The article goes into the effective tax rate though. Essentially that Billionaires are paying close to nothing via loopholes while holding an obscene amount of the overall nations wealth. It covers a few tax loopholes that make that possible and highlights a topic the is crucially important.
That’s separate issue. Loopholes suck, and aren’t fixed due to political corruption.
But by problem is that he tried to claim that billionaires paid 91%, in the 60s which is just provably false - I can’t take an article with such a blatant lie seriously. At best it means he has no idea how the tax system works, at worst it’s pure malice
The article goes into the effective tax rate though. Essentially that Billionaires are paying close to nothing via loopholes while holding an obscene amount of the overall nations wealth. It covers a few tax loopholes that make that possible and highlights a topic the is crucially important.
There are no tax loopholes.
There are carefully considered tax cutouts.
I guess it makes for a more fun reply when one just ignores part of the article. Perhaps the OP reply guy gets their entertainment from rage baiting.
That’s separate issue. Loopholes suck, and aren’t fixed due to political corruption.
But by problem is that he tried to claim that billionaires paid 91%, in the 60s which is just provably false - I can’t take an article with such a blatant lie seriously. At best it means he has no idea how the tax system works, at worst it’s pure malice
In other words, the headline is deceptive. A big no-no in journalism.