Leading economists have determined that on average, the wealthiest 400 families paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 8.2% in recent years, when the increased value of their stock is counted. That means billionaires can pay lower tax rates than middle-class workers like teachers, nurses, and firefighters.
An analysis of billionaire tax data found that 26 of the wealthiest billionaires paid an effective tax rate of just 4.8% on a $500 billion increase in their collective fortune between 2013-18. ProPublica also found that billionaire Jeff Bezos paid $0 in federal income tax from 2007 through 2011.
Sen. Wyden’s proposed Billionaires Income Tax (BIT) would tax the wealth gains of billionaires and those with consistent income above $100 million. Currently, such investment gains are only taxed if the underlying asset is sold. But the ultrawealthy don’t have to sell to benefit. They can secure low-interest loans secured against their rising fortunes and live luxuriously tax-free. Under Wyden’s plan, such wealth-growth income would be taxed every year just like worker wages are now. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated this proposal would raise $557 billion in new revenue over the next decade from just a small number of ultra-wealthy oligarchs.
Source: Americans for Tax Fairness
No, it does not mean “billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-class workers like teachers, nurses, and firefighters.”
No American pays income taxes on the growth in value of their stock investments or their IRA or 401k or even the growth in value of their home until those investments are sold or withdrawn.
The referenced 8.2% tax rate is ludicrous. If that logic were applied to all Americans their tax rate would be lower as well. In theory, average American retirees could live off a Roth IRA and pay 0% taxes.
Clearly all this getting even is tempting, mainly because of the huge amounts of money involved, but the logic is a threat to all Americans seeking to have the investments grow…not tax free, but tax deferred.
26 of the wealthiest billionaires paid an effective tax rate of just 4.8% … but only using a none existent measure of asset growth, not income.
Bottom 50%: Taxpayers with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) below roughly $50,000 paid an average effective federal income tax rate of 3.7%.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
“That means billionaires can pay lower tax rates than middle-class workers like teachers, nurses, and firefighters.”
No, those with a billion in taxable income pay the same taxes as others who have a billion in taxable income.
Take a nurse who has $1MM in retirement savings after having saved for 45 years, who retires today at age 70, and another nurse who has no savings who is also age 70 today, both get $15,000 in Social Security and $35,000 a year in retirement / pension income. Regardless of the income taxes they paid in the past, they both have $50,000 in income today. Should the nurse with $1MM in retirement savings pay the same amount, more or less than the nurse with no savings?
That is how STUPID the above comparison is.
We have enough problems taxing similarly situated people the same because of the stupid complexity of the tax code.
Your example is nothing but ENVY – and consistent with Americans who:
Think the best tax is the one I owe and YOU pay,
Want the best health care coverage YOUR money will buy, and who assert
Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.
LikeLike
Wealth isn’t income. We tax income per an Amendment to the US Constitution approved well over 100 years ago. Prior to that amendment, we didn’t tax income except in a few occasions such as during wars. We don’t tax wealth – never have in the past.
So, the comparison is nothing more than a statistic, of the famed quote: Lie, Damed Lie, Statistic.
LikeLike
More importantly, America does not have a REVENUE problem. The total revenues we collect has grown from $2 Trillion at the turn of the century to almost $6 Trillion today.
Our problem is SPEND. While spend was about $2 Trillion at the turn of the century, today it is in excess of $7 Trillion.
And, for all the moaning and groaning about DOGE and the OBBB, our spending trajectory has not changed. https://status-quo-or-revolution.tiiny.co/?
We added $2+ Trillion to our national debt during the first 11 months of FY 2025, through August 31, 2025. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-09/61305-MBR.pdf
Until we take away the authority of federal bureaucrats and politicians to spend more TODAY than they are willing to tax individuals TODAY, this will continue to be nothing more than BUYING VOTES with promises to tax someone else – especially those too young to vote and generations unborn..
We have WIMPY Americans, who would gladly have someone else pay you Tomorrow (Tuesday) for health care coverage credits (a hamburger) today.
LikeLike
Al Lindquist
the lefties have to fund their social programs so they use all measures to fool folks into believing the rich do not pay their fair share—these folks are Trump in reverse and like those who fell for the lies of the Russian hoax–illegal immigrants–and a robust president they hope we fall for their misleading assumptions and propaganda.
LikeLike
So, social programs are bad for society, you are opposed to social programs and believe as MAGA do that if we just empower people with lower taxes and less government Americans can fend for themselves and be better off as a result.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Al Lindquist
why would you infer I was opposed to social programs–many like Planned Parenthood and NPR are, in my opinion, a waste of money–yes, lower taxes allows folks to have more of their dollars to spend–nothing wrong with that–just look at the folks who leave NJ for a warmer climate and lower state and local taxes–missing out on those great services provided by the Garden State. Just think there are more for you and Connie.
where do you think the $37 trillion in debt came from? I think Jack shows us very succinctly the origins of the debt–all these social programs don’t seem to pay for themselves–all built on promises and debt–ACA is a great example–let’s extend the subsidy for COVID forever say the lefties.
I would give large grants to folks like Catholic Charities–local food banks—mental health facilities. Cutting off these grants is not smart, but to assume all social programs work just fine is a stretch to me.
LikeLike
Do you know what Planned Parenthood actually does to help women’s health well beyond abortions?
Have you ever listened to NPR? It is both entertaining and highly educational on many different subjects and serves an important niche in communications to the public.
LikeLike
Al Lindquist:
I listen to NPR all the time and have for decades–they have plenty of my money–but now just the classical music folks get the contribution as the years have shown me just how left they lean–
Ira Berliner senior business editor of 25-years at NPR wrote about the left leaning editors back in 2024–he himself was raised by a left leaning lesbian peace activist and says the change he has seen over the few years is disheartening. Just more and more to the left–I believe there are something like 50 editors and he says probably not one conservative. He resigned after a few months–too much heat maybe.
No need for 60+ years of a federal subsidy. You can watch or listen to almost anything you want–folks are plugged in day and night–original purpose was to produce some high brow entertainment, news, and programming for the children. So we give them seed $ and now 60-years later they still want a subsidy. I read they have raised I believe $100,000 million. GREAT!!
Why subsidize just one?? Why not not another that provides diversity? And NPR refused to cover the Hunter laptop kerfuffle–outright refused–“nothing to see here.”
That’s the the problem for so many social , agricultural, and military programs, you can’t kill them. They grow like kudzu .
LikeLike
So they lean left and that means make it harder for them to exist? I have yet to hear anything on NPR that would cause me to suggest bias in their programs.
You don’t listen to any different points of view?
I’m not sure exactly what lean left means or why it matters. Plenty of sources lean right.
LikeLike
name some of the sources that you think lean right–left means the the story you tell, how you tell it, and the story you do not tell–you think Mr. Berliner was misguided–you telling me you don’t see a left bias at NPR is like me saying Fox News is fair and balanced–have some fun and Google the CEO of NPR and PBS–Katherine Maher.
She calls Trump–a racist and white supremist–she says America is addicted to white supremacy–the phrase boy and girl she discourages–she has issues with free speech as in ’21 she said the 1st Amendment was the # 1 challenge.–she wants to crack down on bad information.
Entitled to her views but not our tax dollars to serve her left wing constituents. Listen to how they portray the shutdown–bet it is slanted left–that’s who they are–fine, but use you own $. Why use the tax dollar?
LikeLike