Latest news with #wealthgap
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Elon Musk Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Middle Class
The wealth gap in America is staggering, but the tax gap might be even more shocking. When I asked ChatGPT to calculate what would happen if Elon Musk paid taxes at the same effective rate as middle-class Americans, the AI's response revealed numbers that will make you question everything you thought you knew about tax fairness. Explore More: Read Next: The answer involves billions in potential revenue, fundamental questions about how wealth should be taxed and a tax loophole so effective that billionaires have turned it into an art form. The Massive Tax Rate Gap Between Billionaires and Regular Americans According to ChatGPT's analysis, the effective tax rate difference between Musk and middle-class Americans is almost unbelievable. While middle-class households typically pay an effective tax rate of 20% to 25% when combining federal income tax, payroll taxes and other obligations, Musk's situation tells a very different story. Based on ProPublica's investigation of IRS files, ChatGPT revealed that Musk paid a 'true tax rate' of just 3.27% on his wealth growth between 2014 and 2018. In 2018 specifically, he reportedly paid $0 in federal income tax despite his wealth increasing dramatically. The AI explained this isn't because Musk is breaking the law — it's because most of his wealth exists as unrealized gains in Tesla and SpaceX stock, which aren't taxed until sold. He can also borrow against his equity holdings, and loans aren't considered taxable income. What $3 Billion in Extra Tax Revenue Could Actually Fund ChatGPT ran the numbers on what would happen if Musk paid a 25% effective tax rate during that 2014 to 2018 period. With his wealth increasing by approximately $13.9 billion, he would have owed about $3.475 billion in taxes instead of the roughly $455 million he actually paid. That extra $3 billion could have funded some serious public programs: Free community college for over 1 million students Universal school lunches for millions of children Clean water infrastructure projects in cities like Flint Significant boosts to child tax credits or affordable housing grants The AI shared that this represents just one person over five years, making the potential impact even greater. How the Bezos and Buffett Comparisons Make It Even More Shocking ChatGPT compared Musk with other billionaires and the results were even more eye-opening. According to the same ProPublica data: Jeff Bezos saw his wealth grow by $99 billion from 2014- to 2018 while paying $973 million in taxes — an effective rate of just 0.98%. Warren Buffett increased his wealth by $24.3 billion during the same period but paid only $23.7 million in taxes — a microscopic 0.10% effective rate. If all three paid taxes at a 25% rate on their wealth growth, ChatGPT calculated they would have collectively contributed an additional $32.85 billion to federal revenue over just five years. 'That's from three people,' the AI shared, which really puts the spotlight on the scale of potential revenue from properly taxing extreme wealth. The 'Buy-Borrow-Die' Strategy That Makes It All Possible ChatGPT explained the sophisticated but perfectly legal strategy that allows billionaires to avoid most taxes: Buy assets (stocks, real estate, businesses) that appreciate over time. Borrow against those assets at low interest rates — loans aren't taxable income. Die and pass appreciated assets to heirs, who receive a 'stepped-up basis' that eliminates taxes on all previous gains. This approach allows billionaires to fund lavish lifestyles through borrowed money while their actual wealth compounds tax-free indefinitely. The AI pointed out that regular Americans can't use this strategy because we rely primarily on taxable wages rather than appreciating assets we can borrow against. Why Current Tax Rates Miss the Real Problem ChatGPT clarified an important distinction that often confuses discussions about billionaire taxes. When billionaires do have taxable income, they often pay rates similar to or higher than middle-class Americans on that specific income. But here's the key insight the AI provided: 'The tax code isn't broken because billionaires are cheating it. The tax code is broken because it treats labor as taxable and capital as optional.' Middle-class Americans pay taxes on nearly 100% of their economic gains through wages. Billionaires pay taxes on maybe 5% to 10% of their economic gains, since most wealth growth remains unrealized and untaxed. The Market Impact Question ChatGPT Couldn't Ignore The AI also addressed potential downsides of requiring billionaires to pay higher effective tax rates. Forcing someone like Musk to sell billions in stock to pay taxes could significantly impact share prices, potentially affecting retirement accounts and institutional investors. However, ChatGPT suggested this concern might be overblown, noting that well-designed tax policies could include provisions for gradual implementation or alternative payment methods to minimize market disruption. Policy Solutions That Could Actually Change Things ChatGPT outlined several approaches that could create more tax equity: Wealth taxes that apply annual rates to net worth above certain thresholds Minimum tax rates on total income including unrealized gains for ultra-high-net-worth individuals Closing borrowing loopholes by treating large loans against equity as taxable events Capital gains reform that taxes investment profits at the same rates as wages The AI wrote that while these changes would require significant political will, they're not technically impossible to implement. What This Means for Regular Taxpayers ChatGPT's analysis revealed that the current system essentially subsidizes billionaire wealth accumulation through tax policy. While middle-class Americans pay substantial portions of their income in taxes, the ultra-wealthy can legally structure their finances to minimize tax obligations dramatically. This creates a compounding effect where wealth concentrates at the top not just through investment returns, but through preferential tax treatment that allows more capital to remain invested and growing. The AI's Bottom Line on Tax Fairness When I asked ChatGPT for its overall assessment, the AI concluded that requiring billionaires to pay taxes at middle-class rates would generate massive federal revenue while establishing important principles about shared civic responsibility. 'The federal government could collect billions more in revenue annually,' the AI explained. 'It would set a precedent for tax equity.' However, ChatGPT wrote that achieving this would require 'major changes to the U.S. tax code, especially how wealth (not just income) is taxed.' The AI's analysis suggested that while the technical solutions exist, the political challenge lies in restructuring a tax system that currently treats different types of economic gains very differently. Why These Numbers Matter Beyond Politics ChatGPT's calculations reveal something beyond partisan tax policy debates — they show how current tax structures affect public investment capacity. The AI noted that tens of billions in additional revenue could fund infrastructure, education and social programs that benefit everyone, including the wealthy. 'If Musk, Bezos and Buffett paid taxes like the middle class, tens of billions more would flow into public programs,' the AI concluded. 'It would dramatically shift the conversation about economic fairness and tax equity.' Whether you think that's good policy or not, ChatGPT's analysis made clear that the current system creates vastly different tax obligations for different types of Americans — and the numbers are bigger than most people realize. More From GOBankingRates The 10 Most Reliable SUVs of 2025 This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Elon Musk Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
"A Lot Of Us Can't Afford Groceries": People Are NOT Impressed By The News That Elon Musk Is On Track To Become The World's First Trillionaire
Editor's Note: While we can't endorse what X has become, we can bring you the worthwhile moments that still exist there, curated and free of the surrounding chaos. In case you want to feel worse about your bank account than you already do, Elon Musk is on track to become the world's first trillionaire in 2027. As a millennial with zero hope of buying a house near my friends and family, I know that's just what I want to hear about on a Monday morning: the rich growing absurdly richer. Like, so wealthy that it's difficult to even fathom. Related: According to Forbes, Elon's net worth currently sits at $412 billion, up a whopping $6.4 billion in the past trading day. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO remains the richest man in the world despite all the backlash he faced during his time with DOGE. Over the past year, several publications have reported the likelihood of Elon being the first to hit this disgusting milestone, but a recent, viral tweet has sparked further conversation. Understandably, the internet is not pleased. Many people pointed out that he has the means to solve world hunger and homelessness, but has not: Related: Others shared thoughts about us as a society... ...and their thoughts on capitalism: Related: Folks pointed out that people are struggling to buy groceries: Some focused on how ridiculous the idea of a trillionaire is: Related: This account suggested a wealth cap: And finally, this person summed it up perfectly: What do you think of all this? LMK in the comments below! Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Fox News
24-07-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Why Fetterman is right: The fight against cashless stores defends Main Street and working-class Americans
Sen. John Fetterman may be a Democrat, but on the issue of banning cashless-only businesses, he's 100% right – and every small business owner, working-class American and financial realist should take note. As a financial planner and entrepreneur, I've seen how pushing the U.S. toward a fully cashless society doesn't just inconvenience people – it hurts them. It widens the wealth gap, excludes millions from daily commerce and puts Main Street businesses at a competitive disadvantage. When Fetterman says, "It's simple – it's legal tender. If you accept money, you have to accept all money," he's not just making a populist statement. He's standing up for every American who gets punished simply for trying to pay with the money they earned. Cashless Policies Punish the Working Class Let's look at the numbers: When a store refuses cash, it's essentially telling millions of people – especially seniors, low-income earners and minorities – that their money isn't welcome. As the Pennsylvania senator put it, "We can't let stores discriminate against people just because they don't have a credit card or a smartphone." Cashless = Classless This push toward a cashless economy is driven by tech elites who assume everyone has digital access. Aren't you sick and tired of the guilt tipping button that now asks you for 20 or 25 or 30% tip with a server watching over you to see what you are going to give them. But this isn't Silicon Valley – it's America. Here, you should be able to buy lunch or medicine with a few bucks in your pocket. And for many Americans, cash isn't optional – it's essential. Why It's Bad for Business As someone who works with business owners every day and having owned a concrete driveway installation company, I can tell you, going cashless is bad for business. Here's why: Privacy and Surveillance Concerns Every digital transaction is tracked. Your location, purchases and habits are cataloged and monetized by Big Tech and banks. Cash, on the other hand, protects privacy. No monthly statements, no tracking, no algorithms. The more we give up cash, the more control we give away – to institutions that charge fees, track behavior and limit access. The Federal Fix: A Simple Ban on Refusing Cash Cities like Philadelphia, San Francisco and New York have already banned cashless-only retail. It's time to go national. Fetterman's proposed federal law would: It's not about resisting innovation – it's about ensuring inclusion. Legal tender should mean what it says: legal for all debts, public and private. Final Thought: Cash Is Economic Freedom Once we lose cash, we lose a piece of our freedom. We become more dependent on banks, apps and companies that profit off our transactions and control access to our own money. Fetterman nailed it: "We're going to keep pushing until every American – regardless of income – can walk into a store and buy what they need with a few bucks in their pocket." He's right. And if we care about fairness, privacy and keeping Main Street open to all, we need to get behind him. Because cash isn't just currency. It's economic liberty – and it's worth protecting.
Malay Mail
23-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Malay Mail
‘Eat the rich': Why horror films are taking aim at the ultra-wealthy
This story contains spoilers about Ready or Not and The Menu. LOS ANGELES, July 24 — When Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and fiancée Lauren Sánchez held their lavish three-day wedding celebration in Venice recently, it wasn't just a party — it was a spectacle of wealth, reportedly costing between US$47 million (RM198.6 million) and US$56 million. Critics highlighted the environmental toll of such an event on the fragile, flood-prone city, while protesters took to the streets to condemn the wedding as a tone-deaf symbol of oligarchical wealth at a time when many can't afford to pay rent, let alone rent an island. The excessive show of opulence felt like the opening of a horror film, and lately, that's exactly what horror has been giving us. In films like Ready or Not (2019) and The Menu (2022), the rich aren't simply out of touch; they're portrayed as predators, criminals or even monsters. These 'eat-the-rich' films channel widespread anxieties about the current socioeconomic climate and increasing disillusionment with capitalist systems. In a world where the wealthy and powerful often seem to act with impunity, these films expose upper-class immorality and entitlement, and offer revenge fantasies where those normally crushed by the system fight back or burn it all down. Horror takes aim at the wealthy Originally a quote from social theorist Jean-Jacques Rousseau during the French Revolution, 'eat the rich' has re-emerged in recent years in public protests and on social media in response to increasing socioeconomic inequality. In cinema, eat-the-rich films often use grotesque hyperbole or satire to reveal and critique capitalist systems and the behaviours of the wealthy elite. Film scholar Robin Wood argues that horror films enact a return of what is repressed by dominant bourgeois — that is, capitalist — ideology, typically embodied by the figure of the monster. He cites The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), a classic example of anti-capitalist sentiment in horror that depicts Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) and his working-class family as monstrous victims of the 1970s industrial collapse. Rather than accept repression, they return as cannibalistic monsters, making visible the brutality of capitalist systems that exploit and degrade people like obsolete commodities. But in eat-the-rich horror, it is the wealthy themselves who become the monsters. The locus of repression becomes their privilege, which is often built on exploitation, inequality and invisible or normalised forms of harm. These films render these abstract systems tangible by making the elite's monstrosity visible, literal and grotesque. Revenge horror for the 99 per cent Recent horror films are increasingly using genre conventions to critique wealth, privilege and the systems that sustain them. Ready or Not turns the rich into bloodthirsty monsters who maintain their fortune through satanic rituals and human sacrifice. Grace (Samara Weaving) marries into the Le Domas family, board game magnates who initiate new family members with a deadly game of hide-and-seek. She must survive until dawn while her new in-laws hunt her down to fulfil a demonic pact. The film critiques the idea of inherited wealth as something earned or honourable, combining humour and horror to reflect anxieties about class entrenchment and the moral decay of the elite. The Le Domases are monstrous not only for their violence, but for how casually they justify it. When several maids are accidentally killed in the chaos, they react with self-pity, indifferent to who must be sacrificed to maintain their wealth. In The Menu, the rich are portrayed as monstrous not through physical violence, but through their moral failings — like financial crimes and infidelity — and their hollow consumption of culture. Celebrity chef Julian Slowik (Ralph Fiennes) lures wealthy foodies to his exclusive island restaurant, using food as a weaponised form of art to expose guests' hypocrisy and misdeeds. In one scene, guests are served tortillas laser-printed with incriminating images, such as banking records and evidence of fraudulent activity. The film criticises consumption in an industry where food is no longer a source of enjoyment or sustenance, but a status symbol for the elite to display their wealth and taste. Why these films are striking a nerve now It's no surprise that audiences are turning to horror to make sense of systems that feel increasingly bleak and inescapable. In Canada, the cost of living continues to outpace wages, housing affordability remains an issue for many, while grocery prices are a source of horror in their own right. A university degree, once considered a reliable path to stability, no longer guarantees the financial security of a salaried job. Many Canadians now rely on gig economy jobs as supplementary income. Meanwhile, the wealth gap is increasing and obscene displays of wealth — like a multi-million-dollar wedding — can feel disconnected, even offensive, to people experiencing financial precarity. Eat-the-rich films tap into this collective sense of injustice, transforming economic and social anxieties into a cathartic spectacle where ultra-wealthy villains are held accountable for their actions. At the end of Ready or Not, the members of the Le Domas family explode one by one and their mansion burns down. In The Menu, the guests are dressed up like s'mores and immolated. In both films, fire serves as a symbolic cleansing of the wealthy, their power and the systems that protect them. More than that, these films provide someone to root for: working-class protagonists who are targeted by the elite but ultimately survive. Former foster child Grace fights her way through a pack of murderous millionaires, while escort Margot/Erin (Anya Taylor-Joy) is spared when she rejects the pretentiousness of fine dining and orders a humble cheeseburger instead. In this way, horror becomes a form of narrative resistance, illustrating class rage through characters who refuse to be consumed by the systems trying to oppress them. While inequality and exploitation persist in reality, eat-the-rich films offer escape, and even justice, on screen. — Reuters
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Silicon Valley 'pain index' shows growing gap between wealthy
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A new report from San Jose State University researchers is putting a spotlight on a big problem: the growing gap between Silicon Valley's wealthiest households - and everyone else. The report is called the "Silicon Valley Pain Index," because the goal is to measure poverty, inequality and the suffering this can cause. SJSU researchers used more than 200 data points and statistics to put together the report. One of the more startling figures is the fact that more than 70 percent of the wealth in Silicon Valley is concentrated in just nine households. Those nine households made $136 billion more last year alone than they did the year before. Compare that to at least 100,000 households in Santa Clara County with absolutely no assets at all. The authors of the report say the wealth gap in the region has grown, and this extreme income disparity leads to all kinds of problems, especially when it comes to food, education and housing. The report says the average person needs to make at least $125,000 a year to be able to afford San Jose's average $3,200-a-month rent. And that a lack of affordable housing has created a domino effect - with families leaving the area, leading to lower enrollment in schools, and school closures. It also means a shortage of workers for essential jobs. The report's authors say San Jose would have to build about 8,000 new homes every year to reach its long-term housing goals. The most the city has ever built in a year is about 1,700 homes. There are some positive changes the report highlighted - including a decline in police use-of-force incidents in San Jose last year; fewer carbon emissions and pollution; and expanded homeless services in the community last year. The authors of the study say they hope it leads to policy changes amd changes in behavior among the wealthiest individuals. Solve the daily Crossword
