创业与商业propublica.org
彼得·蒂尔如何把 Roth IRA 变成 50 亿美元免税储蓄罐
Peter Thiel turned a Roth IRA into a $5B tax-free piggy bank
2021 — 2024，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇 ProPublica 调查报道讲述 Peter Thiel 如何把一个本为中产退休储蓄设计的 Roth IRA 变成约 50 亿美元的免税资产池，主要靠把早期投资装入该账户并享受长期免税增值。报道借此审视退休账户规则、可能的禁止交易问题，以及超级富豪利用税制合法积累财富的争议。
为什么经久不衰：它把极端但合法的税务安排摆到公众面前，触及退休账户公平性、税法漏洞与 IRS 数据隐私等长期争议，因此多年反复引发讨论。
HN 评论精选
认为 Thiel 的做法合法且非漏洞，只是极端投资运气；批评文章煽动公众愤怒。
看到这么多 HN 读者完全没读懂文章、把它说成某种邪恶的偷窃，我极其震惊和沮丧。这是法律按本意运作。Thiel 的情况是亿分之一以上的事件；他可能拥有唯一一个估值超过 50 亿美元的 Roth IRA。但他没有利用某种“漏洞”，也没有花钱请高价会计师把资产藏到海外实体。他只是像你们任何人一样把投资放进 Roth IRA；唯一区别是他的投资业绩处于前 0.0001%。这基本上就是人们成为亿万富翁的方式。更不用说 Roth IRA 里的资产对他基本不可用——他还没到能免税取款的年龄，也不能用 Roth IRA 借款；除非愿意缴税和罚金，这些钱多年内实际上拿不到。再说一遍，这不是逃税。这是某人完全按法律本意使用规则，没有任何违法或阴暗操作，只是碰巧极其幸运。整篇文章是煽动愤怒的抹黑稿。而且我最近注意到 ProPublica 发了不少这类东西。
maxk42查看英文原文
Utterly astounded and dismayed to see this much of HN's audience completely fail to comprehend what they've read here and paint this as some sort of sinister theft. This is the law functioning as intended. Thiel's case is a one-in-100-million+ event. He may have the only Roth IRA in existence that's valued at over $5 billion. But he didn't do it by exploiting some sort of "loophole" or paying high-priced accountants to shield his assets in foreign entities offshore. He put his investments in a Roth IRA just like any of you can do. The only difference is his investments were in the top 0.0001% in terms of performance. That's generally how people get to be billionaires. And that's not even to mention that the assets in a Roth IRA are essentially worthless to him - he's not old enough to make withdrawals or take distributions tax-free and you can't borrow against a Roth IRA. The funds are essentially unavailable to him for years to come unless he wants to pay taxes and penalties. Again - this isn't a tax dodge. This is someone who used the law exactly as intended without any illegal or shady dealings and happened to be incredibly fortunate. The whole article is a hit piece designed to get whip people into a furor. And lately I've been noticing propublica publishing a lot of those.
认为按现行法这可能构成禁止交易，并担心税制因此过度反弹。
我不是律师，但这个问题很有意思。不评论 Thiel 做这笔交易时是否合法，按现行税法这似乎是不被允许的。相关法条文本似乎早在 1995 年就已生效：法律明确取消某些人的资格——某实体的高管、董事（或具有类似权力/职责的人）、10% 以上股东，或高薪雇员。按字面意思，这几乎肯定包括今天积极参与公司管理的联合创始人。这种公然避税最终会害了我们的税制，很可能引发过度纠正。
runako查看英文原文
IANAL but this topic is of interest. Without commenting on whether this was legal at the time Thiel made this transaction, it appears it would not be permissible under current tax law. (Update: the relevant text in the statute appears to have been in effect as early as 1995: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=1994&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2000-title26-section4975&num=0) Specifically, the law explicitly disqualifies anyone who is: >an officer, director (or an individual having powers or responsibilities similar to those of officers or directors), a 10 percent or more shareholder, or a highly compensated employee (earning 10 percent or more of the yearly wages of an employer) of a person described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), or (G) (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4975) So the relatively plain language would almost certainly include anyone who's a co-founder involved in actively managing a company today. This kind of blatant tax avoidance is going to end badly for our tax regime, which is likely to overcorrect.
质疑投资自己公司违反公平交易/禁止交易规则，可能危及整个账户。
我不明白的是：Roth 交易必须按公平交易原则进行，即交易不能涉及 IRA 所有者或其家庭成员。举个例子，如果你用 Roth 投资房产，就不能个人使用、不能自己管理或维护。禁止交易可能导致整个账户失去资格并暴露。那 Thiel 投资自己的公司为什么不算被禁止投资？
nrmitchi查看英文原文
What I don't understand about this whole maneuver is that Roth transactions must be made at arms length; ie, "Transactions must be made at arm’s length and not involve the IRA owner or a member of his or her family." An example of this is that if you use a Roth to invest in property, you are not allowed to use it personally, not allowed to manage it or do maintenance yourself, etc. Prohibited transactions risk tainting (and thus exposing) the entire account. How is Thiel investing in his own company not considered a prohibited investment?
担忧 IRS 数据泄露波及数千人隐私，质疑报道手段。
我知道讨厌超级富豪很流行，但这对公众不令人担忧吗？ProPublica 获得了数千名美国最富者超过 15 年的 IRS 报税数据。有人泄露的不只是 Gates、Bezos、Musk 等人的数据，还有数千名普通公民的私密财务披露（似乎是为了把这些数据武器化来对付他们）。这数千人犯了什么罪，该受这种对待？
cdolan查看英文原文
I am aware of the fact its popular to dislike the ultra-rich, but is this not worrying to the general public? ProPublica has obtained a trove of IRS tax return data on thousands of the country’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years. Someone leaked not only Gates, Bezos, Musk, etc data, but thousands of private citizen's intimate financial disclosures (edit: seemingly for the purpose of weaponizing the data against them). What crime were these thousands of people convicted of to deserve this?
历次讨论
同类还值得读
微软已死（2007）
Microsoft is Dead (2007)
Paul Graham 2007 年的一篇短文，判断微软在互联网与创业竞争中已不再令人畏惧、失去影响力——所谓“死”并非字面倒闭。
创业与商业上首页 8 次 · 2007–2025paulgraham.comH&R Block 与 Intuit 游说反对简化报税（2017）
H&R Block and Intuit Lobbying Against Simpler Tax Filing (2017)
2017年ProPublica调查报道梳理了H&R Block和Intuit如何通过游说反对更简单的美国报税方式，尤其是政府预填税表和免费申报等改革。
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2017–2022propublica.org你本不该有老板
You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss (2008)
Paul Graham 2008 年的经典文章，论证人类在演化中习惯于小团体协作，而大公司的层级结构和老板制度是人为产物，对程序员尤其有害——因为编程的本质是创造新事物，而大公司…
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2008–2020paulgraham.com为什么要在经济糟糕时创业
Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy
Paul Graham 的经典短文，论证经济衰退并不是创业的障碍：真正决定成败的是创始人和产品，而非宏观环境；衰退期反而竞争更少、人才更易招、成本更低。
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2008–2022paulgraham.com做那些不可规模化的事
Do Things that Don't Scale
Paul Graham 2013 年的经典创业文章《Do Things that Don't Scale》。
创业与商业上首页 4 次 · 2013–2025paulgraham.com编辑精选