Ballmer, Bezos Fund Effort To Undermine Bill Gates 866
theodp writes "You know what they say — it takes money to avoid paying money. TechFlash reports that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos have contributed $100,000 each to an effort to defeat an income tax on individuals in Washington state making more than $200,000. The backers of Initiative 1098, which is set for the November ballot, include Bill Gates (Sr.), who has emerged as one of the most vocal proponents of the income tax. Under the proposal, which has drawn the ire of the Bezos and Ballmer-backed Defeat 1098, no tax would be due on the first $200K of income, 5% tax would be owed on income between $200K and $500K, and everything above $500K would be subject to a 9% tax (cutoffs are doubled for joint returns)."
Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:5, Insightful)
Living in a state that does have an income tax, I have to say that I don't have much sympathy for the billionaires who are crying over the fact that they might get taxed on the part of their income over $200,000 per year. Aw, isn't that just too bad.
Just pay the tax (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>"contributed $100,000 each"
It would be cheaper for them to just pay the tax.
Seattle COL (Score:2, Insightful)
But then again, the government will stop at nothing to take all the money it can away from the people and organizations who create jobs.
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama? Since when is he the governor of Washington State? Personally I don';t care because I don't live there. Me worrying about WA's tax would be like some guy in Poland worrying about a tax increase in Portugal.
However I like the idea of 0% income tax on the first $200,000. I wish my state had that. Heck I wish the whole continent had that.
This is a STATE tax, not a federal tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Complaining about having to pay to support the poor? Then help them stop being poor! Henry Ford knew it - when he was asked why he paid his workers more than the competition, he said "I want them to be able to buy my cars."
Looks like Gates Sr. also gets it - growing the tax base takes money, and you can't get that money by taxing people who don't have it.
The middle and lower classes are no further ahead after 3 decades, after inflation, while the top income earners have seen real increases in their finances.
Re: Oh brother, there should be a Godwin law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Third, why does every time taxation and government spending come up, does Obama get blamed? Taxes were too low during the GB43 admin to support the level of spending his administration endorsed. The proposed increases in taxes of the Obama administration would be lower than during the Reagan administration. And a vast majority of the spending that has so far occurred during the Obama administration was congressionally scheduled spending from the GB43 administration. And of the remaining optional government spend, it went toward correcting the GB43 caused recession.
I wish I had a -1 Space Cadet for you...
Re:Seattle COL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops, my bad, they're creating the jobs overseas. I correct myself.
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
The latter. Trickle-down is bullshit.
Stimulus is best applied to the people at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, as they're going to spend that cash immediately. The state is best to enact this extremely modest tax increase, and then to put the funds toward local improvement projects (which hire labourers and tradesmen), and funding a social safety net for the many many people who are under- or unemployed.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bingo: less tax = more growth (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh Ballmer and Bezos don't use their personal money to hire more people.
They use their corporations money for that.
So it's a fallacy. :)
That extra 9% would actually be sitting in their investment portfolio.. probably in Dubai
Only straw men getting a raise? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's such a straw man argument -- were both Bezos and Ballmer planning on:
1) ...using the money they would otherwise be taxed on to give their employees raises? ...bringing jobs sent to low-cost overseas work centers back to the US? ...repatriating H1B visa workers, allowing demand to increase wages and allow greater work opportunity for Washington residents?
2)
3)
I'll take a wild guess and assume "none of the above" and that both men are merely parroting vague anti-tax sentiments, following the advice of paid consultants & lobbyists, or, perhaps, merely greedy and have no plans to pay higher wages or offer greater work opportunity.
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:0, Insightful)
>>>The latter. Trickle-down is bullshit.
The former. Government only returns 45% of the money it takes. The rest gets squandered on internal corruption, white collar welfare (my previous no-work job), and interest payments to China.
And trickle-down isn't bullshit, when you consider that it's the rich who hire the workers. If the government takes away all the rich person's money (say 100% income over 1 million) then the rich can't hire anyone.
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:3, Insightful)
You assume that some sort of rationality is involved in this equation, trust me that it isn't. I can assure you that they will still blame Obama.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:5, Insightful)
Their money is their own? But where did that money come from? Let's see Ballboy and Bozo earn their Million dollar salaries from a hut in Bora Bora.
When you reap rewards from a community you are obliged to help support that community.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
And trickle-down isn't bullshit, when you consider that it's the rich who hire the workers. If the government takes away all the rich person's money (say 100% income over 1 million) then the rich can't hire anyone.
Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers. You might have something of a point if this was a corporate tax initiative, but it's not. Secondly, trickle-down is voodoo economics no matter how much the right tries to spin it.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the worst political development in American history was that it suddenly became ok to run the country into the ground so the greedy rich could hold onto a little more of their money, and managed (brilliantly) to convince the gullible poor to support them.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they also figured out that with the fear of unemployment and difficulty getting another job looming over many people's heads, that many workers are willing to work harder and longer in order to make sure they keep their jobs, so the companies can more easily increase profits by overworking their workers rather than hiring new ones.
Re:Ultimate Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
They do. Thats why they pay people to lobby on their behalf.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't make anywhere near enough to be hit with this tax, but I still oppose it. Lawmakers have tried multiple times to get a State income tax set, once they get it in place they will be able to make changes to it with a simple majority vote.
If any state income tax passes and is upheld in court (a state income tax is believed to be against the WA St. constitution), I can see it quickly expanding to encompass much more than those making just more than $200,000.
They are trying to sell it as a tax break, which it might be for the majority of people at first since they bundled it with a property tax cut, but come the first budget shortfall (like they have right now) it is quite likely an increase in the property tax and expansion of the income tax would be done to 'fix' the problem. I think if this passes it is likely the majority will be paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes in 15 years than if this doesn't pass.
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're saying that if we insert money at the top, it benefits the guys at the bottom because high level executives and such create lots of jobs directly from their personal income?
From my PoV it makes more sense to insert money at the bottom. The guys at the bottom are most likely to spend it, which in turn puts in in corporate coffers, and the corporatations as an entity are the ones creating the jobs, not the executives from their personal wealth.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I was writing a whole rebuttal and just decided to delete it.
This is such a simple concept. Just because someone makes more money, that doesn't entitle them to being "off the hook" when it comes to funding the country. The simple truth is, the government needs $x to run the country and the citizens need to foot the bill. There are those that are in real danger of losing everything because their situation puts them in that predicament. Then there are those that make more than enough to fund their expenses and toys. One of those two should be responsible for a larger chunk of the $x the government needs.
When I get my next raise, I expect to bump up to the next tax bracket. And rightfully so...
If you can't figure out how to budget your $200,000+ salary to accommodate the above, you're living outside your means.
End of story.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
And trickle-down isn't bullshit, when you consider that it's the rich who hire the workers.
That's garbage. The government can take care of us all! We don't need the private sector to create jobs when we could all be government-employed like in Greece. Oh...
Re:Flat Tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Mathematically impossible, unless your earnings in the new higher tax bracket are taxed at greater than 100%.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not finding it hard to make ends meet. No one said that or anything like that. I'm making two points. One, making $200,000 is not at all like having million dollar homes or yachts. Anyone can do this. There's no reason to punish people for being successful, responsible producers in this economy. Second, these people are the ones who are productive in this economy, they put their money to use in useful ways and many help create other jobs. They are not people whose throats ought to be slashed by the government simply because they can't control their spending habits.
Holy shit! How is a 5% income tax rate "punishing people for being successful"? You certainly do have a monstrous sense of entitlement. Astounding.
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why not vote with your feet and move to Washington State or somewhere else instead of complaining and continuing to pay the Illinois taxes you oppose? If enough people do it, maybe even Chicago will get the message (although it will probably take nearly everybody moving out of state for them to get the message.)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:3, Insightful)
If you live in the metro, own a home, and your wife stays at home with the kids - making $200,000 hardly qualifies you as "rich". Especially if you are a small business owner.
From the Summary:
(cutoffs are doubled for joint returns).
The way I take this is they'd have to make 400K before they hit the tax.
Also note that the small business owner doesn't pay himself a $400k+ salary, he pays himself $30k-$100k or so and reinvests the rest in the business, hiring workers and increasing the value of his assets (the business) - which lets him sell it for a profit and pay just 15% capital gains tax and 0 income tax on those gains. His car? Company property, he pays no personal tax on it it - ditto for the insurance on that vehicle. Don't you wish you could deduct the cost of your car insurance too? Ditto for medical insurance and damn near everything else.
So that tax on quarter millionaires (Etc) doesn't hurt the small business man at all.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet many of their better software engineers are making close to that much...
You mean actual, non-management, I-write-software-all-day people making near $250k per year at M$ and/or Amazon? I've worked at one of those companies, and I seriously doubt it--I would be really surprised if more than 1% of software engineers make more than $150k.
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a reason that Washington state has avoided an income tax for so many years... because they already have other taxes in place of an income tax.
For instance, one of my favorites is the cost of registering (and renewing) a vehicle license plate. The cost of a license tag is a percentage of the value of the car. Every year. And it has an odd impact on the auto market. When you finance a car purchase from a dealer, the first year's license fee is usually rolled into the financing, so you don't really notice it much. Then, in the second year, you get a bill from the state for potentially thousands of dollars for a license tag, and now you're scrounging. Or, you sell the car, and buy another one.
Anyway, adding an income tax is contrary to the spirit of the road use fee, which was enacted instead of a state income tax. But I doubt that they'll get rid of the road use fee if they do pass an income tax, they'll just squander both.
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
We've tried trickle-down economics for the better part of 30 years, and the result has been a steady drop in real wages for the poorest Americans, a stagnation of real salaries for middle-class Americans, and a massive increase in income for upper-class Americans. Given that, please explain the evidence for the trickle-down effect, where the upper-class Americans hire middle-class and poor Americans at good rates.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:4, Insightful)
The government inserting money anywhere is a bad idea. It mostly gets wasted with no real benefit to show for it. Just look at the effects of the stimulus and such. For the "bottom," they spend several hundred thousand dollars per job to create a job that pays the worker $40k or so per year. They also paid a lot to people in unemployment benefits and welfare, and a lot of those people are simply sitting back largely doing nothing until the government stops paying them for not working. For the "top,", they bailed out banks, who largely used the money to pay off their foreign-held debt rather than loan it out to Americans. None of that helped the U.S. very much, but we're stuck paying hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for it. All of this exemplifies how poorly the government does when it tries to "stimulate" the economy by spending. It's a lot like trying to dig yourself out of a hole.
Tax cuts are NOT the government inserting money; the money is yours and the government simply takes less of it. If you want people to have money, why not let them keep it instead of taking it from the people, running it through the government, and then giving only some of it back to the people, because you had to spend a good amount of it on governmental overhead?
Re:Go after billionaires then (Score:4, Insightful)
When did contributing 5% of the personal income above $200K to the running of a civilized society become too burdensome and greedy? You certainly deserve most of that money, but to say that 1-2% of your total income is too big a price to pay is pretty selfish and counter-productive.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go after billionaires then (Score:5, Insightful)
Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts
PricewaterhouseCoopers
the Tribune Corp.
Bechtel
This is NOT a tax on the "heart" of small business, as you claim.
I note, also, the implicit assumption that people who earn a lot, worked hard for it, in some sort of a positive sense of the word "work" (as opposed to the sort of work that a bank robber or an embezzler does). You did notice, surely, that the rocket surgeons on Wall Street who devised all this CDO madness that so thoroughly trashed our economy, were extremely well paid?
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno about "billionaires". I bet many of their better software engineers are making close to that much
a) I bet very few of them make close to that much. The average rate for software engineers is not 6 figures. Most don't make 100k. Some small fraction make 6 figures. And some tiny fraction clear $200k. If anyone is doing significantly better than that its likely from 2ndary income from investments that are paying off... rental income on the condo, stock options, etc.
b) I don't know tax options at all in the US, but around here one can usually qualify for several tax deductions before calculating tax rates. There is often a substantial difference between gross income and "net taxable income". I would expect a person making $220k gross income could likely easily have a taxable income down at $190k, and still not pay this tax.
At $250k, suppose you get it down to $230k, and then have to pay this 5% tax on income over 200k. Oh noes you make a quarter million dollars, and a tax bill of $1500 is going to send you packing.
and many of them in 2-income families (I assume the threshold there is higher but still present).
Doubled so not relevant as you noted yourself in a follow up.
That marginal rate is half of California's. And unlike Seattle, Silicon Valley has pleasant weather.
Right. Move to california, the bankrupt state. I'm sure they won't raise taxes any time soon. Meanwhile you can enjoy a myriad of other things like electricy that costs twice as much...
All of a sudden Seattle is going to look a little less attractive, and a little less competitive a location to do business.
Good riddance. I'm sure the people who stay behind will be happy to pay a couple thousand bucks in taxes and fill all those piles of 250k/year software engineering jobs that get left vacant. ;)
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:2, Insightful)
They either buy things, or they put it to use in the most productive ways. Well, and maybe donate some (those donations are 100% loses of course). But otherwise they invest.
And why do you suggest that they do not seek the most productive investments of their capital? (that would be those with the best returns, generally) Have you given thought to what exactly "most productive" means? (jobs are likely involved).
Ah... I see what you are about to do there. Don't cite foreign investment as cause for giving their investment capital to the poor instead. If politicians pandering to the poor (and otherwise attempting to re-architect our society) did not create such an inhospitable business environment all around the country, it might be less of an issue. So, let us "fix" the core issues. Not use our screw ups to do more screw ups.
Re:Go after billionaires then (Score:5, Insightful)
Billionaires only exist because the people let them. They can either graciously return a very small fraction of what they have taken in a gesture towards keeping those they've exploited well fed and educated, or they can be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Their choice.
Civilization is expensive. Since the benefits of civilization accrue disproportionately to the rich, they should bear a disproportionate amount of the cost. If you don't like it, we don't have to have civilization. But I don't think you're going to like the alternative.
It's there to strike a balance (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming that the lower class spends more or less all of what it makes, that sets up a good 10% tax on total income (more if they borrow; statistics show that on average, Americans spend more than they earn), whereas someone in the proposed income tax bracket of $200,000+ spends closer to 1-2% of total income on sales taxes. So there's a 10% tax on the $20,000-homeless crowd, and a 1-2% tax on the most well-to-do. Applying a 9% income tax to the upper bracket at least gets it close to an even 10% across the board.
But I'm playing devil's advocate here. I can't in good conscience support what amounts to a special tax on a minority group, even if that group is better off than I. Skipping the sales tax altogether and just putting a flat 10% income tax across the board would be the most appropriate, I think.
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that what he said? The rich have voted for themselves to acquire and keep more and more of the poor's money.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:3, Insightful)
I also have to say, $200,000/year might not qualify you as "rich", but it sure as shit doesn't qualify you as "poor". If you make $250k, then you have to be $2.5k in taxes. I think you can afford it.
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
Those investments are what create jobs.
Buying 100,000 shares of already issued stock is an investment, but does nothing to create jobs. Only some sort of venture capital (defined loosely, e.g., funding a new company or increasing production at a company) creates jobs.
I also suspect that the state of Washington believes it has created an economic climate that allowed people to become very rich, but many of those very rich are investing in things outside the state of Washington. This tax keeps more of the money in the state.
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a retarded example. Farms are treated as businesses, and businesses only pay taxes on profits, not revenue. If you don't post any profits because all your food is consumed by yourself and family with no additional crops to sell, you don't pay any taxes. Even if you do sell some crops, that's only revenue, it's not profit until it surpasses all the costs of doing business (buying a tractor, buying a backhoe, etc.) In fact, the tax system -encourages- spending, because businesses can deduct expenditures from their taxable income. If you spent all your profits on re-investments, buying better equipment, hiring staff, etc., you don't 'lose' any money to the government.
Re:Just pay the tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming your math holds, that makes this an incredible investment. Where else can you put your money that will break even in 2 years, especially in this economy?
No wonder the rich dump so much money into politics. It's probably the best investment they've ever made, collectively.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:5, Insightful)
Psst. You are forgetting where that money goes. Want to compare how much a Brit vs as U.S.ian pays for medical insurance, or treatment when they get sick?
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
The government inserting money anywhere is a bad idea. It mostly gets wasted with no real benefit to show for it.
Agreed. Let's stop inserting money into the large defense contractors first.
Re:WA has the most regressive tax in the nation (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as Federal taxes go, the rates are a bit higher for higher income, but when you take into account deductions, the richer you are, the less you pay in general. Their are billion dollar corporations (and probably individuals) that pay nothing in income tax. In my own personal experience, as my income grows, my tax as a percentage of income has decreased because I can deduct more from my income.
The Republican philosophy is: Give all the money to the rich, and they will take care of everything. It hasn't worked, and never has. We are paying the price for that now.
In Washington state, there is no state income tax, so the state taxes come primarily from sales and property taxes, licensing, and business taxes. Everyone pays for these taxes. The less you make, the higher the percentage of your income goes to taxable items, so the tax burden as a percentage of income is much higher.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:2, Insightful)
And only a small percentage would consider going back any time soon.
Re:Seattle COL (Score:4, Insightful)
why coddle the privileged? (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand from your comments below that you felt you were mistaken, but I find your comment
here and the high rating very interesting.
I'm wondering what the driving force is for people who don't make $200K, indeed anywhere near
it, that causes them to try to protect the people who make over $500K.
In short, there are lots of regular joes who want to pamper multi-millionaires.
I see this very often. I find it confusing when these regular joes aren't actually in the
bracket they're trying to protect, and most likely (looking at the quantity of persons who
are in the bracket v. quantity of supportive joes) won't even reach the bracket.
And... the people who are in the privileged bracket are already taking very
good care of themselves because of the power afforded them by their bracket. And...
they're doing it at the expense of or at least in disregard of the people in the regular joes
bracket.
Can one of you regular joes who wants to support multi-millionaires explain to me what
motivates you? I doubt it's because you have a lord-loving serf attitude. Maybe you believe
you will be uber-wealthy before long? Maybe you identify with the multi-millionaires, feeling
like others are always getting you down and being a drag on you?
Re:WA has the most regressive tax in the nation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WA has the most regressive tax in the nation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:2, Insightful)
Again, this doesn't really affect people making $200,000 every year,
Actually, the people earning the most are those who mostly cause the most expense. They drive bigger cars, use more fuel (causing pollution which needs to be cleaned up), wearing out more roads (which need to be rebuilt), throwing away more rubbish (which needs to be cleaned out), demanding more policing (which needs to be paid for), having more lawsuits (which needs more judges) etc. etc. etc.
The big pile of garbage is that not only do they think they shouldn't pay for it, but mostly they can afford the politicians and voters to make that true. Yes, that's right, look at who's paying for your local anti-tax nut cases, and you will find that it's typically the people who cost your local administration the most.
The only way that you are right is that the services used by the poor (public transport, free hospitals etc.) are the ones which get cut first. Normally the services for the rich are untouchable (police, roads, courts, invading armies etc.)
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:3, Insightful)
Which brings us to the real reason for this idea. Like most states which based their spending budgets on the fantasy economy which was the housing boom, Washington State ended up badly in debt when the economy tanked and actual revenue fell far short of projections. Rather than attempting to fix it by cutting spending (y'know, remove the items they added to the budget while in the throes of the fantasy), they're trying to fix it by increasing revenue.
I escaped mostly undamaged from the recent economic downturn because I was fiscally responsible and didn't buy into the (quite obvious to me) fantasy. If there's a lesson to be learned from all this, it's that governments need to learn to be fiscally responsible too. Normally I'm all for taxing the super-rich; but if the rationale for doing it is so government can continue their fiscally irresponsible spending, then I am against it.
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you're saying that if we insert money at the top, it benefits the guys at the bottom because high level executives and such create lots of jobs directly from their personal income?
Why, of course they do! They create such high paying careers as: gardener, pool boy, cleaning lady, house cook, babysitter, nanny, and personal shopper, among others! And as we all know, these skilled positions come with great benefits and perks that provide more than enough to raise a family on! And when they're done hiring workers, they can invest the excess in assets that yield high returns and further create jobs like extra homes, the market, and companies that deal in derivatives!
But in all seriousness, the real reason is because business owners and executives don't want to compete for the money. If you gave it to the people on the bottom, they could choose which company to do business with and their choice would generate market competition. It's pure corporate laziness; they accuse the poor of just wanting a handout, when they want the same thing.
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't even mention that without a functioning government, the farmer would have to build his own roads and pay the local gangster protection money.