$447 bil

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by goof2

I already told you the most likely reason why that less than 1% paid no federal income taxes. In 2008 the Dow Jones lost over 35% of its value. There were plenty of investments that lost significantly more. The way it works is that investment losses can be written off from a person's income. Do you think it is feasible that under 1% of those making over a $1 million per year realized losses that were more than their annual income? That isn't some loophole. That has been a part of the tax code for quite a while and is available to anyone. Calling that a loophole isn't any different than saying those who don't pay taxes because they make shit are taking advantage of a loophole.

You did, and I don't dispute the assumption. That is the most likely reason.

Shmike asked for real world examples of rich people paying no taxes through loopholes*, and since I don't know any rich people personally, that article was the nearest convenient evidence. For the most part I threw it out there because I never appreciate being completely ignored when I feel I've made a good point or asked a valid question during one of these arguments. ETA: And I think shmike's was a valid question.

My back-and-forth with shmike during this thread has been tangential on our original disagreement: whether or not the rich can afford to be taxed as easily as the poor or vice-versa. The post you quoted was more in response to that argument than anything you've posted.

*With that in mind, I do consider to be a loophole any tax break that allows anyone who still takes home $1 million or more to pay no effective tax. And, I believe those 1,470 millionaires who watched their portfolio tank during the recession can still afford to pay 35% in income taxes much more easily than the people taking home $20K a year can afford 5%. Or 0%, because they're still living on $20K a year.