Jeff Bezos paid 'true tax rate' under 1%

Tech billionaires are paying lower effective tax rates than most middle class Americans.

Amazon co-founder Jeff Bezos.

Jeff Bezos and other ultrawealthy individuals don't see most of their wealth gains taxed.

Photo: David Ryder / Getty Images

ProPublica obtained a trove of confidential IRS records that provide a glimpse into just how little tech billionaires pay in federal taxes. The nonprofit newsroom estimated what it called tech billionaires' "true tax rate" by comparing the amount paid in federal income tax against year-over-year changes in Forbes wealth calculations.

Here are some of ProPublica's key findings relating to two of the world's wealthiest individuals:

  • Jeff Bezos paid a true tax rate of less than 1% between 2014 and 2018. During this period, his wealth soared $99 billion while he reported just $4.22 billion in income. Bezos ended up paying just $973 million in total taxes. In 2011, Bezos didn't pay any federal income tax — in fact, he reported a loss that year and even claimed a $4,000 tax credit for his children.
  • Elon Musk paid a true tax rate of 3.27% between 2014 and 2018. His wealth grew $13.9 billion in that period and he reported $1.52 billion in income. Musk ended up paying $455 million in total taxes during that period. For several years, including 2015 and 2017, Musk paid less than $70,000 in annual federal income tax.

So how is this happening? ProPublica emphasizes that this is all above board — the U.S. tax system taxes income and capital gains, not increases in wealth. That means the ultrawealthy can pay lower effective tax rates than a single mother earning $45,000 annually.

There is some hypocrisy here. Many of these megabillionaires talk the talk about taxing the rich, while still funding political candidates who take no initiative to close the most significant tax loopholes available to them. The ProPublica report showed, for instance, that Biden's tax proposals would have a negligible impact on the effective tax rate paid by the top 25 billionaires.

Taking out loans collateralized against stock compensation was one of the most significant tax loopholes exposed by ProPublica. It's common practice for tech CEOs and founders to earn most of their money through stock compensation rather than salary: Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, and Larry Page have all taken $1 salaries to minimize income tax. But the new IRS documents show how tech billionaires can take it a step further — by taking out a personal loan collateralized against owed stock compensation, tech billionaires avoid tax altogether rather than having to pay the capital gains rate. Elon Musk used this practice to take a loan out against some $57.7 billion worth of shares, while Larry Ellison did the same for approximately $10 billion worth of shares.

ProPublica said that it will continue to release information in the coming months based on the IRS documents. In particular, it hopes to "explore in detail how the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, exploit loopholes and escape scrutiny from federal auditors."


How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky


Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel


Latest Stories