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)."
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
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.
Obama? Since when is he the governor of Washington State? Personally I don';t care because I don't live there. Me worrying about WA's tax would be like some guy in Poland worrying about a tax increase in Portugal.
However I like the idea of 0% income tax on the first $200,000. I wish my state had that. Heck I wish the whole continent had that.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
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...
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.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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
The latter. Trickle-down is bullshit.
Stimulus is best applied to the people at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, as they're going to spend that cash immediately. The state is best to enact this extremely modest tax increase, and then to put the funds toward local improvement projects (which hire labourers and tradesmen), and funding a social safety net for the many many people who are under- or unemployed.
FTA:
Initiative 1098 calls for a reduction in state property taxes and the elimination of the business and occupation tax for some of the state's smallest businesses. Proceeds from the income tax would be used for health services and public education, proponents argue.
Since 1098 is reducing taxes for small businesses and lowering state property taxes, I'm guessing the answer is Washington State.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
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
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.
You assume that some sort of rationality is involved in this equation, trust me that it isn't. I can assure you that they will still blame Obama.
Just for the background information. The State of Washington does not have personal or corporate income tax at this time. So to add a 5% income tax, which has very little deductions, would obviously sounds like a big change for the State.
I can't really comment too much on the benefit of having the tax excised, since I live in Texas and we do not have state income tax, either. That is a real plus for me. I do like the fact that they skipped the entire section where people making less than 200k. I think that is wise.
However, to be fair. A sudden increase of 9% of the tax liability is quite a bit, from the perspective of going from 0 to 9% in one jump. Also there are no provisions on how to adjust the brackets up with the inflations in the coming decades. Keep in mind any tax code in place will be in place for a long time, so if the spirit of the law is to tax the highest income brackets, they need to address that in the proposed bill as well.
And trickle-down isn't bullshit, when you consider that it's the rich who hire the workers. If the government takes away all the rich person's money (say 100% income over 1 million) then the rich can't hire anyone.
Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers. You might have something of a point if this was a corporate tax initiative, but it's not. Secondly, trickle-down is voodoo economics no matter how much the right tries to spin it.
They do. Thats why they pay people to lobby on their behalf.
So, you're saying that if we insert money at the top, it benefits the guys at the bottom because high level executives and such create lots of jobs directly from their personal income?
From my PoV it makes more sense to insert money at the bottom. The guys at the bottom are most likely to spend it, which in turn puts in in corporate coffers, and the corporatations as an entity are the ones creating the jobs, not the executives from their personal wealth.
Their winnings from the stock market wouldn't be touched by this income tax.
Blar.
And trickle-down isn't bullshit, when you consider that it's the rich who hire the workers.
That's garbage. The government can take care of us all! We don't need the private sector to create jobs when we could all be government-employed like in Greece. Oh...
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Bullshit. Mathematically impossible, unless your earnings in the new higher tax bracket are taxed at greater than 100%.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
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.
Then why not vote with your feet and move to Washington State or somewhere else instead of complaining and continuing to pay the Illinois taxes you oppose? If enough people do it, maybe even Chicago will get the message (although it will probably take nearly everybody moving out of state for them to get the message.)
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
There's a reason that Washington state has avoided an income tax for so many years... because they already have other taxes in place of an income tax.
For instance, one of my favorites is the cost of registering (and renewing) a vehicle license plate. The cost of a license tag is a percentage of the value of the car. Every year. And it has an odd impact on the auto market. When you finance a car purchase from a dealer, the first year's license fee is usually rolled into the financing, so you don't really notice it much. Then, in the second year, you get a bill from the state for potentially thousands of dollars for a license tag, and now you're scrounging. Or, you sell the car, and buy another one.
Anyway, adding an income tax is contrary to the spirit of the road use fee, which was enacted instead of a state income tax. But I doubt that they'll get rid of the road use fee if they do pass an income tax, they'll just squander both.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
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.
We've tried trickle-down economics for the better part of 30 years, and the result has been a steady drop in real wages for the poorest Americans, a stagnation of real salaries for middle-class Americans, and a massive increase in income for upper-class Americans. Given that, please explain the evidence for the trickle-down effect, where the upper-class Americans hire middle-class and poor Americans at good rates.
I am officially gone from
The government inserting money anywhere is a bad idea. It mostly gets wasted with no real benefit to show for it. Just look at the effects of the stimulus and such. For the "bottom," they spend several hundred thousand dollars per job to create a job that pays the worker $40k or so per year. They also paid a lot to people in unemployment benefits and welfare, and a lot of those people are simply sitting back largely doing nothing until the government stops paying them for not working. For the "top,", they bailed out banks, who largely used the money to pay off their foreign-held debt rather than loan it out to Americans. None of that helped the U.S. very much, but we're stuck paying hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for it. All of this exemplifies how poorly the government does when it tries to "stimulate" the economy by spending. It's a lot like trying to dig yourself out of a hole.
Tax cuts are NOT the government inserting money; the money is yours and the government simply takes less of it. If you want people to have money, why not let them keep it instead of taking it from the people, running it through the government, and then giving only some of it back to the people, because you had to spend a good amount of it on governmental overhead?
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
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
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?
Assuming what you are contending is true, (which I do not really admit is not-simple enough to be true), what makes you think you know how to rig a system to achieve the ends you desire? (nevermind the fact that you want to take from your peers to achieve your ends, and nevermind questioning why you ought to be able to obtain the authority to do that.) Why is your system more viable and better long term for all or even any? And furthermore, who are you econocluelessts who think that poor people buying food and toilet paper is somehow a more productive use of the 9% capital? Safety nets are good. Stop trying to reingineer society under the guise of concern for such noble inventions.
In the US there are a plethora of ways to invest money that have little or nothing to do with creating jobs in the US. Would someone investing in IBM be creating jobs in the US or India and China? How about investing in Boeing? To a lot of people it matters where the jobs are created.
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.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Ummm what do those rich guys do with their personal income then? Make wallpaper out of cash?
They either buy things, or they put it to use in the most productive ways. Well, and maybe donate some (those donations are 100% loses of course). But otherwise they invest.
And why do you suggest that they do not seek the most productive investments of their capital? (that would be those with the best returns, generally) Have you given thought to what exactly "most productive" means? (jobs are likely involved).
Ah... I see what you are about to do there. Don't cite foreign investment as cause for giving their investment capital to the poor instead. If politicians pandering to the poor (and otherwise attempting to re-architect our society) did not create such an inhospitable business environment all around the country, it might be less of an issue. So, let us "fix" the core issues. Not use our screw ups to do more screw ups.
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!
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.
Lets put this in simple terms. Imagine you're a farmer with 30 acres. It takes 20 acres to feed your family. 66% of the crop takes care of your immediate needs and 33% goes to savings and taxes. At a rate of 25%, the government takes 1/4 of your crop and you have 9% for savings. The government is having a bad year and decides to raise taxes. The rate is going up from 25% to 30%. No problem, you say. That leaves 3.3% of what you farm as a buffer to sell and use for savings. Last year you saved your profits to eventually invest in new equipment that will increase your yields by 25%. You can't buy that equipment this year because you won't have enough savings. The economy doesn't grow. Equipment doesn't get bought, crop yields don't increase and you're less secure against bad weather and rising costs. What about when the taxes go up to 35%? Now you can't feed your family because you've got less than two acres for yourself. You dip into savings or you take hand-outs or you give-up farming. But that's not how it works, you say. The government taxes income for individuals and profits for businesses. Taxing income is just like taking 25% of the farmer's crop instead of 25% of the farmer's profits. Your work isn't profit. It's time and effort that belongs to you and there's no provision for the government to have any right to it. When taxes are too high, the economy suffers and eventually suffocates. Government can't grow the economy, It can only get out of the way to let the economy grow. This means that the government can't really help you. Every benefit you get means we all lose something greater and we sacrifice future growth.
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)
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.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Those investments are what create jobs.
Buying 100,000 shares of already issued stock is an investment, but does nothing to create jobs. Only some sort of venture capital (defined loosely, e.g., funding a new company or increasing production at a company) creates jobs.
I also suspect that the state of Washington believes it has created an economic climate that allowed people to become very rich, but many of those very rich are investing in things outside the state of Washington. This tax keeps more of the money in the state.
But that is not how tax brackets work.
In your not fully fleshed out example, I'm assuming the rate is 30% below 40k and 35% above it, right?
That means if you made 39800 you would pay 11940 and take home 27860.
If you make 40200 you would pay 30% on the 1st 40k ($12000) and 35% on the remaining $200 (or $70)
So your total tax bill would be $12070, and you would take home $28130 which is shockingly more than $27860.
The tax codes weren't made by idiots, but by beaurocrats.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." --Kurt Vonnegut
A strong argument in favor of my contention that wealth did not trickle down:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/Chartbook.xls
I didn't say that I had an easy solution to this problem, just that trickle-down economics has not been in any way remotely demonstrated to work as advertised.
I am officially gone from
That's a retarded example. Farms are treated as businesses, and businesses only pay taxes on profits, not revenue. If you don't post any profits because all your food is consumed by yourself and family with no additional crops to sell, you don't pay any taxes. Even if you do sell some crops, that's only revenue, it's not profit until it surpasses all the costs of doing business (buying a tractor, buying a backhoe, etc.) In fact, the tax system -encourages- spending, because businesses can deduct expenditures from their taxable income. If you spent all your profits on re-investments, buying better equipment, hiring staff, etc., you don't 'lose' any money to the government.
Psst. You are forgetting where that money goes. Want to compare how much a Brit vs as U.S.ian pays for medical insurance, or treatment when they get sick?
The government inserting money anywhere is a bad idea. It mostly gets wasted with no real benefit to show for it.
Agreed. Let's stop inserting money into the large defense contractors first.
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?
It is impossible for a state to spend more than it takes in. When a state can print money then we may have something to talk about. As it is now, they are selling bonds to pay for their stuff which is probably a wise decision because if they laid people off from government service, those people would probably be on unemployment for 6+ months.
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
So, you're saying that if we insert money at the top, it benefits the guys at the bottom because high level executives and such create lots of jobs directly from their personal income?
Why, of course they do! They create such high paying careers as: gardener, pool boy, cleaning lady, house cook, babysitter, nanny, and personal shopper, among others! And as we all know, these skilled positions come with great benefits and perks that provide more than enough to raise a family on! And when they're done hiring workers, they can invest the excess in assets that yield high returns and further create jobs like extra homes, the market, and companies that deal in derivatives!
But in all seriousness, the real reason is because business owners and executives don't want to compete for the money. If you gave it to the people on the bottom, they could choose which company to do business with and their choice would generate market competition. It's pure corporate laziness; they accuse the poor of just wanting a handout, when they want the same thing.
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/
Don't even mention that without a functioning government, the farmer would have to build his own roads and pay the local gangster protection money.
To do list for Windows
Rubbish. Tim Eyman, the Horses Ass, successfully got rid of the percentage tab fee, now all vehicles pay $30 for their tabs. This is one of the major reasons the state has to consider other forms of income. The largest portion of the dollars in your yearly license fee is a tax for the RTA to fund the Light Rail and other transit initiatives. If you don't like it, move out of the 3 counties it's implemented in. If you have noticed that it's now faster for you to drive your single occupant SUV to work in the morning than it was 10 years ago, this tax is one of the reasons. The RTA tax is .3% of the value of your vehicle, so to get a bill for "thousands" of dollars, you had to buy a vehicle over 330K MSRP.
I bought a brand new vehicle for about 30K last year, and my tab renewal was just over $100.
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.
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.
I'm sorry that's wrong. There is a couple of problems with this. Your hypothetical CEO would buy how many cars in a 5 year period? 1? 2? Yeah, that would really stimulate the economy. Why do you assume your CEO would build a new home? how many homes do you think your hypothetical CEO would build? If you already a place on Lake Washington, prime real estate, why would you go anywhere else?
Let's consider giving the middle class all that money, how many cars do you think 50 people making 80K would buy if they came into money? How many can now afford to let someone else do their yards? How many books/dvd/theater are they going to do? I bet a lot omre than your single CEO. Let me give you a clue, the middle class runs this country. We are the engines of this economy. This country's market is the best market in the world because we are trained to spend. We are the ultimate consumers.You people who enable to rich are just cutting your own throat. They don't need your help. If they need to talk to govt they can attend a $2000 dollar a plate fundraiser and talk to the candidate directly. They got all kinds of avenues to whine.
sri