Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer, Bezos Fund Effort To Undermine Bill Gates
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)."
Who will do more to stimulate the economy with that 9%? Balmer or the Obama?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
makes the UK 40% tax for income over £40k look enormous! That been said I guess there are hidden costs of healthcare etc in the US which we pay for in taxes instead.
(which is a good thing as when I was ill for a short period a while ago and wouldn't have been able to afford the private healthcare costs incurred ($150k+).
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
>>>"contributed $100,000 each"
It would be cheaper for them to just pay the tax.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Neither! It was a trick question.
Ballmer and Bezos will probably figure out how to deduct their "donation" too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
moox. for a new generation.
Who will do more to stimulate the economy of Washington state with that 9%? Ballmer & Bezos or Governor Gregoire?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
What are governments supposed to do when they want more money? Of course you raise the taxes! The last thing anyone wants is an evaluation of where the money is being spent, wasted, or otherwise.
And for those from other parts of the globe, this is just the Washington state tax. The federal tax is still applied (and may be going up as well for the >$200k club).
You're doing good in this economy, pay your fair share, you privileged prats. Or go live in India or China where you outsource all your jobs to.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
First, "Obama" (really the US Legislature) wouldn't have this revenue to stimulate with. That titillating pleasure would go to Governor of Washington Chris Gregoire. Second, if the choice were Balmer and Obama, I'd say Obama would more likely spend it in a manner that benefits the most people in the USA; just look at the value of Micrsoft stock since Balmer took the reigns at MS.
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...
unprecedented evile (in its' MANY manifestations) dukes(nukes) it out with itself until there's almost nothing left (like now) & then they give us (& more importantly, our children) another chance to become lifetime hostages/servants to debt, yet again. we can hardly wait?
I pay 50% out of my sallary to tax and 25% sales tax on what i buy. But then again I have free education free health care and access to housing and more.
Balances out, I get what I pay for, you dont want to pay, so you get nothing :) Not to mention our government isnt bankrupt and in debt.
We're never going to succeed in wiping out income, if we don't enact policies to deter it.
The way things are right now, if a person works more hours, they get more money. If they get a raise, they get more money. Everything about the old economic system only encourages people to make more. And with people working more and producing more, or doing things more efficiently so that their employers reward them with raises, the overall economy just gets stronger and stronger, leading us into the same trap that devastated the United States from 1945-1999.
Income tax, particularly graduated income tax, is the perfect solution to the problem of personal wealth and national economic growth. It's not unsolvable, people! WE CAN DO IT!
Make it 100% tax on incomes over $500,000. If a person doesn't want to pay taxes they can return the money to their business or customers.
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?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Bingo. Henry Ford's solution to poverty was to employ more people and pay them more as private corporate policy, and not by giving the "extra" money to the state. Ballmer & Bezos can't hire more people, or pay employees more, if they don't have that 9%. The state sure isn't going to create as many jobs or raise pay nearly as much with it.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Is he even collecting one? I think all of his money is in the form of stocks and investments and he's probably already bought about anything he'll need big ticket item wise. Does this tax include capitol gains? I'll fully support a 75% tax on the rich a year after you give me $50M. I wonder what his position would have been 15 years ago.
Once you are wealthy an income tax doesn't matter. It's only a problem while you are trying to become wealthy. Income tax helps prevent more people from being wealthy which is why the elite wealthy like it. It's like getting the state to declare the area around your country club a state park so that nobody can build there.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
They are too brainwashed to know that tax cuts for the rich do not help them at all.
The rest will see that increasing tax on the rich and reducing it for the middle or low wage worker as in insidious plot by "the Elites" to take away their chances of being super rich themselves.
Like that's going to happen.
I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
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.
I would be very happy with that arrangement.
I want to pay for my choice of health care, my choice of schools for my kids, my choice of housing, etc.
Problem is the system you back puts a gun to my head and takes 75% of my money regardless of whether I want to participate or not.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I assume by GB43 you mean GB 43 acupuncture point: Gall Bladder Merridian. Chinese name: Xia Xi; English name: Pinched Ravine... I just can't figure out what that has to do with Obama.
TAX here in South Africa range from 18% (lowest income) to 40%. Middle class falls in the 30% to 40% range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
i've always thought that the way ballmer runs microsoft day to day is like apple in the 90s. no real direction. that some day gates is going to do a steve jobs and waltz back in and 'save' microsoft. he always comes across as wanting to be like jobs. sseeing this just reinforces this opinion.
my 2c.
Thanks for the clarification
Why can't everyone just pay the same amount, no matter how much they make? I got a raise this year, bumped into a new tax bracket, and take home less than before the raise. WTF? How is that fair to anyone?
Im no expert in taxes myself but in Denmark where im from the tax rate is around 40%. For me the rate is 39% and it currently applies to everything above 41k per yer (or something like that). And keep in mind that this is DKK and not USD. The rate can actually get higher depending on your income. It's probably also a necessary rate if you wanna have the welfare system we have.
Personally i can only say QQ more. 9% is peanuts and with the amount of money that earn already i have no respect for their objections.
Pinched ravine. Ha, that's a good nick name for Bush Junior. And ironically, he'd probably use it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
If you earn more than $200K just shut the hell up, you're making ten times as much as the average Canadian.
Ok, I'm getting to the point. Now the issue is the 659,174 that he claims as income is not his real income. You simply can't save 14 Billion by collecting 659,174-9% per year. Building wealth at that level is all about *hiding* what you really make, and getting taxed on what you can't shelter from the Government tax auditors (i.e. a puny 659k). In order to be worth 14B he would have had to earn 259M per year for every year of his life, and pay no taxes on that gross income as well. I don't think he was making that much at the age 2, so you will have to scale that income per year according to your own theory. Why would he sweat it over a measly 59k per year? In theory he would owe 23 Million per year in taxes if he really paid %9 on his *actual* total earnings each year. So there you go, 100,000 is dirt cheap. That's around 1/230th of his actual income per year.
I shouldn't complain. Lots of people would love to have his pocket change. Personally I'd just like to know where he puts his other 22 Million each year to be sheltered, so I can put some there too. ;)
If I recall, this is the same argument slave owners used. After all, the country was very prosperous during slavery. Ending slavery would ruin the economy. So, why didn't you mention bringing back slavery as a way to stimulate the economy?
I say go for it. You've already dug yourself a giant hole with your first rant, I say go all the way, why stop now, prove what a douche you really are!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I love how all of you just assume their money should support your lazy asses. Taxes should be a set percentage on all income levels. That way we all pay evenly. Notice, this means the Rich will still pay more, they always have and always will. But, at least this way we wouldn't be farking them over for being successful. Get some pride people and pay your own way and quit counting on the Rich and the Government to support your asses.
Remember that this is an ballot initiative to impose a state income tax on residents of Washington state. This would be on top of the Federal income tax that they pay. I am not saying whether it is good or bad, just that it is an additional income tax. In some states like TN where I live, we don't have a state income tax; but we also have fairly high property taxes and a fairly high sales tax on everything. I would have no issue with TN getting a state income tax as long as they took away the sales tax and/or dropped the property tax to almost nothing; however, this will never happen because this is how the counties and cities get their money. I can understand that people have enough problem with the threats of their Federal income levels rising let alone adding another 5 to 9% tax at the the state level. Should they rich pay more in taxes since they make so much more? I don't know. But I can see where they would get a bit upset at more and more people trying to take more of the money that they earn away. But this is for the people of Washington state to decide. Though a flat tax definitely seems to make much more since at least on a Federal level.
Their winnings from the stock market wouldn't be touched by this income tax.
Blar.
Ballmer, Bezos Fund Effort To Undermine To Fund a Civilized society.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Washington State legislature has to abide by a voter approved initiative for two years, without making any alterations or changes to the initiative.
However, once those two years are up, they can change, drop or repeal the initiative at will, without voter approval.
Several years ago voters passed an initiative to limit vehicle tab licenses to a flat rate of $25 per vehicle. This was done at a time when license tabs could cost upwards of hundreds of dollars per year for a newer vehicle, like a full size pickup or a sports car. For example, my fathers Dodge Ram cost nearly $800 to license PER YEAR.
This ran for two years, then the state legislature began to add tonnage fees, displacement fees, etc...
My concern is that, while this initially may only tax those with higher incomes (which I am opposed to) there is no reason to believe Washington state won't change the law to apply to EVERYONE later on. Or will at least incrementally lower the rate until it applies to most residents of Washington state.
Vote no!
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) gives the numbers.
Because that system doesn't work well: take schools, for example: if every parent had to pay private school tuition for their kids, you'd quickly create a permanent underclass, where the kids whose parents couldn't afford to send them to school end up unable to get jobs where they can send their own kids to school, and the cycle continues. I mean, I guess you've got a good system if you make sure to pick the right parents to get born to.
Here's an idea for a system for you: how about we let everyone vote and get representation in the various legislative bodies responsible for determining taxation? I wonder what we would call that?
How about a tax based on how much outsourcing you do? You outsource 10%, you only pay 10%. At minimum you only pay 1%.
And so is Springfield. Even with those insane taxes, Illinois is so deep in the red that vendors are halting services after months of non-payment.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/illinois-careens-towards-bankruptcy.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/illinois-doesnt-pay-bills-crisis-pushes.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/06/illinois-leaps-ahead-of-california-in.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/07/shared-sacrifice-illinois-style-40000.html
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
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 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.
Key to this discussion is the point that Washington State does not have an income tax, relying instead on a sales tax for revenue. So, much of the furor is not simply a matter of the rich wanting to avoid a soaking, but as well the broader issue of weather Washingtonians want to replace a sales tax with an income tax at all. (I, for example, prefer sales tax vs. income tax).
By taxing people with higher incomes at a higher rate you're discriminating against the people with high incomes, whether they are retaining any of it to become wealthy or not is another matter.
A better system would be to simply allow the first two or three times the basic poverty level worth of income to be free and then have a basic flat tax with a very few personal deductions, for example, medical type things needed for survival but not charity (giving to a charity shouldn't be part of a business decision, it should be strictly by compassion) and no other loopholes on everything above that. Gives the poor a break, taxes income earners above poverty levels without discrimination and it means the people with the high incomes are still paying more than the people with lower incomes. You don't have to emphasize it by taxing them at a higher rate, just give them fewer loopholes so they pay their fair share.
btw, let's not confuse this with a poll tax where everyone has to pay the same fixed amount, not a fixed percentage.
... and I don't want to let a personal income tax anywhere near this state. This sounds like the most useful thing Ballmer has ever done, and it's at least on the list for Bezos. Kudos to them.
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.
E pluribus unum
... is Democrats trying to figure out ways for the government to take other people's money.
And to punish success.
The combination creates more dupes who are dependent on the government, i.e. voters who vote for Democrats.
Brilliant scheme, really.
Last I checked, Microsoft is paying ZERO Washington tax because of their puppet setup in Nevada. How about you go after that money before individual money. Why is everyone so allergic to taxing businesses? Business pays 1/7 the tax of individuals in this country, and that's flat wrong. It should be the reverse.
Note that "five and more employees" also includes Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, and so on. If you look here you'll read that only 2 or 3 percent of "small" businesses fall into the top two tax brackets ($250K or more, this article discussing the Obama plan). In that 2 or 3 percent, you find business like:
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?
If Bill Gates is so concerned about the finances of the State of Washington, he could certainly volunteer to pay some of his billions rather than try to force others to pay. So typical of the ultra-rich - they're fine with punishing our most productive members of society - because until we have a wealth tax rather than an income tax, they're essentially untouchable.
What are governments supposed to do when they want more money? Of course you raise the taxes! The last thing anyone wants is an evaluation of where the money is being spent, wasted, or otherwise.
Except Republican's created the fix the answer "Don't Tax and Still Spend", Bush inherited a "balanced budget" that was actually paying off some of the deficit and proceeded to mail bribes (sorry, refunds), cut taxes to slow the payoff of our national debt, pass new legislation that was never paid for (No Child Left Behind costs states millions), then invaded a non combatant country (Iraq). I haven't heard a single Tea Party candidate present anything other than vague platitudes and rally cries to "stop wasteful spending". Will they cut the DOD budget? Accelerate the exit of Iraq/Afghanistan (two of our largest expenses)? Will they cut Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Revert unemployment benefits cutting off the lifelines to tens of thousands of American's under the banner "Get to work or starve"?
...so I can just come and live in your Scandinavian paradise, sit on my ass doing nothing but playing computer games all winter long and get free housing living expenses and healthcare, all paid for by your cheerfully-given 75% taxes?
Sign me up!
"The worst political development in American history was that it gradually became ok to just vote other people's money to yourself."
This itself is true and sad enough but the real issue here is Washington is already in the top 5 taxed states. Sales tax is at nearly 10% for everything but groceries and their not going to repeal any of that. While it may be true that the "wealthy can afford it" I find it odd that one portion of the populace is taxed higher than the rest. Yes anyone who lives in the state "could" make that much but probably will never get there so that's the way to get it into the system with the overwhelming left leaning populace "vote other people's money to yourself". So what happens in a few years, maybe the threshold will be 150K, then 100K then everyone who make a dollar will be paying state income tax. They have been trying to get a income tax through in Washington for over 30 years but it had always been defeated because it included everyone Now by just targeting the "rich" the ignorant voters will likely put this in to law. Once in, the legislature can (and will) change the tax rate and taxable amount without voter input. Their goal is to be #1 in spending and taxation.
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
First, "Obama" (really the US Legislature) wouldn't have this revenue to stimulate with. That titillating pleasure would go to Governor of Washington Chris Gregoire. Second, if the choice were Balmer and Obama, I'd say Obama would more likely spend it in a manner that benefits the most people in the USA; just look at the value of Micrsoft stock since Balmer took the reigns at MS.
That's the only good thing Balmer has done: open up the doors to competitors for a friendlier competitive market thanks to his own ineptitude. Who says idiot's cant do good things for the world?
Third, why does every time taxation and government spending come up, does Obama get blamed?
Simple minded people like to think any government decision should be blamed/credited to the president, no matter if we are talking about local cops shortening the duration of yellow lights to give more tickets, Obama will be blamed by many. Unfortunately, politicians sort of get themselves into it in campaigns. They promote things in a way that would make anyone that just arrived on Earth that indeed it all boils down to the one big guy.
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.
Now you toss facts in /.!!!! :P Seriously, though. It does not matter. The masses are full of fanatics. A lot of people are Republicans or Democrats and wont care much. Since all they care is to get their own deities a winning chance in the next elections, they will use anything they can to incite hellish fear in their opposition's followers. Simply saying "taxers will be higher than they were with Bush" is enough to scare many, even if the taxes wont change for them.
...for anyone except J. Random Warlord. Admittedly, it's possible that there could be non-coërcive régimes in which it were possible to accumulate that much unnatural property, but as things stand such large amounts of income are intimately dependent on there being a Big Evil Gummint whose Men With Guns enforce things like (say) intellectual property rights and copyrights.
Badly used, the above could be an argument for allowing the government to confiscate everything above Benjamin Franklin's Savage's crude hut, coat, and matchlock, but something---an algorithm, a technology, an analogy---may be subject to misuse yet be extremely useful within its proper domain. I think it particularly useful because it is the disease of many rich people to assume that they earned it all themselves, and that social and governmental pressures only reduced the total. I admire William Gates Sr (as well as Jr, Warren Buffett, Sinjorino Soros, and the Koch Bros' Bizarro World counter-parts) to the extent that they both seem to understand this, and that they seem like they'd rather be at the top of a decent world than be kings of a dung-heap.
I live in Seattle, which has a sales tax of about 10%. That tax system is unbalanced, as it causes the people who make the least amount of money to pay the highest proportion of their income.
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.
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
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Billionaire's Unite! Invite all your billionaire friends to the flash mob at your State Capital to show our support for this egregious and misappropriated tax at noon today! Pre-made signs will be available on site, "F*ck the poor, they stink on ice" and "It's good to be the King", "Give Oligarchy a Chance".
Fear not, usual "Will work for food" signs held by indigent will be collected by the volunteer mob organizers.
I hate to interrupt a healthy catharsis with information from an actual Washington resident, but many of you appear to be projecting your distaste for the speaker upon the message, about which you may know little.
Washington State is reliant upon a very economically sensitive consumption-driven revenue model, overobligated itself badly during boom times, and is now experiencing a hangover. Those of us who spend within our means expect the gummit to do the same -- radical, I know -- and do not look upon California as a role model, thxUvrymooch. Most of the money to promote this bill is coming from public service unions, whose members -- unlike me, and almost everyone else around here -- not only have not taken pay cuts in this recession, but continue to get "cost of living" increases; and whose salaries consume something like 60% of the state budget.
Further, the bill's opponents credibly claim that it will absolutely not remain a tax on the "rich" (usually defined as everyone making more than the person passing this judgement). The Washington legislature has already demonstrated its contempt for the electorate by disregarding an initiative which required a supermajority to raise taxes. Once an income tax is enabled, the threshold can (and you can bet it will be) lowered anytime by a simple majority of the legislature. Even on what many would call a comfortable IT salary, I'm barely making it in the expensive city of Seattle, and I simply cannot afford more taxes.
I absolutely do support, and would gladly pay, an income tax as a replacement for consumption and property taxes, which are inherently regressive. I absolutely do not support an income tax which merely augments the existing tax structure. No sane person would, except one who has a conflict of interest in the matter due to dependence on the state budget.
Tangentially, now that I find myself actually agreeing with Steve Ballmer, hell is welcome to freeze over.
As a Washington resident making much less than $200K I'm so happy Ballmer is spending his money against this. This state already has one of the highest state sales taxes in the country. And now they want to add an income tax. How long do you think that income tax will stay at the $200K mark, and at the 5% mark. Because we all know that taxes, once imposed, never expand or rise.
When did this crazy change in thinking take place? Surely, everyone has always loved giving their money to the government, especially when they disagree. It's not like individuals regularly pursue their self interest or anything...
The overly-affluent could easily use their wealth for the betterment of mankind. Instead they spoil themselves and keep the world's capital from those who work hard to deserve it. The wealthy are cheaters, liars and thieves who have corrupted the system in order to steal more than their rightful share. They truly are the scumbags of humanity.
Is there something wrong with /. when it comes to politics? You get a mental block full of rage and can't think straight, even can't google? You don't look up the definitions anymore?
Small business is defined in the US has having under $7million annual revenue or 500 fewer employees. There is a stricter definition, but I'll leave that to the experts. So I have a problem with the washingonpost numbers, since while 2-3 percent of small business fall into the top tax brackets, they EMPLOY a shitload more people than those you're citing only employ less than 5.
So yeah, it will hit small business. And MORE IMPORTANTLY, the payout to the government will be small compared to the loss jobs and tax hit from lost employees resulting from the bill. You're screwing over small business gain tax revenue in the near term, sacrificing it in the long term.
Don't complain later when you say the US can't compete, that there are no jobs in-house, that we don't make anything anymore, that things are moved offshore--duh, you taxed the very infrastructure to suppress it when you should be supporting it.
So yeah, go ahead and create a straw man and attack "work," most people don' t consider IT real work either, now do they?
Remember the all great Clinton years? The main reason it was so great wasn't because of the tax structure. It was because the now hated rich funded innovation. Not the government. Not their tax revenue. Not their expenditures. You want a good economy, you want to heavily encourage INVESTMENT, not government payouts to their cronies.
btw, the /. story is BS. You take the worse offenders, and use them as examples on why their fight means the law should pass. What about the other people making $500k? Oh, yeah, some of them are specialists, doctors, innovators. Guess they get screwed if they get a windfall. Sucks to work hard AND be successful in the US.
Sort of like being the geek or nerd who gets beat up so someone else can copy and cheat off your homework and test.
I'm all for a graduated tax rate. I'm all for more cuts to the middle class. I don't agree with raising taxes though. How about budgeting your own shit. Around here, we have roads being paved by the same people over and over that DO NOT HAVE TO BE PAVED IN THE FIRST PLACE. When the government gets money, it just wastes it. We recently had a $7million interesection done. You know what it did? Made traffic worse, and put in 100 yards of curb. Yes, CURB. In any other world, in any other business, this would be an embarrassment.
But hey, go after the guy that makes $7million and blows it. At least other people are getting money from his expenditures. The government? That intersection carries the same traffic load as it did before, is less safe, and, well, the government spend $7million to fund some quarries for 3 months.
Good job.
Jeff Bezos is crying all the way to the bank. Look at the fortune bezos has amassed using free and open source software to fuel his fucking DRM infested toy. Somewhere in the background I can hear Steve Jobs yelling out, "Yeah...you go bezos. That's the way FOSS was meant to be used. I can hear the pleading cries right now. Oh god help us all. How can anyone live on less than $2500,000 a year. The humanity of it all. I salute those poor souls with a single finger salute. Hell has a special place for these assholes.
You're confusing some random definition of small business (where did you get it, by-the-way?) with the political definition (present in the WaPo article), which is (apparently) "pass-thru entities" (e.g., an LLC, and certain other corporations). These large companies that employ many people, can and will reorganize as necessary to minimize their tax burden, and the US is full of successful corporations that are not pass-thru entities. I have worked for such companies in the past, I even own a small piece of one, lucky me. When we thought we might get acquired, we re-org'd to a structure that was easier to acquire.
The use of the phrase "small business" is a misdirection designed to play on sympathies for Mom-N-Pop ventures, and actual small businesses employing FEWER THAN a few dozen people (not "five or more" -- yet another misdirection).
It takes money to run government. I don't know where you plan to get it. I have high hopes that my income taxes will go up next year (yes, I am in one of those brackets, yay me). And where I live, we pave streets when they are falling apart, which is far later than they should be paved. Regular repaving is much cheaper than a wholesale rip-N-replace (this has been studied).
And that "rage", I think is in your head.
I live in Washington state. I make OK money, but I do not see myself ever making 200,000 a year. I am very opposed to ANY state income tax. Why? At the beginning it will be only for those with income over $200,000. But once a state income tax is established it WILL eventually become a tax that normal middle class families will have to pay. Yes, they will say that that will never happen. They will be lying. State politicians have been trying to create a state income tax for years. They talk about the 3 legs of a "stable" tax system. Sales tax (10%), property tax (high), and income tax (Non-existent). Stable? Yes, because income taxes are the easiest to raise to maintain their ever increasing budgets.
Greetings and Salutations...
While taxation is a touchy subject, and it is tempting to call for businesses to provide a majority of the taxes collected, remember that businesses do NOT pay those taxes. We, the consumers, do. When a tax is imposed on a business, the bean counters simply calculate how much more they will have to charge for their product to cover the cost of that tax, and, it gets passed along to the consumer.
Now, when an individual gets taxed, they are pretty much the end of the rope, so those taxes are a direct deduction of the amount of money in that person's pocket. Few, if any, of us can go to the business that employs us and say "the Feds have raised my income tax 10%, you have to bump up my compensation to ensure that I am getting the same amount of money I was before".
I am, in general, against taxes, because I see to many cases reported where the government takes my hard-earned money, and spends it with wild abandon on projects and such that seem utter foolishness to me, or, it ends up enriching the evildoers of the world (see the billions of dollars shipped to Iraq and lost, and, America's long history of supporting corrupt regimes that siphon off aid money sent for their people into their own pockets) However, if taxes MUST exist (and I recognize that the government needs SOME money to do what it has to do for the common good) I remain against taxes on businesses and for taxes on individuals.
Regards
Dave Mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
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, he won't even run. Because the Republican who gets in, in 2012 will face the same problems Obama did, and that guy isn't going to make a miracle happen either. And then you people, who blame everything on Obama will finally have to admit that the turkey you voted for aint any better.
But the only thing a Republican will do is reduce taxes for the rich while giving the rest of us a token rebate. Then start a war with Iran and put us even deeper in debt to China.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
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?
(Someone pointed this out in another /. thread.)
Ellison: The Last Samurai in Woodside
I don't necessarily have a problem with tax increases at the high end, but $200k is a low threshold. At $200,000 a year a family is living comfortably, but not lavishly. And many small businesses are easily bringing in significantly over $200k a year. Hire 4 employees at $50k each and you have to be earning much more than that simply to keep the company afloat. And then you get into the perception of wealth. Go to some communities and they'll tell you $80k is wealthy and that they could stand to lose another $10k in taxes.
These are a few issues here. First, the more people earn the more they spend, even if it's something as simple as buying a home in a nicer community. People might want to live in a safer environment, maybe they want access to more services, perhaps they're interested in better public schools. It isn't necessarily driven by avarice. But it does mean that they're going to be spending a greater portion of their income on living expenses. And in many cases, simply living in a different part of the country means you're paying considerably more for the same thing. It's not like there's a baseline for expenses and anything above that is simply net profit. A reasonably educated household where both spouses are employed wont have much difficulty getting into the $150k+ range.
The second issue is with regards to business. A massive corporation earning hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars simply wont see the kind of hit that a small business will. They earn so much money that they have some flexibility in how to deal with expenses. But even if push came to shove they've got a variety of methods of dealing with tax increases. Raise the price of products, cut costs via decrease in quality, lay off employees or outsource their jobs. Worst case they could just move the headquarters overseas. Clearly none of these solutions is good for your average worker, the sort of people ironically intended to be helped by these tax increases.
As for small companies, well, let's take the company where I work. We're very small, employing 4 full time employees, 1 part time and a number of freelancers. I don't know what we bring in, but my guess is that we've got to be bringing in at least $400k a year. And we had a rough year, and for a while were looking at the prospect of pay cuts. In some cases a tax increase might not be a big deal, in other cases it could mean someone's salary or their job outright.
A good ten years ago I had a girlfriend who's parents owned an asian grocery store. Anyone walking into that shop probably wouldn't have guessed it. It was far from being anything fancy. Everything was purchased second-hand and was aged. It certainly was nothing like walking into a Whole Foods. One time she disclosed to me that her parents were bringing in $1 million a year, gross. I guessed that perhaps 3/4ths were going to restocking the shelves, but that's still a very healthy sum of money and subject to tax increases according to these proposals.
These are two examples, but it goes to show that it isn't all that difficult to get into the $200k. Certainly, I wish I were earning that kind of money, but it doesn't make a person inherently wealthy to earn so much. I personally think tax increases, for individuals, should begin at $500k to $1 million and up. And in some cases they could stand to be higher than proposed. There is a point at which you can earn considerably more than you can realistically spend and an increase isn't going to be much of a hit in the scheme of things.
And the thing to keep in mind is that we're talking about an increase in the state of Washington. What happens when that gets coupled with Federal tax increases? And I'm not optimistic that we won't see tax increases trickle down to lower incomes. Too many people seem to be driven by a vindictive nature and too many politicians are pandering for votes. Just because it feels good to screw someone earning more than you doesn't mean it's necessarily good for the country. Maybe it is a good thing but no one has been able to convince me yet.
I understand from your comments below that you felt you were mistaken, but I find your comment
here and the high rating very interesting.
I'm wondering what the driving force is for people who don't make $200K, indeed anywhere near
it, that causes them to try to protect the people who make over $500K.
In short, there are lots of regular joes who want to pamper multi-millionaires.
I see this very often. I find it confusing when these regular joes aren't actually in the
bracket they're trying to protect, and most likely (looking at the quantity of persons who
are in the bracket v. quantity of supportive joes) won't even reach the bracket.
And... the people who are in the privileged bracket are already taking very
good care of themselves because of the power afforded them by their bracket. And...
they're doing it at the expense of or at least in disregard of the people in the regular joes
bracket.
Can one of you regular joes who wants to support multi-millionaires explain to me what
motivates you? I doubt it's because you have a lord-loving serf attitude. Maybe you believe
you will be uber-wealthy before long? Maybe you identify with the multi-millionaires, feeling
like others are always getting you down and being a drag on you?
And with private helicopters, jets, yacts, numerous off shore bank accounts denominated in different global currencies, not to mention hard assets (gold, jewelry, etc), and probably a few hundred K in bearer bonds in the safe, what makes you think they'd be here if a revolution hit. Chances are they can be to an airport and on their way out of the country in less than an hour.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Stock options don't get capital gains treatment unless you hold the stock for a year after you exercise it.
It doesn't matter how long you've had the options.
However, your tax liability for the Option accrues as soon as you exercise the option.
Lots of geeks have exercised the option, held for a year, found the stock to be worthless, but have to pay income taxes on the Option.
So as a result, a LOT of stock options are exercised and sold, and the gains are treated as ordinary income.
Didn't know I could support such a tax, but thanks to Steve Ballmer and Jeff Bezos I now know that I can and will be voting for prop 1098.
Thank you Slashdot for your political activism. Maybe geeks can make the world a better place after all.
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."
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
our country got taken over by corporate interests who drained its finances to build cushy lifestyles for themselves and reducing their taxes and then went broke in the process
Rich people have to pay more taxes now, because, if you haven't noticed, they are the only one's left with any money to pay anything.
Explain that to the people who don't get jobs building, maintaining, and servicing the new yacht that Ballmer won't be buying because the money was confiscated for government waste.
You guys DO realize "the rich" can, and are, turn off their incomes for a while to avoid this BS, right? NYC isn't getting any more out of Limbaugh because he left the state & city which were trying to take ever more of his income. Suddenly all these "soak the rich" schemes are losing rich to soak. Stockholders would be happy to drop the CEO's income to an untaxable $1/yr for a while.
Same issue re: Obama wanting to terminate Bush's "tax cuts for the rich", hence the rush-to-first-post confusion.
And no I'm not rich. I just know that what isn't yours isn't yours.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Mod parent to the stratosphere. This is the lesson the rich need to learn: pay most of the costs of our society, or pay most of the costs of the lack thereof. Your choice.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
It just goes to show why Balmer leadership at Microsoft has become uninspiring and failing. He has time and energy to worry about his personal taxes, but not enough time to focus on increasing the value of the company to its shareholders. No doubt, most at Microsfot and especially their shareholders would love to pay more taxes, as it would be indicative of the fact that they are making a lot more money. Balmer and others who think like him are just looking for a way to get a little more out personally out of the system, while chipping in a little bit less to the overall improvement of society.
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.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
and if you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you.
The notion that Washington can continue to protect its wealthy from shouldering a greater and fairer share of its tax burden is an idea whose time has come to die. I for one will be more than happy to pay a small amount more in tax to ensure that the rich finally begin to pay the rates that the lower 98% pay.
Of all the things America or Washington state needs to subsidize, rich people have no reason to be on the list. Advocating more tax breaks for the rich at a time when income disparity is at an all time high, is just advocating more disparity of income and more unfairness in our economic and governmental systems. Its gotten to the point that the poor and what is left of the middle class are but pawns to be used in battles between egos of the ultra-wealthy as they attempt to lay claim to being the one to own everything. Of what use is a society like that.
It's called capitalism.
It's very successful.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I don't have that big a problem with taxing people over $200K. What worries me is that enacting any tax makes it a lot easier to add more.
I lived in Tennessee once, where the state constitution says no income tax, period. The government howled constantly about how badly they needed one, but no constitutional amendment seemed to get passed (and reelection was a problem for proponents.) The Attorney General stated publicly that he thought he could beat the constitution in court, but the governor declined to let him try. No one believed that a "nominal" one or two percent tax would stay nominal, once our constitutional protection was gone.
At the time the justification was "saving" TennCare (state run insurance that had just gone broke; I made too much to use it, not enough to buy my own anywhere.) I would have been highly annoyed to work and pay taxes to provide free insurance to others, while my family stayed one major illness from bankruptcy (maybe we could have gotten TennCare then.)
Another difficulty for the TN Taxers was North Carolina next door: very high taxes (for the southeast, anyway ; ) ), more and higher fees on just about everything (slightly lower sales tax, though), no TennCare, and just as big a budget crisis.
Good 'ol Bill Gates: "I've made mine, now screw you!"
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I am not rich, having 2 kids and living in a 40 yr old tiny townhouse. But, I do not envy rich people. It is not a sin to be a rich man/woman if he/she works hard and legally.
It is very dangerous to fight in classes based on wealth. This is the fundamental idea of Communism.
Remember... "Eventually, socialists/communists run out of other peoples' money" and "Top 10% pays 70% income taxes in US."
Reference: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
^(oo)^pig~
The problem is that these nimrods are trying to make income taxes legally possible in WA at all.
There's no provision for keeping the threshold at $200K, for adjusting it with inflation, or preventing the legislature from changing it downwards, or the marginal rate upwards. In WA the content of a ballot proposition is basically open to legislative change after 2 years.
The history of income tax in WA is complex, since the state constitution makes it difficult. There have been multiple attempts, all of which failed. What they are trying to do is get in another try at changing things without going the whole hog and doing a constitutional amendment.
If they succeed, hoping that their very populist claim (Only the superrich will get hit! C'mon, we hate those guys, tax the fuckers!) will blind enough people so that they can change the tax structure entirely. Then, open season on changes to tax everyone as much as they feel like.
I don't make that much. My wife doesn't make that much. We have very little prospect of ever making that much and we STILL think it's a really, really bad idea because we just don't trust the state legislature, present or future.
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 80k.
And speaking of an alternative reality, what politician is pandering to voters when they suggest raising taxes? Have you been living under a rock lately? It is precisely the opposite. Most are pandering by suggesting that lowering taxes will somehow create jobs and not affect the deficit (despite massive evidence to the contrary).
I have no issue with people who want low taxes and small government. It is just that I have never actually met any such people. And the only place to get the money for government is from the people who have it. Those same people who have benefited from decades of historically low tax rates and created historically low amounts of jobs and income increases for those jobs.
Greetings and Salutations...
Hi
While taxation is a touchy subject, and it is tempting to call for businesses to provide a majority of the taxes collected, remember that businesses do NOT pay those taxes. We, the consumers, do. When a tax is imposed on a business, the bean counters simply calculate how much more they will have to charge for their product to cover the cost of that tax, and, it gets passed along to the consumer.
Not completely true. You assume that 100% of the additional money is paid by the customer. I would recommend 'Principles of Economics' by Mankiw, which discusses taxation in an accessible way. Simply put, if they find that their demand will drop sharply with increasing price (resulting in a net loss), the company would rather pay the tax. There is a sweet spot typically, where the customer pays some portion of the cost and the business pays the other. Percentages vary based on industry (and company).
Cheers
AC
The thing is... the rich can buy a lot of security people with guns. The rich can in fact pay their security guys quite well to ensure their loyalty. You see this pattern quite a lot in less civilized, undemocratic societies. The wealthy will be OK either way.
It's your average guy that needs the protection of the state the most, lest he be abused by everyone from those wealthy strongmen to the local bully.
... you're taking the same strongarm robbery position as your average mafia don, and calling it "civilization."
Unless you think that "civilization" can survive a bout of widespread anarchy, yes. However, I'd like to think of it as a bunch of serfs killing their capitalist "feudal lords". After all, the lords simply "bought" the labor of their serfs with the protection they provided. Welcome to the jungle, pallie.
That is all.
It's funny, in this whole comment thread I've not seen any complaints about what the State of Washington did with the last several Billion we gave them. We had a large surplus not too many years ago.
When you aren't complaining about the government anymore, only "US vs.Them" (rich vs poor), you've already lost.
The politicians want the tax code as complicated as possible so as to divide and conquer us. Class warfare. Classic misdirection.
Penn & Teller did a good job of explaining it. They aren't the only ones however.
http://www.tvrage.com/Penn_And_Teller_Bullshit/episodes/1064808637
Here we are squabbling amongst ourselves instead of being outraged that the damn politicians can't stay within their own budget of $30 fucking Billion dollars. They want to spend $33 Billion. We pay plenty in taxes already in this state.
Yes ... the rich can hire security people with guns ... they're known as police, and they are one of the things their taxes pay for. Really, it's a financial bargain compared to what they would pay for the same level of security in a decentralized plan. Stop complaining about the great deal you are getting, rich people.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
When you realize the definitions for taxable Income, then you will know that Income Tax is a fraud in itself that doesn't fund the operations of Government but sent overseas back to England.
Incentive Stock Options don't have that requirement. You don't pay income tax on them, and I would guess that most of these guys got the ISOs instead of the Non-Qualified options.
Blar.
It's only the part of the raised income that falls above the threshold that's taxed at the higher rate. The rest of the income that comes in under the threshold is taxed at the lower rate just like it was before the relevant raise put one's income over the new threshold.
For example say incomes under $20,000 arn't taxed & the tax rate between $20,000 'n $40,000 is 30% & income over $40,000 is taxed at 40%; in a case where someone's gross pay is raised from $38,000 PA to $42,000 PA then it's only $2000 of the total $42,000 PA that's taxed at 40%. Incidentally in this example, the 1st $20,000 of both the before & after pay rates are tax free too.
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.
I see your confusion. The tax proposed does not replace the federal income tax, or the state sales tax, or proper tax, or vehicle tax, or gas tax, or any of the myriad other taxes that Washington residents already pay. It is in addition to.
So the most productive Washington State residents are not being asked to pay '"1-2% of total income". They are being asked to pay that much *on top of* the already significant taxes they are already paying.
Perhaps with that context, you'll understand why fighting any additional taxes is a necessary and honorable thing to do. I am a Washington State resident who will not be taxed under this proposal, but I will still vote against it. I moved to Washington State in part because Oregon recently increased taxes on its most productive citizens.
If you &/or the IRS public servant processing your form can't do basic arithmetic.
If a $1 raise from $39,999 to $40,000 put's one's income in a higher tax bracket, it's only that final dollar that falls within that higher tax bracket that gets taxed at the higher rate, the other $39,999 is taxed exactly the same as before.
Rather then malign Eyman you could take a look at what it costs to license a vehicle in the state of washington this year:
$40 for my trailer.
$95 for the motorcycle.
$120 for the car.
----
All of those would be at least double if I was inside the seattle city limits.
Our kind hearted lawmakers promptly added "fees" to make up for the voter approved tax limit.
Just as they have walked all over the voters will for years.
I know using facts is a little rough.
No brain, no pain.
As there has been a lot of incorrect speculation in the discussion for this story, here is the actual text of I-1098 (PDF!). Before you post things such as "$200k is too high for families" or "if only they'd lower other taxes - but it's never gonna happen", please go and actually read it.
(yeah, yeah, I'm new here etc)
Under the Washington State constitution this law will get thrown out. There's already been a Washington State Supreme court case in the 1930's about this very subject. Basically you can't tax one set of people without taxing the other.
RTICLE VII
REVENUE AND TAXATION
SECTION 1 TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership. All real estate shall constitute one class: Provided, That the legislature may tax mines and mineral resources and lands devoted to reforestation by either a yield tax or an ad valorem tax at such rate as it may fix, or by both. Such property as the legislature may by general laws provide shall be exempt from taxation. Property of the United States and of the state, counties, school districts and other municipal corporations, and credits secured by property actually taxed in this state, not exceeding in value the value of such property, shall be exempt from taxation. The legislature shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to exempt personal property to the amount of fifteen thousand ($15,000.00) dollars for each head of a family liable to assessment and taxation under the provisions of the laws of this state of which the individual is the actual bona fide owner.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
It's not a "rich guys pay lots of money to fight other rich guys to avoid paying taxes" issue.
It's an initiative created to implement, for the first time, a state income tax in a state that has fought hard many times against having one -- A state that has created alternate taxation schemes to make up for the 'lost' revenue over the years. But don't worry! It only applies to the rich! Bill Gates Senior would never tax 'normal' people! Unfortunately, 2 years after being implemented, the legislature can amend the tax rate any time they want with a simple majority vote.
What an unscrupulously, selfish, mongrel dog. True to monkey-boys idiocy, this a-hole continues to claw his way under the snake's belly into the scum-mire pits of diarrhoea & snot. What's more I don't like him either.
Or, welcome to India. The rich (not the publicly well known millionaires like the Ambanis or the Tatas) can fudge their accounts to avoid paying taxes. The vast majority of the country is too poor to fall within the tax bracket. Guess who ends up paying over 30% of their salary as taxes? The middle class, who don't have a choice anyway since tax is deducted at source by their employers.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
No no... you don't get it. This is an EVASION of paying tax. They are going about manipulating state laws to bypass the regular payment of tax. And the reverse of your argument is just as useless; if the people paid ALL taxes, there's still less money to spend on businesses. How you choose to spread this distribution is very, very important though. In the end, just because Nevada offers a lax environment doesn't mean you shouldn't pay your state taxes. 60,000 people work for MSFT in WA State. As such, WA should collect some business tax since it is offering the infrastructure for those workers. Nevada, and it's several hundred, choose to rely on casino money. That's a choice, but circumventing WA is causing this mess. And then you unfairly put the burden on citizens of one state.