Slashdot Mirror
Income Tax Quashed, Ballmer To Cash In Billions
theodp writes "Washington's proposed state income tax not only prompted Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to spend $425,000 of his own money to help crush the measure at the polls, it also inspired Microsoft to launch a FUD campaign aimed at torpedoing the initiative. 'As an employer, we're concerned that I-1098 will make it harder to attract talent and create additional jobs in Washington state,' explained Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith. 'We strongly support public education, but we're concerned by key details in I-1098. This initiative would give Washington one of the top five highest state income tax rates in the country. I-1098 would apply this tax rate to all income, including capital gains and dividends, and would not permit any deductions for charitable contributions.' Nice to see a company take a principled stand, backed by a CEO who's not afraid to put his money where his company's mouth is, right? Well, maybe not. Just three days after the measure went down in flames, Ballmer said in a statement that he plans to sell up to 75 million of his Microsoft shares by the end of the year to 'gain financial diversification and to assist in tax planning.' Based on Friday's closing price of $26.85, the 75M shares would be valued at approximately $2 billion. All of which might make a cynic question what was really important to Microsoft — public education, or a $2B state income tax-free payday for its CEO?"
No it's not. Not exactly. The board is meant to run it in the best interests of the company, but this is not always about maximising shareholder profit. For example, an ethical farming company could quite legitimately refuse to sell a parcel of land to a developer which would use the land for purposes counter to the ethics of the company, and could probably be sued by its shareholders if it didn't no matter how much the other company was willing to pay.
It is staggering to look back at the decade Ballmer has been in charge:
* Stock price has been effectively flat for an entire decade
* Lost hundreds of billions in market cap since Gates left
* The cellphone market failure
* The Xbox fiasco
* The search market failure
* The online services failure
* The portable music market failure
* IE's stagnation and market-share shrinkage
* The resurgence of OS X market-share
If Ballmer is soon to get dumped from the top spot at Microsoft it is bad news for Linux and Apple whoever replaces him can't possibly do any worse than Ballmer's disastrous decade at the helm.
You are lying or out of your mind. A sales tax hurts low income people because they have to spend everything they make in order to live, and every cent they make is taxed. The rich can spend a tiny fraction of their income living in style, and keep the rest entirely tax free.
Anyone moderating his post as insightful is a moron.
I live in Wisconsin too, and my house is worth more than double that and my property tax is $6500 a year. My state income tax doesn't come anywhere near my federal income tax. Even the example property tax bill on the Wisconsin Department of Revenue FAQ site shows a $367,000 home/property paying $5741. http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/index-pt.html State sales tax is 5%, and some counties tack on another .5%. Highest counties in the state tack on .6% for a maximum sales tax of 5.6%.
http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/pcs/taxrates.html#txrate2
So yeah, I'm guessing you are exaggerating a wee bit.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't California have a state income tax as well as the highest sales tax and yet it still manages to a magnet for high tech companies. Even Microsoft has offices in Silicon Valley which, to me seems a bit unnecessary especially if high taxes are so detrimental to businesses.
So what are you proposing? Some kind of Federal Council of Does-He-Really-Deserve-That-Paycheck? Would it say "yes" to Tiger Woods and "no" to Ballmer? How about Oprah, does she deserve her payday?
Or maybe Ballmer is the *only* one the Government should get to make that decision about? Single out a single person? That's Democratic, right?
What, in practical terms, are you proposing exactly?
Comment of the year
You, moron, need to read the national fairtax bill. It reduces the taxes on the poor to absolute 0. If you make below the poverty limit, you get a 100% refund of the taxes, with an increase for each dependent. If you did not work at all this year, you would get a refund of taxes up to the poverty limit, as if you had worked (the same refund, for doing nothing). So your argument is null. Under that tax system, the poor would pay absolutely nothing, and would even get paid, if they didn't work.
Now if you are rich on the other hand, the tax would apply to all kinds of luxury expenses. Buying a ferrari? Well then you are paying 23% of the purchase price in a tax. Buying a plane? The same.
By all means, keep supporting the progressive tax system. I will be more than happy to make millions I can keep shifting through tax loopholes because you are unwilling to close them. The reason a consumption tax is better, is because you can determine your tax overhead at the beginning of the year. No need to manage taxes for your employees paycheck, figure out your deductions, find tax credits, buy your car with your company, buy your vacation home as a company asset. It would no longer matter, because all of these things would become moot points. You would pay taxes on them, end of story.
It's a shame that you started an otherwise cogent retort with 'You, moron', because that typically makes people tune the rest out. Try civil debate sometime; you may find that you get better results.
There are a bunch of arguments for why the rich should pay more (not just dollar wise but percentage wise).
Off the top of my head:
1. They can afford to. It costs $X to run the government and lowering the burden on the poor by increasing that on the rich is considered a reasonable thing to do by many people (not you obviously).
2. They use more government resources and hence it's fair they pay more. The military provides more benefit to the rich - they lose more if the Russians invade and confiscate all the property. The legal system provides greater protection (in terms of the value protected) for their property.
3. The marginal propensity to consume falls as income rises. If you think the economy is demand driven then taking more money from the rich and less from the poor will be better for the economy.
4. Income exhibits diminishing marginal returns in terms of utility (a person earning $100,000/year gets less utility from an extra $1000 than a person earning $25,000/year does). Hence taxing the rich at higher rates than the poor will result in higher total utility than a flat percentage system.