With Miami Move, Jeff Bezos Proves Zip Codes Do Matter 170
Longtime Slashdot reader theodp writes: Our goal," Amazon founder Jeff Bezos explained in a Feb. 2021 Instagram post announcing the location of a second tuition-free @BezosAcademy preschool in Tacoma, WA, "is to unlock the potential in kids to become creative leaders, original thinkers, and lifelong learners -- regardless of their zip code."
Three years later, a new Amazon SEC filing reveals how much zip codes can matter, even to Bezos, the third richest person in the world. GeekWire reports: "A new Amazon [SEC] filing, detailing Jeff Bezos' plan to sell a slice of his stake in the company, sheds fresh light on his move from Seattle to Miami -- and his ability to avoid Washington state's capital gains tax [ironically, earmarked to be funneled into early-childhood education programs and school construction] in the process. The filing reveals that the Amazon founder and executive chairman adopted a trading plan Nov. 8 to sell up to 50 million Amazon shares during a period ending in January 2025. It would be the first time he has sold Amazon stock since 2021. The plan was adopted less than a week after Bezos announced on Instagram, on Nov. 2, that he was leaving his longtime home of Seattle for sunnier skies in Miami. In his Instagram post, Bezos said he wanted to be closer to his parents and Blue Origin space venture in Florida. He did not mention taxes."
"Given Bezos' recent move out of Washington -- where he founded and built Amazon into a global behemoth -- he will also be saving around $600 million in tax expense if he ends up selling the maximum of 50 million shares under the plan, based on the company's current stock price. That's around $600 million in what would have otherwise been tax revenue for his former home state, as The Center Square reported Monday. The capital gains tax, passed in 2021, imposes a 7% tax on any gains of more than $250,000 from the sale of stocks and bonds, with some exceptions. It was challenged in court but ultimately ruled constitutional by the state Supreme Court last year. The tax brought in nearly $900 million in its first year of collection. Revenue goes toward early education and childcare programs, as well as school construction projects."
It's of course no secret that Bezos is no fan of taxes -- he explored founding Amazon on an Indian reservation near San Francisco to avoid taxes, ponied up $100,000 to defeat a proposed WA state income tax aimed at improving WA state public education (joined in the fight by Microsoft and Steve Ballmer), characterized as unconstitutional attempts to make Amazon collect and pay sales taxes, and came under fire by ProPublica for paying no income tax in some years.
Three years later, a new Amazon SEC filing reveals how much zip codes can matter, even to Bezos, the third richest person in the world. GeekWire reports: "A new Amazon [SEC] filing, detailing Jeff Bezos' plan to sell a slice of his stake in the company, sheds fresh light on his move from Seattle to Miami -- and his ability to avoid Washington state's capital gains tax [ironically, earmarked to be funneled into early-childhood education programs and school construction] in the process. The filing reveals that the Amazon founder and executive chairman adopted a trading plan Nov. 8 to sell up to 50 million Amazon shares during a period ending in January 2025. It would be the first time he has sold Amazon stock since 2021. The plan was adopted less than a week after Bezos announced on Instagram, on Nov. 2, that he was leaving his longtime home of Seattle for sunnier skies in Miami. In his Instagram post, Bezos said he wanted to be closer to his parents and Blue Origin space venture in Florida. He did not mention taxes."
"Given Bezos' recent move out of Washington -- where he founded and built Amazon into a global behemoth -- he will also be saving around $600 million in tax expense if he ends up selling the maximum of 50 million shares under the plan, based on the company's current stock price. That's around $600 million in what would have otherwise been tax revenue for his former home state, as The Center Square reported Monday. The capital gains tax, passed in 2021, imposes a 7% tax on any gains of more than $250,000 from the sale of stocks and bonds, with some exceptions. It was challenged in court but ultimately ruled constitutional by the state Supreme Court last year. The tax brought in nearly $900 million in its first year of collection. Revenue goes toward early education and childcare programs, as well as school construction projects."
It's of course no secret that Bezos is no fan of taxes -- he explored founding Amazon on an Indian reservation near San Francisco to avoid taxes, ponied up $100,000 to defeat a proposed WA state income tax aimed at improving WA state public education (joined in the fight by Microsoft and Steve Ballmer), characterized as unconstitutional attempts to make Amazon collect and pay sales taxes, and came under fire by ProPublica for paying no income tax in some years.
So not zip codes (Score:5, Insightful)
Not states either. This is about tax. (Score:2)
States? Zip codes? I read at article about some rich billionaire dodging taxes. Rest of that shit was filler.
Re: (Score:2)
Miami is not a state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So not zip codes (Score:5, Interesting)
So do they refund you money if your net worth drops?
This question *could* very soon become a very important question, given that a lot of people are being told what a great idea it would be to tax *unrealized* income. In the name of taxing billionaires quote-unquote 'fairly', who 'aren't paying taxes on their billions'. The problem with taxing unrealized income is that A) the value is all theoretical, based on something that changes with the wind, and B) the people being taxed may not have the money to pay the taxes in cash. The supreme court is likely to prevent this, but since the current US budget already plans on some of that type of income, the newsies are already talking about how the SCOTUS is about to "blow a hole in the budget" and other scary sounding words, when they avert policy disaster by sticking to well, well, well, WELL established precedent. And the spin doctors will start agitating at how the law needs to be changed so that billionaires start to 'pay their fair share' of taxes (on unrealized gain).
a few great scenarios I could see come up are: eventually it will work down to some janitor making minimum wage in Santa Clara who was smart enough to buy a house in 1970 for $10000, now being a multimillionaire on paper, and a future millionaire for real when actually selling the house, but being told, no, net worth wealth taxes are due now, eviction notice, just live in your job's parking lot and pay the $250k of wealth taxes like you should.
Or to get a little closer to reality, 2 years ago certain politicians and others were saying Elon needed to be taxed on unrealized net worth. Just a week ago Elon suddenly became $56 billion poorer by retroactive cancellation of a compensation package. I can imagine the court case (not to mention the fiscal ramifications) for the clawback from the IRS of the perhaps ~$10 billion of taxes that would have been collected, now suddenly given back to Elon. Whoops, gonna have to put a mortgage on Baltic Ave to come up with that kind of cash. Store credit maybe, "Elon, would you settle for a Nimitz class carrier, or does it need to be the USS Gerald Ford?"
(of course, forcing Elon to crash-sell $10 billion in stock to pay that kind of taxes in the first place would probably have knocked him down to multimillionaire status, along with a ton of investor collateral damage. I wonder how big of an oopsie it would be to destroy the very net worth you claim to be taxing.
Now lets imagine something along the line of someone paid wealth taxes on unrealized gain of FTX cryptocoin. Beany babies before that. Whoops, I paid WAAAAAY too much taxes. You're going to pay me back in greenbacks, right? Gold bullion or euros would be fine as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A house is not an unrealized gain. Especially not when someone both owns and lives in it.
Also trivializing slavery in such a fashion is ridiculous.
Re: So not zip codes (Score:2)
Houses are unrealized gains until you sell.
And like other assets, you can get loans against them, and turn the unrealized asset into profit today-- a tactic that many wealthy do which avoids income taxes as income wouldn't be realized.
So, you are completely wrong there.
Re: (Score:2)
Houses are unrealized gains until you sell.
Right, because houses never, ever go down in value, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Houses are unrealized gains until you sell.
The profits on houses are unrealized gain until you sell. FTFY.
And like other assets, you can get loans against them, and turn the unrealized asset into profit today-- a tactic that many wealthy do which avoids income taxes as income wouldn't be realized.
Loans are not taxable. (If there's anyone who doesn't realize how dumb that would be, I'll mention there's a special tax for having your loan forgiven. Game Set Match)
The income that someone makes using the borrowed money is fully taxable. That's called leveraged money. But you are talking about the cash out, it doesn't "avoid" taxes, since nothing that has happened yet that's taxed. The sale is the taxable event. And almost certainly the loan b
Re: (Score:3)
Real estate property tax are "normal" already, and yes people lose their homes when they can't pay the tax, and if their house burns down or they sell it for less than they paid there is no question of a refund. Often there is no choice but to demolish homes because they have 10s of thousands of back taxes. Billionaires should be treated the same as the rest of us: like slaves.
You are SADLY SADLY uninformed about this topic. Let me explain. Suppose a 3 bedroom house is somewhere close enough to silicon valley to have a current market value of $1 million, but was originally bought for $200k. For argument sake, the elderly woman that owns it is supported by social security and cares for a grandchild after the single mother died of an overdose. Now, owing to California's property tax laws, the property tax was capped at 1% of purchase ($2k/yr) and increases from there, we'll say it'
Re: (Score:2)
Or to get a little closer to reality, 2 years ago certain politicians and others were saying Elon needed to be taxed on unrealized net worth. Just a week ago Elon suddenly became $56 billion poorer by retroactive cancellation of a compensation package. I can imagine the court case (not to mention the fiscal ramifications) for the clawback from the IRS of the perhaps ~$10 billion of taxes that would have been collected, now suddenly given back to Elon. Whoops, gonna have to put a mortgage on Baltic Ave to come up with that kind of cash. Store credit maybe, "Elon, would you settle for a Nimitz class carrier, or does it need to be the USS Gerald Ford?"
Sure, Elon could ask for the $10BN back, and he'd get it, as a credit on future earnings. If that wasn't acceptable, I'm certain the folks spending nearly $2T/year more than they take in [nytimes.com] could find $10BN somewhere to pay him back...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Elon could ask for the $10BN back, and he'd get it, as a credit on future earnings.
Well that's a reasonable supposition for a few seconds, but remember, this wasn't even a tax on income, it was a tax on momentary, theoretical net worth. Rules about carryover of net-operating-loss (NOLs) don't apply to overpaying taxes. I can't see how it would be different than if you file taxes and send in tax payment for $$$$$$ taxes, and then 2 months later file a corrected return where the income vanished. The IRS doesn't say, yes but we have the money now, tough luck. That amount goes to the refund d
Re: So not zip codes (Score:5, Interesting)
The flip side that's never mentioned. What about illiquid assets that have no market comparables such as collectibles and private companies, who determines the value? What about corporate entities, are they going to be taxed on "net worth"? If not, why not setup a shell holding company to transfer your wealth into it while you hold private shares with a par value of $0.01. Your $100B in company stock would now be $0.01 of wealth for you, while your shell company holds $100B on its books.
I'll add another wrinkle, once net worth is taxed, if you subsequently realize an asset sale, you've already been taxed on that asset, so do you get to deduct the tax that's already paid? Is the sale tax free? Since you never sold the asset, there's no transaction record, so what determines the value of that asset? For stocks is it the par value at issuance of $0.01? If it's the market price, what date / time is used? What if it's for a Picasso, who determines the value?
What about extraordinary events like Musk's $50B package being rescinded, would he be retroactively be able to claw back taxes paid on that net worth?
The other bit that's never discussed is that rich people don't like wealth taxes. France even scrapped theirs after 60,000 millionaires left the country as a result, leading to an overall decline in tax revenue. Make no mistake, anyone with wealth and accountants will exploit all possible avenues to avoid a wealth tax. For all the talk about billionaires pleading "tax me more", that's nothing but a front, anyone is free to donate as much money as they want to the Federal government. If Warren Buffet would like to donate $10B to the US government, good news, that's been an option since 1842, the link is right here, no congressional action required:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/pu... [treasury.gov]
Oddly, no "tax me more" billionaire has elected to donate billions to the US government, maybe they don't know the treasury is ready and able to accept gifts?
Re: (Score:3)
Notice that Warren Buffet, Jef Bezos, and other billionaires have their companies pay them comparatively tiny salaries, e.g., Buffett and Bezos had salaries of $100k...they're not even maxing out their FICA taxes! Lots of them also have "donated" a lot of their money to their personal foundations, taking huge write-offs avoiding both capital gains taxes and offsetting any income taxes that might be owed.
Forbes:
Buffett told [interviewer Charlie] Rose his 2010 adjusted gross income was $62 million. He implied
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get mad at Buffet, he didn't write the tax code, he just complies with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, no "tax me more" billionaire has elected to donate billions to the US government, maybe they don't know the treasury is ready and able to accept gifts?
Re: "tax-me-more" Warren Buffett.
He holds assets that represent unrealized capital gains in the several tens of billions (primarily shares of Berkshire-Hathaway). If BH were to go belly up tomorrow, his holdings become worthless. His company pays him a salary of $100,000 each year, and he "earns" a few million dollars every year in interest and dividen
Re: (Score:2)
> rather than simply letting the government have that
> money (either through donation or taxation). We
> have to ask why? Didn't they trust to government to
> do the "right thing" with that money?
No, we really don't "have to ask" that question. It's bleedingly obvious even. If I have a big pile of money with which I've decided to do good for my community and the world, and I go looking and see the the city's SPCA shelter is run down and overcrowded, the local school's band program is about to fo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it was a sarcastic rhetorical question. But thanks for making the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr Buffet takes full advantage of the tax system to minimize his taxes. He has accountants and tax lawyers. He has clearly structured his affairs to minimize his taxes, as, for example, when he established trusts for his children.
Is Warren Buffet (or really anyone) obliged to structure their income to maximize their tax obligations? Of course not...
Re: (Score:2)
The other bit that's never discussed is that rich people don't like wealth taxes.
Yeah, because they've already paid taxes on their wealth when they earned it - how would you feel if the government came and taxed your savings (unspent income, AKA "wealth" after already paying income tax on it? Oh, and if you bought anything of value (car, boat, etc) or your home value increased, you have to pay taxes on that "wealth" as well?
The only reason anyone supports a "Wealth Tax" is because they don't think they'll ever have to pay it.
Tell you what, why don't you add up your home equity, the valu
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say your net is $100. You get $100 in insurance. You're fucked when you lose a $200 law suit.
This.
Theoretically, insurance is supposed to "make you whole" after a loss. Your net worth is $100. You get sued for $100. You are broke. But you have a $100 policy, so the insurance restores your net. Great. But that's not how it works. You can't hide insurance from the court. You get sued for $200, you're still broke. You have a $1 billion policy? Every hobo in town is going to be tripping over your loose rug.
You're better off having no insurance and saving the premiums.
Re: So not zip codes (Score:5, Interesting)
consumption tax is regressive meaning poor people suffer more.
Washington's taxes already work this way.
If you have lots of money you don't have to spend it.
If you don't have lots of money you don't have to spend it either. I know a lot of people bringing in six figures that live paycheck to paycheck. I never did live that way, even when my income was shit. If you don't know how to manage your own finances, then how much money you have doesn't change much. That's why people who win the lottery when they're poor typically end up being poor again after only a decade or so.
To contribute their fair share it would be easier if they taxed on net worth.
The top 1% already pay 37% of all income taxes. In other words, they're shouldering the lion's share of it. Compare that to somebody like rsilvergun who's tax burden is negative. What's fair about that? How much more do you want them to pay?
Shit, my tax bill last year was right around $100k, how about you?
Then all the resources and costs that jeff bezos wastes would be directly paid for by him (like getting is mega yacht out of harbor) instead of regular people who can't pay their rent.
And what favors have progressive taxes done for them? Have a look at the third figure here:
https://www.advisorperspective... [advisorperspectives.com]
That's more or less a ranking of all states by how bad off the poor are in that particular state. Notice anything?
Re: (Score:3)
The top 1% already pay 37% of all income taxes. In other words, they're shouldering the lion's share of it. Compare that to somebody like rsilvergun who's tax burden is negative. What's fair about that? How much more do you want them to pay?
Enough that they aren't able to save more of their income than the rest of us. Why should they have more of a future than the rest of us? The idea that their wealth was earned through merit has been soundly debunked ad nauseam, so please don't try to come back with that nonsense.
Re: So not zip codes (Score:2)
Why should you have a scooty puff jr when rsilvergun can't? What makes you better than him?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they have more of a future than the rest of us?
Right, why should the family that built Hobby Lobby from the ground up be worth more (financially) than the clerk they just hired to oversee the yarn section?
Re: (Score:3)
Right, why should the family that built Hobby Lobby from the ground up be worth more (financially) than the clerk they just hired to oversee the yarn section?
Because, like Obama said, they didn't build that. They could not have done it without the employees. Your comment is horseshit from the ground up.
Re: S (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't have lots of money you don't have to spend it either. I know a lot of people bringing in six figures that live paycheck to paycheck. I never did live that way, even when my income was shit. If you don't know how to manage your own finances, then how much money you have doesn't change much. That's why people who win the lottery when they're poor typically end up being poor again after only a decade or so.
What kind of gross misrepresentation of reality is this? Just because you know some well off (in terms of income) people with no fiscal sense doesn't mean that's the norm. A poor person is by definition a person short on money which means all of them will be spending all of their money every month. Anyone with any fiscal sense making 6 figures or more has no need to do this.
The top 1% already pay 37% of all income taxes. In other words, they're shouldering the lion's share of it. Compare that to somebody like rsilvergun who's tax burden is negative. What's fair about that? How much more do you want them to pay?
Oh, look at the big guy calling out names. Your numbers all seem very reasonable until you realize that the 1% in this country keeps getting wealthier every year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] while the rest of us keep getting poorer https://www.forbes.com/sites/k... [forbes.com] and this has been happening for over half a century. This is literally the long term health of our country declining on our way down to third world style inequality.
Clearly our elite aren't paying out their fair share in any form if they're impoverishing the rest of the country in their quest for even more absurd amounts of money.
Shit, my tax bill last year was right around $100k, how about you?
Good for you as unless you're a total idiot with money you have a level of wealth that means you will never experience real fiscal discomfort. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of fully employed Americans live paycheck to paycheck and have a hard time affording even basics. Poor fucking you and your "It's not fair" whining. Maybe go down to your local homeless shelter and try telling them how oppressed you are.
You benefit more from the nature of our economy than the vast majority of Americans and so yes, you pay more in taxes. Don't expect sympathy from me that you have to spend more than the rest of us to help maintain our way of life as a middle class heavy first world nation. If that's your tax bill then you're still left with enough money to live a life that would be the envy of most Americans but that just isn't enough for you. Cry me a frick'n river because I could use a laugh.
Re: (Score:3)
This is literally the long term health of our country declining on our way down to third world style inequality.
Wealth disparity isn't intrinsically a bad thing. It doesn't matter if there are 1% who can buy whatever they wish. What matters is the quality of life for the bottom half. You can complain about rich people all you want. But there 100% has never been a time where poor people are better off than they were before. At least in the USA. Being poor isn't a death sentence anymore. Heck, being poor might actually afford you a better life than someone on the verge of being poor (work, health care, food, hous
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the USA. Being poor isn't a death sentence anymore.
Right, because a morality metric based around the idea that anything that doesnt kill you is good makes complete sense. You're a real philosopher there bud.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I didn't elaborate enough.
No, I got exactly what you were getting at in your last post, you think being poor in America is awesome. I still stand by my last post as if your stance isnt morally bankrupt then it is at the very least extremely ignorant.
Poor Americans die earlier than the rest of us http://www.equality-of-opportu... [equality-o...tunity.org] and are just plain less happy than the rest of us https://www.pewresearch.org/so... [pewresearch.org] . This holds true even when comparing those living in poverty to those just outside of the poverty range. Just because we d
Re: (Score:3)
Well no shit. Being poor isn't awesome
Then why were you telling me all about how good our poor have it over the course of two separate posts?
Where is the limit of taking other's money to make the impoverished lives more acceptable? Is it 10% more? 20% more?
As I've already pointing out, our middle class is shrinking. This is a problem that needs to be reversed as the middle class is the backbone of any first world nation. There is no magic number of what's a perfect size for the middle class but given that we've done significantly better than we are doing now we should aim to get back to where we were.
Given the massive concentration of wealth at the top that
Re: S (Score:2)
What kind of gross misrepresentation of reality is this? Just because you know some well off (in terms of income) people with no fiscal sense doesn't mean that's the norm. A poor person is by definition a person short on money which means all of them will be spending all of their money every month. Anyone with any fiscal sense making 6 figures or more has no need to do this.
You don't realize this, but it's all about your choices. Kids are expensive, why have them if you can't afford them? Why live in high cost areas if you can't afford them? And why is it always poor people in the Indian casinos?
Oh, look at the big guy calling out names. Your numbers all seem very reasonable until you realize that the 1% in this country keeps getting wealthier every year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... while the rest of us keep getting poorer https://www.forbes.com/sites/k [forbes.com]... and this has been happening for over half a century. This is literally the long term health of our country declining on our way down to third world style inequality.
Income inequality doesn't mean shit dude. I don't know why you guys think it does. Everything on this planet is a finite resource. Giving more money to more people doesn't make more resources available. Actually it tends to do the opposite because people will tend to consume more than
Re: (Score:3)
This tired old canard of the "rich get richer and poor get poorer" is stupid. I have heard it for over 50 years, and I'm sure it has been around much longer than that. Nevertheless quality of life in US, and indeed almost every country, has steadily improved over the last couple centuries.
I posted links with proper data showing our shrinking middle class and the increase of those living in poverty over the course of the last half century here in the US. That's a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The top 1% already pay 37% of all income taxes.
They already own greater than 60% of all the wealth.
Compare that to somebody like rsilvergun who's tax burden is negative.
rsilvergun also own a negative amount of property and is taxed appropriately.
What's fair about that?
You are correct. What IS fair about that?
How much more do you want them to pay?
They own more than 60% so they should pay more than 60% of the tax due. It is their property that we are protecting after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps "fair" as in, for the less effort, and less talent, and less knowledge, you don't get multiple amounts of return perpetually.
This, mod up. (Score:2)
You hit it exactly right but I don't have mod points. Poor people spend all their money every month (out of necessity). Billionaires don't even come close to this level of spending which means less of their overall wealth would be taxed under a consumption tax
Mod the above up please!
Re: (Score:2)
Billionaires don't even come close to this level of spending
Some do. If they want a 150 meter sailing yacht that is. If they live in an upper middle class neighborhood in Omaha, Nebraska for example, drive a plain old American made sedan and eat at Burger King, then they pay the same tax as the dentist next door with the same lifestyle. The remainder is invested to create more jobs and wealth. Much more efficiently than possible in a socialist system supported by the potential taxes.
You are not taking money away from the likes of Warren Buffett by increasing his ta
Please define "fair share" (Score:2)
Please be specific, concrete, and across the board so that we can know what a fair share is for everyone anywhere on the income spectrum.
How much, exactly, is a fair share?
Re: (Score:2)
Head tax (per capita) is regressive.
Sales taxes,fuel taxes are middle-of-the-road.
Income tax starts middle-of-the-road, but becomes
progressive when you allow deductions,adjustments,credits, etc., or add tax brackets.
Alternate Minimum Tax, Estate Taxes are progressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Also while ignoring how states derive revenue. Even if he moved from Washington to California and paid even more taxes, Washington still loses. Besides, it looks like his new home state is already doing better than Washington in this regard even without that money:
https://www.usnews.com/news/be... [usnews.com]
Here's an idea: Instead of taxing based on income that may never come and then getting pissed off when it doesn't, why not tax based on consumption? States that do it this way don't end up like this:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news... [yahoo.com]
Lol, if you looked at your link you would see Florida is #14 in pre-k to 12th.
Fair and not fair (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all for allowing someone to vote with their feet, but this reminds me of years ago how Bill Gates was scolding the washington state education system, meanwhile collecting all windows licensing revenue through Ireland to avoid taxes.
I hope Bezos pays taxes in all the jurisdictions where any respective activity occurs.
Re:Fair and not fair (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for allowing someone to vote with their feet, but this reminds me of years ago how Bill Gates was scolding the washington state education system, meanwhile collecting all windows licensing revenue through Ireland to avoid taxes.
I hope Bezos pays taxes in all the jurisdictions where any respective activity occurs.
A lot of us would be a lot less angry about paying taxes if the money was actually used wisely and if politicians (all of them) weren't such lying pieces of shit.
The State of California was begging the voters to allow it to operate a lottery (California State Lottery). They swore up and down that the majority of the revenue would go straight to schools.
That was true.
What those lying cunts did, instead, was to severely reduce all of the other sources of funding that were earmarked for the education system. They did a nearly 1:1 reduction in direct funding for every new lottery dollar that poured in.
Would you prefer to pay your taxes in a jurisdiction where the taxes were lower, but the money was being more wisely spent.. Or were the taxes were higher and the money is pissed away?
Let's not forget, somewhere between 40% and 60% of all COVID funds, distributed by the Feds and the various States, went to fraudulent sources. Every single one of those goddamn dollars is a future tax on SOMEBODY.
Re: Fair and not fair (Score:3)
The way California spends its money is and always has been a joke. $100 billion high speed rail no nowhere. Meanwhile, the infrastructure hasn't been maintained in 30 years. Politicians get fat paychecks meanwhile so they insulate themselves from the shit they create.
Re: (Score:2)
High speed rail is infrastructure.
Unless you're using infrastructure as a dog whistle for something else.
Re: Fair and not fair (Score:2)
A bridge to nowhere tends to be because of corruption, and even if it infrastructure, it is not useful except as a means to facilitate corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
High speed rail is infrastructure.
That's nice, for people who travel by rail. Meanwhile the power grid is in an obvious state of disrepair, as are the roads, they don't seem to do anything at all about graffiti and litter, and the state doesn't know how to manage its water supply and doesn't seem interested in figuring it out either (their official policy to fix the problem is to demand a larger share of the Colorado river from the neighboring states.)
Unless you're using infrastructure as a dog whistle for something else.
Nope. Cool story BTW: I was doing a sleep study last night and all I had to watch was cabl
Re: Fair and not fair (Score:3)
CA already spends more money than any other state on maintaining infrastructure and you think more money will somehow solve the problem.
I've never been one to argue that money solves all problems, but you're way off base here. Per-capita, California's spending here is actually pretty low. Bottom line is this: They're barely doing shit.
There are some very well compensated people benefiting from the current scheme of things who will try to brainwash others. Either you're benefiting from it directly or you're a brainwashed by them.
Nice try, but that gaslighting won't fly here. Why do I get the feeling that you're just another one of those assholes who get pissed off when somebody mentions California failures, but you've never actually lived in it so you don't have to deal with it?
For an average person, a high speed rail connecting the cities will be of enormous benefit. It takes some serious PSY-OPs to say that is a bad thing.
Sure, in theory it's great. But it takes an incredible am
Re: (Score:2)
>$100 billion high speed rail no nowhere.
Oh, let's be fair.
It is *to* somewhere.
It's just that it isn't *from* somewhere.
I suppose that Victorville (is that still the proposed terminus this week?) would support more volume than, say, Boron or Tehachapi, but I simply can't fathom why anyplace other than LA/Orange or San Diego would even be *proposed*.
And there are similar problems with the intra-california projects I've seen proposed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for allowing someone to vote with their feet, but this reminds me of years ago how Bill Gates was scolding the washington state education system, meanwhile collecting all windows licensing revenue through Ireland to avoid taxes.
I hope Bezos pays taxes in all the jurisdictions where any respective activity occurs.
A lot of us would be a lot less angry about paying taxes if the money was actually used wisely and if politicians (all of them) weren't such lying pieces of shit.
Washington and California seem to be producing these billionaires in a way that the low tax states aren't. I'm sure some tax money is wasted, but those high tax states are sure producing a ton of wealth.
Let's not forget, somewhere between 40% and 60% of all COVID funds, distributed by the Feds and the various States, went to fraudulent sources. Every single one of those goddamn dollars is a future tax on SOMEBODY.
Citation?
I did a quick search and the biggest figure I found for an individual program was " The inspector general's office estimated there was $136 billion of potential fraud in the EIDL program, representing 33% of the total funds dispersed to businesses. [go.com] ". That sounded like the worst program and 33% of p
Re: (Score:3)
Citation?
I did a quick search and the biggest figure I found for an individual program was " The inspector general's office estimated there was $136 billion of potential fraud in the EIDL program, representing 33% of the total funds dispersed to businesses. [go.com] ". That sounded like the worst program and 33% of potential fraud 40%-60% of actual fraud.
Let's assume that was all there is... Do you have any idea how much money $136 billion dollars is?
Yes, less than 40%-60%.
I'm sure some tax money is wasted, but those high tax states are sure producing a ton of wealth.
Some?
https://www.kcra.com/article/analysis-edd-fraud-326-billion-and-counting/41281662
https://fortune.com/2023/06/12/how-400-billion-covid-19-aid-stolen-wasted-social-security-fraudsters-texas-pastors/
That second link counts $400 BILLION in fraud. Keep telling us it was SOME.
From your link:
An Associated Press analysis found that fraudsters potentially stole more than $280 billion in COVID-19 relief funding; another $123 billion was wasted or misspent. Combined, the loss represents a jarring 10% of the $4.2 trillion the U.S. government has so far disbursed in COVID-relief aid.
So from 40%-60% to 10%, that's even lower than the 33% figure I found for you (note, that 33% was just for one program).
This is why I absolutely hate liberals. You fucks will never admit to your party doing anything wrong. Every single fraudulent dollar that was dispersed was fucking over honest taxpayers.. But you fucking libs couldn't stop throwing the money around like it grew on fucking trees.
This is why I absolutely hate "conservatives". You get caught m
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I absolutely hate "conservatives". You get caught making up facts, and then rather than admit it, or even admit a mistake, you try to change the goalposts and then act all outraged like we aren't actually watching you lie in real time.
No.. You pulled a liberal move. Okay. My numbers were a bit off. My numbers were a lot off.. ON A SINGLE DATA POINT - THE PERCENTAGE
A single data point?
It was the mike drop at the end of your post, the only other part was a claim about California lottery funds and education funding, which, honestly, I can't find a reference for either.
Do you have one or are all of your arguments gut-feels not backed up by data. (btw, I could see the lottery funds thing being true, money is fungible and earmarking lottery funds for schools is mostly marketing that doesn't change the fundamental political forces governing school funding)
All of the back and forth and you never touched the core issue of my argument.. There was a huge amount of fraud. 10% of $4.2 trillion is $420 billion dollars.
Do you think not being able to verify where you're sending $420 billion dollars qualifies as spending money wisely? Do you dispute my statement that all of that fraud (whatever isn't clawed back) will have to be paid for by taxpayers?
And 60% would be w
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Bezos pays taxes in all the jurisdictions where any respective activity occurs.
Narrator: Bezos did not move to Florida for it's sunny weather.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly did he scold the State of Washington? Was it for spending (or lack thereof), or results?
Re: (Score:2)
lots of ways, but the case I'm specifically referring to was the results needing more spending in the washington state higher education system. Which is... drum roll please... paid for by state taxes including sales tax. (see other post further down) That's what made the hypocrisy so galling, that he was taking a product produced in no small measure in Washington, selling it from Ireland to avoid taxes thus depriving tax revenue where it was produced, and then complaining that the surviving tax revenue wasn
Re: (Score:2)
Property tax pays for education.
He didn't move his house or Microsoft buildings to Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Property tax pays for education.
He didn't move his house or Microsoft buildings to Ireland.
You're limiting your thinking to K-12, which is only indirectly affected by domino/pinball effect of state (corporate) tax revenue. The specific news that brought this to my attention many years ago was actually Gates talking about how the colleges needed to be funded better by the state of Washington. A quick search for some random citation on the funding of higher level education produced this:
https://wsac.wa.gov/sites/defa... [wa.gov]
Interestingly enough, that document's very first line of actual text (starting a
Acting rationally (Score:4, Insightful)
If he stays, they take his money. If he goes, they don't. Seems like a rational and ethical choice and one most people would make. The commentary in the post talks about how great the programs that these taxes fund are as if he's bad for not paying them out of the kindness of his heart. Don't cry for Washington state - they drove away part of their tax base!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like a rational and ethical choice and one most people would make.
Rationality is strictly based one ones goals. If you wish to help society then removing funding from state education seems like an irrational move. However, it's an ethically dubious choice because again you're intentionally removing funding early-childhood education programs and school construction.
The commentary in the post talks about how great the programs that these taxes fund are as if he's bad for not paying them out of the kindness of his heart.
Taxes aren't supposed to be paid out of kindness but out of responsibility and duty to help society and your fellow man. If you have a deficiency of empathy then this is an alien concept.
they drove away part of their tax base!
This kind of thinking le
Re: (Score:2)
Do you pay more taxes than the law requires? I'm going out on a limb by assuming not.
It seems unethical that you optimize your tax payments to the minimal allowed by law, leaving the education system short on funds.
Think of the children this coming April 15th. Pay extra. It takes a village to raise a child. Do your part!
Re: (Score:2)
For most, it probably isn't unethical, because most are paying a "fair share"-- i.e. they're paying for the benefits they're getting.
For some, this isn't the case-- they're reaping from society's stability and productivity far more than they're paying, and are not in need in the first place.
The latter case may be unethical, or at least, long-term dangerous for society as it causes instability.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you pay more taxes than the law requires?
Actually, yes because I don't go out of my way to pinch every penny. I could technically classify my car as a work vehicle which could save me money but I don't.
I'm going out on a limb by assuming not.
That is a bad assumption.
It seems unethical that you optimize your tax payments to the minimal allowed by law, leaving the education system short on funds.
I would say it depends on scale and the amount of effort put into avoiding paying taxes. However, generally the concept is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly:
If they don't tax it, they get no revenue.
If the do tax it, and then the money flees, they get no revenue.
Seems like a reasonable bet to do the tax, from a risk-reward perspective.
From the way they're doing it, OTOH, calling it an excise tax, when it is obviously an income tax is ludicrous.
Re:It's neither rational nor ethical (Score:5, Insightful)
It's certainly not ethical because starving education systems can hardly be called ethical.
Would be good if they could properly fund education without being dependent on any single taxpayer.
Re: It's neither rational nor ethical (Score:3)
Bezos and the rest of the billionaires are going to starve the governments of the money needed to address climate change in a meaningful fashion.
This has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. The money they would have gotten from him wouldn't have gone towards that either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Washington State runs their state poorly and that's Bezos' fault?
If Bezos had never been born, what would they be doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should go out and be the first ethical billionaire.
Re: (Score:2)
The United States has been running this way for over two hundred years.
Re: (Score:2)
No, let's not.
Meanwhile federalism is still alive and kicking, which is why the United States has so many "tax schemes". Nice derailment attempt.
Timeline (Score:2)
2021 - Washington State implements a 7% tax on capital gains over $250,000
2024 - Jeff Bezos announces move to no income tax Florida (which does not have a 7% capital gains tax after $250,000)
2024 - Jeff Bezos announces he plans to sell up to 50 million shares of Amazon
2024 - Clever reporter pretends Washington State somehow was planning on getting $600M in tax revenue that will now somehow leave Washington State without funds for pre-school education.
Is that about the size of it? Bezos didn't even mention t
If you insist... (Score:2)
If you insist on relying on a handful of taxpayers to fund your state's finances, you need to consider they may move for any reason (be near family, change of climate, whatever) and leave the state high and dry... consider the example of the NJ hedge fund manager that chose to move to Florida [nytimes.com], "costing" NJ hundreds of millions in lost tax revenue.
Or better yet (Score:2)
Why don't anyone in the state think back to basic economy 101 solutions like balancing your budget so states don't spend money that isn't guaranteed coming in? Oh yea, because states want to maintain status quo instead and pull money out of thin air vs making meaningful cuts. When tax payers see programs going away, they might want to vote for laws that increase taxes.
At this point I believe most of America doesn't have proper representation even with paying taxes. My representatives vote for things without
Obligatory... (Score:2)
Taxation is theft
Re: (Score:2)
You failed to address the fact that taxation is still theft. When someone takes something from you without your consent, that, by definition, is theft.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, you are free to opt out of paying taxes, by leaving for a different place. Just like Bezos is sorta doing.
Chose to stay, and receive the benefits of civil society? Congratulations, you've consented to being taxed.
Taxes are the price of civilization.
The Tiebout model in action (Score:2)
Stop giving out child tax credits (Score:2)
Sorry to beat the same drum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, capital gains should be income.
Bezos Sells $2B in AMZN Shares-1st Sale Since 2021 (Score:2)
This just in: Jeff Bezos sells $2 billion worth of Amazon shares in his first stock sale since 2021 [geekwire.com], the year that saw the passage of Washington state's 7% capital gains tax.
Is this a Chinese plant? (Score:2, Troll)
There is literally no evidence they are capable of moral, responsible decision-making. It's like once you get past a certain net worth, your brain reverts to teenager-hood.
The "Great Firewall of China" is run by roughly 50,000 people, it's reasonable to expect that a couple of thousand look around on American websites and post propaganda of various sort, and it's reasonable to expect that a couple probably look at Slashdot from time to time.
This *has* to be some sort of Chinese plant to try to discredit capitalism or something.
I mean, it's blatantly absurd on it's face.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Who is going to be the guardians if not the government? Who has the monopoly on force (and full automatic weapons) to force compliance again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Talent? What talent? To be in the right spot at the right time and get lucky?
That's the same talent the average lottery millionaire has, but I don't see them celebrated as some sort of sage.
Re: (Score:2)
That is actually a skill, and being naturally talented in reading opportunities will make you a lot of money. Luck has less to do with it than you might think (and bad luck is usually more a factor in enterprise than good luck).
Re: (Score:2)
citation needed
Re: (Score:2)
That smells like a deep stinky load of talking out one's butt.
Look at the numbers. The highest correlation with getting to be a new c-suite member is having been a c-suite member.
This is true even if you're a serial failure as a c-suite member, causing company after company to be driven into the ground.
So, where was that skill?
Re: The best suggestion I've read for billionaires (Score:2)
Is that as soon as somebody hits 100 million dollars they're not allowed to make any more money.
Let's suppose that was rational (best case scenario, this idiot idea causes hyperinflation overnight) how the hell is that even supposed to work? The instant your net worth goes above 100 million because wall street suddenly valued your Nintendo shares at twice what they were before because Pokemon go, you're required to start burning your shit? Then what happens when the value craters after they realize Nintendo had nothing to do that? Do you get your shit back after?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that as soon as somebody hits 100 million dollars they're not allowed to make any more money.
Let's suppose that was rational (best case scenario, this idiot idea causes hyperinflation overnight) how the hell is that even supposed to work? The instant your net worth goes above 100 million because wall street suddenly valued your Nintendo shares at twice what they were before because Pokemon go, you're required to start burning your shit? Then what happens when the value craters after they realize Nintendo had nothing to do that? Do you get your shit back after?
What? You file your taxes every day and not yearly like regular people?
Cry me a river...who's going to care about the poor people with only 100 million dollars? Whaaaa whaaa whaaaa
Just sell some of your 100 million dollars worth of Nintendo shares. Notice how rich you got without the slightest bit of common sense or skill of any kind? Why expect others to cry for those people?
Re: The best suggestion I've read for billionaire (Score:2)
What? You file your taxes every day and not yearly like regular people?
Actually what I described happens over much longer periods of time, and much more often. rsilvergun has shown many times that he can barely think beyond the next 8 seconds, let alone a few days.
Cry me a river...who's going to care about the poor people with only 100 million dollars? Whaaaa whaaa whaaaa
Actually the big concern is what happens with the rest of the economy. Hyperinflation is a best case scenario, and would happen if what I think he intends on, which is likely some sort of redistribution scheme. Basically the dollar would become worthless in no time. Anything he intends would also crash and burn the s
Re: (Score:3)
That's never going to happen.
The way the "progressive" taxation system works in the United States, the Feds make more money on high income earners than low income earners, at least before taking into account loopholes (and even after that they still do. The overwhelming majority of tax revenue in the United States comes from high income earners).
If they capped personal property at some arbitrary valuation, then devaluation shenanigans aside, those property owners would no longer earn any income ever, and w
Re: (Score:2)
"billionaires will become Supreme oligarchs leaving us to wallow in a horrifying dystopia while they wall off their cities with automated killbots."
We should be so lucky. I would be delighted if Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia would pack up and form their own state, with or without walls. Sadly they are not done asset stripping and micromanaging the East Side yet.
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of focusing on revenge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to shower someone with "unlimited money" then stop buying their products and stop using their services.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice off-topic bullshit.