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.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it."
--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. I, 1835
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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. ;)
captial gains != income (Score:4, Informative)
Their winnings from the stock market wouldn't be touched by this income tax.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most didn't get that way from $400k household salary, they got that way from stock options which would likely be capital gains, not income. Although having no idea how Washington calculates income, I can only guess that it is the same as AZ, where it is based off the federal return, and the state (like the fed) has a lower capital gains rate completely un-effected by your income level (although it has been ~5 years since I made enough capital gains to care.)
Historical US tax rates were up to 92% (Score:5, Informative)
The top American marginal income rates from 1944 to 1963 were 92%. Yes, 92% of income made over the top amount, went to taxation. In 1944, if you made over $200,000, 92% went to the government. In 1963, it was $400,000. And yet, this was a period of profound economic expansion and middle class comfort. Kind of makes you want to question the "conventional wisdom" that all taxes are bad.
This is a list of American historical tax rates: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-june2010.pdf [taxfoundation.org]
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't even need to ship them to Bora Bora. Just take away copyright and patent protection, and see how Microsoft and Amazon fare.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:4, Interesting)
Treating the rest of the community as a collective commons with no need to give bad leads to the tragedy of the commons.
In our system, without correct, you end up with a tiny group with all the resources and no one else can buy anything.
To make it obvious, let's say that 20 people start working a collective farm and through hard work, 1 person comes to own everything.
Now, those 19 people are going to something besides stand aside and die. So does the 1 person want it to be a peaceful robbery where they still get to keep most of their stuff or a violent robbery where they lose everything and possibly be dead.
Also, say there is a cost of running that field, since the 1 now owns all of the field- shouldn't they pay the entire running cost? And if they owned 19/20th of the field, shouldn't they cover 19/20th of the cost of running that field?
The problem we face to day is that SSI, unemployment tax, medical insurance costs scale at a per employee basis so there is a strong inducement to remove labor wherever possible. We need to change taxes to be on gross corporate profits and move away from taxing on an employee basis.
Otherwise we are going to end up with companies where 1 person runs a bunch of automated processes on computers and a bunch of robotic labor in the warehouse (already happening- google robot warehouse diapers.com businessweek- so don't even argue that it won't happen) because robotic labor is now down to about $15,000 per year leased. They are not paying any of the cost of society but they are mining society for money. Once society runs out of money and can't find jobs, it can't by products at any price.
We are headed down a bad path and need to start turning now or we will be looking at much higher unemployment rates and even lower salaries. The system started unraveling back in the 90's. The rate is accelerating.
Money and Wealth only have meaning in the context of society.
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which brings us to the real re
Re:Cry me a river, billionaires (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
So, basically, you're taking the same strongarm robbery position as your average mafia don, and calling it "civilization."
Just pay the tax (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>"contributed $100,000 each"
It would be cheaper for them to just pay the tax.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't: After you take into account all their income, they are both probably over 7 figures, making the tax cost them a whole lot more than 10k.
That's the CEO life for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be cheaper for them to just pay the tax.
No it wouldn't. A 9% tax on ~$1.1 million would break even in one year. I have a sneaking suspicion those guys make more than $1.1 million in a year, and they will probably do so for more than one year.
Re: (Score:2)
I figured most of their pay is not subject to income tax, like stocks and bonds.
Also 1 million would be a $45k + $15k == $60,000 tax
Re:Just pay the tax (Score:4, Funny)
This guy Ballmer has a salary of only $1,276,627 per year-- give him a break, he's almost working for free, by the standards of American CEO salary.
Hmm, I wonder if Microsoft shareholders would agree that he is worth 1,276,627 times as much as Steve Jobs. Maybe they hired the wrong Steve...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While CEO of Microsoft in 2009, Ballmer earned a total compensation of $1,276,627
so that would be 5% of 300.000 = 15000 dollar + 9% of 776627 = 69896 making a total of 76779 in taxes, so he would more than recoup his 100.000 in less than 2 years....
and of course in relation to his fortune of roughly 14.5 billion the 100.000 is peanuts but so is the tax....
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.
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:Seattle COL (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (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 medica
Re: (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:Seattle COL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops, my bad, they're creating the jobs overseas. I correct myself.
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:Seattle COL (Score:4, Informative)
Unemployment is only 4.6% for those with a bachelor's degree or higher. Considering the kinds of jobs that are in the majority at Microsoft and Amazon, I'd say they're doing enough to create jobs already.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm [bls.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Median salary per person was $25,149 in 2005 according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Median salary per household was $$50,233 in 2007 according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
You would do well to check which figures you are arguing about.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's any better to beat up on single professionals who are homeowners and simply live responsibly and make good salaries.
We are spenders and investors, we aren't on the government dole. We are the people that they in government say they want to create - self sufficient professionals, investors and spenders - so why slap down the responsible class in taxes?
These people need the tax BREAKS because they are buying durable goods and investing, not sending the
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seattle COL (Score:5, Interesting)
Washington has the most regressive tax in the nation. The poorest are paying the majority of the taxes. The poorest pay 17% of their income to taxes, while the richest pay less than 3%. This law will even it out a bit, but the poorest will still be paying more as a percentage than the richest.
The people most likely to put the money back into the economy are the people that need it most. The poorest are most likely to spend whatever money they have at local businesses. The richest people don't need to spend the money, and are very likely to spend it outside the state anyway. Remember, this is a state tax. We want the money to be spent here, to stimulate the state economy. Buying stocks with the money in some foreign company (something the rich might do) does nothing for the state. Buying a beer at the local pub does.
This Republican idea of giving all the money to the rich and they will take care of everything is complete bullshit. It doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: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:Seattle COL (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimate Greed (Score:2)
I would imagine I'd be too busy swimming in pools full of ultra rare money bills and antique coins to care that someone wanted a cut of my 500 million a year salary.
Seriously, you'd think these guys would have some sort of hobbies that would be more interesting than political lobbying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They do. Thats why they pay people to lobby on their behalf.
put your money where your mouth is (or shut up) (Score:2)
Next year you would not know. (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, if corporations are people too, then isn't stock market really buying and selling people? So owning stock of a corporation makes you a slave owner?
And Bill's salary is what now? (Score:2)
The wealthy don't worry about income tax. (Score:2)
WA has the most regressive tax in the nation (Score:5, Informative)
In Washington state currently, people earning less than $20,000 pay 17.3% in taxes. People earning over $537,000 pay just 2.9%
Even with this law, the richest will be paying less as a percentage of income than the poorest in the state.
This study (pdf) [itepnet.org] gives the numbers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Knee-Jerk Slashdotters (Score:3, Interesting)
We (Washington) passed Initiative 960 a few years ago, which required a 2/3 vote to increase taxes. Two years later our Legislature simply struck out those provisions... by majority (not 2/3) vote of them, no public ballot.
The income tax initiative would enable an income tax and limit it to the very rich, but only for two years. Then the tax-hungry reps would almost certainly again overturn the voters and lower the rates by simple majority. They cannot put an income tax in, due to our Constitution, but if WE put one in, they can subvert it in two years.
For once, the rich are fighting for all of us.
I'm opposed to 1098 (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not making enough money to have to pay this tax, I live in Washington State and I'm opposed to this. Why? Washington State has no income tax at all right now. Unless you require everyone to file you will have low compliance.
This initiative may be cost neutral by getting rid of the Washington Business and Occupation tax, which means the resources directed toward that can be used for processing the income tax returns. It does not require that all citizens file. Instead it only requires those that would actually have to pay the tax to file.
I think it's clear where this is going. The state will end up generating less revenue than expected due to this non-compliance. It will then either have to raise the tax or extend the filing requirement to more people to identify the people who are not complying.
Finally, it is very likely that this income tax will expand beyond the limits that it has now, either by no action on the part of the legislature as inflation raises the amount of money that people earn over time or by direct action of the legislature to raise more funds.
Rather, as a former business owner in this state and a citizen I support the state simply effectively enforcing the Business and Occupation taxes we have now. Microsoft has been avoiding paying this tax on a huge proportion of their revenue by running the revenue through an office in Nevada. I'm sure there are other companies in the area that have been evading this tax.
If the state is unable to force a large and very well known tax evader to comply with tax law, it's unlikely that they'll be able to force a large number of individuals to comply when they don't even have the information to determine who they are.
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.
Progressive taxation and marginal utility (Score:3, Informative)
Imagine a flat tax of 10%. One person has $1 million, and pays $100,000. Another person has $100, and pays $10. Who will feel the greater loss?
I would try to defeat this as well. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not rich but I do make more than 200k. You know why? I employ people and am an S-Corp. The current tax format in Washington is actually fair. I pay a % right off the top for the business. I don't pay off profit, I pay off GROSS!. An income tax on top of that would literally double my tax burden.
That is ridiculous.
Re: (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.
Re:Whither 9%? (Score:4, Informative)
I can't really comment too much on the benefit of having the tax excised, since I live in Texas and we do not have state income tax, either. That is a real plus for me. I do like the fact that they skipped the entire section where people making less than 200k. I think that is wise.
However, to be fair. A sudden increase of 9% of the tax liability is quite a bit, from the perspective of going from 0 to 9% in one jump. Also there are no provisions on how to adjust the brackets up with the inflations in the coming decades. Keep in mind any tax code in place will be in place for a long time, so if the spirit of the law is to tax the highest income brackets, they need to address that in the proposed bill as well.
Re: (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
Re: (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:Whither 9%? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess I just don't understand this. I grew up in the more unpopulated areas of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. We never had to lock our doors and never experienced any kind of crime. It's only as I've lived in more populated areas that I've had to lock up the house when we leave and the car any time I walk into a store, worry about vandalism, lock up the lawnmower and yard tools to keep them from being stolen, etc.... My experience has always been that the fewer people there are around, the smaller the community, the fewer security concerns there are. Small communities tend self-police because everybody knows everybody and it's very hard to keep theft of property or money a secret for very long. It always comes out, and when it does, being a thief in a small community is a very uncomfortable position to be in. Nobody will trust that person, do business with them, talk to them, they will probably lose their job, etc... They become a pariah and they either leave the area or make things right and change their ways. In fact, just being a major jerk in a small community will bring about enough consequences that either the behavior changes or the person ends up moving away.
That's security that police can never provide in heavily populated areas because it's people policing themselves, and that's always the preferable solution to any problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (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.
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?
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.
Question, adjusted, remains (Score:2)
Who will do more to stimulate the economy of Washington state with that 9%? Ballmer & Bezos or Governor Gregoire?
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: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:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Interesting)
When these guys build new houses for themselves they create jobs. When they hire help to maintain those big homes they create jobs. When they buy new cars they create jobs. When they invest their money they create jobs.
I believe it was Napoleon Hill who gave the advice that if you want to get wealthy yourself you need to hang around with rich people, because just the opportunities they let slide because they might think they are "too small" will be enough to give you a good start on your way to wealth if you're ambitious enough to go after them. It wasn't stated in those exact words, but the meaning was the same.
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:4, Informative)
When these guys build new houses for themselves they create jobs. When they hire help to maintain those big homes they create jobs. When they buy new cars they create jobs. When they invest their money they create jobs.
I believe it was Napoleon Hill who gave the advice that if you want to get wealthy yourself you need to hang around with rich people, because just the opportunities they let slide because they might think they are "too small" will be enough to give you a good start on your way to wealth if you're ambitious enough to go after them. It wasn't stated in those exact words, but the meaning was the same.
I'm sorry that's wrong. There is a couple of problems with this. Your hypothetical CEO would buy how many cars in a 5 year period? 1? 2? Yeah, that would really stimulate the economy. Why do you assume your CEO would build a new home? how many homes do you think your hypothetical CEO would build? If you already a place on Lake Washington, prime real estate, why would you go anywhere else?
Let's consider giving the middle class all that money, how many cars do you think 50 people making 80K would buy if they came into money? How many can now afford to let someone else do their yards? How many books/dvd/theater are they going to do? I bet a lot omre than your single CEO. Let me give you a clue, the middle class runs this country. We are the engines of this economy. This country's market is the best market in the world because we are trained to spend. We are the ultimate consumers.You people who enable to rich are just cutting your own throat. They don't need your help. If they need to talk to govt they can attend a $2000 dollar a plate fundraiser and talk to the candidate directly. They got all kinds of avenues to whine.
sri
Re:Question, adjusted, remains (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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: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: (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 seri
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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
A strong argument in favor of my contention that wealth did not trickle down:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/Chartbook.xls [federalreserve.gov]
I didn't say that I had an easy solution to this problem, just that trickle-down economics has not been in any way remotely demonstrated to work as advertised.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FTA:
Initiative 1098 calls for a reduction in state property taxes and the elimination of the business and occupation tax for some of the state's smallest businesses. Proceeds from the income tax would be used for health services and public education, proponents argue.
Since 1098 is reducing taxes for small businesses and lowering state property taxes, I'm guessing the answer is Washington State.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Complaining about having to pay to support the poor? Then help them stop being poor!
Most taxes go to pay the salaries of government employees, who are certainly not 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."
No, Ford paid his workers more because he wanted the best employees and he was losing vast amounts of money having to continually train new ones as the experienced employees left for jobs that paid better.
Do you really think that Ferrari pay the guy who bolts the doors on enough to buy a Ferrari?
Re:This is a STATE tax, not a federal tax (Score:5, Informative)
The #1 use of your taxes is war [warresisters.org] and it's consequences, or here [investorguide.com], or the interactive chart [foxbusiness.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Considering this is a tax proposed by Washington STATE, can we moderate you -1 for being wrong?
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Parent is just a right-wing nutjob who'll blame *everything* on Obama. His car didn't want to start this AM, so it must be Obama's fault... because he's black! Or a democrat. Or a muslim. Only Glenn Back can make everything right by... .... ... what is the Glenn Beck can do? Or Palin? Or any of those other teabaggers? They have no plan. Other than get elected. Or make noise.
I really, really hope that Obama *doesn't* win the presidential election next time around. Heck, if Obama is as smart as I hope he is,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You assume that some sort of rationality is involved in this equation, trust me that it isn'
Re:Flat Tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Mathematically impossible, unless your earnings in the new higher tax bracket are taxed at greater than 100%.
200k is not a low threshold (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly what reality do you live in where 200k is a low threshold? That is not middle class. A household that earns 180k a year is in the top 5%. That means an individual earning 200k is within the top few percent.
It is HARD to earn 200k a year. If you think otherwise, you have no concept of "average". The median wage for workers varies depending on how it is calculated. On the high side, for full time workers, ages 25 to 64, it is approximately 40k. Median wages for those with doctorates are about 8