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)."
You don't have to sympathize with someone to understand that their money is their own, not yours, and not the state's.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
>>>When you reap rewards from a community you are obliged to help support that community.
That's exactly right Guv'nor! So then you won't mind if I extract your wallet and remove the money. I need money for food. Thanks guv.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
To whom, exactly, are you referring?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The real problem is that cunts like you
Fuck you, too.
think we live in a meritocracy where everyone has only what they deserve.
When have I ever made such a claim? I know full well that far too many people reap ill-gotten gains by using government to screw over their competition, or even to stuff their pockets with inflated currency that comes out of thin air.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I can't believe that there are fools actually arguing against an income tax on income above $200,000.
I can't believe that there are asshats like you that advocate income taxes on anyone, regardless of what they're earning. Penalizing people for their success in the market is how you retard growth, savings, and investment. If you want to have the right incentives in place, then tax what people spend, not what they earn.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
8/10 rabble rouser's rating. Your main failing was you forgot to use the phrase "fat cats". All you had to do was change it to "fat cat billionaires" and you would have gotten a 9/10. Now, for a 10/10 you should have thrown in "super-rich" somewhere, and mentioned the evil corporations.
Living in a state that doesn't have income tax, the one we are talking about, I don't believe for a second that that $200,000 figure won't creep lower and lower till we are all paying it. This isn't taxing the rich, it's a trojan horse to sneak in the ability to tax everybody. That's how Washington (the state) does it's politics and power creep. They initiate a law that has a very limited effect, so that it sounds reasonable and is favored by the voting population, then they slowly increase the effect of the law till it affects everybody. It's much easier than just flat out creating a law that affects everybody and would never be put up with by the voting population in one big chunk.
ou mistakenly assume that the playing field is level
I make no such assumption. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm quite aware of how government colludes with unscrupulous businessmen to distort the market. This can not be solved by increasing government power, or confiscating anyone's earnings.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Why are sales taxes or property taxes better than income taxes?
Morally they're identical, of course, but as a practical matter, income taxes necessarily require invasions of privacy, and provide a pretext for government harassment of dissidents. Nixon and Clinton, for example, both used the IRS against their opponents.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Or you can withhold nothing, and just pay what you owe each year. Of course, then you have to make quarterly tax payments, which is more-or-less the same thing as withholding, but at least you are't tricked, psychologically, into thinking the Government is paying *you*, instead of just giving you a tiny portion of your own money back to you.
Seriously, when April 15th comes by, people act as if their tax refund is just a Christmas gift... no, that's YOUR own money that YOU were not allowed to spend. Getting a big refund is a bad thing, not a good thing!
Comment of the year
>>>I don't make anywhere near enough to be hit with this tax, but I still oppose it.
Well I'd sooner have a State income tax so Washington residents can fund themselves, rather than a Federal income tax rise and then my money gets "redistributed" to the bankrupt Washington State 3000 miles away.
Another advantage of a local state tax is that my representative lives within walking distance, so I can go yell at him a bit to stop wasting money and/or don't raise the taxes. Worst case, if he doesn't listen, I can toilet-paper his house comes this Halloween and then vote him out in November. There is direct, person-to-person representation there.
In contrast: I haven't the foggiest idea where my US rep lives, and even if I did know, previous experience shows he doesn't listen. I get back letters that are the exact opposite of what I originally contacted him about. For example I told him I support the proposal to cut PBS funding 25%. He wrote back that he appreciates my support of PBS and will be sure to keep funding at current levels. (What?!? That's not what I said. Thanks for not reading my email.)
Anyway stronger local government is better as it's easier to control (direct representation). Local taxation is better because then the rest of us in the other 49 States don't have to send you money.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Not quite. The difference with quarterly payments is that they can fine you if you don't withhold the proper amount each quarter. If your income is steady throughout the year, this isn't much of an issue, but if you get a raise or a bonus, then you need to make sure you adjust the payments appropriately.
I don't remember the exact details off the top of my head, but there's like a thousand bucks or so of wiggle room before you're getting penalized... so that would have to be one hell of a raise.
A better option to accomplish much the same thing is to withhold nothing all year and then do all of your withholding in your last paycheck or two. My understanding (and I'd suggest verifying this before acting on it, in case I'm wrong) is that withholding is treated as if it were spread evenly across the year, regardless of how it actually occurred. Thus withholding nothing for 51 weeks and then withholding $5200 in your final paycheck of the year is treated exactly the same as if you withheld $100 every week.
That is an interesting idea... I'll have to look into it for this year. Thanks!
Comment of the year