10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.

1 3,902 shares, 137 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

How Replit used legal threats to kill my open-source project

I re­ceived an of­fi­cial re­sponse from Replit and my open-source

pro­ject will be back up soon; please see the bot­tom of the blog

post for an up­date. The

rest of the con­tent here will re­main as a his­tor­i­cal ar­ti­fact.

Hi, my name is Radon. I grad­u­ated col­lege last year and now work as a soft­ware en­gi­neer in DevOps/Infrastructure. In my free time, I also main­tain a num­ber of open-source


While I was in col­lege, I in­terned at the startup Replit. This blog post is the story of how Replit is us­ing le­gal threats and their ven­ture-cap­i­tal fund­ing to bully me into shut­ting down an open-source pro­ject they don’t like.

Replit makes a we­bapp you can use to run code on­line in dif­fer­ent pro­gram­ming lan­guages. This is noth­ing new (just Google run python

on­line” for proof), so Replit’s value propo­si­tion is ex­tra fea­tures like shar­ing your work, in­stalling third-party pack­ages, and host­ing we­bapps.

I worked for Replit in Summer 2019, where I was asked to re­build Replit’s pack­age man­age­ment stack and make it open-source. If you like read­ing about tech stuff, here’s the post I wrote for Replit’s

blog, and here’s the code on GitHub.

I took a job else­where in Summer 2020, but still chat­ted with them oc­ca­sion­ally by email when they reached out to tell me about some­thing cool Replit had de­vel­oped.

The as­pect of Replit that I re­ally en­joyed was how it sup­ported lots of dif­fer­ent pro­gram­ming lan­guages. (I wrote an­other blog post for


about how they do that.) That got me think­ing: how many pro­gram­ming lan­guages could you pos­si­bly cram into a sin­gle web­site?

To ex­plore that ques­tion, I put to­gether my own lit­tle we­bapp that could run code on­line. After about a day, I had some­thing that worked. (If you’re won­der­ing why it was so fast—it turns out you only need

30 lines of code to let peo­ple run Python code in a we­bapp! This may be why there are so many web­sites for run­ning Python on­line…)

After it was work­ing, I started adding as many dif­fer­ent pro­gram­ming lan­guages as I could. As you can see from this ex­cerpt of my pro­jec­t’s ver­sion his­tory, I got a lit­tle overex­cited:

I even­tu­ally ended up with 216 lan­guages, in­clud­ing all 38 lan­guages



all 100 lan­guages from Yusuke Endoh’s Quine

Relay”, and a good deal more be­sides. You might ask: Why did I spend so much time adding ob­scure pro­gram­ming lan­guages to a we­bapp no­body was go­ing to use? Well, let me put it this way: Is it the weird­est 2020 hobby you’ve seen?

One day, I got an email from Replit let­ting me know about a new fea­ture they re­leased. I fig­ured this was a good time to share my open-source pro­ject with them, in case they wanted to take in­spi­ra­tion from any of my work:

At first, I got a pos­i­tive re­sponse. But then, 30 min­utes later, out of nowhere, Replit ac­cused me of un­eth­i­cal be­hav­ior and steal­ing their de­sign:

Now, none of the ideas I used in my open-source pro­ject were internal de­sign de­ci­sions”: they’ve all been pub­lished pub­licly on Replit’s blog (I knew this be­cause I’d been asked to write some of those blog posts dur­ing my in­tern­ship). And my pro­ject also was­n’t any more of a Replit clone than any of the other web­sites on the first few pages of Google re­sults for run python on­line”, most of which look ex­actly the same:

But I fig­ured I might have missed some­thing, so I asked for de­tails:

Unfortunately, Replit re­fused to pro­vide any specifics on what they were say­ing I had done wrong, re­it­er­ated their pre­vi­ous state­ments, and threat­ened me with a law­suit:

And then just to put a cherry on top, Replit sent me an­other email re­mind­ing me that they just raised $20 mil­lion from their in­vestors


month, and they weren’t afraid to use it against me. The me” in ques­tion be­ing one of their pre­vi­ous in­terns who just grad­u­ated from col­lege a year ago, and who is­n’t run­ning any kind of com­mer­cial op­er­a­tion what­so­ever.

I’d like to point out two things about this email:

* The re­mark about commits like this”—this is ac­tu­ally mis­lead­ing.

There’s only one com­mit in my pro­ject that men­tions Replit, and it’s

the one I al­ready showed you ear­lier, from my third day of cod­ing,

when I’d just added all 38 lan­guages that Replit sup­ported, be­fore

mov­ing onto the 178 other lan­guages I wanted to add.

* The re­mark about me be­ing a demanding” in­tern—I’m not ac­tu­ally

sure what this is meant to im­ply, es­pe­cially since Replit had just

tried to re­cruit me ear­lier that day (see the screen­shot of their

first email). But I’ll leave it alone be­cause it’s not re­ally

rel­e­vant to the is­sue at hand.

Naturally, I took down my pro­ject right away, gave it some time for feel­ings to cool, and sent Replit an apol­ogy. I fig­ured some­thing might have been lost over email, so I asked to get on a call:

Unfortunately, Replit ig­nored this email, so I sent them an­other one fol­low­ing up. This one got a re­sponse, but not the one I was hop­ing for:

Just in case Replit did­n’t un­der­stand that I was­n’t OK with this sit­u­a­tion, I sent three fol­low-up emails ex­plain­ing as such over the next few weeks, all of which were ig­nored.

In other words, Replit stands by its threat: if I re-pub­lish my open-source pro­ject, then they will sue me with top lawyers”.

Replit claimed that my open-source pro­ject was:

In de­vel­op­ing my pro­ject, was I mak­ing a clone of Replit?

In de­vel­op­ing my pro­ject, did I make use of any trade se­crets of


Was it un­eth­i­cal for me to de­velop an open-source pro­ject that’s

sim­i­lar to Replit, af­ter work­ing for them?

Questions 1 and 2 have a fair num­ber of tech­ni­cal de­tails, so I’ve put them in a sep­a­rate post. The TL;DR is:

My pro­ject is­n’t any more sim­i­lar to Replit than the 15 other

(commercial!) ones you can find on Google by search­ing run python

on­line” or online pro­gram­ming en­vi­ron­ment”.

Every sim­i­lar­ity be­tween my pro­ject and Replit can be ex­plained by

look­ing only at GitHub repos­i­to­ries and blog posts that were

pub­lished on­line by Replit it­self, mak­ing them ob­vi­ously not any

kind of se­cret.

Q: Was it un­eth­i­cal for me to de­velop an open-source pro­ject that’s sim­i­lar to Replit, af­ter work­ing for them?

In my opin­ion, the an­swer to this ques­tion is no, for a num­ber of rea­sons:

* Riju is en­tirely non-com­mer­cial. Unlike Replit, I did­n’t seek

fund­ing from any source—ad­ver­tis­ing, do­na­tions, fundrais­ing,

sub­scrip­tions, what­ever. I have no in­ter­est in run­ning a busi­ness,

and never re­ally wanted Riju to be­come too pop­u­lar, since I was

the one pay­ing the server bill.

* Riju was­n’t steal­ing cus­tomers from Replit. Based on my an­a­lyt­ics

data, there were 38 vis­its to Riju dur­ing the month of February.

(Half of those were prob­a­bly me.) Meanwhile, Replit had over 7



There’s ob­vi­ously no sense in which Riju was com­pet­ing with Replit.

* Riju was­n’t built as a com­peti­tor to Replit, ei­ther. Since the

ar­chi­tec­ture was lim­ited to run­ning on a sin­gle server, any­one could

bring the en­tire sys­tem down just by typ­ing in a fork

bomb—and one of my

friends did, just to see what would hap­pen. (The sys­tem crashed.) If

I were de­sign­ing a prod­uct to com­pete with Replit, I cer­tainly

would­n’t have picked an ar­chi­tec­ture that could only scale to

toy-pro­ject size.

* Replit’s core value propo­si­tion is­n’t let­ting you run code on­line

(you can do this in dozens of places for free), it’s the fea­tures

they of­fer on top of run­ning code. Riju cat­e­gor­i­cally lacked all of

these fea­tures, in­clud­ing: hav­ing a user ac­count, sav­ing your work,

shar­ing your work, pub­lish­ing we­bapps, per­sis­tent work­spaces,

dis­cus­sion fo­rums, in­te­gra­tion with GitHub, etc. etc.

* I had no bad in­ten­tions to­wards Replit when de­vel­op­ing Riju, and

was­n’t try­ing to hide any­thing. As proof of these claims, I of­fer

the fact that I had the pro­ject pub­lic on my GitHub from the

be­gin­ning, and the fact that Replit found out about the pro­ject

be­cause I openly shared it with them of my own vo­li­tion, ex­tend­ing

an of­fer for them to take in­spi­ra­tion from my work.

* Riju was never in­tended to be a prod­uct, it was in­tended to be a

per­sonal play­ground / art piece. As proof of this claim, I of­fer the

fact that I spent dozens of hours adding lan­guages like

Hexagony and

SNOBOL rather mak­ing it so you could

save your work(!).

I’m not a busi­ness per­son. I’m just an open-source dev who likes to build weird things for fun. (If you doubt my track record of build­ing things that don’t make money, just check out the list on my


Read the original on www.intuitiveexplanations.com »

2 1,634 shares, 68 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

The top-ranking HTML editor on Google is an SEO scam

This is the story of how I ac­ci­den­tally dis­cov­ered what ap­pears to be a siz­able SEO scam.

Some highly-ranked on­line tools for edit­ing or cleaning” HTML seem to be se­cretly in­ject­ing links into their out­put to push them­selves and af­fil­i­ated sites up the search en­gine rank­ings. This scam is highly suc­cess­ful and ap­pears to have gone un­de­tected so far.

Tools which I sus­pect of do­ing this are all made by the same peo­ple:

Sites that have fallen vic­tim to this in­clude BoingBoing, the of­fi­cial German Football Association and Kaspersky. The de­li­cious irony here is that the af­fected Kaspersky ar­ti­cle is about staying safe from hack­ers”.

So here’s a blow-by-blow ac­count of how I made this dis­cov­ery, along with the ev­i­dence I un­cov­ered.

It all be­gan with a mys­tery con­cern­ing a prod­uct that I’m build­ing. The prod­uct is an on­line score­board, and de­spite hav­ing (what I be­lieve) is a solid SEO strat­egy, I have been un­able to con­quer that cov­eted top spot in the search en­gine re­sults page. For the last 12 months, a com­peti­tor called Scorecounter” has al­ways been ahead of me.

Now, due to the na­ture of my prod­uct, peo­ple are shar­ing links to it and em­bed­ding it in their web­sites, which means that over time I am ac­cu­mu­lat­ing a lot of in­bound links. Over time my SEO rank­ing should be­come un­beat­able. The com­peti­tor does not have a sig­nif­i­cant vi­ral­ity like me, yet is con­sis­tently bet­ter at me than SEO. What trick are they us­ing? 🤔

So last night I drank 2 glasses of red wine and in­stead of delet­ing the pro­duc­tion data­base (like last time) I de­cided to get to the bot­tom of it. I paid for an Ahrefs sub­scrip­tion and had a look at the backlink pro­file” of Scorecounter. Ahrefs is an ex­cel­lent tool for SEO re­search and op­ti­miza­tion. This is what I found:

Scorecounter had 3600 in­com­ing links which it had ac­cu­mu­lated in a very short time. Impressive!

Then I be­gan to look at the pages that con­tained the links and this is where I grew sus­pi­cious.

For in­stance, I saw a blog post from the German Football Association con­tain­ing a link to Scorecounter. The word that was linked was score” — yet hav­ing a link here made ab­solutely no sense in the con­text of the ar­ti­cle. What was go­ing on? 🤔

Here are some more ex­am­ples of links I found on ran­dom do­mains (you need to search for score” on the page).

RICE University (The link has now been re­moved)

Intuit Quickbooks (The link has now been re­moved)

There are pages and pages of these (take a look for your­self if you have an Ahrefs ac­count).

So I wrote to some of these sites and asked them why they had these links in their pages. Were they all sell­ing links?

I re­ceived the fol­low­ing re­ply from an on­line news por­tal:

Thanks for reach­ing out. No, we do not sell links at any cost.

I was ac­tu­ally us­ing an HTML cleaner (html-on­line.com/​ed­i­tor/) since last year, which was work­ing fine as in­tended in the ini­tial months but a few weeks back I re­alised that the tool has sud­denly started se­cretly in­ject­ing links to the HTML con­tent.

For a few posts, I was not able to spot it, but when I learnt about it, what­ever post I could have re­call, were cleaned man­u­ally. It ap­pears, un­for­tu­nately, some of them are still there, as you pointed out. I will to­day sim­ply find-re­place this link from the en­tire data­base for safer side.

So that was the se­cret: the cre­ators of Scorecounter also made an on­line HTML ed­i­tor which in­jects links for cer­tain key­words. The beauty of this scam is that by in­ject­ing links to their own HTML ed­i­tor, they have cre­ated a bril­liant pos­i­tive feed­back loop: the higher the ed­i­tor rises in the search rank­ings, the more peo­ple use it and the more se­cret links they can in­ject.

Now if you are feel­ing very mag­nan­i­mous, you could ar­gue that the ed­i­tor is a freemium tool, and that added links are how you pay for the free ver­sion. Well, I’m not feel­ing mag­nan­i­mous and nei­ther will Google, I sus­pect.

Apart from boost­ing the HTML Editor it­self and Scorecounter, I found a third prod­uct that was en­joy­ing the lime­light:

Ruwix.com is made by the same peo­ple and is all about the fa­mous puz­zle cube. Again it’s very easy to find a large num­ber of back­links to Ruwix.com on ran­dom sites us­ing Ahrefs. Each of these is a non-se­quitur in the text into which it’s jammed, which shows me that the au­thors of these ar­ti­cles had no idea what was go­ing on. Take a look (you need to search for Rubiks” on the page):

an ar­ti­cle about Sex and the City

and my per­sonal fa­vorite: a blog post on Kaspersky.com.

UPDATE: Kaspersky has re­moved the link (props for the quick re­ac­tion), but thank­fully I made a screen­shot 😅

To see how preva­lent this in­jec­tion is, try this Google search; Learn how to solve a Rubix Cube with the be­gin­ner method”. There are over 600 hits on a wide range of sites. Amazingly, the link even made it into a re­search pa­per (It’s on page 24, at the bot­tom of the References sec­tion)!

Digging around in the back­links I dis­cov­ered that there is a whole net­work of tools which are all part of the same op­er­a­tion. All have sim­i­lar back­link pro­files. They in­clude:

Doing a Google search for HTML Editor” re­veals that these tools oc­cupy the top three po­si­tions of the search re­sults. This demon­strates how im­mensely suc­cess­ful this scam has been.

It’s true that the terms of at least one tool con­tain the fol­low­ing:

We show ads and might place ran­domly a link to the end of the cleaned doc­u­ments.

I sin­cerely doubt that this dis­claimer is enough to pre­vent a mas­sive Google penalty. We’ll know soon enough.

That’s all for now. Follow me on Twitter to keep up­dated.


Read the original on casparwre.de »

3 1,245 shares, 12 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

The edge cloud platform behind the best of the web

Our net­work is all about greater ef­fi­ciency. With our strate­gi­cally placed points of pres­ence (POPs), you can scale on-de­mand and de­liver seam­lessly dur­ing ma­jor events and traf­fic spikes. Get the peace of mind that comes with truly re­li­able per­for­mance — wher­ever users may be brows­ing, watch­ing, shop­ping, or do­ing busi­ness.


Read the original on fastly.com »

4 1,152 shares, 49 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

iOS 15, Humane

How Apple Could Help Us Reclaim Our AttentionWe be­lieve tech­nol­ogy should help us live well. It can and should be de­signed to help us be in­ten­tional, to do the things that truly mat­ter. Yesterday, iOS 15 was in­tro­duced to the world. It’s an ex­cit­ing up­date, and in­cludes mean­ing­ful steps to­wards more com­pre­hen­sive tools for dig­i­tal well­be­ing, like modes and bet­ter no­ti­fi­ca­tions. Apple could do a lot more to help us be more in­ten­tional. Computers were sup­posed to be a bi­cy­cle for the mind­Some­where along the way, ads got in the way. And with ads came the im­per­a­tive to max­i­mize en­gage­ment. Which led to a tril­lion-dol­lar in­dus­try built on ex­tract­ing hu­man at­ten­tion. For so­cial me­dia com­pa­nies with an ad-based busi­ness model, . Even when it comes at the ex­pense of our shared well-be­ing, democ­racy, and ca­pac­ity for solv­ing the world’s hard­est prob­lems.. The core of Apple’s DNA is about em­pow­er­ing world-chang­ing cre­ativ­ity. Its busi­ness is not built around ads. Our life­time-value is higher for Apple if we get to live mean­ing­ful and cre­ative lives and solve the worlds hard­est prob­lems. As the provider of iOS and the AppStore, Apple makes the rules for that ecosys­tem. We be­lieve Ap­ple can and should give users more aware­ness and con­trol over how they’re be­ing ma­nip­u­lat­ed­With Ask app not to track” Apple re­cently changed the game of pri­vacy, at the dis­may at the global ad­ver­tise­ment in­dus­try. We think they could go even fur­ther: To lead the in­dus­try to­wards tech­nol­ogy that is truly re­spect­ful of hu­man at­ten­tion.

To align the in­cen­tives for de­vel­op­ers with the users best in­ter­est.

To change the course of tech­nol­ogy once more.is about mak­ing tech­nol­ogy that changes hu­man be­hav­ior. Apps that are us­ing per­sua­sive de­sign could be re­quired to list all the tech­niques they use, as part of the App Store re­view process.Ap­ple could then show an on­board­ing screen that pro­vides the user with rel­e­vant in­for­ma­tion around this app, and the op­tion to turn some of these tech­niques off.If apps use cer­tain per­sua­sive de­sign tech­niques, Apple could re­quire de­vel­op­ers to of­fer less dis­tract­ing set­tings in or­der to pass the app re­view. Infinite feeds could be turned into fi­nite pages (see be­low)Au­to­play could be turned off via a sys­tem set­tingTh­ere could even be an op­tion to hide the most dis­tract­ing parts of an app, like Facebooks video tab, Instagram Explore, and non-friend sto­ries in SnapchatInstead of in­fi­nite feeds, the user could choose to in­stead use sim­ple pages with a lim­ited num­ber of con­tent pieces on them.Time-on-site is one of the main met­rics that ad-based busi­nesses are op­ti­miz­ing for. In con­trast, Time well spent’ is a dif­fer­ent kind of met­ric meant to bet­ter ac­count for what re­ally mat­ters to you. After en­gag­ing with a cer­tain app, do you feel like it made your life bet­ter? Was it time well spent?At the end of an app ses­sion of 15 min­utes or more, an ac­tion­able no­ti­fi­ca­tion could ask you if this was time well spent.A time well spent wid­get could show your most re­cent ses­sions and let you rate your ex­pe­ri­ence.to help you re­flect on your us­age and maybe even make sug­gested changes to your screen time set­tings.Ap­ple could ag­gre­gate data and show the av­er­age time peo­ple spend on any given app, and how well spent peo­ple re­port this time.

Apple could high­light those apps that peo­ple truly en­joy. Time Well Spent could be the ba­sis for the AppStores ed­i­to­r­ial process.Ap­ple could in­tro­duce a tax for App Store list­ings be­low a cer­tain Time Well Spent per­cent­age. This would a) di­rectly in­cen­tivize de­vel­op­ers to op­ti­mize for time well spent and b) could be used to ac­cel­er­ate Humane Tech pro­jects and re­ward apps with a very high time well spent met­ric.Do I re­ally want to down­load an app that peo­ple spend more than an hour on a day with­out even en­joy­ing it?Ap­ple could an­a­lyze us­age pat­terns and de­tect mind­less brows­ing, such as idly switch­ing be­tween apps, open­ing & clos­ing apps rapidly, scrolling back and forth, … Apple could help us set con­di­tions for how and when we use cer­tain apps.This way, we could set bound­aries for our­selves, on our own terms.For ex­am­ple if you’re strug­gling to use Tinder re­spon­si­bly, you could cre­ate a con­di­tion that you can only use the app while FaceTiming with a friend.You could for ex­am­ple make sure that when you’re us­ing Twitter, you’re in a good men­tal and phys­i­cal state.While this is more spec­u­la­tive than the pre­vi­ous sug­ges­tions, it goes to show just how many pos­si­bil­i­ties there are to help us do the things that we truly want to do.changes like these could im­prove mil­lions of lives — help­ing peo­ple fo­cus, be well, sleep well, live more mean­ing­ful lives. It’s time to show ad­dic­tion-based busi­nesses their proper place in the world. You can do it, maybe bet­ter than any other en­tity in the world. Will you?we be­lieve tech­nol­ogy can and should help us live well. We be­lieve our dig­i­tal en­vi­ron­ment can in­spire and en­able us to do the things we truly want to do. That’s why we’re work­ing on an app that un­locks bet­ter choices on your phone. It helps you be in­ten­tional and align your be­hav­ior with your as­pi­ra­tions — and some of our early users are ex­cited. They find it eas­ier to be mind­ful with their phones and do more of the things they ac­tu­ally want to be do­ing. You can join the wait­ing list be­low, and we’ll do our best to on­board you as soon as pos­si­ble.


Read the original on potential.app »

5 1,107 shares, 46 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Oceana Finds Hundreds of Vessels Vanishing Along Argentina’s Waters

Sign up to­day to get weekly up­dates and alerts from Oceana.

An Oceana analysis found hundreds of for­eign fish­ing ves­sels, pri­mar­ily Chinese, pil­lag­ing the wa­ters off Argentina and dis­ap­pear­ing from pub­lic track­ing sys­tems. These dis­tant-wa­ter fleets mainly fish for short­fin squid, which are vi­tal to Argentina’s econ­omy and the diet of nu­mer­ous com­mer­cial and recre­ational species, such as tuna and sword­fish.

Oceana an­a­lyzed the ac­tiv­ity of fish­ing ves­sels along the bor­der of Argentina’s na­tional wa­ters from January 1, 2018, to April 25, 2021, us­ing Au­to­matic Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Sys­tem (AIS) data from Global Fishing Watch (GFW), an in­de­pen­dent non­profit founded by Oceana in part­ner­ship with Google and SkyTruth. AIS de­vices trans­mit in­for­ma­tion such as a ves­sel’s name, flag state, and lo­ca­tion. Of the fish­ing vis­i­ble on GFW, Oceana doc­u­mented over 800 for­eign ves­sels log­ging more than 900,000 to­tal hours of ap­par­ent fish­ing. The analy­sis also re­vealed that 69% of this fish­ing ac­tiv­ity was con­ducted by more than 400 Chinese ves­sels. In com­par­i­son to the for­eign fleets, 145 of Argentina’s fish­ing ves­sels con­ducted 9,269 hours of vis­i­ble fish­ing in this area dur­ing the same pe­riod — less than 1% of the to­tal amount.

As part of this analy­sis, Oceana doc­u­mented more than 6,000 gap events, in­stances where AIS trans­mis­sions are not de­tected for more than 24 hours, which po­ten­tially in­di­cates ves­sels are dis­abling their pub­lic track­ing de­vices. These ves­sels were in­vis­i­ble for more than 600,000 to­tal hours, hid­ing fish­ing ves­sel lo­ca­tions and mask­ing po­ten­tially il­le­gal be­hav­ior, such as cross­ing into Argentina’s na­tional wa­ters to fish. The Chinese fleet was re­spon­si­ble for 66% of these in­ci­dents.

Download the Report


Read the original on usa.oceana.org »

6 979 shares, 41 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax

Inside the Tax Records of the .001%

ProPublica is a non­profit news­room that in­ves­ti­gates abuses of power. The Secret IRS Files is an on­go­ing re­port­ing pro­ject. Sign up to be no­ti­fied when the next in­stall­ment pub­lishes.

In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multi­bil­lion­aire and now the world’s rich­est man, did not pay a penny in fed­eral in­come taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the sec­ond-rich­est per­son in the world, also paid no fed­eral in­come taxes.

Michael Bloomberg man­aged to do the same in re­cent years. Billionaire in­vestor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no fed­eral in­come tax three years in a row.

This is an on­go­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Sign up to be no­ti­fied when the next story pub­lishes.

Thanks for sign­ing up. If you like our sto­ries, mind shar­ing this with a friend?

Copy link

For more ways to keep up, be sure to check out the rest of our newslet­ters.

See All

Fact-based, in­de­pen­dent jour­nal­ism is needed now more than ever.


ProPublica has ob­tained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax re­turns of thou­sands of the na­tion’s wealth­i­est peo­ple, cov­er­ing more than 15 years. The data pro­vides an un­prece­dented look in­side the fi­nan­cial lives of America’s ti­tans, in­clud­ing Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not just their in­come and taxes, but also their in­vest­ments, stock trades, gam­bling win­nings and even the re­sults of au­dits.

Taken to­gether, it de­mol­ishes the cor­ner­stone myth of the American tax sys­tem: that every­one pays their fair share and the rich­est Americans pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealth­i­est can — per­fectly legally — pay in­come taxes that are only a tiny frac­tion of the hun­dreds of mil­lions, if not bil­lions, their for­tunes grow each year.

Many Americans live pay­check to pay­check, amass­ing lit­tle wealth and pay­ing the fed­eral gov­ern­ment a per­cent­age of their in­come that rises if they earn more. In re­cent years, the me­dian American house­hold earned about $70,000 an­nu­ally and paid 14% in fed­eral taxes. The high­est in­come tax rate, 37%, kicked in this year, for cou­ples, on earn­ings above $628,300.

The con­fi­den­tial tax records ob­tained by ProPublica show that the ul­tra­rich ef­fec­tively side­step this sys­tem.

You May Be Paying a Higher Tax Rate Than a Billionaire

America’s bil­lion­aires avail them­selves of tax-avoid­ance strate­gies be­yond the reach of or­di­nary peo­ple. Their wealth de­rives from the sky­rock­et­ing value of their as­sets, like stock and prop­erty. Those gains are not de­fined by U. S. laws as tax­able in­come un­less and un­til the bil­lion­aires sell.

To cap­ture the fi­nan­cial re­al­ity of the rich­est Americans, ProPublica un­der­took an analy­sis that has never been done be­fore. We com­pared how much in taxes the 25 rich­est Americans paid each year to how much Forbes es­ti­mated their wealth grew in that same time pe­riod.

We’re go­ing to call this their true tax rate.

The re­sults are stark. According to Forbes, those 25 peo­ple saw their worth rise a col­lec­tive $401 bil­lion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a to­tal of $13.6 bil­lion in fed­eral in­come taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a stag­ger­ing sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

It’s a com­pletely dif­fer­ent pic­ture for mid­dle-class Americans, for ex­am­ple, wage earn­ers in their early 40s who have amassed a typ­i­cal amount of wealth for peo­ple their age. From 2014 to 2018, such house­holds saw their net worth ex­pand by about $65,000 af­ter taxes on av­er­age, mostly due to the rise in value of their homes. But be­cause the vast bulk of their earn­ings were salaries, their tax bills were al­most as much, nearly $62,000, over that five-year pe­riod.

The Ultrawealthy by the Numbers

Wealth, in­come and taxes for four of the rich­est peo­ple in the coun­try from 2014 to 2018.

No one among the 25 wealth­i­est avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grand­fa­therly cen­tibil­lion­aire. That’s per­haps sur­pris­ing, given his pub­lic stance as an ad­vo­cate of higher taxes for the rich. According to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 bil­lion be­tween 2014 and 2018. Over those years, the data shows, Buffett re­ported pay­ing $23.7 mil­lion in taxes.

Note: Values in the graphic are rounded.

That works out to a true tax rate of 0.1%, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth.

In the com­ing months, ProPublica will use the IRS data we have ob­tained to ex­plore in de­tail how the ul­tra­wealthy avoid taxes, ex­ploit loop­holes and es­cape scrutiny from fed­eral au­di­tors.

Experts have long un­der­stood the broad out­lines of how lit­tle the wealthy are taxed in the United States, and many lay peo­ple have long sus­pected the same thing.

But few specifics about in­di­vid­u­als ever emerge in pub­lic. Tax in­for­ma­tion is among the most zeal­ously guarded se­crets in the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. ProPublica has de­cided to re­veal in­di­vid­ual tax in­for­ma­tion of some of the wealth­i­est Americans be­cause it is only by see­ing specifics that the pub­lic can un­der­stand the re­al­i­ties of the coun­try’s tax sys­tem.

Consider Bezos’ 2007, one of the years he paid zero in fed­eral in­come taxes. Amazon’s stock more than dou­bled. Bezos’ for­tune leapt $3.8 bil­lion, ac­cord­ing to Forbes, whose wealth es­ti­mates are widely cited. How did a per­son en­joy­ing that sort of wealth ex­plo­sion end up pay­ing no in­come tax?

In that year, Bezos, who filed his taxes jointly with his then-wife, MacKenzie Scott, re­ported a pal­try (for him) $46 mil­lion in in­come, largely from in­ter­est and div­i­dend pay­ments on out­side in­vest­ments. He was able to off­set every penny he earned with losses from side in­vest­ments and var­i­ous de­duc­tions, like in­ter­est ex­penses on debts and the vague catchall cat­e­gory of other ex­penses.”

In 2011, a year in which his wealth held roughly steady at $18 bil­lion, Bezos filed a tax re­turn re­port­ing he lost money — his in­come that year was more than off­set by in­vest­ment losses. What’s more, be­cause, ac­cord­ing to the tax law, he made so lit­tle, he even claimed and re­ceived a $4,000 tax credit for his chil­dren.

His tax avoid­ance is even more strik­ing if you ex­am­ine 2006 to 2018, a pe­riod for which ProPublica has com­plete data. Bezos’ wealth in­creased by $127 bil­lion, ac­cord­ing to Forbes, but he re­ported a to­tal of $6.5 bil­lion in in­come. The $1.4 bil­lion he paid in per­sonal fed­eral taxes is a mas­sive num­ber — yet it amounts to a 1.1% true tax rate on the rise in his for­tune.

While Bezos’ wealth has grown as­tro­nom­i­cally over the last decade and he’s paid a mi­nus­cule frac­tion of it in taxes, a typ­i­cal American house­hold paid more in taxes than it ac­cu­mu­lated in wealth.

The rev­e­la­tions pro­vided by the IRS data come at a cru­cial mo­ment. Wealth in­equal­ity has be­come one of the defin­ing is­sues of our age. The pres­i­dent and Congress are con­sid­er­ing the most am­bi­tious tax in­creases in decades on those with high in­comes. But the American tax con­ver­sa­tion has been dom­i­nated by de­bate over in­cre­men­tal changes, such as whether the top tax rate should be 39.6% rather than 37%.

ProPublica’s data shows that while some wealthy Americans, such as hedge fund man­agers, would pay more taxes un­der the cur­rent Biden ad­min­is­tra­tion pro­pos­als, the vast ma­jor­ity of the top 25 would see lit­tle change.

The tax data was pro­vided to ProPublica af­ter we pub­lished a se­ries of ar­ti­cles scru­ti­niz­ing the IRS. The ar­ti­cles ex­posed how years of bud­get cuts have hob­bled the agen­cy’s abil­ity to en­force the law and how the largest cor­po­ra­tions and the rich have ben­e­fited from the IRS weak­ness. They also showed how peo­ple in poor re­gions are now more likely to be au­dited than those in af­flu­ent ar­eas.

Why We Are Publishing the Tax Secrets of the .001%

The Secret IRS Files Short Form: A Quick Guide to What We Uncovered

How We Calculated the True Tax Rates of the Wealthiest

ProPublica is not dis­clos­ing how it ob­tained the data, which was given to us in raw form, with no con­di­tions or con­clu­sions. ProPublica re­porters spent months pro­cess­ing and an­a­lyz­ing the ma­te­r­ial to trans­form it into a us­able data­base.

We then ver­i­fied the in­for­ma­tion by com­par­ing el­e­ments of it with dozens of al­ready pub­lic tax de­tails (in court doc­u­ments, politi­cians’ fi­nan­cial dis­clo­sures and news sto­ries) as well as by vet­ting it with in­di­vid­u­als whose tax in­for­ma­tion is con­tained in the trove. Every per­son whose tax in­for­ma­tion is de­scribed in this story was asked to com­ment. Those who re­sponded, in­clud­ing Buffett, Bloomberg and Icahn, all said they had paid the taxes they owed.

A spokesman for Soros said in a state­ment: Between 2016 and 2018 George Soros lost money on his in­vest­ments, there­fore he did not owe fed­eral in­come taxes in those years. Mr. Soros has long sup­ported higher taxes for wealthy Americans.” Personal and cor­po­rate rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Bezos de­clined to re­ceive de­tailed ques­tions about the mat­ter. ProPublica at­tempted to reach Scott through her di­vorce at­tor­ney, a per­sonal rep­re­sen­ta­tive and fam­ily mem­bers; she did not re­spond. Musk re­sponded to an ini­tial query with a lone punc­tu­a­tion mark: ?” After we sent de­tailed ques­tions to him, he did not re­ply.

One of the bil­lion­aires men­tioned in this ar­ti­cle ob­jected, ar­gu­ing that pub­lish­ing per­sonal tax in­for­ma­tion is a vi­o­la­tion of pri­vacy. We have con­cluded that the pub­lic in­ter­est in know­ing this in­for­ma­tion at this piv­otal mo­ment out­weighs that le­git­i­mate con­cern.

The con­se­quences of al­low­ing the most pros­per­ous to game the tax sys­tem have been pro­found. Federal bud­gets, apart from mil­i­tary spend­ing, have been con­strained for decades. Roads and bridges have crum­bled, so­cial ser­vices have with­ered and the sol­vency of Social Security and Medicare is per­pet­u­ally in ques­tion.

There is an even more fun­da­men­tal is­sue than which pro­grams get funded or not: Taxes are a kind of col­lec­tive sac­ri­fice. No one loves giv­ing their hard-earned money to the gov­ern­ment. But the sys­tem works only as long as it’s per­ceived to be fair.

Our analy­sis of tax data for the 25 rich­est Americans quan­ti­fies just how un­fair the sys­tem has be­come.

By the end of 2018, the 25 were worth $1.1 tril­lion.

For com­par­i­son, it would take 14.3 mil­lion or­di­nary American wage earn­ers put to­gether to equal that same amount of wealth.

The per­sonal fed­eral tax bill for the top 25 in 2018: $1.9 bil­lion.

The bill for the wage earn­ers: $143 bil­lion.

The idea of a reg­u­lar tax on in­come, much less on wealth, does not ap­pear in the coun­try’s found­ing doc­u­ments. In fact, Article 1 of the U. S. Constitution ex­plic­itly pro­hibits direct” taxes on cit­i­zens un­der most cir­cum­stances. This meant that for decades, the U.S. gov­ern­ment mainly funded it­self through indirect” taxes: tar­iffs and levies on con­sumer goods like to­bacco and al­co­hol.

With the costs of the Civil War loom­ing, Congress im­posed a na­tional in­come tax in 1861. The wealthy helped force its re­peal soon af­ter the war ended. (Their pique could only have been ex­ac­er­bated by the fact that the law re­quired pub­lic dis­clo­sure. The an­nual in­come of the moguls of the day — $1.3 mil­lion for William Astor; $576,000 for Cornelius Vanderbilt — was listed in the pages of The New York Times in 1865.)

By the late 19th and early 20th cen­tury, wealth in­equal­ity was acute and the po­lit­i­cal cli­mate was chang­ing. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment be­gan ex­pand­ing, cre­at­ing agen­cies to pro­tect food, work­ers and more. It needed fund­ing, but tar­iffs were pinch­ing reg­u­lar Americans more than the rich. The Supreme Court had re­jected an 1894 law that would have cre­ated an in­come tax. So Congress moved to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment was rat­i­fied in 1913 and gave the gov­ern­ment power to lay and col­lect taxes on in­comes, from what­ever source de­rived.”

In the early years, the per­sonal in­come tax worked as Congress in­tended, falling squarely on the rich­est. In 1918, only 15% of American fam­i­lies owed any tax. The top 1% paid 80% of the rev­enue raised, ac­cord­ing to his­to­rian W. Elliot Brownlee.

But a ques­tion re­mained: What would count as in­come and what would­n’t? In 1916, a woman named Myrtle Macomber re­ceived a div­i­dend for her Standard Oil of California shares. She owed taxes, thanks to the new law. The div­i­dend had not come in cash, how­ever. It came in the form of an ad­di­tional share for every two shares she al­ready held. She paid the taxes and then brought a court chal­lenge: Yes, she’d got­ten a bit richer, but she had­n’t re­ceived any money. Therefore, she ar­gued, she’d re­ceived no income.”

Four years later, the Supreme Court agreed. In Eisner v. Macomber, the high court ruled that in­come de­rived only from pro­ceeds. A per­son needed to sell an as­set — stock, bond or build­ing — and reap some money be­fore it could be taxed.

Since then, the con­cept that in­come comes only from pro­ceeds — when gains are realized” — has been the bedrock of the U. S. tax sys­tem. Wages are taxed. Cash div­i­dends are taxed. Gains from sell­ing as­sets are taxed. But if a tax­payer has­n’t sold any­thing, there is no in­come and there­fore no tax.

Contemporary crit­ics of Macomber were plen­ti­ful and pre­scient. Cordell Hull, the con­gress­man known as the father” of the in­come tax, as­sailed the de­ci­sion, ac­cord­ing to scholar Marjorie Kornhauser. Hull pre­dicted that tax avoid­ance would be­come com­mon. The rul­ing opened a gap­ing loop­hole, Hull warned, al­low­ing in­dus­tri­al­ists to build a com­pany and bor­row against the stock to pay liv­ing ex­penses. Anyone could live upon the value” of their com­pany stock without sell­ing it, and of course, with­out ever pay­ing” tax, he said.

Hull’s pre­dic­tion would reach full flower only decades later, spurred by a se­ries of epochal eco­nomic, le­gal and cul­tural changes that be­gan to gather mo­men­tum in the 1970s. Antitrust en­forcers in­creas­ingly ac­cepted merg­ers and stopped try­ing to break up huge cor­po­ra­tions. For their part, com­pa­nies came to ob­sess over the value of their stock to the ex­clu­sion of nearly every­thing else. That helped give rise in the last 40 years to a se­ries of cor­po­rate mono­liths — be­gin­ning with Microsoft and Oracle in the 1980s and 1990s and con­tin­u­ing to Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple to­day — that of­ten have con­cen­trated own­er­ship, high profit mar­gins and rich share prices. The win­ner-take-all econ­omy has cre­ated mod­ern for­tunes that by some mea­sures eclipse those of John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie.

In the here and now, the ul­tra­wealthy use an ar­ray of tech­niques that aren’t avail­able to those of lesser means to get around the tax sys­tem.

Certainly, there are il­le­gal tax evaders among them, but it turns out bil­lion­aires don’t have to evade taxes ex­ot­i­cally and il­lic­itly — they can avoid them rou­tinely and legally.

Most Americans have to work to live. When they do, they get paid — and they get taxed. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment con­sid­ers al­most every dol­lar work­ers earn to be income,” and em­ploy­ers take taxes di­rectly out of their pay­checks.

The Bezoses of the world have no need to be paid a salary. Bezos’ Amazon wages have long been set at the mid­dle-class level of around $80,000 a year.

For years, there’s been some­thing of a com­pe­ti­tion among elite founder-CEOs to go even lower. Steve Jobs took $1 in salary when he re­turned to Apple in the 1990s. Facebook’s Zuckerberg, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Google’s Larry Page have all done the same.

Yet this is not the self-ef­fac­ing ges­ture it ap­pears to be: Wages are taxed at a high rate. The top 25 wealth­i­est Americans re­ported $158 mil­lion in wages in 2018, ac­cord­ing to the IRS data. That’s a mere 1.1% of what they listed on their tax forms as their to­tal re­ported in­come. The rest mostly came from div­i­dends and the sale of stock, bonds or other in­vest­ments, which are taxed at lower rates than wages.

Wealth and in­come work very dif­fer­ently for the ul­tra­wealthy than they do for most peo­ple. This rep­re­sents $100 of in­come for a typ­i­cal wage-earn­ing American house­hold. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment taxes in­come. A typ­i­cal American house­hold might pay some­thing like 14%.For many house­holds, the rest of their in­come goes to­ward ex­penses every year with maybe a small amount left over for sav­ings.A typ­i­cal house­hold might also own a home, which of­ten grows in value over time. Such as­set gains make up much of that house­hold’s wealth growth for any given year.This pro­por­tion of wealth growth vs. taxes has been typ­i­cal for mid­dle-aged Americans since the mid-2000s. However, it’s in­verted for the ul­tra­wealthy.This rep­re­sents $100 of in­come for Bezos. From 2006 to 2018, his taxes were about 21% of his in­come. But for peo­ple in this stratos­phere, in­come does­n’t re­ally mat­ter. Bezos’ Amazon shares have sky­rock­eted in value since 2006. In most years, his wealth grew far more than what he re­ported in in­come to the IRS.Between 2006 and 2018, Bezos’ wealth shot up by over $120 bil­lion, while he paid a mi­nus­cule pro­por­tion in taxes.

Meanwhile, typ­i­cal Americans his age paid more in taxes than they saw in wealth growth over that pe­riod.That is, for every $100 of wealth growth over that pe­riod, typ­i­cal Americans paid $160 in taxes.

Bezos paid only $1.09.

As Congressman Hull en­vi­sioned long ago, the ul­tra­wealthy typ­i­cally hold fast to shares in the com­pa­nies they’ve founded. Many ti­tans of the 21st cen­tury sit on moun­tains of what are known as un­re­al­ized gains, the to­tal size of which fluc­tu­ates each day as stock prices rise and fall. Of the $4.25 tril­lion in wealth held by U. S. bil­lion­aires, some $2.7 tril­lion is un­re­al­ized, ac­cord­ing to Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, econ­o­mists at the University of California, Berkeley.

Buffett has fa­mously held onto his stock in the com­pany he founded, Berkshire Hathaway, the con­glom­er­ate that owns Geico, Duracell and sig­nif­i­cant stakes in American Express and Coca-Cola. That has al­lowed Buffett to largely avoid trans­form­ing his wealth into in­come. From 2015 through 2018, he re­ported an­nual in­come rang­ing from $11.6 mil­lion to $25 mil­lion. That may seem like a lot, but Buffett ranks as roughly the world’s sixth-rich­est per­son — he’s worth $110 bil­lion as of Forbes’ es­ti­mate in May 2021. At least 14,000 U. S. tax­pay­ers in 2015 re­ported higher in­come than him, ac­cord­ing to IRS data.

There’s also a sec­ond strat­egy Buffett re­lies on that min­i­mizes in­come, and there­fore, taxes. Berkshire does not pay a div­i­dend, the sum (a piece of the prof­its, in the­ory) that many com­pa­nies pay each quar­ter to those who own their stock. Buffett has al­ways ar­gued that it is bet­ter to use that money to find in­vest­ments for Berkshire that will fur­ther boost the value of shares held by him and other in­vestors. If Berkshire had of­fered any­where close to the av­er­age div­i­dend in re­cent years, Buffett would have re­ceived over $1 bil­lion in div­i­dend in­come and owed hun­dreds of mil­lions in taxes each year.

Many Silicon Valley and in­fotech com­pa­nies have em­u­lated Buffett’s model, es­chew­ing stock div­i­dends, at least for a time. In the 1980s and 1990s, com­pa­nies like Microsoft and Oracle of­fered share­hold­ers rock­et­ing growth and prof­its but did not pay div­i­dends. Google, Facebook, Amazon and Tesla do not pay div­i­dends.

In a de­tailed writ­ten re­sponse, Buffett de­fended his prac­tices but did not di­rectly ad­dress ProPublica’s true tax rate cal­cu­la­tion. I con­tinue to be­lieve that the tax code should be changed sub­stan­tially,” he wrote, adding that he thought huge dy­nas­tic wealth is not de­sir­able for our so­ci­ety.”

The de­ci­sion not to have Berkshire pay div­i­dends has been sup­ported by the vast ma­jor­ity of his share­hold­ers. I can’t think of any large pub­lic com­pany with share­hold­ers so united in their rein­vest­ment be­liefs,” he wrote. And he pointed out that Berkshire Hathaway pays sig­nif­i­cant cor­po­rate taxes, ac­count­ing for 1.5% of to­tal U. S. cor­po­rate taxes in 2019 and 2020.

Buffett re­it­er­ated that he has be­gun giv­ing his enor­mous for­tune away and ul­ti­mately plans to do­nate 99.5% of it to char­ity. I be­lieve the money will be of more use to so­ci­ety if dis­bursed phil­an­throp­i­cally than if it is used to slightly re­duce an ever-in­creas­ing U. S. debt,” he wrote.

So how do mega­bil­lion­aires pay their mega­bills while opt­ing for $1 salaries and hang­ing onto their stock? According to pub­lic doc­u­ments and ex­perts, the an­swer for some is bor­row­ing money — lots of it.

For reg­u­lar peo­ple, bor­row­ing money is of­ten some­thing done out of ne­ces­sity, say for a car or a home. But for the ul­tra­wealthy, it can be a way to ac­cess bil­lions with­out pro­duc­ing in­come, and thus, in­come tax.

The tax math pro­vides a clear in­cen­tive for this. If you own a com­pany and take a huge salary, you’ll pay 37% in in­come tax on the bulk of it. Sell stock and you’ll pay 20% in cap­i­tal gains tax — and lose some con­trol over your com­pany. But take out a loan, and these days you’ll pay a sin­gle-digit in­ter­est rate and no tax; since loans must be paid back, the IRS does­n’t con­sider them in­come. Banks typ­i­cally re­quire col­lat­eral, but the wealthy have plenty of that.

The vast ma­jor­ity of the ul­tra­wealthy’s loans do not ap­pear in the tax records ob­tained by ProPublica since they are gen­er­ally not dis­closed to the IRS. But oc­ca­sion­ally, the loans are dis­closed in se­cu­ri­ties fil­ings. In 2014, for ex­am­ple, Oracle re­vealed that its CEO, Ellison, had a credit line se­cured by about $10 bil­lion of his shares.

Last year Tesla re­ported that Musk had pledged some 92 mil­lion shares, which were worth about $57.7 bil­lion as of May 29, 2021, as col­lat­eral for per­sonal loans.

With the ex­cep­tion of one year when he ex­er­cised more than a bil­lion dol­lars in stock op­tions, Musk’s tax bills in no way re­flect the for­tune he has at his dis­posal. In 2015, he paid $68,000 in fed­eral in­come tax. In 2017, it was $65,000, and in 2018 he paid no fed­eral in­come tax. Between 2014 and 2018, he had a true tax rate of 3.27%.

The IRS records pro­vide glimpses of other mas­sive loans. In both 2016 and 2017, in­vestor Carl Icahn, who ranks as the 40th-wealthiest American on the Forbes list, paid no fed­eral in­come taxes de­spite re­port­ing a to­tal of $544 mil­lion in ad­justed gross in­come (which the IRS de­fines as earn­ings mi­nus items like stu­dent loan in­ter­est pay­ments or al­imony). Icahn had an out­stand­ing loan of $1.2 bil­lion with Bank of America among other loans, ac­cord­ing to the IRS data. It was tech­ni­cally a mort­gage be­cause it was se­cured, at least in part, by Manhattan pent­house apart­ments and other prop­er­ties.

Borrowing of­fers mul­ti­ple ben­e­fits to Icahn: He gets huge tranches of cash to tur­bocharge his in­vest­ment re­turns. Then he gets to deduct the in­ter­est from his taxes. In an in­ter­view, Icahn ex­plained that he re­ports the prof­its and losses of his busi­ness em­pire on his per­sonal taxes.

Icahn ac­knowl­edged that he is a big bor­rower. I do bor­row a lot of money.” Asked if he takes out loans also to lower his tax bill, Icahn said: No, not at all. My bor­row­ing is to win. I en­joy the com­pe­ti­tion. I en­joy win­ning.”

He said ad­justed gross in­come was a mis­lead­ing fig­ure for him. After tak­ing hun­dreds of mil­lions in de­duc­tions for the in­ter­est on his loans, he reg­is­tered tax losses for both years, he said. I did­n’t make money be­cause, un­for­tu­nately for me, my in­ter­est was higher than my whole ad­justed in­come.”

Asked whether it was ap­pro­pri­ate that he had paid no in­come tax in cer­tain years, Icahn said he was per­plexed by the ques­tion. There’s a rea­son it’s called in­come tax,” he said. The rea­son is if, if you’re a poor per­son, a rich per­son, if you are Apple — if you have no in­come, you don’t pay taxes.” He added: Do you think a rich per­son should pay taxes no mat­ter what? I don’t think it’s ger­mane. How can you ask me that ques­tion?”

Skeptics might ques­tion our analy­sis of how lit­tle the su­per­rich pay in taxes. For one, they might ar­gue that own­ers of com­pa­nies get hit by cor­po­rate taxes. They also might counter that some bil­lion­aires can­not avoid in­come — and there­fore taxes. And af­ter death, the com­mon un­der­stand­ing goes, there’s a fi­nal no-es­cape clause: the es­tate tax, which im­poses a steep tax rate on sums over $11.7 mil­lion.

ProPublica found that none of these fac­tors al­ter the fun­da­men­tal pic­ture.

Take cor­po­rate taxes. When com­pa­nies pay them, econ­o­mists say, these costs are passed on to the com­pa­nies’ own­ers, work­ers or even con­sumers. Models dif­fer, but they gen­er­ally as­sume big stock­hold­ers shoul­der the li­on’s share.

Corporate taxes, how­ever, have plum­meted in re­cent decades in what has be­come a golden age of cor­po­rate tax avoid­ance. By send­ing prof­its abroad, com­pa­nies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple have of­ten paid lit­tle or no U. S. cor­po­rate tax.

For some of the na­tion’s wealth­i­est peo­ple, par­tic­u­larly Bezos and Musk, adding cor­po­rate taxes to the equa­tion would hardly change any­thing at all. Other com­pa­nies like Berkshire Hathaway and Walmart do pay more, which means that for peo­ple like Buffett and the Waltons, cor­po­rate tax could add sig­nif­i­cantly to their bur­den.

It is also true that some bil­lion­aires don’t avoid taxes by avoid­ing in­comes. In 2018, nine of the 25 wealth­i­est Americans re­ported more than $500 mil­lion in in­come and three more than $1 bil­lion.

In such cases, though, the data ob­tained by ProPublica shows bil­lion­aires have a palette of tax-avoid­ance op­tions to off­set their gains us­ing cred­its, de­duc­tions (which can in­clude char­i­ta­ble do­na­tions) or losses to lower or even zero out their tax bills. Some own sports teams that of­fer such lu­cra­tive write-offs that own­ers of­ten end up pay­ing far lower tax rates than their mil­lion­aire play­ers. Others own com­mer­cial build­ings that steadily rise in value but nev­er­the­less can be used to throw off pa­per losses that off­set in­come.

Michael Bloomberg, the 13th-richest American on the Forbes list, of­ten re­ports high in­come be­cause the prof­its of the pri­vate com­pany he con­trols flow mainly to him.

In 2018, he re­ported in­come of $1.9 bil­lion. When it came to his taxes, Bloomberg man­aged to slash his bill by us­ing de­duc­tions made pos­si­ble by tax cuts passed dur­ing the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion, char­i­ta­ble do­na­tions of $968.3 mil­lion and cred­its for hav­ing paid for­eign taxes. The end re­sult was that he paid $70.7 mil­lion in in­come tax on that al­most $2 bil­lion in in­come. That amounts to just a 3.7% con­ven­tional in­come tax rate. Between 2014 and 2018, Bloomberg had a true tax rate of 1.30%.

In a state­ment, a spokesman for Bloomberg noted that as a can­di­date, Bloomberg had ad­vo­cated for a va­ri­ety of tax hikes on the wealthy. Mike Bloomberg pays the max­i­mum tax rate on all fed­eral, state, lo­cal and in­ter­na­tional tax­able in­come as pre­scribed by law,” the spokesman wrote. And he cited Bloomberg’s phil­an­thropic giv­ing, of­fer­ing the cal­cu­la­tion that taken to­gether, what Mike gives to char­ity and pays in taxes amounts to ap­prox­i­mately 75% of his an­nual in­come.”

The state­ment also noted: The re­lease of a pri­vate cit­i­zen’s tax re­turns should raise real pri­vacy con­cerns re­gard­less of po­lit­i­cal af­fil­i­a­tion or views on tax pol­icy. In the United States no pri­vate cit­i­zen should fear the il­le­gal re­lease of their taxes. We in­tend to use all le­gal means at our dis­posal to de­ter­mine which in­di­vid­ual or gov­ern­ment en­tity leaked these and en­sure that they are held re­spon­si­ble.”

Ultimately, af­ter decades of wealth ac­cu­mu­la­tion, the es­tate tax is sup­posed to serve as a back­stop, al­low­ing au­thor­i­ties an op­por­tu­nity to fi­nally take a piece of gi­ant for­tunes be­fore they pass to a new gen­er­a­tion. But in re­al­ity, prepar­ing for death is more like the last stage of tax avoid­ance for the ul­tra­wealthy.

University of Southern California tax law pro­fes­sor Edward McCaffery has sum­ma­rized the en­tire arc with the catch­phrase buy, bor­row, die.”


Read the original on www.propublica.org »

7 943 shares, 37 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

A new future for icanhazip

In the sum­mer of 2009, I had an idea. My work­days were spent de­ploy­ing tons of cloud in­fra­struc­ture as Rackspace ac­quired Slicehost and we rushed to keep up with the con­stant de­mands for new in­fra­struc­ture from our cus­tomers. Working quickly led to chal­lenges with hard­ware and net­work­ing.

That was a time where the I Can Has Cheeseburger meme was red hot just about every­where. We needed a way to quickly check the pub­lic-fac­ing IP ad­dress of lots of back­end in­fra­struc­ture and our cus­tomers some­times needed that in­for­ma­tion, too.

It has al­ways been sim­ple site that re­turns your ex­ter­nal IP ad­dress and noth­ing else. No ads. No track­ers. No goofy re­quire­ments. Sure, if you looked hard enough, you could spot my at­tempt at jokes in the HTTP head­ers. Other than that, the site had a nar­row use case and started out mainly as an in­ter­nal tool.

Lifehacker’s Australian site fea­tured a post about ican­hazip.com and traf­fic went through the roof. My lit­tle Slicehost in­stance was in­un­dated and I quickly re­al­ized my Apache and Python setup was not go­ing to work long term.

I mi­grated to ng­inx and set up ng­inx to an­swer the re­quests by it­self and re­moved the Python scripts. The load on my small cloud in­stances came down quickly and I fig­ured the is­sue would be re­solved for a while.

Fast for­ward to 2015 and ican­hazip.com was serv­ing well over 100M re­quests per day. My cloud in­stances were get­ting crushed again, so I de­ployed more with round robin DNS. (My bud­get for ican­hazip is tiny.) Once that was over­loaded, I moved to Hetzner in Germany since I could get phys­i­cal servers there with bet­ter net­work cards along with un­lim­ited traf­fic.

The Hetzner servers were not ex­pen­sive, but I was pay­ing al­most $200/month to keep the site afloat and the site made no money. I met some peo­ple who worked for Packet.net (now Equinix Metal) and they of­fered to spon­sor the site. This brought my ex­penses down a lot and I de­ployed ican­hazip.com on one server at Packet.

The site soon crossed 500M re­quests per day and I de­ployed a sec­ond server. Traffic was still over­load­ing the servers. I did­n’t want to spin up more servers at Packet since they were al­ready help­ing me out quite a bit, so I de­cided to look un­der the hood of the ker­nel and make some im­prove­ments.

I learned more than I ever wanted to know about TCP back­logs, TCP/VLAN of­fload­ing, packet co­a­lesc­ing, IRQ bal­anc­ing, and a hun­dred other things. Some Red Hat net­work ex­perts helped me (before I joined the com­pany) to con­tinue tweak­ing. The site was run­ning well af­ter that and I was thank­ful for the sup­port.

Soon the site ex­ceeded 1B re­quests per day. I went back to the peo­ple who helped me at Red Hat and af­ter they looked through every­thing I sent, their re­sponse was sim­i­lar to the well-known line from Jaws: You’re gonna need a big­ger boat.”

I lan­guished on Twitter about how things were get­ting out of con­trol and some­one from Cloudflare reached out to help. We con­fig­ured Cloudflare to fil­ter traf­fic in front of the site and this re­duced the im­pact from SYN floods, half-open TLS con­nec­tions, and other ma­li­cious clients that I could­n’t even see when I hosted the site on my own.

Later, Cloudflare launched work­ers and my con­tact there said I should con­sider it since my re­sponses were fairly sim­ple and the work­ers prod­uct would han­dle it well. The cost for work­ers looked hor­ri­fy­ing at my traf­fic lev­els, but the folks at Cloudflare of­fered to run my work­ers for free. Their new prod­uct was get­ting bucket loads of traf­fic and I was able to scale the site even fur­ther.

In 2021, the traf­fic I once re­ceived in a month started ar­riv­ing in 24 hours. The site went from 1B re­quests per day to 30-35B re­quests per day over a week­end. Almost all of that traf­fic came from sev­eral net­work blocks in China. Through all of this, Cloudflare’s work­ers kept chug­ging along and my re­sponse times barely moved. I was grate­ful for the help.

Cloudflare was do­ing a lot for me and I wanted to curb some of the ma­li­cious traf­fic to re­duce the load on their prod­ucts. I tried many times to reach out to the email ad­dresses on the Chinese ASNs and could­n’t make con­tact with any­one. Some for­mer cowork­ers told me that my chances of chang­ing that traf­fic or get­ting a re­sponse to an abuse re­quest was near zero.

There was a phase for a few years where mal­ware au­thors kept writ­ing mal­ware that would call out to ican­hazip.com to find out what they had in­fected. If they could find out the ex­ter­nal IP ad­dress of the sys­tems they had com­pro­mised, they could quickly as­sess the value of the tar­get. Upatre was the first, but many fol­lowed af­ter that.

I re­ceived emails from com­pa­nies, US state gov­ern­ments, and even US three let­ter agen­cies (TLA). Most were very friendly and they had lots of ques­tions. I ex­plained how the site worked and rarely heard a lot more com­mu­ni­ca­tion af­ter that.

Not all of the in­ter­ac­tions were pos­i­tive, how­ever. One CISO of a US state emailed me and threat­ened all kinds of le­gal ac­tion clam­ing that ican­hazip.com was in­volved in a mal­ware in­fec­tion in his state’s com­puter sys­tems. I tried re­peat­edly to ex­plain how the site worked and that the mal­ware au­thors were call­ing out to my site and I was pow­er­less to stop it.

Along the way, many of my host­ing providers re­ceived abuse emails about the site. I was us­ing a colo­ca­tion provider in Dallas for a while and the tech called me about an abuse email:

So we got an­other abuse email for you,” they said.

Yes. I did­n’t know that was run­ning here, I use it all the time!”

You know what, I’ll write up a generic re­sponse and just start re­ply­ing to these id­iots for you from now on.”

There were many times where I saw a big traf­fic jump and I re­al­ized the traf­fic was com­ing from the same ASN, and likely from the same com­pany. I tried reach­ing out to these com­pa­nies when I saw it but they rarely ever replied. Some even be­came ex­tremely hos­tile to my emails.

The pas­sion left in my pas­sion pro­ject started shrink­ing by the day.

Seeing that over 90% of my traf­fic load was ma­li­cious and abu­sive was frus­trat­ing. Dealing with the abuse emails and com­plaints was worse.

I built the site orig­i­nally as just a util­ity for my team to use, but then it grew and it was fun to find new ways to han­dle the load with­out in­creas­ing cost. Seeing 2 petabytes of data flow­ing out per month and know­ing that al­most all of it was garbage pushed me over the line. I knew I needed a change.

I re­ceived a few small of­fers from var­i­ous small com­pa­nies ($5,000 or less), but I re­al­ized that the money was­n’t what I was af­ter. I wanted some­one to run the site and help the in­for­ma­tion se­cu­rity in­dus­try to stop some of these ma­li­cious ac­tors.

I’ve worked closely with my con­tacts at Cloudflare for a long time and they’ve al­ways jumped in to help me when some­thing was­n’t work­ing well. Their spon­sor­ship of ican­hazip.com has saved me tens of thou­sands of dol­lars per month. It has also man­aged to keep the site alive even un­der hor­rific traf­fic load.

I made this de­ci­sion be­cause Cloudflare has al­ways done right by me and they’ve pledged not only to keep the site run­ning, but to work through the traf­fic load and de­ter­mine how to stop the ma­li­cious traf­fic. Their co­or­di­nated work with other com­pa­nies to stop com­pro­mised ma­chines from de­grad­ing the per­for­mance of so many sites was a great sell­ing point for me.

If you’re cu­ri­ous, Cloudflare did pay me for the site. We made a deal for them to pay me $8.03; the cost of the do­main reg­is­tra­tion. The goal was never to make money from the site (although I did get about $75 in to­tal do­na­tions from 2009 to 2021). The goal was to pro­vide a ser­vice to the in­ter­net. Cloudflare has helped me do that and they will con­tinue to do it as the new own­ers and op­er­a­tors of ican­hazip.com.

I’d like to thank every­one who has helped me with ican­hazip.com along the way. Tons of peo­ple stepped up to help with host­ing and server op­ti­miza­tion. Hosting providers helped me field an on­slaught of abuse re­quests and DDoS at­tacks. Most of all, thanks to the peo­ple who used the site and helped to pro­mote it.


Read the original on major.io »

8 901 shares, 34 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Automate tax collection on your Stripe transactions

Stripe Tax lets you cal­cu­late and col­lect sales tax, VAT, and GST with one line of code or the click of a but­ton. Know where to reg­is­ter, au­to­mat­i­cally col­lect the right amount of tax, and ac­cess the re­ports you need to file re­turns.

Internet busi­nesses are re­quired to col­lect taxes in over 130 coun­tries and in most US states. Staying com­pli­ant can be chal­leng­ing, es­pe­cially as your busi­ness scales. Tax rules and rates change con­stantly and vary based on what and where you sell. If you ig­nore these com­plex­i­ties, you risk pay­ing penal­ties and in­ter­est on top of un­col­lected taxes. We built Stripe Tax to sim­plify tax com­pli­ance, so you can fo­cus on grow­ing your busi­ness.

On av­er­age, there is a 30% in­ter­est penalty on past-due sales tax in the US.

European reg­is­tra­tion thresh­olds vary from €0 in Spain to £85,000 in the UK.

Over 130 coun­tries are tax­ing dig­i­tal goods and more coun­tries are plan­ning to im­pose taxes on dig­i­tal goods.

Non-EU busi­nesses sell­ing dig­i­tal goods and ser­vices into the EU must col­lect taxes from their very first sale.

If you don’t col­lect sales tax from your cus­tomers, you’ll have to pay past-due taxes out of your own pocket.

SaaS sales are 100% tax­able in New York, 80% in Texas, and non-tax­able in California.

In 2021, the United States will in­tro­duce around 400 rate changes.

In Europe, busi­nesses sell­ing dig­i­tal prod­ucts gen­er­ally need to col­lect two pieces of non-con­flict­ing ev­i­dence to val­i­date a cus­tomer’s lo­ca­tion.

SaaS is only tax­able in some US states, and some­times only B2B or B2C SaaS is taxed.

Over 80% of star­tups on Stripe sell into more than 20 states and coun­tries.

In 2021, over 20 coun­tries will change their VAT rates for cer­tain prod­ucts.

72% of on­line busi­nesses see com­pli­ance as a bar­rier to in­ter­na­tional growth.

US sales tax reg­is­tra­tion thresh­olds for re­mote sell­ers vary from $100k in sales or 200 trans­ac­tions in most states to $500k in CA, NY, and TX.

Collect taxes around the world by adding a sin­gle line of code to your ex­ist­ing in­te­gra­tion or click­ing a but­ton in the Dashboard.

Know where to reg­is­ter

Stripe Tax mon­i­tors your trans­ac­tions in each mar­ket, so you know when and where you need to reg­is­ter to col­lect taxes.

Stripe Tax de­ter­mines your cus­tomer’s pre­cise lo­ca­tion and al­ways cal­cu­lates and col­lects the right amount of tax. It also val­i­dates the EU VAT ID num­ber when needed.

Speed up fil­ing and re­mit­tance with com­pre­hen­sive re­ports for each mar­ket in which you’re reg­is­tered.

Start col­lect­ing taxes by adding one line of code to your ex­ist­ing Stripe in­te­gra­tion.

If you’re us­ing one of Stripe’s no-code prod­ucts, such as Invoicing, you can col­lect taxes with the click of a but­ton in the Dashboard.

Know where to reg­is­ter

Stripe Tax is op­ti­mized for tax cal­cu­la­tion in all US states and 30+ coun­tries. Understand where you need to col­lect taxes and ac­ti­vate tax col­lec­tion in a new mar­ket in sec­onds. In Europe, Stripe Tax sup­ports both coun­try and VAT OSS reg­is­tra­tions.

​​Locations where you are cur­rently col­lect­ing tax with Stripe.

Compare your vol­ume to lo­cal state or coun­try tax thresh­olds and add where you are reg­is­tered.

​​Once added, Stripe will cal­cu­late tax for cus­tomers lo­cated in Idaho on any pay­ment with au­to­matic tax en­abled.

We use a rolling ba­sis to cal­cu­late tax and in­clude all trans­ac­tions re­gard­less of el­i­gi­bil­ity.

Are you cur­rently reg­is­tered to col­lect sales taxes in Idaho?

You must be reg­is­tered in Idaho in or­der to col­lect and re­mit sales tax.

Always cal­cu­late and col­lect the cor­rect amount of tax, no mat­ter what or where you sell. Stripe Tax sup­ports tax col­lec­tion on hun­dreds of prod­ucts and ser­vices and keeps tax rules and rates up to date.

Reduce check­out fric­tion by cal­cu­lat­ing taxes based on the avail­able lo­ca­tion in­for­ma­tion and show taxes in the most fa­mil­iar way to your cus­tomers.

Stripe Tax helps you col­lect the tax iden­ti­fi­ca­tion num­ber from B2B cus­tomers. You can au­to­mat­i­cally val­i­date VAT IDs for European cus­tomers and ap­ply a re­verse charge or zero VAT rate when nec­es­sary.

Save time when rec­on­cil­ing thou­sands of trans­ac­tions. Stripe re­ports sur­face all the in­for­ma­tion you need for each fil­ing lo­ca­tion, so you can eas­ily file and re­mit taxes on your own, with your ac­coun­tant, or with a pre­ferred part­ner.

We no longer have to keep up with the tax reg­u­la­tions in every US state and are now ex­pand­ing faster than ever.

Thanks to Stripe Tax, we avoided six months of en­gi­neer­ing work and we never have to think about taxes again.

We switched to Stripe from a mer­chant of record provider be­cause we wanted com­plete con­trol over our check­out ex­pe­ri­ence and pric­ing.

Our cus­tomers can’t wait to say goodbye’ to man­u­ally cal­cu­lat­ing their taxes. Integrating Stripe Tax into Kajabi Checkout will make their lives a whole lot eas­ier.

Learn more about global tax com­pli­ance and how to use Stripe Tax.

Understanding US sales tax and eco­nomic nexus: A guide for star­tups

TaxJar guide to tax fil­ing in the US

Stripe Tax is cur­rently in in­vite only. If you’d like to get ac­cess, please pro­vide your in­for­ma­tion and we’ll con­tact you.

Thank you for your in­ter­est in Stripe Tax! We’ll be in touch soon.


Read the original on stripe.com »

9 894 shares, 32 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

Ohio sues Google, seeks to declare the internet company a public utility

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed a law­suit ask­ing a court to de­clare Google a pub­lic util­ity that should be reg­u­lated as such.

Google uses its dom­i­nance of in­ter­net search to steer Ohioans to Google’s own prod­ucts – that’s dis­crim­i­na­tory and anti-com­pet­i­tive,” Yost said in a state­ment. When you own the rail­road or the elec­tric com­pany or the cell­phone tower, you have to treat every­one the same and give every­body ac­cess.”

The law­suit, filed in Delaware County Common Pleas Court, is be­lieved to be the first of its kind, Yost’s of­fice said.

Specifically, the law­suit seeks a le­gal de­c­la­ra­tion that Google is a common car­rier,” like phone, gas and elec­tric com­pa­nies, which must pro­vide its ser­vices to any­one will­ing to pay its fee. In lieu of a fee, Yost ar­gues in the com­plaint, Google col­lects user data that is mon­e­tized pri­mar­ily by sell­ing tar­geted ad­ver­tise­ments.

Yost ar­gues Google should there­fore not be able to pri­or­i­tize place­ment of its own prod­ucts, ser­vices and web­sites on its search re­sults pages.

Google dis­ad­van­tages busi­nesses and con­sumers by rank­ing its own ser­vices above com­peti­tors, Yost ar­gues in the com­plaint. For ex­am­ple, if some­one searches for a flight, Google Flights is the first re­sult that pops up af­ter ad­ver­tise­ments, not other search sites such as Expedia and Travelocity.

The law­suit does not seek mon­e­tary dam­ages.

In a state­ment, Google said Google Search is de­signed to pro­vide peo­ple with the most rel­e­vant and help­ful re­sults and the Ohio law­suit would make it harder for small busi­nesses to con­nect di­rectly with cus­tomers.

Ohioans sim­ply don’t want the gov­ern­ment to run Google like a gas or elec­tric com­pany,” the com­pany said in a state­ment. This law­suit has no ba­sis in fact or law and we’ll de­fend our­selves against it in court.”

The law­suit is­n’t the first Ohio has filed against Google. In December, Ohio joined 37 other state at­tor­neys gen­eral ac­cus­ing Google of vi­o­lat­ing anti-trust laws. That com­plaint also claimed Google un­fairly gives pref­er­ence to its own sites and ser­vices over com­peti­tors in search re­sults.

Jackie Borchardt is the Bureau Chief for the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau, which serves the Columbus Dispatch, Cincinnati Enquirer, Akron Beacon Journal and 18 other af­fil­i­ated news or­ga­ni­za­tions across Ohio.


Read the original on www.dispatch.com »

10 780 shares, 19 trendiness, words and minutes reading time

artificial life environment

ALiEn is an ar­ti­fi­cial life sim­u­la­tion pro­gram based on a spe­cial­ized physics and ren­der­ing en­gine in CUDA. It is de­signed to sim­u­late dig­i­tal or­gan­isms em­bed­ded in ar­ti­fi­cial ecosys­tems and to mimic con­di­tions for (pre-)biotic evo­lu­tion.


Read the original on alien-project.org »

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.