I just want to understand how this is even possible??
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-09/millionaires-paid-no-…
Also, the median earning Australian made $48,381.
Does this mean most ozbargainers are very well off with all the threads of people making 3-4 times this amount?
I put it all in my dog's name. He's looking at some serious time if he gets caught.
jks, I don't even have a dog. I'm a cat person.
Can I put in my fish name?
I'm a cat person.
No you are not. You are a duck person.
Santos Little Helper
ABC interested in class warfare? That’s a ridiculous statement.
The reality is our taxation system contains numerous ways to effectively reduce your taxable income and many of these are abused and this is disproportionally by those who are higher earners and have the knowledge and advice to do so.
There’s a reason taxation reform is a constant newsworthy or politically discussed item as our system is not great. But significant reform requires bold choices and selling those to the general public successfully which the political parties are reluctant to do for fear of not being re-elected.
You forgot the most important factor after knowledge, advice AND taxable income/gains to do so, if you only earn 100k there is a small amount of tax to reduce, if you're last name is Packer then there is a lot more value in even a 1% reduction in your taxable income.
If you want to have an honest discussion about taxation they should start with who pays the vast bulk of tax and anyone saying pay their fair share should be questioned untill they define what they mean. The top income earners pay approximatly 50% of income tax and the wealthy pay the bulk of capital gains and other non-PAYG taxes. The ABS estimates that around half of families pay no net income tax - how much higher should this be? What reform do you suggest? should the top 10% of income earners pay 75% of the income tax? Should 75% of families pay no net income tax?
I wasn't aware of the half income tax figure - can you point me at the report ? My assumption is that a "family" is defined as having one or more children, and family tax benefit payments come into play ?
Reform is needed in business, wealth, capital gains, trusts and resource taxation. The taxation burden is disproportionality high against individual income earners in Australia compared to many in the OECD.
e.g. if the federal government was receiving a significantly higher proportion of taxation benefits from profits associated with "shit dug out of the ground and sent overseas", then its entirely possible overall individual income taxation could be lower.
@boirganz: The point is debated and it may be a little lower or higher after Covid here's an article
The federal tax burden is higher on individuals (particularly high income individuals) but that is in part due to, apart from profits (e.g. I have some QRE units that paid an 11% largely franked distribution for 6 months - meaning the company paid tax here), the "shit dug out of the ground and sent overseas" tax being a state tax that pays significant royalties to the states. Also the attempt to transfer royalties to the federal government is a little unfair to WA as they only joined the federation when the British parliament threatened to carve out a colony of Kalgoorlie (striping WA of its gold fields) unless they joined.
I personally think they should jack up the GST and lower personal income tax but this is politically hard as the main beneficiaries are the high income earners. My thinking is a little like taxes on cigarettes etc you encourage people to earn income and discourage them from spending.
@jerrus: Why would you want to discourage people from spending their money? That's probably the worst there is for an economy. Banks around the world have been trying to get the rich to put their money into the economy for over a decade now with little success. The goal is to have money flow so that building productive capacity is incentivized, the pie gets bigger, and living standards are raised, rather than money being hoarded or stored in forms that don't produce anything, like houses and many modern financial systems.
@MrJP: I agree it would cause some pain at first unless we do it gradually over several years, but in the long term we would be far better off. Money spent on productive things, creating businesses, investing in existing companies or develping assets isn't effected by GST this creates real wealth and flows money into production of goods and services. The greater our production the greater our consumption can be and in the long term we would have greater consumption based on greater wealth. Rich people don't hoard money most of their money is tied up in thier companies (Musk, Bezos) or other assets (Gates) most bank funds are based on normal peoples savings, superfunds conservative investments portion and self-funded retires. Australia doesn't suffer from a lack of consumption, we do have a decent savings rate but if you take away super that becomes an atrocious savings rate. I agree there are problems with housing but if you want to fix this there needs to be greater land release, lower immergration or looser development controls (or some combination of the three) people investing in real estate are just following the market.
this is disproportionally by those who are higher earners and have the knowledge and advice to do so.
None of these are matters actually addressed in the ABC News article.
Instead, they take accountancy deductions out of context and, for no relevant measure, identify that some tax payers have spent $250,000 on legal disputes as a deduction.
There's no mention whatsoever that 10% of the highest income earners pay 50% of income tax. There's no mention that most families don't net pay income tax. It wouldn't suit the narrative they're selling - i.e, the higher earners are slouching when it comes to paying tax. That narrative is so obviously wrong it cannot and should not be tolerated. The ABC is meant to give balanced reporting.
$250,000 for tax litigation and a merits review before the AAT is in fact cheap. People don't spend that money on tax litigation if it can be avoided. Just because it's deductible doesn't mean you get that money back. At best you'll still be out of pocket 53% x $250,000 at a 47% marginal rate.
I expect some of the examples cited by the ABC are actually persons who normally have a significant income tax liability but have entered into litigation recently with the Commissioner, resulting in amended assessments, interest charge (deductible) and litigation costs (deductible). That could well mean that someone who ordinarily has a high tax liability prior to FY2022 has a $nil liability for this year, which will promptly return in the following years. Yet ABC prints this as a millionaire paying $nil tax. Nonsense.
But again, the ABC sells this as some sort of nefarious tax avoidance. Quite frankly, it's extremely poor journalism, and printed to engender division. It is click bait nonsense.
If you want to talk about tax reform then the 2010 Harmer tax report recommendations would seem to be the right place for the ABC to look. Unfortunately this particular journalist would probably not understand the report and this would fall into the "too hard" basket.
This "top 10% pays 50%" here is a misleading at best by implying they shouldn't or that it's in some way unfair.
This statistic on its own only looks impressive to people who don't think much further than the sentence it's used in.
@ripprind: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the very wealthy are using "loopholes" and not paying tax on their 'proper' taxable income, or they are not. If the former then the "top 10%" of taxpayers are in fact not the wealthy ones because they're the ones getting conned into paying 50% of tax.
Quoting a fact is not misleading. You're upset with the fact being stated because of a bias.
@kipps: I haven't double checked these numbers, but in the post above its says "10% of the highest income earners pay 50%".
I'll eat my cake and buy another one, I'm not quite sure how that remark relates to my post.
Being factual and misleading is definitely possible and a widely used practice.
@ripprind: The country is full of lifters and leaners. The lifters do a hell of a lot of lifting. And the leaners do a hell of a lot of that too.
I'd prefer to see more user pays and less welfare mentality.
Or do like I'll do - pack up my business and move where it will be treated better.
@drfuzzy: I broadly agree with the lifters/leaners metaphor.
Too often I meet lifters who don't recognise that the taxes they pay are responsible for building and running a society that enables them to thrive.
There's no mention whatsoever that 10% of the highest income earners pay 50% of income tax.
So? The difference is, if you're in that 10% of the highest earners, you can afford to pay what you're meant to pay. You don't need to come up with ways to avoid tax, particularly when you get up to the nearer to the top 1-2%. It doesn't take that much to be in the top 10%. If you earn about $120k, you're a 10 percenter. And this isn't a moan from someone that looks enviously at the 10 percenters. Sticking my salary in here and it turns out I'm a 6 percenter (though it drops a fair bit on the household income comparison).
Yup, my high income friends pay less tax % of their income as my middle income friends. Through various accounting and finance strategies and loopholes and being able to pay more to accountants to get around paying tax.
This is sketchy at best. In most cases, they have a high income, but need to spend this income as some form of deductible expenses to be able to pay 'less tax'.
You need to have spent the money/claimed depreciation for that to occur.
Depreciation is a REAL cost. Your car or machinery is literally worth less than the first day that you bought it.
@CalmLemons: Do you think all 'stuff' is equally acknowledged in terms of depreciation? If someone starts a small consultancy or services business, and most of the 'stuff' they have is in furniture, electronics, equipment, clothes, pens, which were partly owned before the business started, there's a good chance the tax office won't even let them claim most of it in the first place, let alone acknowledge depreciation. Even if they do, much of it is so small that claiming it would hardly be worth the time. Compare this to a richer person who, where a significant portion of their value resides in vehicles. On top of that, they decide to replace their vehicles every 3-5 years, opposed to 8-10 years. The rich person would benefit way more because of depreciation accounting. Is it a real cost or is a cost that's largely created because it is incentivized through the tax system? Tax policies do not benefit the rich and poor equally.
@CalmLemons: They have between 10-50 properties depending on the person. But i know a couple who basically run a organisation where they claim so many things on it. Or people who put their partners who arent working under their "company / ABN" as a assistant in order to pay a salaray and super etc. Then theres a lot of other methods they have, that i wouldnt even understand as they are in the accounting / finance industry while i am not.
The best reform would be to slash government spending by at least 50%.
Which 50%?
Whether they are or are not does not change the basic fact: this article is poorly written and not helpful.
This. The journalist is probably OK at english but terrible at accounting or maths.
OP:
They don't make $1 million dollars under their own name.
If the $1 million dollars was earned entirely under their own name, it would be like $450k tax.
I can own a company that makes $1 million dollars, the company pays 25% tax, and then the company pays me $80k as wages.
Therefore I make $80k and pay ~$20k tax on that.
If I paid myself wages of $1 million from the company, yes, I would get taxed. No way around it.
You can do trusts but you would need a lot of family members to achieve anything worthwhile.
Article talks about individuals who reported $1m in income gross and paid zero tax after deductions,
Good try but it isn't saying companies that made $920k and owners ended up paying tax on $80k. That article is 60 people who made $80k and paid zero tax.
While it is not really advisable due to the unlimited liability, I don't recall Australia having any fundamental obstacle to a business still operating as a sole proprietor even with >$1m gross income.
A sole trader business would only need to have 30 employees getting paid on average 30k p.a. (plus super) to have an outgoing of around $1m. And that's before looking at any other overhead expenses simply to keep the business running.
From the ATO's perspective, it's a single person getting a gross income of >$1m, because the ATO makes no distinction between the individual and the sole trader business here.
From the individual's perspective, they could go below the tax free threshold because once they paid off all the business expenses they are legally and morally entitled to claim, they're only getting taxed on their true taxable income.
Incidentally, the basis of this ABC article is research by the Australia Institute… Which is a registered Deductible Gift Recipient, and thus a direct beneficiary of millionaires donating money to reduce their taxable income. How's that for a twist?
… If anything, maybe we should ban charities that doesn't do any real charitable work.
@pj1351: Kind of on point.
I'd say that $1m gross personal income is either they are CEOs / business owners or a lot of money invested from handed down wealth and they paid themselves that much because they got the expenses to match.
Because part of the fun of having a business is using company assets for personal enjoyment then having the tax payer subsidize it. Just think of all those mums driving dual cab HiLux Rangers dropping kids off at school.
I'd say that $1m gross personal income is either they are CEOs / business owners
I'm afraid you missed my point.
It really doesn't take all that much for an independent sole trader in some industries to get to a 6 figure gross income as one-man operations.
It only take scaling that up by a factor of 10 people while one person still operates as a sole trader for that oh-so mysterious $1m gross income for one person, even if the money is actually being split between 10 people in reality.
Just think of all those mums driving dual cab HiLux Rangers dropping kids off at school.
What does mums driving dual cab HiLux Rangers tell us? Please elaborate.
Most "loopholes" that the media tries to hype up are generally things that either doesn't really exist, or governments are already aware of and closed years ago, or are caused by governments attempting to close supposed loopholes.
@pj1351: If you are a sole trader making a $1m then you can afford a good accountant to tell you to not be a sole trader.
You are just going around in circles to feather your own point.
If you are a sole trader making a $1m then you can afford a good accountant to tell you to not be a sole trader.
Unless they're about to do something wrong legally or ethically, the keyword there is "tell", not "force".
You are just going around in circles to feather your own point.
The point of this topic is asking "how is this possible".
Beside the obvious explanation of eccentrics that would rather donate almost their entire year's income to pet causes rather than giving the government a cent extra, I provided explanation for an unusual but plausible (and legal) scenario for how. Then attempted to explain it from another angle when you seemed to have missed the point.
As for you? I'm still eagerly waiting for you to actually explain your HiLux theory, and using as jumping point in studying if tax laws actually allows it to happen as you imagine it does.
If you're right, I learn something new. If you're wrong, I still learn something new from how you are wrong.
@pj1351: You have zero idea. You are most likely not a practicing accountant. I am so you are just dreaming that you would be a $1m grossing sole trader. Not just one year but for many years paying an accountant $80k to keep you on the highest tax bracket with unlimited liability. Use some common sense.
Like I said on here in separate comment. The reporting is full of plot holes. These 60 millionaire paid zero tax last year. What about the years before and years after. Might as we just not work give away all your assets and be on the dole if you have so many expenses you pay zero tax in perpetuity and grossing $1m.
keep you on the highest tax bracket with unlimited liability.
I myself brought up the concern of unlimited liability first, so you're adding nothing new to the topic there.
And highest tax bracket doesn't change the fact that you can generally claim the salaries and wages paid to employees in full (not to yourself as a sole trader, of course). And if someone wants to pay their own family unreasonable amounts given their skill and work responsibilities? The ATO already has restrictions against that.
Unless you're a "practicing accountant" who thinks we should be taxing people based on their gross income rather than taxable income? Good job widening the disparity between those who can afford to set up companies as separate legal entities and those who can't.
These 60 millionaire paid zero tax last year. What about the years before and years after.
Articles and research like this make it out as if it's the same 60+ people every year with >$1m gross income going below the tax free threshold.
Aside from a handful of eccentrics, it should be immediately obvious that it's a similar number of people every year being forced to fight massive legal battles against the ATO… Which would necessitate engaging in the ongoing services of a team of accountants and tax lawyers, rather than a single rubber-stamper for $99 once a year.
Maybe if the tax system wasn't such a convoluted mess, we wouldn't have to lose so much tax money funding the prosecution of protracted legal battles, then losing even more tax money when people rightfully claim those bills against their taxable income.
… And you still haven't elaborated on your HiLux theory.
@pj1351: What you bring up is non sense. $1m grossing sole trader with a $80k accountant bill so they can pay zero tax. You got rocks in your head if you believe that. So that is discredited. Worse than my Hilux theory you are so dogged about.
It isn't a Hilux theory the ATO page on FBT exemption for utes but then you are not living in the real world of you think someone is going to make $30k of 30 employees to be a $1m grossing sole trader. If you believe that you would believe anything.
Sounds like the same convoluted argument to say the tax laws are screwed up because it doesn't work the way you want it because you are an uninformed journalist and not anywhere near proficient in accounting , economics and finance.
Your preoccupation with the hilux is the best basis for your discrediting me then you sound like a bad stand up comic.
It isn't a Hilux theory the ATO page on FBT exemption for utes
The FBT exemption is only on the minor and incidental private uses of the vehicle, not that a HiLux is miraculously exempt from FBT entirely.
How can any theory be "worse" than one where you flat out continue to refuse to actually explain what you're even trying to argue?
but then you are not living in the real world of you think someone is going to make $30k of 30 employees to be a $1m grossing sole trader. If you believe that you would believe anything.
Nah, if I would just blindly believe anything without question, I'd just believe the article and your HiLux theory… Whatever it is.
We're not talking about complex tax laws, or even the relatively simplified summary on the ATO website.
The article claims these 60 millionaires that earn over $1m but "paying no tax", earned an average income of $3.5m each, but that "all up" they claimed on average $2.76m in different tax deductions.
Even on the face of it, it should be immediately obvious that the numbers doesn't add up, and that key details are being omitted to fit the narrative.
The FBT exemption is only on the minor and incidental private uses of the vehicle
You didn't read the page, let me help you.
An employee's private use of a taxi or a panel van, utility (ute) or other commercial vehicle (that is, one not designed principally to carry passengers – see Table 1) is exempt from fringe benefits tax (FBT) if their private use is limited to (the table includes dual cab utes)
The get out clause The employer is not required to keep special records to be eligible for this exemption. However, you must be able to demonstrate the use of the vehicle meets the eligibility criteria at all times. This could be done by regularly comparing the opening and closing odometer readings of the vehicle with the total distance you expect the employee to travel between home and work during that particular period.
If you are a tradies and travels all around. Your expected travel between home and work could be anything.
You're just trying to rescue your own dog's vomit of an argument.
You didn't read the page, let me help you.
LOL.
An employee claiming more private use under this exemption doesn’t mean that they miraculously evade tax for that private use.
If anything, it probably means the employer is paying more tax overall in that arrangement, since that portion exempt from FBT can’t also then be claimed as a business expense.
… And that either way, enforcement would end up costing the ATO far more in compliance costs than any pittance they could potentially recover.
If you are a tradies and travels all around. Your expected travel between home and work could be anything.
You didn’t follow the page to PCG 2018/3, let me help you.
Diversion between home and place of work adding no more than 2km from the ordinary length of that trip, and no more than 1000km in total per year.
By having a bloody good accountant while earning millions?
That’s what the story says
"Some people earning a million dollars or more paid on average $80,000 each to manage their tax affairs..”
They pay more to their accountants per year than most people make.
the $80k is also deductible.. sooooo….
You still have to spend $80k though, and it's not like you get anywhere close to the whole $80k back.
Or Tax heavens.
Praise the (tax) lord!
Fat prophets to be found.
Read it carefully ;) It's all about deductions :P
A millionaire that made $1 million, but lost $2 million in crypto, can also make and not be taxed on their next million as well …
The writer skimps on all relevant details about said "millionaires" deductions ;) It is just click bait …
Capital losses can't be used to offset income. So unless your capital loss was in another year your example is plain wrong.
How about you understand how tax works? If you are reporting a capital gain then your gains exceed your losses. Therefore a 2 million tax loss on crypto isn't a deduction.
In this case your tax income is -1 million. An offset for future years on capital gains.
Deductions relate to expenses in your income not actual losses.
@7ekn00: My point is that you're not reporting earnings of 1 million on your tax return if you have a capital loss.
The article is about people who claim expenses.
Your condensending tone is really starting to get me. Have a look at your negative internet points before you talk to me like I'm an idiot.
@7ekn00: Honestly, I have better things to do than worry about you trying to start a shit slinging match over the internet.
I can see where you're coming from but don't really agree. Whatever. Your original comment isn't 100% anyway. A millionaire who losses 1 mill won't be able to claim the loss on their next 1 million. Only on capital gains not personal income.
@lolz112: Actually, that's exactly what carried forward losses do. If you have no other income to offset against, the losses from a year, whether revenue or capital, are carried forward to future years to be offset against future gains or losses
You can be a trader which means it's on revenue account, meaning it's not capital gains, and therefore no capital gains concessions.
In fact, with that volume of revenue, and the requisite capital to do so, they'd be considered a business, therefore would be able to offset the losses against other taxable income
The ABC's reporting is crap; as usual, they conflate revenue, or income, with profit. We are taxed on profit, ie the amount of taxable income left over after allowable deductions, not on income
As was said above, this is disingenuous reporting, and wanting to stoke outrage, as has clearly been achieved
Actually, if you are in the business of trading crypto, your losses are on revenue, not capital account. Read Taxation Ruling TR 97/11.
These people don't have any 'income' in the normal sense of having a job and working for a living.
It's all gains and losses, sometimes the losses are bigger than the gains so then they pay no tax.
Yes, it's about deductions, but extremely shady deductions.
Donald Trump paid $750 tax (that's seven hundred & fifty dollars only) in the first two years after he became President & paid no tax in 10 out of the previous 15 years.
The question is:
How can a person claim to run financial losses year after year, but still live an extremely wealthy lifestyle ?
The fact that he's living in huge mansions & flying around in personal jets implies a huge disposable income, but he is somehow still paying zero taxes.
Carried forward losses.
In Trump's case, he racked up close to $1 billion in losses back in the early 1990s and used that to save on taxes until 2005, The Times found.
This.
I'm always confused by this take that somehow Trump is "rorting the system, bro!" in a way that's both obvious and prosecutable. It assumes two things that are just lunacy on the face of it:
First, that the same establishment that has been trying to 'finally put an end to Drumpf!' for the last 6+ years has somehow missed the easy Al Capone-style dunk of just nailing him on a dodgy tax record, and;
Second, that someone with Trump's money and assets doesn't have an entire (profanity) office of people whose sole job is to scrutinize and make sure every loophole is exploited every i is dotted and every T is crossed on any financial document that could ever be traced back to him.
Sure, Orange Putler is a clown. But if Trump was doing something actually illegal, he'd be gone.
@whatwasherproblem: Except the investigations of his wrongdoings were all quashed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/trump-investigat…
His own lawyer says that he inflated assets when it suited him:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/politics/cohen-testimo…
The reality is he has immense political support which allows him to get away with hiding his tax returns and avoiding prosecution:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/09/us/politics/trump-tax-ret…
But if Trump was doing something actually illegal, he'd be gone.
Naive to think people don't get away with illegal things.
The reality is he has immense political support which allows him to get away with hiding his tax returns and avoiding prosecution:
The IRS has access to everyone's tax return, none are 'hidden', not even Trumps.
@trapper: Yes, but if they were released to the public he'd take a big political hit. With political pressure, prosecutors are more likely to actually pursue the cases.
@Autonomic: He probably doesn't want to get hounded by his political enemies.
But that's not illegal, there isn't any 'case' to pursue.
@trapper: Huh? There are (were) multiple cases against him being pursued regarding his financial fraud.
@Autonomic: You seem to think there is some kind of financial fraud 'hidden' in his tax returns.
This is not true or the IRS would have nailed him already.
Trump also "didn't claim a salary" as president. He just forced the secret service to stay at his hotel on his many many golf days.
He gets secret service protection for life too, like all US presidents.
The secret service that were protecting Ivanka had to hire an apartment to use the toilets in because they weren't allowed to use her toilets.
A lot of losses are on an "incurred" basis, not cash basis. This does not mean someone who has claimed $1 million in deductions has actually spent $1 million. They may have only outlayed $500K in cash or $0 (by getting another entity to pay for the expense and the entity claiming the deduction recording the amount owing as a loan). People think that someone who has claimed × amount in deductions has actually forked out the cash. This is not necessarily the case. As long as an entity can show it has "incurred" an expense under s.8-1 ITAA 97, it can claimit as a tax deduction.
So main element of the trick here is a "loan"?
Is it similar in concept to the billionaires who lend money from the bank using their share as the collateral and keep doing that until the day they die?
They should be named and shamed. And gov takes all their assets and distribute to others needed.
go live in china for a taste of that !
You mean the country that pulled their population out of abject poverty faster than any nation in human history?
Maybe so, but my point is still correct.
@angryasian: When a wealthy person in Australia is caught defrauding the tax office, what do you think happens?
50c has been deposited to your account
Lol, they also put themselves in that situation too.
@sjj89: I'm thinking about the terrible famines that plagued China 60ish years ago. Among other things, many officials over reported the crop yields so the government decided to export the excess. Estimate between starved 15 and 55 million starved to death.
Hmm don’t know why you’ve been downvoted for stating facts so have an upvote. It is true that China has pulled billions out of poverty in only a few decades.
There’s plenty of anti-China stuff in the MSM (mainly by right wing outlets like Sky) written by people who know nothing about Chinese history, only that China must be bad and it’s dangerous they’re becoming more powerful. It’s definitely not Western countries we should be worried about, despite the West having colonised nearly every continent on earth throughout modern history involving the deaths of hundreds of thousands of indigenous populations not only limited to Australia. The West definitely are not aggressors at all, no way lmao!
The fact you’ve been downvoted so hard shows a) lots of people still don’t know anything about China and b) people are sucking up the anti-China koolaid spread in the MSM.
@Ghost47: [people are sucking up the anti-China koolaid spread in the MSM.]
It could have a lot to do with China's treatment of Tibet, Taiwan, the Uygurs, and the "disappearing" of anyone whom they decide they don't like, citizens being forced indoors re: Cvd19 so they suicide rather than starve to death, not to mention building a society of social credits (step out of line, "no soup for you"). You know, those "not-really-anti-China" things they've done. Won't even get into their threats against AU and their military flexing over Taiwan.
@Geekomatic: None of what you've listed refutes the fact about poverty? All you've mentioned are things often reported in Western MSM, which proves my point exactly.
@Geekomatic: China treatment of Tibet & Uygurs demand strong action and should be condemned by entire international community! They must pay!
Australia's treatment of Aboriginal people, US treatment of Indians, Vietnamese, Philipino, British treatment of India (and rather the half of the globe), French & Belgians in Africa - well, we said sorry two times already, what else do you want?!
don’t know why you’ve been downvoted
Ah, I actually know this one! It's because of:
plenty of anti-China stuff in the MSM (mainly by right wing outlets like Sky)
You mean the country that pulled their population out of abject poverty faster than any nation in human history?
Never mind the tens of millions killed.
@sjj89: Not many countries have slaughtered tens of millions of their own people, this is a very rare achievement.
You can't excuse a horrid totalitarian government purely because they've done some good…
@brendanm: That’s right. People are incapable of assessing information from an unbiased position! Anything others espouse that goes against my opinions must be receiving kickbacks!
Surely
Are they doing anything illegal to have their assets stolen?
Very lackluster reporting from ABC News right there, as usual with almost all matters of taxation and personal finance. It seems to be suggesting that millionaires run accounting practices that conveniently have deductions equivalent to their taxable income, which is nonsense. If you seriously want to understand our taxation system, and how the wealthy deal with tax, reading ABC News is not the place to read.
They're more interested in class warfare than understanding the difference between revenues, profit, and return on capital employed. The same sort of person that thinks it's surprising that a bank makes a greater net profit but without appreciating there's been capital raised.