|
In response to
"which I still kind of want an answer to..."
by
Mel Profit
|
It's a bit of a misleading statement though for most people. He says he paid at least 13% of his income. Of course if he had sufficient losses he
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Aug 23 '12, 11:48
|
could have $0 income in a year. Or aggregate losses that carried over to another year. In other words, his taxes could be extremely low or even nothing without violating the statement that he paid at least 13% of his "income". Again, nothing illegal about it, and if he had losses it's fair for him to not pay taxes. But how he got there may be a question and it would still probably annoy people that he might have legitimately paid no taxes when he's rich, even though, as I said, if he had no income he shouldn't have to pay taxes.
|