It won't, and Bill will and has spoken out against any serious proposals to tax wealth, which is a different kind of taxation than an income and even an estate tax.
Seriously this happened only a month ago, how has everyone already forgotten about it?
Whether Bill likes it or not, a wealth tax is likely a non-starter anyway. It's amazing that several candidates are running on a wealth tax when it is pretty likely that it would require a constitutional amendment. Courts already found the carriage tax unconstitutional, which is effectively the same thing.
I must have misremembered that detail. But I believe the point of what I had read was that a direct tax would be unconstitutional. A carriage tax was found to not be a direct tax apparently. But a general wealth tax likely would be.
Allowing the billionaires to set the reasonable taxation rates of this discussion is a testament to how brainscattered people are on this. 10% would still leave an enormous amount of money left over and far more than he would ever need. His great great great grandchildren would still be multi-billionaires.
In dollars, sure, but he’s already giving most of his money away, so it won’t really meaningfully impact him. For decades, Microsoft benefitted from there being no personal income tax, making it easier to recruit employees to its Redmond headquarters. It would have been more meaningful if he came out in favor of the income tax in the 90s, rather than right now.
At a certain level of wealth people become unbiased. They can look at a system from an impartial point of view because they are so wealthy they are no longer part of the system.
Bill Gates is so rich that income tax is no longer a factor for him anymore. When he says that Washington needs an increase in income tax he's giving an unbiased point of view. I trust his intentions more than I trust my own.
I am not elite, therefore I participate in the system. My own individual wants and desires tell me that I don't want to be taxed. My view of the system as a whole is therefore clouded by my own selfish desires.
Perhaps his position needs to be rebranded to be even more inline with intentions: An exclusive tax for the elite.
> At a certain level of wealth people become unbiased
I'd modify this to "at a certain level of wealth, one can afford to be unbiased."
Plenty of the very wealthy are biased. For those with inherited wealth who never learned any productive skills, debating higher taxes could feel existential.
> At a certain level of wealth people become unbiased.
Strongly disagree. Consider people like Gina Rinehart or various Russian oligarchs - their wealth is well into the billions yet they do not act as though they are above the system.
Bill Gates and other modern tech-billionaires are different to the rest insofar as they share a meritocratic ethos and didn't inherit their wealth (granted, many of them had privileged upbringings, but it's not fair to compare Gates' upbringing as the son of a highly successful lawyer to people like Rinehart).
And of course, the current US President - assuming we can believe his claims about how rich and successful he actually is.
Yeah, you're right. Another person mentioned that I should edit the post to say that rich people can afford to be unbiased which was more inline with what I was trying to convey.
So a bit of a rewording here to make my point more clear:
"In this specific context, I believe what Bill Gates is saying about income tax is unbiased because he is so rich, he can afford to be unbiased."
Washington doesn't have an income tax ... personal or corporate. Yep, it only has a sales tax. (That tax runs from 6% in rural areas to 10% in Seattle.)
It's a good and way-overdue idea ... however it affects Gates personally. That's just part of his proposal, and he's not the only wealthy WAtonian calling for more taxation.
Not sure why you get downvoted. Most people with more money and especially on his level have only little exposure to income taxes. Even the estate taxes will not have a big impact when doing proper tax planning.
It would have been great if he went into details on how to close those “loopholes”. Most the “loopholes” are on purpose to stimulate business growth and support legitimate charities. The advantage of wealthier people is that they can structure their assets as businesses or charities so cracking down on those “loopholes” is not easy without affecting the economy.
If he is serious he should advocate for a wealth tax. That is one of the best ways to close the “loopholes”. But for now it seems he tries to keep out of that discussion.
It's almost always the case that more well off people are against taxes because they naturally contribute more than they use of the tax pool. People with low incomes are usually the ones benefiting the most from higher tax rates.
> ”It was nearly two decades ago that my dad and I started calling for an increase in the federal estate tax and for an estate tax in our home state of Washington”
Notice how averse Bill was to Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax idea. That's a tax that would actually impact his bottom line.
Instead he supports an income tax -- which would effect working people the same way a wealth tax would effect him -- but would have almost no impact on his personal wealth.
If only we could combine the two for a wealth-based income tax. If you're already worth 20M, should you be paying a higher rate on your 500k in interest than if you just sold your first company for 500k and previously had nothing? I think that's a reasonable way to address income inequality in the long run without forcing people to liquidate assets, especially those like Elon Musk who have most of their wealth tied into companies they actively manage or people whose entire net worth is tied up in historical family properties.
theres a lot of problems woth the tax code. the real problem is democracy promotes jealousy by the mobs. bill gates wealth is a symptom bot a cause.
this basic observation is lost on jealous people who cannot think with eational calm minds and think with emotion. the left emboldens this feminin style emotional thinking. If a doctor treated his patients symptoms theyd feel great mostly and thabj the doctor up until they died.
and thats how medicine was for most of human history until rational thinkers came to dominate the governance of the cartel that practices medicine. theyre call moder western doctors.
if you want to byild sustainable taxation look at how th systems money floes were unsustainable bastardized. IT NEVER staryed with some guy being richer than you. and it wont be fixed by indulging misheld dreams that yiu can fix everuthing by pulling down the endproduct of this outcome. you must divert the river streams this includes preveneting bill gates from using his funds to lobby against this.
hint....most unearned income is taxed little if at all. and that is how bill gates fortune keeps him richer and richer. just like most everyone else with excessive savings and capital.
He's right. Seattle is suffering a crisis of mentally ill and/or drug addicted homeless people. However, the problem is much bigger than the city — many of these people come from outside Seattle and the city simply can't afford to solve the problem on its own.
This is both a nationwide and statewide problem. But the lack of state income tax makes it harder for Washington to better fund mental health facilities in the state. The state prides itself on its progressivism and compassion, but it's 23rd in the nation for per capita mental health funding.
> look at other extremely expensive cities around the world
The opioid epidemic is a US-only problem, so looking at other world cities won't tell you much beyond "Yeah, Purdue pharma shouldn't have convinced doctors to get millions of people addicted to opioids."
As I understand it, San Francisco reportedly has an even worse problem than Seattle with drug addiction and homelessness, despite more/higher taxes across the board. Therefore, it is not clear that taxes alone will fix this problem; in fact, by purely looking at the data here on the west coast, it would appear higher taxes correlates with worse problems of this sort.
Note that I'm obviously not claiming that higher taxes necessarily cause worse problems, but a negative correlation like this is strong evidence against any claims for a positive causation of (higher taxes -> less homelessness and drug addiction).
There have been many articles and studies written elsewhere on drug addiction and homelessness, so I won't repeat the details -- but my understanding is that the general consensus is that solving this requires policy change more so than funding change (but obviously both are necessary for the best results).
Please explain how lack of state income tax has anything to do with this problem or vis versa, how the state income tax revenue would actually contribute to fixing this problem? There are states with state income tax that has the same problem as Washington like California for an example.
More taxes does not automatically mean they go into fixing the core of the problem nor does it mean they'd fund the mental health program enough to address most of the problems.
Mental health is not a single cause of the homelessness problem that is "infecting" the west coast right now. For an example, medical bills could easily and have bankrupted people without actual mental problems. So, how would funding mental health facilities going to help these people have a home?
Sorry but Seattle's homeless issues are caused by poor city government and the ideologically skewed policies that are in place. Most homeless people are mostly from outside Seattle, not here. Most live permanently nomadic lifestyles, and many are drug addicts. I don't believe the claim that most homeless in the Seattle area are locals, since every single one I've ever spoken to has told me they are not from Washington. Similarly, when Seattle news crews interview homeless, they always proudly state that they came here from another state because they are welcomed here. The "point in time" survey that claims most homeless in Seattle are from the area is not rigorous because it relies on self-reporting (not verified background data), and local activists/organizations coach the homeless to claim they are long time locals on the survey to solicit sympathy and financial support.
The reason why Seattle attracts permanent nomads and drug addicts is simple. The city simply does not enforce laws and lets them do whatever they want. Even worse, it selectively enforces laws - if you are a law-abiding resident, you will be subject to the law in situations like parking enforcement, littering, environmental laws, and so on. For example, a car cannot be parked in a public parking spot for more than 72 hours and if you or I were to leave a car parked for that long, we'd have a ticket. Littering anywhere carries serious fines. And homeowners have to deal with a draconian set of codes that govern their ability to use property they own and pay property taxes on. But if you are homeless, you can get away with parking RVs permanently in public spots (taking away street parking from actual residents), you can trash up public and private lands, and you can leave needles/feces/trash in wetlands/greenbelts/wherever without consequence. Here's an example of differential enforcement of laws in Seattle, where a construction worker living in an RV was fined while other nearby RVs for "homeless" were not fined: https://mynorthwest.com/1046331/construction-worker-rv-ticke...
No one has a right to live wherever they want, at whatever price point they want, doing whatever job they want (or not working at all), and so on. People have to show personal responsibility for their choices (for example not trying that first hit of heroin), live within their means (instead of expecting to live in a highly-desirable and expensive location), and obey the laws (in support of the social contract). Taxing Seattle or Washington residents to support the lifestyles of those who don't do these things is punishing residents who play by the rules for those who don't. Instead, the city government needs to enforce the law strictly, and create conditions/consequences that disincentivize people from abusing the city's goodwill.
1. I find the use of the word 'dehumanize' to be unnecessary and hyperbolic. This is commonly used to shut down opinions that concern some cohort of people. It is not precise or helpful, and is an appeal to emotion. I didn't state anywhere that homeless people aren't human. I did state that people need to live within their means, obey the laws, respect public spaces, and not be coddled by lax/unequal enforcement of laws. That's not dehumanizing, it is common sense. The proliferation of tents, trash, drug abuse, and property crime in Seattle is wholly unacceptable and the result of short-sighted governance. Pushing back on bad policy to protect my interests is not dehumanizing someone else - if anything, those who trash this otherwise beautiful city are dehumanizing its residents.
2. I addressed this specific survey that you linked to in my comment. The point in time survey is not rigorous. It does not verify the identities or past backgrounds of any respondents. It relies solely on their goodwill to answer truthfully. The homeless who respond have an incentive to lie about where they are from, because making it look like they are long-time local residents is more likely to result in public support for them. The volunteers who conduct these surveys are all either participants in the homeless industrial complex (see https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness) or are activists who ideologically support the homeless. These volunteers coach homeless to respond in ways that are favorable to the homeless themselves, to these organizations that constitute the homeless-industrial complex, and the ideologies of those same activists. The only data that would be acceptable regarding the origins of the homeless is strongly-verified/provable identification of respondents. Anything short of that is not rigorous and acceptable, and therefore it is not a myth to claim that the majority of homeless people in Seattle are transients from elsewhere.
Do any states fund that any more? Parts of LA look like scenes from the walking dead as well and taxes are higher. Not much is spent effectively on solving the problem however.
I wonder how much society would change if you were capped with how much wealth you could pass along after you died. The rest going directly to the govt. Maybe a cap that was more than enough per child? 1-10M?
Really? Doing DNA tests and verifying you are a direct descendant in order to receive income seems pretty rigorous. That would be the only vector of transmission.
You could default all other assets to govt and impassable. Liquid only.
Tax havens were a thing. But between all the leaked customer data, the subsequent prosecutions, and plenty of bilateral pressure from the US (2008-20016) and other large and wealthy countries, most tax haven jurisdictions have given in/up.
It's not entirely perfect, of course. But there is plenty of evidence that with people in charge actually caring for the issue it is solvable.
This sort of defeatism is, unfortunately, as widespread as it is harmful and wrong.
Rich people do not have any magical powers. And while they have better resources to find workarounds or get a discount when caught, the law generally applies to them just as it does to anybody else.
With just a bit of political will, it would be rather easy to effectively levy such a tax. During the Obama administration, for example, offshore banking saw some drastic changes making it pretty much useless in many cases. Even Switzerland co-operates when you ask unfriendly enough.
> the law generally applies to them just as it does to anybody else
Indeed, but the punishment of the law is not proportionate. E.g. stealing billions and stash it, you might end up in a 27-month jail time (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19293341/ns/business-corporate_sca...) which is a very good hourly rate. Must feel like a meditative vacation after the party-hard years.
Why should the government be entitled to it, though? The government has shown itself to be a terrible steward of wealth. I would rather we prioritize incentives to use existing money more efficiently and cut wasteful spending vs. increasing the amount of money pouring into the coffers.
There is a difference between "the government" and "the state" (not US states, and may also refer to "the people").
It's not that the state is "entitled" to it any more than it's entitled to any other tax - but consider the state is responsible for society, economy and infrastructure: overall the state created value. Whereas what is the moral entitlement of someone who had the sheer fortitude to be born to someone who had amassed that much wealth?
And if the state gets a decent amount of income from estate-taxes and it meets its budget-goals and creates value through spending it - or even if it chooses to lower taxes on everyone else instead, then consider who is the real net recipient of the estate tax revenue? - everyone.
Also, probably half of people who otherwise continued to earn money past the say, $10M mark (as you put it above) would just totally stop.
To some this would be really cool: you'd get more artists maybe, and fewer obstinate bankers that continue to plunder society. To others this may be bad if you think those people otherwise would have created value for society.
> To others this may be bad if you think those people otherwise would have created value for society
I have to wonder what percentage of people who are earning over $10M lifetime are adding anything substantial to society other than making the economy go up - which as we've seen lately is a crock anyway.
I also venture to bet that a deal percentage of those who are would continue to work, even if it's essentially 'for free', because they love what they're doing.
What if you couldn't pass anything on at all? What if the only way to guarantee a decent future for your kids is if you work to guarantee a future for everyone's kids?
All that would do is make accountants more money. Wealthy people will find a way to pass that along to their children.
If there's a 100% estate tax, you can bet that they won't have a penny to their name when they die, since the money will be in a trust in their kids' names or something, or perhaps in a corporation whose CEO position is passed down. You would have to significantly change how everything works to eliminate options for the wealthy.
And why would you want to? Most extremely wealthy people seem to be self-made [1][2] (not the best sources, but that's what I found with a quick search). Wealth tends to disappear after 3-5 generations (this article[3] claims 10-15), so that money will likely return to "society" relatively quickly anyway.
Solving the "problem" seems likely to discourage the types of activities that lead to massive wealth accumulation, like innovation and investment in innovation, which is a healthy activity for society. Wealth taxes seem a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I support the notion of capping how much you pass on after death. I’m against dynasties.
I don’t support simply giving that money to the government. In the country my husband is from, government has plundered their national resources and directly the treasury chest. In the towns I grew up in, in the Midwest, I saw similar patterns. My high school didn’t teach calculus, but we took loans or raised taxes to fund football stadiums, etc.
Government is not a great allocator. Unless we can create some framework to hold officials accountable, I’m not convinced the billions the Bill Gates of the world leave behind would go to helping student debt (which in my opinion it should) or counter homelessness instead of another 20 year war in the Middle East.
Not trying to turn this political but just trying to convey my view.
Why wouldn't people be allowed the freedom to pass on whatever wealth they want? What if they choose to defer gratification and are working to support future generations? Shouldn't that be their individual choice? It seems arbitrary for the government to seize that.
This article is pretty substanceless, but especially since it references Bill Gates, got me thinking- why is no one calling for a tax on intellectual property? The article implies that a lack of income tax is regressive, but it seems that the value of the monopoly on IP accrues to a tiny slice of the populace.
> why is no one calling for a tax on intellectual property?
This is an interesting idea that I haven't considered before. Do you know if anyone has looked into its feasibility?
IP is a huge governmental tax on the general public that accrues to a small number of wealthy people. (Any governmentally-enforced monopoly would be the same.) Taxing it would effectively reduce that somewhat, but it's easier to simply reduce IP in the first place. Make copyright 5 years instead of infinite, for example. That has the dual benefit of bringing a lot of content into the public domain and also being similar in effect to a tax on IP. (Think of it, if you like, as a 0% tax on IP for the first five years followed by a 100% tax on IP.)
The value of IP law for the consumer is in the work itself, which often would not exist but for the ability for its creator to profit from it.
Now as to taxing IP: property (wealth) just is not taxed right now, at least in the US and with the exception of land and/or buildings. There are reasons for and against that, and they pretty much apply to IP, too.
If some state decided to start taxing wealth, IP would be no exemption, although there are a few of specific difficulties with it. IP you created yourself is fiendishly difficult to evaluate, something that is easier if you just bought it, where the market-based price is assumed to be a good proxy for worth.
This headline does a disservice to his statement. He addressed the need to tax wealth, including generational wealth, as well as incomes. The nature of the latter will be contentious in WA given the fact that the area has a high COLA, is tech heavy, and that many of the workers here are 1st generation immigrants whose only source of stability and wealth is their income.
Having moved from CA to WA I don't see how the lack of an income tax has negatively affected the services up here maybe if someone can explain what WA is lacking compared to states with an income tax
You need look no further than the other side of the Columbia River to see the trade-off. Most years, Washington has the most regressive tax regime in the United States, Oregon has the least regressive. Oregon has an income tax and no sales tax.
What specific effect are observing to compare outcomes? OR has better strip clubs and more people blocking urban intersections and lighting stuff on fire.
I don't think I'd go that far. Except for the strip clubs, that's definitely a plus. We do know how the tax is distributed by income, however, which may be the only useful metric (absolute values having not much to do with method, I assume).
Are the proposals for adding income tax to WA going to also reduce the sales tax in equal measure so that the states total revenue stays around the same amount?
Property tax makes sense, I’m essentially supporting my country / region through payment to protect said land.
Tax on goods crossing boarder makes sense, I have to pay for inspections and potentially for protection.
Tax on sale of good kind of makes sense, because again we need protection (likely equivalent to worth of good).
Income tax is this weird one because it seems like punishment for being productive. Arguably we are paying back society for being productive? But that seems odd given we are taxed for everything else.
I’m any case, my gripe here is no one should be pro tax IMO, maybe pro “free medical care”. But why would anyone call for taxes. Wealth redistribution already happens with estate tax and honestly (from what we’ve seen in history) wealth redistribution kind of happens automatically.
Progressive income tax reduces wealth inequality. People start in a very unfair game and it prevents the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Wealth inequality tears communities apart.
I don’t actually see evidence of that, but if you read my comment I pointed out that’s what estate tax is for.
Having come from a poorer family myself and now making a lot of money I find progressive income tax ridiculous. I have student loans, mortgage, etc. things the wealthy already don’t have.
Which is my point progressive income tax punished making money, not wealth already obtained.
What does it mean for inequality to "tear a community apart"? That feels like emotional hyperbole. I also don't think reducing wealth inequality is a foregone goal that takes priority over other criteria. A progressive income tax also reduces the incentive to create economic value. And most of the time, the increased tax revenue is not managed efficiently - for example, California doesn't have "better communities" or improved services for all the tax it collects.
_British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy by country, educational performance, trust among strangers, women's status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in countries and states with higher inequality. Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, they found social/health problems lower in countries like Japan and Finland and states like Utah and New Hampshire with high levels of equality, than in countries (US and UK) and states (Mississippi and New York) with large differences in household income_
> I also don't think reducing wealth inequality is a foregone goal that takes priority over other criteria.
See above "bad stuff".
> A progressive income tax also reduces the incentive to create economic value. And most of the time, the increased tax revenue is not managed efficiently - for example, California doesn't have "better communities" or improved services for all the tax it collects.
There's maybe 15 socialist democracies with a higher HDI than the USA, with higher taxation (and more progressive taxation). People still work through higher brackets, buy expensive things etc.
Thanks for sharing. However, the paper the Wikipedia article is quoting is not publicly available, and therefore I can't verify how they establish causality between inequality and those outcomes. Furthermore, even if there were a causal relationship, that doesn't mean the US is doing anything worse than these other countries. For example, countries like Japan or Finland may have different health outcomes that could wholly be due to genetic traits, eating habits, lifestyle choices, and other cultural elements. A statistical test wouldn't be able to easily introduce a qualitative variable like culture into the study, to separate the effect of such a variable relative to another input variable like income distribution.
But the point I was originally making regarding communities is slightly different. Even if there is variance in income locally, I feel like I belong to a community and city. Most people around me would likely say the same thing. It doesn't make me feel like a "community" is being "torn apart" due to variance on income or wealth. The definition of "community" or what it takes to say that it is being "torn apart" is going to be inherently subjective and personal, and so such a broad claim doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Lastly, I think every choice has a tradeoff. It is worth noting that America has produced the bulk of innovations in the last 100 years, both from the work of public agencies and impactful private organizations. Other countries simply have not produced the same output in recent times. It is easy to claim that some other locale has a higher HDI but those same places are benefiting from the output of the American system as it exists today, with the very same tax structures that Gates is criticizing. For example: Washington State, which is specifically called out by Gates, has produced Microsoft, Amazon, Cray (supercomputers), Starbucks, Real Networks, Redfin, Tableau, Costco, Nordstrom, REI, Valve, Bungie, Expedia, Paccar, Boeing, and numerous other globally impactful companies that I have left out. It certainly seems like the impact and benefit on quality of life is there, and it is cultivated by an environment that has the right traits on multiple dimensions. Those socialist democracies you are referencing are not anywhere near in terms of their value add to humanity as a whole, and I think if they were isolated (not benefiting from global export of American outputs) they would definitely not have the same degree of development.
But wealth in relation to taxation is purchasing power. Wouldn't be more fair when taxation happens as sales tax when the actual inequality happens? When they buy/import and harbour yachts, planes, jewellery, fine art, cars, other luxury items?
I don't think that's true, I think it just reduces income inequality. If you have a high tax rate for higher earners, the wealthy will do stuff like $1 income and compensation in stock instead. That doesn't really hurt the wealthy, but it certainly hurts people with a high income, but little wealth.
Personally, I don't see the point in trying to reduce wealth accumulation. People who amass a lot of wealth generally do so by creating something of value for society. If you remove the ability to get fabulously wealthy, I think you also reduce innovation. Would you risk everything on an idea if there was no chance of a massive payoff? Probably not. Likewise, if you are successful with one idea, you are much more likely to be successful with another, but if you don't have much capital, you can't pursue additional ideas. For example, Elon Musk wouldn't be able to start Space X, Tesla, etc at the same time (and probably none of them) if his "excess" wealth were confiscated.
The whole discussion about wealth/income inequality seems to be missing the mark entirely IMO. The important thing is that innovation continues to happen and the lifestyle of the average and the bottom continue to improve.
Let me set up two scenarios, A and B. In A, people have a very similar standard of living (very little wealth inequality), but innovation is fairly low, so quality of life increases fairly slowly. In B, there is a very large wealth inequality, but innovation is quite high, so even the poor experience at least a moderate quality of life increase year over year. So in B, the average "poor" person (say, median of the bottom 10%) has a higher quality of life than the average person in A. Which is preferable? What if B has some people slip through the cracks, but the vast majority are better off?
Personally, I prefer B, and choose to donate so those at the bottom are taken care of. However, some of my friends prefer A because people wouldn't know that more rapid progress is possible.
It's not a punishment for being productive. I think the argument is that, in some way, government services / infrastructure / foreign relations facilitated your productivity or created an opportunity for you to be productive.
Income tax is the government being lazy and stealing from their citizens, instead of thinking about what businesses to invest stocks in for example in order to generate revenue.
Bill Gates really disappointed me with this post. Washington's lack of an income tax, and its relatively uniform tax structure means that everyone has "skin in the game" and the state has to be focused and efficient with its spending. California is a great example of the inefficacy of huge tax revenues - the quality of life and services in California is not that great, and definitely no better than Washington, despite aggressive taxation.
His statement should be considered in the context of the fact that WA has the most regressive tax system in this country (source: https://itep.org/washington/).
"Regressive tax" is simply a loaded pejorative for "uniform" or "fair" tax. Washington's tax system encourages taxpayers to actually consider what things they want to spend money on, since it is their own money that does it. A heavily graduated tax system (a "progressive" tax system) introduces moral hazards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) because many voters would not be spending their own money.
Seattle's problems aren't magically going to go away with more money. In fact I would argue that the city has never had as much money as they do now, its just that they are squandering it away and wasting it on programs that bring misery to the taxpayers, and dont really help those that they are supposedly trying to help. Seattle needs a functional police force, strong enforcement of current laws and more jails.
That's nice Bill, how much of the money you made after moving Microsoft to Washington because they didn't have income tax are you gonna donate to this cause? Becaue I am sure a certain other company who set up in Washington because of their lack of income tax is gonna be spending a lot of money on keeping the status quo.
There are still corporate business taxes in Washington, and they are revenue based instead of profit based (extremely backwards, but it certainly isn't no taxation). The primary benefit is for personal income.
Personal story: When I was a teenager in the 90s I didn't understand why companies bought their inferior product - in terms of hardware requirement, because in the former Soviet block you likely had access to obsolete hardware, even in corporate offices - over the free alternatives.
Then, when I started my own business in 2002, one day the BSA suddenly visited on my office door with two policeman and asked for proof for the licence we use. We had Linux and BSD boxes, so we showed them the online MIT and Linux licences, but they wasn't happy, because it wasn't in Hungarian and wasn't officially issued on paper by a recognised organisation. So I we had a pre-court summoning, had pay for a lawyer and pay for an official translation that cost us a lot of cash we didn't have, some falling out hair and cold sweat, because if we the judge fines us, we didn't have the cash to pay and that means jail time. Luckily the local Linux User Group made some noise and the BSA dropped the case, but I can guess the majority of the businesses just force-fed the IT dept with Windows and Office for the safety. To put the cost into perspective comparison, in 2000, the National Minimum Wage in Hungary was $119: https://tradingeconomics.com/hungary/minimum-wages, and a Microsoft Office 2000 was $499: https://news.microsoft.com/1999/01/07/microsoft-announces-of... and the Microsoft Windows 98SE $199: https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/13/ms_pricing_strategy... , so companies had all the interest to use the free Sun OpenOffice (née StarOffice) and X Window System, skip the need for more expensive Windows Servers and not to mention these were able to run on dated hardware.
I really wish the people who welcome Gates' generosity would think of the millions of institutions and governments who had to choose Microsoft to show off for Western countries and the companies who were extortioned by the Microsoft-funded BSA. For many of us, Microsoft was the East India Company of the modern world.
I’m 100% against income tax or any other tax on workers. Close tax loopholes and make the billionaire and millionaire pay higher effective rates before you go after workers.
I want to see a higher capital gains tax directly tied to the value of your assets.
i support categorizing all income to unearned income except the definition of 'earned' income to time earned wages.
every human being has the right to make 50 bucks an hour 20 hours a day indefinitely . why? at roughly 350k a year there is no one whose time is worth kore than 10x someone elses time on a non taxable time tax basis..... in my view.
if your 'time' is worth more for compensation its cinsidered then...taxable unearned income. earning money by using your time means its a wage. wages should not be taxed.
this however is comoloo icated by how you define time and the time soent to gamble to obtain speculation based income.
wealth taxes are stupid.
so lets simplify.
introduce a flat standard deduction of 100k. no households no joint filing. before age 18 guardian parents or non parent guardians can file on your behalf. these are still indepndent filings.
10% flat wage tax above 100k. and 20% above 500k$.
Deoendants cannot be declared. they file independently.
all tax credits are made illegal. All tax free financial products are made illegal through eminent domain the federal government buys your products out at par. enjoy reinvesting your cash in taxable instruments.
corporations are all to be pass through tax vehicles and do not exist for the pruposes of the irs until after they pull in over 500k in revenue regardless of expenses.
corporate taxes after 500k are subject to the same income tax as individuals. coporate tax is flat 20%. above 500k, corporations may no longer exist as state entities except for state purposes. they must file in paralell or exclusively federally as federal corporations to file a federal income statement. all income from corporations will be taxed again at the individual level after 20% is coolected. federal partnerships or other entities are all idenemtitcal to corporarions for tax purposes. all financial instruments that exist must be registered to a federated corporation. basic no frills cost to incorporate is free and hosted electronically as a public federal service by the treasury if the u.s. . the treasury service also provides an open standard API determined by industry roundtable for federal incorporation and analysis.
change the percentage numbers to suit you. but.....start there. radical tax simplification.
finally congress may by 1/3 vote remove any existing irs rule/reg in order to simplofy the cose further.
96 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadSeriously this happened only a month ago, how has everyone already forgotten about it?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/07/taxing-bill-gat...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States
In that article, Bill Gates said that he has paid 10% of his wealth in taxes, and proposed paying 10% more, but expressed concern about paying 90%.
I applaud you for having the chutzpah to link to a source you brazenly misquote.
US Federal income tax for 2020 is 24% at $85,525 for a single filer ($171,050).
The long-term capital gains tax rates are 0%, 15% and 20% under the 2018 changes.
Bill Gates is so rich that income tax is no longer a factor for him anymore. When he says that Washington needs an increase in income tax he's giving an unbiased point of view. I trust his intentions more than I trust my own.
I am not elite, therefore I participate in the system. My own individual wants and desires tell me that I don't want to be taxed. My view of the system as a whole is therefore clouded by my own selfish desires.
Perhaps his position needs to be rebranded to be even more inline with intentions: An exclusive tax for the elite.
I'd modify this to "at a certain level of wealth, one can afford to be unbiased."
Plenty of the very wealthy are biased. For those with inherited wealth who never learned any productive skills, debating higher taxes could feel existential.
Strongly disagree. Consider people like Gina Rinehart or various Russian oligarchs - their wealth is well into the billions yet they do not act as though they are above the system.
Bill Gates and other modern tech-billionaires are different to the rest insofar as they share a meritocratic ethos and didn't inherit their wealth (granted, many of them had privileged upbringings, but it's not fair to compare Gates' upbringing as the son of a highly successful lawyer to people like Rinehart).
And of course, the current US President - assuming we can believe his claims about how rich and successful he actually is.
So a bit of a rewording here to make my point more clear:
"In this specific context, I believe what Bill Gates is saying about income tax is unbiased because he is so rich, he can afford to be unbiased."
It's a good and way-overdue idea ... however it affects Gates personally. That's just part of his proposal, and he's not the only wealthy WAtonian calling for more taxation.
> he proposes raising the estate tax, and closing certain loopholes “many wealthy people take advantage of.”
If he is serious he should advocate for a wealth tax. That is one of the best ways to close the “loopholes”. But for now it seems he tries to keep out of that discussion.
> ”It was nearly two decades ago that my dad and I started calling for an increase in the federal estate tax and for an estate tax in our home state of Washington”
Notice how averse Bill was to Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax idea. That's a tax that would actually impact his bottom line.
Instead he supports an income tax -- which would effect working people the same way a wealth tax would effect him -- but would have almost no impact on his personal wealth.
this basic observation is lost on jealous people who cannot think with eational calm minds and think with emotion. the left emboldens this feminin style emotional thinking. If a doctor treated his patients symptoms theyd feel great mostly and thabj the doctor up until they died.
and thats how medicine was for most of human history until rational thinkers came to dominate the governance of the cartel that practices medicine. theyre call moder western doctors.
if you want to byild sustainable taxation look at how th systems money floes were unsustainable bastardized. IT NEVER staryed with some guy being richer than you. and it wont be fixed by indulging misheld dreams that yiu can fix everuthing by pulling down the endproduct of this outcome. you must divert the river streams this includes preveneting bill gates from using his funds to lobby against this.
hint....most unearned income is taxed little if at all. and that is how bill gates fortune keeps him richer and richer. just like most everyone else with excessive savings and capital.
This is both a nationwide and statewide problem. But the lack of state income tax makes it harder for Washington to better fund mental health facilities in the state. The state prides itself on its progressivism and compassion, but it's 23rd in the nation for per capita mental health funding.
The homeless crisis has nothing to do with cost of living (example, look at other extremely expensive cities around the world).
It’s because we took all of the mentally ill and drug addicted out of psychiatric asylums and threw them on the streets.
The opioid epidemic is a US-only problem, so looking at other world cities won't tell you much beyond "Yeah, Purdue pharma shouldn't have convinced doctors to get millions of people addicted to opioids."
For comparison, ~0.90% in SF, and ~1.45% in LA.
Note that I'm obviously not claiming that higher taxes necessarily cause worse problems, but a negative correlation like this is strong evidence against any claims for a positive causation of (higher taxes -> less homelessness and drug addiction).
There have been many articles and studies written elsewhere on drug addiction and homelessness, so I won't repeat the details -- but my understanding is that the general consensus is that solving this requires policy change more so than funding change (but obviously both are necessary for the best results).
Mental health support will be provided when it is actually a priority. It clearly isn't for most of the state.
Seattle is an unfortunate perfect storm of issues due to rapid growth.
More taxes does not automatically mean they go into fixing the core of the problem nor does it mean they'd fund the mental health program enough to address most of the problems.
Mental health is not a single cause of the homelessness problem that is "infecting" the west coast right now. For an example, medical bills could easily and have bankrupted people without actual mental problems. So, how would funding mental health facilities going to help these people have a home?
The reason why Seattle attracts permanent nomads and drug addicts is simple. The city simply does not enforce laws and lets them do whatever they want. Even worse, it selectively enforces laws - if you are a law-abiding resident, you will be subject to the law in situations like parking enforcement, littering, environmental laws, and so on. For example, a car cannot be parked in a public parking spot for more than 72 hours and if you or I were to leave a car parked for that long, we'd have a ticket. Littering anywhere carries serious fines. And homeowners have to deal with a draconian set of codes that govern their ability to use property they own and pay property taxes on. But if you are homeless, you can get away with parking RVs permanently in public spots (taking away street parking from actual residents), you can trash up public and private lands, and you can leave needles/feces/trash in wetlands/greenbelts/wherever without consequence. Here's an example of differential enforcement of laws in Seattle, where a construction worker living in an RV was fined while other nearby RVs for "homeless" were not fined: https://mynorthwest.com/1046331/construction-worker-rv-ticke...
No one has a right to live wherever they want, at whatever price point they want, doing whatever job they want (or not working at all), and so on. People have to show personal responsibility for their choices (for example not trying that first hit of heroin), live within their means (instead of expecting to live in a highly-desirable and expensive location), and obey the laws (in support of the social contract). Taxing Seattle or Washington residents to support the lifestyles of those who don't do these things is punishing residents who play by the rules for those who don't. Instead, the city government needs to enforce the law strictly, and create conditions/consequences that disincentivize people from abusing the city's goodwill.
1. I find the use of the word 'dehumanize' to be unnecessary and hyperbolic. This is commonly used to shut down opinions that concern some cohort of people. It is not precise or helpful, and is an appeal to emotion. I didn't state anywhere that homeless people aren't human. I did state that people need to live within their means, obey the laws, respect public spaces, and not be coddled by lax/unequal enforcement of laws. That's not dehumanizing, it is common sense. The proliferation of tents, trash, drug abuse, and property crime in Seattle is wholly unacceptable and the result of short-sighted governance. Pushing back on bad policy to protect my interests is not dehumanizing someone else - if anything, those who trash this otherwise beautiful city are dehumanizing its residents.
2. I addressed this specific survey that you linked to in my comment. The point in time survey is not rigorous. It does not verify the identities or past backgrounds of any respondents. It relies solely on their goodwill to answer truthfully. The homeless who respond have an incentive to lie about where they are from, because making it look like they are long-time local residents is more likely to result in public support for them. The volunteers who conduct these surveys are all either participants in the homeless industrial complex (see https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness) or are activists who ideologically support the homeless. These volunteers coach homeless to respond in ways that are favorable to the homeless themselves, to these organizations that constitute the homeless-industrial complex, and the ideologies of those same activists. The only data that would be acceptable regarding the origins of the homeless is strongly-verified/provable identification of respondents. Anything short of that is not rigorous and acceptable, and therefore it is not a myth to claim that the majority of homeless people in Seattle are transients from elsewhere.
You could default all other assets to govt and impassable. Liquid only.
It's not entirely perfect, of course. But there is plenty of evidence that with people in charge actually caring for the issue it is solvable.
Rich people do not have any magical powers. And while they have better resources to find workarounds or get a discount when caught, the law generally applies to them just as it does to anybody else.
With just a bit of political will, it would be rather easy to effectively levy such a tax. During the Obama administration, for example, offshore banking saw some drastic changes making it pretty much useless in many cases. Even Switzerland co-operates when you ask unfriendly enough.
Indeed, but the punishment of the law is not proportionate. E.g. stealing billions and stash it, you might end up in a 27-month jail time (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19293341/ns/business-corporate_sca...) which is a very good hourly rate. Must feel like a meditative vacation after the party-hard years.
It's not that the state is "entitled" to it any more than it's entitled to any other tax - but consider the state is responsible for society, economy and infrastructure: overall the state created value. Whereas what is the moral entitlement of someone who had the sheer fortitude to be born to someone who had amassed that much wealth?
And if the state gets a decent amount of income from estate-taxes and it meets its budget-goals and creates value through spending it - or even if it chooses to lower taxes on everyone else instead, then consider who is the real net recipient of the estate tax revenue? - everyone.
Also, probably half of people who otherwise continued to earn money past the say, $10M mark (as you put it above) would just totally stop.
To some this would be really cool: you'd get more artists maybe, and fewer obstinate bankers that continue to plunder society. To others this may be bad if you think those people otherwise would have created value for society.
I have to wonder what percentage of people who are earning over $10M lifetime are adding anything substantial to society other than making the economy go up - which as we've seen lately is a crock anyway.
I also venture to bet that a deal percentage of those who are would continue to work, even if it's essentially 'for free', because they love what they're doing.
If there's a 100% estate tax, you can bet that they won't have a penny to their name when they die, since the money will be in a trust in their kids' names or something, or perhaps in a corporation whose CEO position is passed down. You would have to significantly change how everything works to eliminate options for the wealthy.
And why would you want to? Most extremely wealthy people seem to be self-made [1][2] (not the best sources, but that's what I found with a quick search). Wealth tends to disappear after 3-5 generations (this article[3] claims 10-15), so that money will likely return to "society" relatively quickly anyway.
Solving the "problem" seems likely to discourage the types of activities that lead to massive wealth accumulation, like innovation and investment in innovation, which is a healthy activity for society. Wealth taxes seem a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
- [1] https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires... - [2] https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/269593 - [3] https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-t...
I don’t support simply giving that money to the government. In the country my husband is from, government has plundered their national resources and directly the treasury chest. In the towns I grew up in, in the Midwest, I saw similar patterns. My high school didn’t teach calculus, but we took loans or raised taxes to fund football stadiums, etc.
Government is not a great allocator. Unless we can create some framework to hold officials accountable, I’m not convinced the billions the Bill Gates of the world leave behind would go to helping student debt (which in my opinion it should) or counter homelessness instead of another 20 year war in the Middle East.
Not trying to turn this political but just trying to convey my view.
Now as to taxing IP: property (wealth) just is not taxed right now, at least in the US and with the exception of land and/or buildings. There are reasons for and against that, and they pretty much apply to IP, too.
If some state decided to start taxing wealth, IP would be no exemption, although there are a few of specific difficulties with it. IP you created yourself is fiendishly difficult to evaluate, something that is easier if you just bought it, where the market-based price is assumed to be a good proxy for worth.
Did he? Where? He said he supported an estate tax -- which he obviously wouldn't pay until dying.
Most talk of a wealth tax is about taxing wealth while you're alive.
CA also has a property tax and capital gains tax.
Oh yes, and a business income tax, and a franchise tax... honestly curious if there is a tax that California doesn't have...
Property tax makes sense, I’m essentially supporting my country / region through payment to protect said land.
Tax on goods crossing boarder makes sense, I have to pay for inspections and potentially for protection.
Tax on sale of good kind of makes sense, because again we need protection (likely equivalent to worth of good).
Income tax is this weird one because it seems like punishment for being productive. Arguably we are paying back society for being productive? But that seems odd given we are taxed for everything else.
I’m any case, my gripe here is no one should be pro tax IMO, maybe pro “free medical care”. But why would anyone call for taxes. Wealth redistribution already happens with estate tax and honestly (from what we’ve seen in history) wealth redistribution kind of happens automatically.
Having come from a poorer family myself and now making a lot of money I find progressive income tax ridiculous. I have student loans, mortgage, etc. things the wealthy already don’t have.
Which is my point progressive income tax punished making money, not wealth already obtained.
A decent enough summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality
_British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy by country, educational performance, trust among strangers, women's status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in countries and states with higher inequality. Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, they found social/health problems lower in countries like Japan and Finland and states like Utah and New Hampshire with high levels of equality, than in countries (US and UK) and states (Mississippi and New York) with large differences in household income_
> I also don't think reducing wealth inequality is a foregone goal that takes priority over other criteria.
See above "bad stuff".
> A progressive income tax also reduces the incentive to create economic value. And most of the time, the increased tax revenue is not managed efficiently - for example, California doesn't have "better communities" or improved services for all the tax it collects.
There's maybe 15 socialist democracies with a higher HDI than the USA, with higher taxation (and more progressive taxation). People still work through higher brackets, buy expensive things etc.
But the point I was originally making regarding communities is slightly different. Even if there is variance in income locally, I feel like I belong to a community and city. Most people around me would likely say the same thing. It doesn't make me feel like a "community" is being "torn apart" due to variance on income or wealth. The definition of "community" or what it takes to say that it is being "torn apart" is going to be inherently subjective and personal, and so such a broad claim doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Lastly, I think every choice has a tradeoff. It is worth noting that America has produced the bulk of innovations in the last 100 years, both from the work of public agencies and impactful private organizations. Other countries simply have not produced the same output in recent times. It is easy to claim that some other locale has a higher HDI but those same places are benefiting from the output of the American system as it exists today, with the very same tax structures that Gates is criticizing. For example: Washington State, which is specifically called out by Gates, has produced Microsoft, Amazon, Cray (supercomputers), Starbucks, Real Networks, Redfin, Tableau, Costco, Nordstrom, REI, Valve, Bungie, Expedia, Paccar, Boeing, and numerous other globally impactful companies that I have left out. It certainly seems like the impact and benefit on quality of life is there, and it is cultivated by an environment that has the right traits on multiple dimensions. Those socialist democracies you are referencing are not anywhere near in terms of their value add to humanity as a whole, and I think if they were isolated (not benefiting from global export of American outputs) they would definitely not have the same degree of development.
Personally, I don't see the point in trying to reduce wealth accumulation. People who amass a lot of wealth generally do so by creating something of value for society. If you remove the ability to get fabulously wealthy, I think you also reduce innovation. Would you risk everything on an idea if there was no chance of a massive payoff? Probably not. Likewise, if you are successful with one idea, you are much more likely to be successful with another, but if you don't have much capital, you can't pursue additional ideas. For example, Elon Musk wouldn't be able to start Space X, Tesla, etc at the same time (and probably none of them) if his "excess" wealth were confiscated.
The whole discussion about wealth/income inequality seems to be missing the mark entirely IMO. The important thing is that innovation continues to happen and the lifestyle of the average and the bottom continue to improve.
Let me set up two scenarios, A and B. In A, people have a very similar standard of living (very little wealth inequality), but innovation is fairly low, so quality of life increases fairly slowly. In B, there is a very large wealth inequality, but innovation is quite high, so even the poor experience at least a moderate quality of life increase year over year. So in B, the average "poor" person (say, median of the bottom 10%) has a higher quality of life than the average person in A. Which is preferable? What if B has some people slip through the cracks, but the vast majority are better off?
Personally, I prefer B, and choose to donate so those at the bottom are taken care of. However, some of my friends prefer A because people wouldn't know that more rapid progress is possible.
Personal story: When I was a teenager in the 90s I didn't understand why companies bought their inferior product - in terms of hardware requirement, because in the former Soviet block you likely had access to obsolete hardware, even in corporate offices - over the free alternatives. Then, when I started my own business in 2002, one day the BSA suddenly visited on my office door with two policeman and asked for proof for the licence we use. We had Linux and BSD boxes, so we showed them the online MIT and Linux licences, but they wasn't happy, because it wasn't in Hungarian and wasn't officially issued on paper by a recognised organisation. So I we had a pre-court summoning, had pay for a lawyer and pay for an official translation that cost us a lot of cash we didn't have, some falling out hair and cold sweat, because if we the judge fines us, we didn't have the cash to pay and that means jail time. Luckily the local Linux User Group made some noise and the BSA dropped the case, but I can guess the majority of the businesses just force-fed the IT dept with Windows and Office for the safety. To put the cost into perspective comparison, in 2000, the National Minimum Wage in Hungary was $119: https://tradingeconomics.com/hungary/minimum-wages, and a Microsoft Office 2000 was $499: https://news.microsoft.com/1999/01/07/microsoft-announces-of... and the Microsoft Windows 98SE $199: https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/13/ms_pricing_strategy... , so companies had all the interest to use the free Sun OpenOffice (née StarOffice) and X Window System, skip the need for more expensive Windows Servers and not to mention these were able to run on dated hardware.
I really wish the people who welcome Gates' generosity would think of the millions of institutions and governments who had to choose Microsoft to show off for Western countries and the companies who were extortioned by the Microsoft-funded BSA. For many of us, Microsoft was the East India Company of the modern world.
I want to see a higher capital gains tax directly tied to the value of your assets.
every human being has the right to make 50 bucks an hour 20 hours a day indefinitely . why? at roughly 350k a year there is no one whose time is worth kore than 10x someone elses time on a non taxable time tax basis..... in my view.
if your 'time' is worth more for compensation its cinsidered then...taxable unearned income. earning money by using your time means its a wage. wages should not be taxed.
this however is comoloo icated by how you define time and the time soent to gamble to obtain speculation based income.
wealth taxes are stupid.
so lets simplify.
introduce a flat standard deduction of 100k. no households no joint filing. before age 18 guardian parents or non parent guardians can file on your behalf. these are still indepndent filings.
Deoendants cannot be declared. they file independently.all tax credits are made illegal. All tax free financial products are made illegal through eminent domain the federal government buys your products out at par. enjoy reinvesting your cash in taxable instruments.
corporations are all to be pass through tax vehicles and do not exist for the pruposes of the irs until after they pull in over 500k in revenue regardless of expenses.
corporate taxes after 500k are subject to the same income tax as individuals. coporate tax is flat 20%. above 500k, corporations may no longer exist as state entities except for state purposes. they must file in paralell or exclusively federally as federal corporations to file a federal income statement. all income from corporations will be taxed again at the individual level after 20% is coolected. federal partnerships or other entities are all idenemtitcal to corporarions for tax purposes. all financial instruments that exist must be registered to a federated corporation. basic no frills cost to incorporate is free and hosted electronically as a public federal service by the treasury if the u.s. . the treasury service also provides an open standard API determined by industry roundtable for federal incorporation and analysis.
change the percentage numbers to suit you. but.....start there. radical tax simplification.
finally congress may by 1/3 vote remove any existing irs rule/reg in order to simplofy the cose further.