Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Gates for President' Group Gives Up

Posted by samzenpus on from the know-when-to-fold-them dept.

netbuzz writes "Dilbert creator Scott Adams had done his best to make this fantasy (or nightmare, depending on your point of view) a viable notion, but after three months of trying the group's leader has acknowledged that it's unlikely Gates will give up his current gig. They've tossed in the towel." Here is our original coverage of this ill-conceived plan.

8 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Why would he? by macmastery · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't it a pay cut?

    1. Re:Why would he? by Syro2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to wikipedia, the President's salary traditionally serves as the cap for all government employees, and is currently near half a million dollars. That said, most everyone who runs for President is already independently wealthy, so I don't think pay is a major concern.

      A more appropriate question -- given who we are talking about -- would perhaps be, "isn't it a power cut?"

      --
      SF Bay Area indie music: bandega.com - Never miss a show again
    2. Re:Why would he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously. When the President of China came to Washington state, he met with Gates at his own home. The Governor was an 'invited guest'. Gates has more power as a businessman than he ever would as a politician.

  2. What, no Microsoft web server? by ttg512 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This seems to be the problem...
    Server: Apache Webserver
    X-Pingback: http://www.billgatesforpresident.net/xmlrpc.php
    X-Powered-By: PHP/4.4.4
    Why would Bill support anything with this kind of response header?

  3. Yes! That's a horrible idea! by encoderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, a consumption task is a pretty horrible idea.

    This was brought up a couple days ago, so I'll copy and paste from my previous post on this subject:

    Forgoing the income tax for a sales tax is a pretty bad idea.

    First, the income tax is progressive. This would be impossible to achieve with sales tax. The only people that would benefit from a "flat" tax (sales or income) are those at the highest tax brackets. In order to replace the income lost from dropping taxes on the top 5%, taxes would have to be raised on the bottom 50%.

    Second, a sales tax puts a disproportionate burden on the lowest income families. Those with low incomes--even up to $50k/yr for a single man--spend a very large proportion of their income. The lower your income, the higher percentage of it is spent. People making minimum wage are spending 100% of their pay checks.

    Those making $1MM a year, on the other hand, may spend only a small fraction of their income.

    And you can say that you would simply not charge sales tax on the things that poor people are spending their money on -- food, shelter and utilities -- but doing so would drastically reduce tax receipts. It would be impossible to exempt those things and the suggestion that it is possible is just used by proponents to try to sell their plan.

    Furthermore, this is about Google. Corporations pay a pitifully small percentage of taxes in America. The percentage of taxes paid by corporations has dropped dramatically since the 1950's. Your notion that double taxation is a serious problem is just plain wrong. The tax code currently incentivizes businesses to invest in capital expenditures, R&D, etc.

    In summary, the only people that want a sales tax are those that don't understand it's implications and those that could pay less taxes by shifting the tax burden more on the lower & middle classes.

    The notion that there is tax injustice because the top minority of Americans pays the majority of taxes is absurd. The people at the top of the food chain reap the highest rewards of our society. Without our national infrastructure, they wouldn't be able to make and horde millions or billions of dollars. They SHOULD pay a tax burden that more closely resembles their share of the US pie, not necessarily their share of the US Population.

  4. POTUAC by Orange+Crush · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're giving up on Mr. Gates's presidential aspirations.

    Cancel or Allow?

  5. Re:Bill Gates ain't the worst guy in the world by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uhm... No.

    In fact, he defends the tax so much he wrote a book about it. The argument of the book is basically saying the law that is in place is too lenient and it should be repealed for something like the old one that didn't have loopholes. He wants the rich to pay more taxes when they die.

    From Wikipedia:

    Gates is co-author, with Chuck Collins, of the book Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes, a defense of the estate tax.[2]

    The book on Amazon.com Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes

    I haven't finished it yet because I use it to fall asleep... however your statement is not true in fact and spirit.

  6. Obligatory FairTax plug by Staale+Nordlie · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FairTax proposal addresses most of your objections.

    Everyone gets a monthly prebate covering the tax on spending up to the poverty level. This eliminates taxes altogether for the truly poor, and makes the tax effectively progressive.

    True, there's a limit to how hard you can punish success and productivity with such a tax, but the overall effect on the economy and, dare I say it, fairness, more than makes up for that.

    Website: http://www.fairtax.org/
    Summary: : http://www.fairtax.org/fairtax/thumbnail.htm