And he isn't even involved in any arcane minimization schemes. ProPublica showed that he sold ~$4 billion in Amazon stock last year and paid a billion of it to the government.

And made $100B that year. Can I get a 1% effective tax rate too?

His equity appreciated and will be taxed appropriately when it is sold.

Except it doesn't get per se, loans are taken out and paid back on a schedule smaller than the appreciation of the stocks which were used as collateral.

That's what that $1B was, and is relative scales we're talking about.

How do you pay back loans without income?

Your capital you used for collateral on the loans accrues value quicker than the loan's payments.

Hence that 1% effective rate.

But eventually, you sell that capital to repay the loan, triggering a tax event.

Except you had access to the capital the whole time via the loans, and only pay back according to the loan schedule, negating most of the tax burden.

Hence the 1% figure based on the numbers you yourself provided.

In what way does that negate tax burden. You have to sell (some of) the assets to pay the loan you borrowed. That causes a tax to be paid.

Yes you can, just don't realize your capital gains.

"Don't be poor"

Like to hit 1% effective just living on $20k/yr is $2M/yr in capital gains.

He only has a 1% effective rate if you change the definition of effective rate. I assume you're fine with making that change, but the federal government isn't currently.

The federal government that Amazon spends millions lobbying.

I'm well aware that what they're doing is legal; I'm saying it shouldn't be.

Taxing unrealized capital gains isn't happening because Amazon is lobbying the federal government, it's a fundamental premise of the US tax code and starting to tax them is arguably unconstitutional (I'm not arguing it is or isn't, but I've seen arguments that it is unconstitutional from reasonable sources).

I would find it hard to believe it's unconstitutional given that the 16th amendment defers the definition of taxable income to US code.

And Amazon's lobbying isn't the only reason, but it is a reason.

Your representatives don't have to accept Amazon's bribes, you know. They choose to do so because they're corrupt and convinced you to be mad at a different party entirely while they pocket the cash for future campaigns where they convince other people like you that they will serve your interests.

Where did I say I don't blame them too?

I shouldn't have to say this explicitly but yes, accepting bribes and giving bribes are both bad.

Yep, and he also owns literally the largest mansion in Washington DC ( https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/real-estate/news/a..., https://www.geekwire.com/2020/party-jeff-bezos-d-c-mansion-a...).

It has a Ballroom, and can host parties with hundreds of people.

Why? Because he just enjoys flying across the country and entertaining political elites out of the goodness of his heart? What could possibly be fishy here?