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
>>>"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
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...
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.
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
Uh Ballmer and Bezos don't use their personal money to hire more people.
They use their corporations money for that.
So it's a fallacy. :)
That extra 9% would actually be sitting in their investment portfolio.. probably in Dubai
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.
That would be great, let's just stop all the activity that was so in demand that these high earners became high earners.
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.
makes the UK 40% tax for income over £40k look enormous!
That's 9% state income tax _on top of_ 35% federal income tax. And there are a bunch of other taxes too. It would still be less than California income tax, which tops out at over 10% state income tax (along with sales tax of up to about 9.5%).
Around half of US residents don't actually pay any income tax (family of 4 earning $50k (£32k-ish) - or thereabouts is the threshold before you pay anything), so there's a fairly heavy income tax burden on those who pay them in order to carry the rest.
Do you really think that perconal income tax will have any affect on the hiring practices of a corporate entity? There is a think called corporate tax, and that is seperate from personal tax. Just because Steve is paying less taxes to the man, do you think that he will pay his gardener more? His maid? Mistress? I doubt it. In any case, I imagine that money will be funneled to offshore accounts which will provide no stimulus, but also no tax revenue either. The only stimulus outcome I see here is $100,000 to the lobbyists.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Except that these days, if Henry Ford paid his employees more, he'd be sued by his shareholders. Business today isn't about stimulating the economy, it's about putting the most in your own pocket.
Secondly you're confusing personal income tax with corporate taxes. TFA is about personal income tax which has nothing to do with hiring employees, unless you count the money Bezos spends on gardeners, pool-boys, maids, and other perks of being a multi-billionaire.
Boo-hoo. He actually has to pay his fair share that might be used to fix the roads he drives his multiple expensive supercars on. Or police protection so that his gated mansion is safe. Or firehouses that might prevent his mansion from burning to the ground.
People who are against taxes should, I guess, live without the benefits those taxes provide. In the meantime, can I vote whether the US goes to war or not, because I don't want my taxes spent that way? You people have such a sense of entitlement it's astounding, like the world revolves around you because you make a shitload of money.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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?
your on to something here. Let's all give 100% of the money we make to the government so they can distribute it fairly. /sarcasm
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?
And where do you suppose that corporations get their money? Do you suppose that you just file a corporate charter and (with apologies to Emril) -- bam! -- money starts flowing in? Of course you don't think that.
Microsoft and Amazon each began as small startups. In order to start those businesses, their founders had to get investment from (drum roll) -- private individuals! Jeff Bezos, in particular, is well renknowned for his funding of new startups.
New companies == more jobs.
'
My blog
Since when did either of those two people hire people using their own personal income? The people that Amazon and Microsoft hire come from the corporate revenue not from the CEO's income.
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
You forgot the other part that really helped the US from 45 to the 60s, killing off lots of young men makes for great employment figures, and wartime economies make for great employers, even after the fact.
You must be about 12 years old though, if you think the US was doing well continuously from the year 1945 to 1999.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
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. ;)
Um Bezos and Ballmer do not employ people. Their COMPANIES employ people. And Microsoft has its "software license headquarters" in Nevada to avoid paying WA taxes. That missing $1.25 billion sure would help WA coffers I bet. The MS licensing company has a whole 4 employees so it isn't a tax dodge at all! It just happens to own all royalty generating aspect of Microsoft.
Fact is rich people given cash do not spend they invest and very little of that investment actually effect the economy. Think of it this way. Spend 10 million building a road and you get a road (infrastructure), you employ workers (employment), and almost all of the salary paid goes directly into the economy. You get 40-65 cents direct stimulus per dollar spent. (not great but also pretty decent considering you also get a product (roads) out of it. On the other-hand put that 10 million into stocks. A bunch of rich people get a small bit richer. You may appreciate some over time. The companies that appreciated may hire more people but it is likely that other stock owners might sell and use their proceeds to buy new Yachts and European luxury cars. Direct investment in US economy is around 11 cents per dollar. (This is somewhat like the Bush top end tax cut in effect.)
There was a study on the Bush tax cuts. It was absurd something like 11-21 cents of every dollar trickle down. It was astoundingly bad. Worse than twenty other proposals for economic stimulus. I thought it was proven under Reagan trickle down was a huge scam with no merit at all
Given money the rich do not spend. They already have all necessities paid for. They invest. And unlike the popular meme they do not hire people. They put it into stocks and bonds and much of what is traded or invested is not going into US economy. Heck some of the fastest growing economies are in Asia so that is where a lot of smart money is going despite the logistical hurdles of doing so. How does this benefit the state?
If you truly want to stimulate the economy you extend unemployment and raise minimum wage. Unemployment pays out $1.1 for each dollar invested (it saves them from welfare, all the money is immediately spent, etc) and similar with minimum wage. Buying power of those who spend everything is increase stimulating the economy faster. Literally the fastest way to improve the economy is to help the poorest have more money. Job training, welfare, and a living wage. Those are the best investment possible but they are what so anger conservatives because "free-loaders are getting hard earned tax dollars".
I have seen towns of 35%+ unemployment. (before the recession) Many people screaming FREELOADER have no idea what it is like to live in a town where the only employer closes and then not have money to move to the next town over to work at Wendy's. How can you get a car with no money? Use public transit, are you kidding? Most of the country you will be waiting all day for a bus to come you can't commute by bus in rural USA. Hell you can't get groceries without a car in many areas.
This is an income tax for individuals making over 200k. It is not a corporate tax. It only affects the ability of a company to hire workers to the extent that, maybe, upper management would demand commensurately higher salaries at the expense of hiring.
This also is not so much about Bezos vs Gates as about Bezos vs a tax that will affect him personally. The Bill Gates angle is really that Gates' father believes strongly that individuals who become wealthy are indebted to the society that enabled them to do so -- something he wrote extensively about in a book he authored. Presumably, despite his shady business practices, this is a belief that Bill himself ascribes to. His advocacy of this tax, and his considerable charitable giving, would both tend to support this idea.
1. This is on their personal income. So what they are going to cut back on the gardening and house keeping staff?
2. This is a tax cut as well. They are going to cut property and taxes on small businesses. You know the people that hire most of the people in the US.
Yes you are right. less tax will help growth but they are cutting the tax on the segment that grows the most. Over all I think this is a pretty good idea.
I hate it when I agree with Bill Gates.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The best way to not give more money to the state is to SPEND more money. Less profit means less taxes. Hiring more employees or spending money on R&D not only lower those profits but also are a good investment and promote the economy. Lowering the taxes on the highest income bracket actually encourages hoarding of money.
The problem with the "trickle down economy" argument is that the small number of the population who are wealthy and not corporations have no interest in hiring. These individuals hide behind the theoretical companies because it's better politics than to say rich people should not have to pay more taxes.
Reality is that most jobs are created by small companies started by upper middle class individuals that take advantage of government incentives designed to promote small businesses.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
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
So you are using the WORLDS HIGHEST TAXES as a barometer for what you think taxes should be? Just because the danes think welfare is it's most important thing doesn't me the rest of the world should support such asinine behavior. Basically your government is a tyrannical corporation.
Besides the fact that many other posters have pointed out these guys wouldn't be using their personal income to hire people for their corporations, there is another gross error in your post...two, in fact.
1) You fell victim to the exact same misunderstanding of tax law that other idiots like Joe the Plumber did: income taxes are levied on profits, not revenues. If you get $100k in revenue and it costs you $40K to run your business, then you only get taxed on the $60K of net profits. If you decide you want to hire another employee and pay him $30K, then you have $70K in expenses, so now you are only taxed on the $30K of profit. Taxes have no influence on the decision to hire if you properly understand how taxes work.
2) You don't understanding how to run a business. The reason to hire a person for your company is because that person will earn or save your company more than they cost in salary. So, in the above example, we hired another person and paid them $30K. The only way that makes sense is if either we expect them to reduce the original $40K in expenses to somewhere under $10K (ex: they can do work in house that we used to contract out at a higher cost), or if we expect them to (either directly or indirectly) boost our $100K of revenue to over $130K (or some combination of the 2 adding up to more than $30K). Otherwise, you are spending dollars to earn back cents, which is stupid.
Because it doesn't work.
If you tax the same, it would be too high for people and the lower end to survive.
And please stop assuming people are lazy just because they are in the bottom half of the income level.
I am not lazy, I bust my balls. Society must have certain things or it collapses.
You are really, really clueless about this subject. Please educate yourself. At least then you might be ale to form an actual argument to support your tax belief.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Sure a group of investment bankers could sue Henry Ford, but would they win? On top of that they would actually lower their stock portfolio value from the protracted legal battle that they started not to mention the legal fees that would have to be paid regardless of the outcome.
I think the "shareholders force them to be bad corporations" is a myth.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
So add a deduction under the law that exempts income invested back into businesses in Washington state that employ residents of the state.
Then surely they'll drop their opposition.
What exactly do you think an investment portfolio is?
Do you think it might have some component that isn't just gold sitting in a vault, but is say:
* investments in those corporations that use that investment to hire more people.
* bonds from those corporations that use the borrowed money to hire more people.
* term deposits in banks, who loan the money back out to those corporations to hire more people.
* government treasuries, that the government that you think can do so much better uses to do that so much better with.
And yes some of it will be in foreign corporations (if Ballmer and Bezos have any smarts then a lot of it) - that's a reflection of other countries providing better investment environments.
Now this is a state tax so I'm actually on the side of the government here - states should be taxing and spending in order to provide education and so on to their people. If a state goes overboard it isn't very hard to move to another state. States are also small enough and close enough to "the action" to make more useful investments than the larger and more distant federal government.
WA has the lowest possible income tax at the moment, raising it to be still lower than almost every other state and definitily at least as low as every other state for most of the people doesn't seem like such a big deal.
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).
Costco, Starbucks and Trader Joes are all companies I am aware of that have significantly better compensation/benefit packages than their competition.
I do not recall seeing news of any shareholder lawsuits against any of them. Not sure that Costco or TJs is publicly traded though.
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
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?
It's not the best idea, yeah, but that's not at all what he said. He said 100% above 500k, not 100%. So you're still entitled to earn five hundred thousand dollars a year. Anything ABOVE that will go to the government. So those making a million a year only see half of it, with the other half going to the government. It's not a good idea, no one will go for it, but at least learn some reading comprehension before you berate his idea.
Trickle-down economics (which is what you describe) doesn't work. Modern capitalists (like Bezos and Ballmer) don't limit themselves to hiring Americans and, certainly, don't pay them more than they can get away with. Most money given back to the large companies goes to hiring, mostly, overseas and does nothing to help Americans. This is why Bush's tax cuts were useless at creating jobs. Of course, none of this conversation really matters. You showed yourself to be an irrational wing-nut when you started shooting your mouth off without even having a clue that this had nothing to do with Obama.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
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!
Basically your government is a tyrannical corporation. What's your reasoning for that? Just because you don't like the way things are done there?
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 our international readers who may not be familiar with the rigamarole of the US tax structure there are many layers.
Income is taxed at several levels:
Federal (35% on income over about 375k, 25% between 35 and 80k, and various other levels above and below that)
State (0% to 11% with each state having their own rates and brackets
Municipal taxes (with some random searching i found up to 3% in parma heights, ohio I'm sure some are more, and many there are none)
And there are of course many other non-income sources of taxation:
Property (meaning houses, usually taxed at the county level in my experience, in between state and Municipal, depends on the value of the house, sometimes the use)
Property (some states tax additional forms of property, cars, boats, etc.)
Sales tax (most states have this in some form or another, but also some counties and some towns will tack on some themselves)
Payroll Taxes (15.3 for social security and medicare combined, which is genrally split with your employer)
and of course some states have their own disability insurance or unemployment insurance that is taken from your payroll as well.
Then you have to mix that all together. Some taxes will not count as income for other taxes (e.g. money you pay on your property tax may not be counted as income on your federal and state taxes). And each type of tax may allow various different deductions and credits (e.g. medical insurance payments may count as income on your federal taxes but not your state, etc, etc.
As a random and personal yardstick, about 25% of my paycheck is deducted for various non-voluntary things.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." --Kurt Vonnegut
...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.
And where do you suppose that corporations get their money? [...] Jeff Bezos, in particular, is well renknowned for his funding of new startups.
New companies == more jobs.
Do you know where else they get their money? From customers and lower startup costs. Both of which this law will help. So instead of waiting for Jeff Bezos to give them money, businesses can do it on their own.
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)
Alternatively if you do this, then those taxes need to be high enough that everyone's basic necessities can be provided for them when they can no longer feed/cloth/house/doctor themselves.
Or, if you need $20k to survive and are paying 25% of your $20k income in taxes, then you could just get $5k back from the government either in cash or social services. There are many different ways of accomplishing the same thing, with varying degrees of efficiency. Is a soup kitchen more efficient than welfare? It probably depends on the individual and the soup kitchen. Of course you can just let people starve, which is free, until they steal your car stereo to feed themselves.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." --Kurt Vonnegut
I'm going to guess that you don't know about Dodge vs Ford (1919), where the companies shareholders sued Ford to release more profits to shareholders rather than use those profits to unduly raise wages of the workers.
The shareholders won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
That would be great, let's just stop all the activity that was so in demand that these high earners became high earners.
And by "activity", you mean outsourcing jobs to India, right?
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.
You're completely correct and yet still miss the point.
It makes no sense to give Ballmer and Bezos, as individuals, a tax break. However, there are many small businesses that are run and taxed as personal income, and giving these business owners a break is the same thing as giving a break to the business itself. The extra money will most likely go directly into improving the business and therefore to capital investments (stimulus) and employees (jobs). While the owner's income will be reported as quite high, their true income really isn't all that much.
Of course, you can debate how effective this sort of tax break would be (How many business are there like this? What sort of income level do they run at? Will the money really go into the business?), but people need to realize that there really is a legitimate reason for lowering taxes on the higher income brackets.
It's very unfortunate that the same category also includes the wealthy individuals who don't pay for a business from personal cash. These people really don't deserve a tax break.
In my view, this is just a sign that the tax system is messed up to begin with. Is there any way we can separate the two situations? Make the tax break dependent on situation? Make it a credit if it goes to capital investment or jobs? Beats me.
Given money the rich do not spend. They already have all necessities paid for. They invest.
Absolutely accurate, but I just wanted to point out for other readers that don't understand: "spending" money on buying a 2nd house is actually "investment".
This is what the parent meant...most of what the very rich "spend" money on is really investment of some sort.
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...
It wasn't that Ford wasn't maximizing the shareholders profits, instead it was that Ford dramatically changed the operations at Ford Motor Company that violated the company's charter in order to sabotage the Dodge brother's plan of using Ford's dividends to fund their plans to start a competing car company.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
wrong
so wrong there's a graph.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
When I did taxes this year, before deductions, I owed the Federal Government something like 120 bucks in taxes.
I make $12 an hour. This is wrong.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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 would think the fact that they force such high taxes on their citizens. Do you really think a 41% tax rate is necessary to maintain a functioning welfare system? A welfare system that just gets bigger and bigger every year. It has forced everyone there in to a middle class weather they deserve it or not. They have no staying power of their smart, educated, entrepreneur. If they make large amounts of money they most likely leave to not have to give almost half of it away because the government forces them to. It is a status quo society that is alright where it is and doesn't push to become anything bigger. If reaching for nothing higher because you think your content on paying high taxes that discourage economic growth on a personal level because your government thinks it knows what is better for you I would call it quite tyrannical.
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.
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'm guessing you didn't even read the link you provided, where it showed that the lawsuit wasn't really about paying your workers over increasing the wealth of your shareholders, but rather about Ford trying to squeeze out his shareholders by arbitrarily eliminating their dividends.
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?
Hmmm? So a guy who travels to work for an hour, works on a production line and travels home for an hour and gets $50,000 a year is lazy, whereas a guy who inherited a fortune and pays himself $1,000,000 as "CEO" works 20 times harder even though other people do most of the actual running of the company.
We help make the rich rich. We work for them, buy their products, generally the whole of society works to make them richer. That's all well and good but we expect them to pay a portion of the wealth that society has helped them create back into society.
And it's not about "farking them over". They can afford more. $1,000 taxed at 50% still leaves more money than $50,000 taxed at 0%. I have little sympathy for the poor millionaire.
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~
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.
Really? Rich people can't be customers?
Quick! Someone tell Land Rover to stop production!
My blog
Well, Washington currently has property taxes, a small car licensing fee (now expanded to boats), Business & Occupation tax, 7.5% sales tax (statewide), plus whatever your local county adds to that (it's 10% in Seattle for some services). In addition, we pay Federal taxes, of course, which could be up to 35%+ of your income.
It's not nearly as unbalanced as you think. We're not like you Brits, we have cities (that levy taxes), counties (that levy taxes), States (that levy taxes), and the Federal Government (which levies taxes.) There's no shortage of taxes being paid out here.
Comment of the year
Of course, they haven't been hiring those people or paying them more anyway, so perhaps the state should take a crack at it. Let the people with far less money afford to spend more (which should do just as much or more good for the economy) by cutting their taxes for a change.
We've been trying trickle-down for 30 years now and it just isn't trickling (in fact, the income divide has grown even wider).
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.
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
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)
1) You fell victim to the exact same misunderstanding of tax law that other idiots like Joe the Plumber did: income taxes are levied on profits, not revenues. If you get $100k in revenue and it costs you $40K to run your business, then you only get taxed on the $60K of net profits. If you decide you want to hire another employee and pay him $30K, then you have $70K in expenses, so now you are only taxed on the $30K of profit. Taxes have no influence on the decision to hire if you properly understand how taxes work.
Hey buddy, sit down and shut up. You're ruining a perfectly good rhetorical boogie man.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
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.
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.
Given money the rich do not spend. They already have all necessities paid for. They invest.
Absolutely accurate, but I just wanted to point out for other readers that don't understand: "spending" money on buying a 2nd house is actually "investment".
This is what the parent meant...most of what the very rich "spend" money on is really investment of some sort.
A second home or vacation home is, usually, purchased with disposable income and personally occupied. It is not considered an investment property.
However, when a second home is income producing via rental or lease, actively maintained, and actively managed it is considered an investment property. Additionally, if the home or facility is used, substantially, for business purposes--say for business entertaining or company meetings--it may or may not be interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service as an investment property. Most likely, it is not income producing but, still, may have some interesting tax advantages and resale opportunities, or not.
However, if the investor's carrying costs exceed income, a tax deduction can be claimed and he will have less of a tax burden to pay to the US Treasury. That is to say less money fed back into the economy. When income exceeds expenses the investor realizes a profit. The treasury gets its pound of flesh (or your first born, ha, ha), and the investor has more cash to reinvest, save, or spend as he wishes. In other words, feed back into the economy, we hope.
In both situations, it seems, the only folks to make money are bankers, mortgage company executives, real estate agents, insurance brokers, and so-forth. Again, the usual cast of characters appear, most of them, the same old "Wall Street" club members for greed. And, I think you know, most of the moneylenders are sitting on their cash and not stimulating the economy.
Final note. Years ago, we were a pretty thriving cash economy, "Pay As You Go" government funding and a private sector economy where cash was king. So, what happened?
Simple chalanges require simple solutions. Complex chalanges, almost always, require complex solutions.