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)."

Comments

Re:Seattle COL

[GayBliss]

Washington has the most regressive tax in the nation. The poorest are paying the majority of the taxes. The poorest pay 17% of their income to taxes, while the richest pay less than 3%. This law will even it out a bit, but the poorest will still be paying more as a percentage than the richest.

The people most likely to put the money back into the economy are the people that need it most. The poorest are most likely to spend whatever money they have at local businesses. The richest people don't need to spend the money, and are very likely to spend it outside the state anyway. Remember, this is a state tax. We want the money to be spent here, to stimulate the state economy. Buying stocks with the money in some foreign company (something the rich might do) does nothing for the state. Buying a beer at the local pub does.

This Republican idea of giving all the money to the rich and they will take care of everything is complete bullshit. It doesn't work.

Re:Whither 9%?

[ffreeloader]

There's a reason people live in large communities, and security/services are two of the big reasons (even if both are not consistent across the board).

I guess I just don't understand this. I grew up in the more unpopulated areas of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. We never had to lock our doors and never experienced any kind of crime. It's only as I've lived in more populated areas that I've had to lock up the house when we leave and the car any time I walk into a store, worry about vandalism, lock up the lawnmower and yard tools to keep them from being stolen, etc.... My experience has always been that the fewer people there are around, the smaller the community, the fewer security concerns there are. Small communities tend self-police because everybody knows everybody and it's very hard to keep theft of property or money a secret for very long. It always comes out, and when it does, being a thief in a small community is a very uncomfortable position to be in. Nobody will trust that person, do business with them, talk to them, they will probably lose their job, etc... They become a pariah and they either leave the area or make things right and change their ways. In fact, just being a major jerk in a small community will bring about enough consequences that either the behavior changes or the person ends up moving away.

That's security that police can never provide in heavily populated areas because it's people policing themselves, and that's always the preferable solution to any problem.

Re:Question, adjusted, remains

[ffreeloader]

Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers.

When these guys build new houses for themselves they create jobs. When they hire help to maintain those big homes they create jobs. When they buy new cars they create jobs. When they invest their money they create jobs.

I believe it was Napoleon Hill who gave the advice that if you want to get wealthy yourself you need to hang around with rich people, because just the opportunities they let slide because they might think they are "too small" will be enough to give you a good start on your way to wealth if you're ambitious enough to go after them. It wasn't stated in those exact words, but the meaning was the same.

Re:Cry me a river, billionaires

[Maxo-Texas]

Treating the rest of the community as a collective commons with no need to give bad leads to the tragedy of the commons.

In our system, without correct, you end up with a tiny group with all the resources and no one else can buy anything.

To make it obvious, let's say that 20 people start working a collective farm and through hard work, 1 person comes to own everything.

Now, those 19 people are going to something besides stand aside and die. So does the 1 person want it to be a peaceful robbery where they still get to keep most of their stuff or a violent robbery where they lose everything and possibly be dead.

Also, say there is a cost of running that field, since the 1 now owns all of the field- shouldn't they pay the entire running cost? And if they owned 19/20th of the field, shouldn't they cover 19/20th of the cost of running that field?

The problem we face to day is that SSI, unemployment tax, medical insurance costs scale at a per employee basis so there is a strong inducement to remove labor wherever possible. We need to change taxes to be on gross corporate profits and move away from taxing on an employee basis.

Otherwise we are going to end up with companies where 1 person runs a bunch of automated processes on computers and a bunch of robotic labor in the warehouse (already happening- google robot warehouse diapers.com businessweek- so don't even argue that it won't happen) because robotic labor is now down to about $15,000 per year leased. They are not paying any of the cost of society but they are mining society for money. Once society runs out of money and can't find jobs, it can't by products at any price.

We are headed down a bad path and need to start turning now or we will be looking at much higher unemployment rates and even lower salaries. The system started unraveling back in the 90's. The rate is accelerating.

Money and Wealth only have meaning in the context of society.