You know how long it would take Warren's wealth taxes to cost Bill Gates $100 billion, if he never gave another dollar away to charity? Forty-five years. You know how old Bill Gates will be in forty-five years? A hundred and nine.
So when Gates says he's worried that Warren's wealth takes will cost him $100 billion, he's either planning on getting a hell of a lot richer in the next couple of decades, or he's lying.
(My calculation assumes passage of both Warren's original wealth tax and her M4A tax at their top annual rates of 3% each, and assumes that Gates does nothing to reduce his tax rate by hiding money, spending it, or giving it away.)
And just to underscore what I said two tweets up, if Gates gains vast new wealth in the years he's being taxed, he'll reach the $100 billion aggregate figure more quickly, but he'll also be left with a far greater fortune at the end of the process.
And finally, a quick note to the brigade of unpaid billionaire defenders in my mentions...
(Update: I did the math very slightly wrong, because I failed to consider that only wealth above $1 billion would be taxed. It would actually take forty-six years to get to $100 billion, not forty-five, and Gates would be 110, not 109, when it happened.)
One last update: The Gates Foundation currently has assets of $36.79 billion. Gates' past donations to the Foundation are, of course, tax exempt, as would any donations made out of his remaining $106.8 billion fortune.
So if your position is that Gates shouldn't be taxed because of all the good he does with his money, the answer is that Gates ISN'T taxed on all the money he commits to use for good, and wouldn't be under Warren's proposal.
Bill Gates is one of the three trustees who control the Gates Foundation. His wife Melinda is the second, and Warren Buffet is the third. Any money he donates to the Foundation thus remains under the joint control of himself and his wife.
So Gates doesn't have to give his money away to someone else to keep it from being taxed. He doesn't have to spend it on good deeds. He doesn't have to give up control of it. All he has to do is make a legally binding pledge to use it for good. That's it.
Any money Gates irrevocably sets aside for philanthropic purposes—to be spent, again, however he, his wife, and Warren Buffet see fit, as soon or as distantly as they like—would remain untouched by Warren's wealth taxes. Period.
So if your position is that Gates should be able to spend his money on doing good rather than giving it to the government in taxes, you're in luck. That is literally how tax law works!
The only portion of Gates' wealth that would be taxed under Warren's plan is that portion—however big or small—that he chooses to keep for his own use. Only the part that he chooses to NOT spend doing good with, and none of the first $50 million of that.
It is wild to me (a) that replies to this are still going so strong the next day, and (b) that so many of those replying appear to be unaware that taxes are already a thing that exists in the United States.
