8 ms·

Bill Gates calls for income tax in Washington state

37 points by moonka 7y ago

throwaway122378 7y ago
Luxury beliefs. The elite promote agendas that will never impact them directly but will fulfill their internal needs to feel righteous
- koboll 7y ago
  What? He's explicitly saying it will impact him directly.
  - kyledrake 7y ago
    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? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/07/taxing-bill-gates-100-billion-counters-bernie-sanders-could-end-homelessness-and https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/07/taxing-bill-gat...
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      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.
      - lonelappde 7y ago
        Are you sure? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States
        jjeaff 7y ago
        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.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      Why make such blatantly false statements? 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.
      - kyledrake 7y ago
        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.
      - blaser-waffle 7y ago
        lol at 10% more. A whopping 20%. 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.
  - isoskeles 7y ago
    Is he proposing a tax on capital gains or income? Where do you think Bill Gates gets his money nowadays?
  - rkochman 7y ago
    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.
    - tracer4201 7y ago
      The key part here is he gets to decide who gets his money and how much.
- jordache 7y ago
  ha you just don't want to pay your fair share.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  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.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > 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.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      Yeah you're right. I was more referring to this specific context.
  - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
    > 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.
    - 7y ago
- Schweigi 7y ago
  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.
  - gdulli 7y ago
    He or she missed the entire point of the article. > he proposes raising the estate tax, and closing certain loopholes “many wealthy people take advantage of.”
    - Schweigi 7y ago
      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.
- tapland 7y ago
  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.
- anoncake 7y ago
  If he were poor, he'd be accused of egoism. If normal upper or middle class, of hypocrisy. There's a suitable ad hominem for everyone.
- gdulli 7y ago
  At least read the beginning of the article. > ”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”
- nostromo 7y ago
  I like Bill, but I agree. 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.
  - lend000 7y ago
    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.
  - teslaberry 7y ago
    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.
munificent 7y ago
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.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
  Seattle is suffering from self inflicted wounds. 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.
  - munificent 7y ago
    > 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."
- nostromo 7y ago
  San Francisco, LA, and Portland have similar problems, despite having access to income tax dollars.
  - Vervious 7y ago
    Fun fact, the percentage of homeless in Seattle is the highest of major American cities, at ~1.68%. For comparison, ~0.90% in SF, and ~1.45% in LA.
- electrograv 7y ago
  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).
almost_usual 7y ago
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?
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  That's what the estate tax is meant to do - to help prevent a landed-gentry and aristocracy from emerging which would subvert the republic.
  - almost_usual 7y ago
    I’m all for it then. If you inherit a million dollars or more you already have a ridiculous advantage over the rest of the world.
- jfk13 7y ago
  Not much; the really wealthy would find workarounds.
  - almost_usual 7y ago
    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.
    - nostromo 7y ago
      Tax havens are a thing, and this doesn't seem like a fixable problem without some sort of draconian world government.
      - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
        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.
erikw 7y ago
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.
- bksenior 7y ago
  What? If you make income on ip you get taxed. This point is strange.
- JTon 7y ago
  > 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?
- jellicle 7y ago
  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.)
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  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.
unionjack22 7y ago
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.
- nostromo 7y ago
  > He addressed the need to tax wealth 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.
terandle 7y ago
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
- lonelappde 7y ago
  WA has high sales tax. Poor people pay a larger portion of taxes in WA compared to elsewhere.
  - dfsdfklgjljg 7y ago
    CA has income tax and the sales tax is just as high.
    - utopian3 7y ago
      > CA has income tax and the sales tax is just as high. 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...
      - blaser-waffle 7y ago
        And yet somehow people keep moving there, and the NIMBY crowd keeps doing its best to keep folks out.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  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.
  - aksss 7y ago
    What specific effect are observing to compare outcomes? OR has better strip clubs and more people blocking urban intersections and lighting stuff on fire.
lettergram 7y ago
I’m pretty opposed to any income tax. 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.
- aplummer 7y ago
  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.
  - lettergram 7y ago
    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.
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    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.
throwawaysea 7y ago
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.
xenocyon 7y ago
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/ https://itep.org/washington/).
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  "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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) because many voters would not be spending their own money.
llrando 7y ago
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.
egypturnash 7y ago
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.
- lend000 7y ago
  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.
- aries1980 7y ago
  It is hard to forget how the Microsoft-led "Business Software Alliance" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_(The_Software_Alliance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_(The_Software_Alliance) threatened companies who planned to introduce free software. 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 https://tradingeconomics.com/hungary/minimum-wages, and a Microsoft Office 2000 was $499: https://news.microsoft.com/1999/01/07/microsoft-announces-office-2000-pricing-and-prelaunch-promotions-2/ https://news.microsoft.com/1999/01/07/microsoft-announces-of... and the Microsoft Windows 98SE $199: https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/13/ms_pricing_strategy_exposed_cheap/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/13/ms_pricing_strategy... , so companies had all the interest to use the free Sun OpenOffice (née StarOffice) and X Window System, skip the need for more expensive Windows Servers and not to mention these were able to run on dated hardware. I really wish the people who welcome Gates' generosity would think of the millions of institutions and governments who had to choose Microsoft to show off for Western countries and the companies who were extortioned by the Microsoft-funded BSA. For many of us, Microsoft was the East India Company of the modern world.
tracer4201 7y ago
I’m 100% against income tax or any other tax on workers. Close tax loopholes and make the billionaire and millionaire pay higher effective rates before you go after workers. I want to see a higher capital gains tax directly tied to the value of your assets.
human_banana 7y ago
Almost everyone supports taxes on OTHER people.
teslaberry 7y ago
i support categorizing all income to unearned income except the definition of 'earned' income to time earned wages. every human being has the right to make 50 bucks an hour 20 hours a day indefinitely . why? at roughly 350k a year there is no one whose time is worth kore than 10x someone elses time on a non taxable time tax basis..... in my view. if your 'time' is worth more for compensation its cinsidered then...taxable unearned income. earning money by using your time means its a wage. wages should not be taxed. this however is comoloo icated by how you define time and the time soent to gamble to obtain speculation based income. wealth taxes are stupid. so lets simplify. introduce a flat standard deduction of 100k. no households no joint filing. before age 18 guardian parents or non parent guardians can file on your behalf. these are still indepndent filings. 10% flat wage tax above 100k. and 20% above 500k$. 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.
methodiosmel 7y ago
I just want to know why onwone should care what Bill Gates thinks about Government tax policy. Seriously.

37 points by moonka 7y ago

Luxury beliefs. The elite promote agendas that will never impact them directly but will fulfill their internal needs to feel righteous

koboll 7y ago
What? He's explicitly saying it will impact him directly.
- kyledrake 7y ago
  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? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/07/taxing-bill-gates-100-billion-counters-bernie-sanders-could-end-homelessness-and https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/07/taxing-bill-gat...
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    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.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      Are you sure? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States
      - jjeaff 7y ago
        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.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Why make such blatantly false statements? 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.
    - kyledrake 7y ago
      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.
    - blaser-waffle 7y ago
      lol at 10% more. A whopping 20%. 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.
- isoskeles 7y ago
  Is he proposing a tax on capital gains or income? Where do you think Bill Gates gets his money nowadays?
- rkochman 7y ago
  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.
  - tracer4201 7y ago
    The key part here is he gets to decide who gets his money and how much.
jordache 7y ago
ha you just don't want to pay your fair share.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > 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.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    Yeah you're right. I was more referring to this specific context.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  > 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.
  - 7y ago
Schweigi 7y ago
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.
- gdulli 7y ago
  He or she missed the entire point of the article. > he proposes raising the estate tax, and closing certain loopholes “many wealthy people take advantage of.”
  - Schweigi 7y ago
    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.
tapland 7y ago
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.
anoncake 7y ago
If he were poor, he'd be accused of egoism. If normal upper or middle class, of hypocrisy. There's a suitable ad hominem for everyone.
gdulli 7y ago
At least read the beginning of the article. > ”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”
nostromo 7y ago
I like Bill, but I agree. 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.
- lend000 7y ago
  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.
- teslaberry 7y ago
  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.

munificent 7y ago

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.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
Seattle is suffering from self inflicted wounds. 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.
- munificent 7y ago
  > 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."
nostromo 7y ago
San Francisco, LA, and Portland have similar problems, despite having access to income tax dollars.
- Vervious 7y ago
  Fun fact, the percentage of homeless in Seattle is the highest of major American cities, at ~1.68%. For comparison, ~0.90% in SF, and ~1.45% in LA.
electrograv 7y ago
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).

almost_usual 7y ago

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?

DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
That's what the estate tax is meant to do - to help prevent a landed-gentry and aristocracy from emerging which would subvert the republic.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  I’m all for it then. If you inherit a million dollars or more you already have a ridiculous advantage over the rest of the world.
jfk13 7y ago
Not much; the really wealthy would find workarounds.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  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.
  - nostromo 7y ago
    Tax havens are a thing, and this doesn't seem like a fixable problem without some sort of draconian world government.
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
      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.

erikw 7y ago

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.

bksenior 7y ago
What? If you make income on ip you get taxed. This point is strange.
JTon 7y ago
> 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?
jellicle 7y ago
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.)
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
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.

unionjack22 7y ago

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.

nostromo 7y ago
> He addressed the need to tax wealth 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.

terandle 7y ago

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

lonelappde 7y ago
WA has high sales tax. Poor people pay a larger portion of taxes in WA compared to elsewhere.
- dfsdfklgjljg 7y ago
  CA has income tax and the sales tax is just as high.
  - utopian3 7y ago
    > CA has income tax and the sales tax is just as high. 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...
    - blaser-waffle 7y ago
      And yet somehow people keep moving there, and the NIMBY crowd keeps doing its best to keep folks out.
rootusrootus 7y ago
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.
- aksss 7y ago
  What specific effect are observing to compare outcomes? OR has better strip clubs and more people blocking urban intersections and lighting stuff on fire.

lettergram 7y ago

I’m pretty opposed to any income tax. 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.

aplummer 7y ago
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.
- lettergram 7y ago
  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.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  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.

throwawaysea 7y ago

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.

xenocyon 7y ago

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/ https://itep.org/washington/).

throwawaysea 7y ago
"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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) because many voters would not be spending their own money.

llrando 7y ago

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.

egypturnash 7y ago

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.

lend000 7y ago
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.
aries1980 7y ago
It is hard to forget how the Microsoft-led "Business Software Alliance" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_(The_Software_Alliance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_(The_Software_Alliance) threatened companies who planned to introduce free software. 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 https://tradingeconomics.com/hungary/minimum-wages, and a Microsoft Office 2000 was $499: https://news.microsoft.com/1999/01/07/microsoft-announces-office-2000-pricing-and-prelaunch-promotions-2/ 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_exposed_cheap/ 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.

tracer4201 7y ago

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.

human_banana 7y ago

Almost everyone supports taxes on OTHER people.

teslaberry 7y ago

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.

methodiosmel 7y ago

I just want to know why onwone should care what Bill Gates thinks about Government tax policy. Seriously.