Ahhh, it's the Romney Rule all over again.
Whether you like Facebook or even Mark Zuckerberg, nobody can deny that Zuckerberg has worked hard to build the company into what it is today. However, it's challenging to see the fairness in even discussing how a soon to be billionaire may never again pay taxes. It's possible and even likely that he will have more stock, which means paying taxes but this is an amazing scenario to consider. The discussion points out how unfair the Romney Rule is for those outside of the 1%. Does anyone honestly think this is fair? CNBC:
People sometimes talk about the rich “living off the interest” of their wealth. But that’s not really a tax efficient way to live if you are really, really wealthy. It’s better to live off of debt and muni bonds.
The best thing for Zuckerberg would be a home equity line of credit—perhaps multiple home equity lines. He would borrow against the value of real estate he owns. The money he receives from the HELOC is debt rather than income, which means it isn’t taxed. Even better, the interest he pays on the HELOC can be used to offset other income he may earn.
Zuckerberg will also be able to access credit secured by his Facebook holdings—which will amount to billions of dollars. These lines of credit will not be tax advantaged—no deduction for interest payments—but they will supply him with spending money that will not be taxed.