經濟學家會說,這個人一定獲得了至少100萬美元的收入。但是,如果該人的凈資產僅是因為資產升值而增加,那么根據稅收規(guī)則,那100萬美元就不會被計為收入。
根據稅收規(guī)則,只有當資產所有者出售資產時,“資本收益”才會被計為“收入”,此時,增值的數額會算作出售資產的利潤,也即所謂的“已實現”資本收益。像沃倫?巴菲特、杰夫?貝佐斯、邁克爾?布隆伯格和埃隆?馬斯克這樣的億萬富翁只要牢牢地把資產掌握在自己手里,就可以輕而易舉地避免繳納所得稅。
這個隱秘的點是非常重要的。例如,ProPublica的文章顯示,他們調查了貝佐斯五年的財務狀況,在這段時間里,他向美國國稅局報告了42億美元的收入,以大多數衡量標準來看,這確實是一筆可觀的收入。但在此期間,貝佐斯的資產增值了990億美元。因此,經濟學家會說,貝佐斯在五年內的收入超過了1000億美元,但他只給國家繳納了42億美元的稅。他繳納的聯邦稅收在其真實總收入中的占比都不到1%。
稅務專家早就知道富人可以通過這種方式避稅,但就如何解決這一問題,他們常常存在分歧。大部分人的收入來自工作,每年,這部分個人所得都要被征稅。然而富人每年的大部分收入卻都不用納稅,這也使他們的資產能以更快的速度增長。
例如,在2015 年,美聯儲官員大衛(wèi)?S?米勒解釋說,巴菲特當時的凈資產接近700億美元,而如果每年都對他的資本收益征稅,無論他是否出售資產,他的身家就只會剩下95億美元。
米勒指出,解決這個問題的最好方法是改變稅收規(guī)則,每年將“未實現的資本收益”作為收入的一部分,納入征稅范圍,這種方法稱為“按市值計稅”。參議院財政委員會主席羅恩?魏登(Ron Wyden)對此十分贊同,并于2019年發(fā)布了一份白皮書,呼吁進行這項改革。
現行稅法還會給“未實現的資本收益”提供另一條問題更大的避稅途徑:某人死亡后,其資產就能永遠免稅。這就是稅收中所謂的“遞增基數”。即如果某人終生持有這些資產,并在去世后把資產留給他們的繼承人,那這些富人們就永遠不需要為他們持有資產的升值部分繳納所得稅了。
在計算出售資產的資本收益時,用的是納稅人出售資產的價格減去一個基數——通常是購得資產時支付的價格。對繼承人來說,在他們繼承資產之日,這一基數就“遞增”到繼承資產的價值中。以稅法的規(guī)則來看,在傳給繼承者之前積累的“未實現資本收益”都忽略不計、不用納稅了。
為了確保富人最終要為他們的所有收入都繳納所得稅,國會起碼必須廢除這種“遞增”式稅基的規(guī)則,并對富人去世后的“未實現收益”征稅。
拜登已將這項改革作為其《美國家庭計劃》中稅收部分的一項條款。如果某人死亡時未實現資本收益超過100萬美元(已婚夫婦為200萬美元),他將對此征稅。此前,房屋收益也是可以免稅的例外,現在,新的征稅規(guī)則將同樣適用于這部分資產。
這項提議的反對者稱,如果對資產持有者死亡時的資本收益征稅,將迫使人們出售家族農場和家族企業(yè)。這種說法站不住腳。政府表示,除非這些農場和企業(yè)不再是由家庭所有和家庭經營,否則,征稅對象不會包括此類農場和企業(yè),而在后一種情況下,納稅人可以在15年內繳納稅款。
對該提案的反對聲并不是為了農場主和小企業(yè)主的利益;而是為了保證像巴菲特、貝佐斯、布隆伯格和馬斯克這樣的人永遠不必像中產階級家庭那樣,所有收入都要被征稅。國會至少必須通過拜登提議的改革,否則ProPublica曝光的一切都不會帶來任何重大的變化。(財富中文網)
史蒂夫?沃霍夫(Steve Wamhoff)是美國稅收和經濟政策研究所的聯邦稅收政策部主任。
編譯:陳聰聰
It is no surprise that billionaires pay little in federal taxes relative to their incomes, but the level of detail provided by ProPublica Tuesday about how 25 billionaires pulled this off is astonishing. It is also an argument for one of President Joe Biden’s key tax proposals—taxing so-called unrealized capital gains that millionaires and billionaires have long avoided paying taxes on when they die.
The exposé presents the income these billionaires report to the IRS as well as their asset appreciation, which is called unrealized capital gains. Most economists consider unrealized capital gains to also be a type of income, even though it is not taxed under our current laws.
For example, if someone’s net worth was $4 million last year and is $5 million this year, an economist would say that person must have had income of at least $1 million. But if that person’s net worth grew only because their assets appreciated, tax rules do not count that $1 million as income.
Tax rules count capital gains as income only if and when the owner of an asset sells it, at which point the appreciation is calculated as the profit from the asset sale, also called a “realized” capital gain. Billionaires like Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, and Elon Musk can avoid paying income tax by simply holding on to their assets.
This arcane point is hugely consequential. For example, the ProPublica article reveals that Bezos reported $4.2 billion in income to the IRS during the five-year period examined, a substantial sum by most measures. But Bezos’s assets appreciated by $99 billion during that period. So, an economist would say that Bezos had income of more than $100 billion over five years, but he paid federal taxes only on $4.2 billion. Federal taxes as a share of his true total income over that period come to less than 1%.
Tax experts have long known that rich people are able to avoid taxes in this way, but they do not always agree on how to address it. Most people get their income from work, and this earned income is taxed each year. The ability of the wealthy to avoid paying taxes on most of their income each year allows them to grow their income at a much more rapid rate.
For example, in 2015 David S. Miller explained that Buffett, whose net worth was nearly $70 billion at that time, would have been worth $9.5 billion if his capital gains had been taxed each year regardless of whether he sold assets.
Miller points out that the best way to address this is to change the rules to include unrealized capital gains as income for tax purposes each year, an approach called mark-to-market taxation. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden, agrees, and issued a white paper in 2019 calling for this reform.
The tax code provides another even more problematic tax break for unrealized capital gains by exempting them forever when individuals die. This is the so-called stepped-up basis. The appreciation of assets held by wealthy people is never subject to income taxes if those assets are held until the holders die and are left to their heirs.
To calculate a capital gain after selling an asset, the basis, which is usually the price the taxpayer paid to purchase the asset, is subtracted from the sale price he or she received for the asset. For heirs, the basis is “stepped up” to the asset’s value on the day they inherited it. The unrealized capital gains that accumulated before the asset was passed to them simply disappear as far as the tax code is concerned.
To ensure that the wealthy eventually pay income taxes on all their income, Congress must at the very least repeal the stepped-up basis rule and tax unrealized gains of wealthy individuals when they die.
Biden has included this reform as one of the revenue-raising provisions in his American Families Plan. He would tax unrealized capital gains exceeding $1 million ($2 million for married couples) at death. Additional exclusions for gains on a home also would apply.
Opponents of Biden’s proposal to tax capital gains at death claim that it would force the sale of family-owned farms and family-owned businesses. This is not true. The administration has stated that it would not include such farms and businesses unless they stop being family-owned and family-operated, at which point taxpayers could pay the tax over 15 years.
Opposition to the proposal is not about farms and small businesses; it is about ensuring that people like Buffett, Bezos, Bloomberg, and Musk never have to pay taxes on all their income the way that middle-class families do. Congress must enact Biden’s proposed reform, at a minimum, or else nothing revealed by the ProPublica exposé will change in any significant way.
Steve Wamhoff is the director of federal tax policy at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.