Income Tax Quashed, Ballmer To Cash In Billions 650
theodp writes "Washington's proposed state income tax not only prompted Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to spend $425,000 of his own money to help crush the measure at the polls, it also inspired Microsoft to launch a FUD campaign aimed at torpedoing the initiative. 'As an employer, we're concerned that I-1098 will make it harder to attract talent and create additional jobs in Washington state,' explained Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith. 'We strongly support public education, but we're concerned by key details in I-1098. This initiative would give Washington one of the top five highest state income tax rates in the country. I-1098 would apply this tax rate to all income, including capital gains and dividends, and would not permit any deductions for charitable contributions.' Nice to see a company take a principled stand, backed by a CEO who's not afraid to put his money where his company's mouth is, right? Well, maybe not. Just three days after the measure went down in flames, Ballmer said in a statement that he plans to sell up to 75 million of his Microsoft shares by the end of the year to 'gain financial diversification and to assist in tax planning.' Based on Friday's closing price of $26.85, the 75M shares would be valued at approximately $2 billion. All of which might make a cynic question what was really important to Microsoft — public education, or a $2B state income tax-free payday for its CEO?"
No surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
...something is to be said for unenlightened self-interest. I am just not sure as to what.
He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:4, Insightful)
Income tax is on income, not capital gains. He wouldn't have been paying income tax on his share sale anyway.
And his argument was that it would hurt his ability to attract talent. Unless by talent he meant himself I fail to see how what he does with his assets has to do with this issue.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:5, Insightful)
I also fail to see the story. Ask any business manager and he will be against higher income taxes, in part because it makes it harder to attract new talent when your area has income tax higher than average. That means you have to PAY higher than average just to let the person break even on net bring home income. It doesn't so much matter WHAT the tax increase would be used for, as politicians have a habit of claiming that a tax increase is earmarked for a certain project, and in reality it just goes to the general fund.
Here in NC, they sold the idea of a lottery that way, the "education lottery", as "all the money will go toward education". Sure, and for each million in additional lottery money, they just cut the budget by a million, so the net effect is ZERO advantage to education and for all intent and purpose, the money goes into the general fund. But you can "feel good" about voting for the lottery, since it means you are thinking of the children. Politicians love new money, just as businessmen love low taxes.
Re:And so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I live in Seattle. (Score:1, Insightful)
Income tax or sales tax. One or the other. Not BOTH.
Personally, I'd support an income tax IF AND ONLY IF the sales tax was ended.
Re:And so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing socialists hate worse that failing to get their hands on someone else's money.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Apathas (Score:1, Insightful)
Because giving government unlimited access money will solve their budget shortfalls. State government is not had a income problem, they have a spending problem, when everyone else is cutting back, they have been ramping up their spending.
Re:And so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop using logic when Slashdot is having its 2 minutes of hate for Microsoft! And for the love of There-is-no-God don't point out the fact that Ballmer will be paying more $$ to the Federal goverment in Capital Gains taxes in this one transaction than all of the collective readers of this Slashdot story will pay in any form of taxes for their entire lives combined. Ballmer is rich, and therefore must have stolen the money from the Government! Anyone who makes more money than the Slashdot poster bashing the rich is automatically an evil rich bastard!*
* (Exceptions apply to CEO's of companies we are fanboys of, and billionares who dump money on left-wing "grassroots" causes like Moveon.org, with an exception-to-the-exception being Bill Gates who is still evil even though he dumps money on causes that the group would approve of if anyone else dumped the money)
Re:And so what? (Score:1, Insightful)
He sure as heck worked for it.
there are billions of people working harder than him, for pennies a day. Hard work has nothing to do with that amount of money.
Re:No surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There's more to it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly what happened with the federal income tax - originally it was just a 1% tax on the "evil rich" and then the government kept taking more and more money from more and more people. It's good to see that the people in Washington learned from history and didn't let the bill pass.
Also, income taxes are a very inefficient form of taxation because it discourages people from working (Economist Gregory Mankiw wrote an article in the NY Times recently about this). Consumption taxes (sales tax) are much more efficient and fair system of taxation.
FUD? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There's more to it. (Score:1, Insightful)
That argument is, quite frankly, trash. Consumption taxes hit those who spend their entire paycheck the hardest - ie the poorest members of society. The rich can buy from abroad, or do a hundred other things to avoid a consumption tax. It's pathetic to say that income taxes discourage people from working - ask the unemployed if it's the worry of income tax or the lack of available jobs and training that's keeping them from working. You might be shocked by the results.
Re:No surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
that may be true about not "maximizing" a profit but as soon as the company is not on the profit side the shareholders either sell their stock, or hire new management. At some point it IS after all a business - not much point in having it if its not profitable
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:1, Insightful)
Is the anybody that loves high taxes? (other than the people on the receiving end of that money)
The other way to look at this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends, I'd love to hand minnesota ~$300 extra this year if it would help fix the damn roads, or build a train, or make the buses work(by work, i mean have enough routes to enough useful places at enough times and not turn a 30 minute drive into a 1 hour 45 min ride.)
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are lying or out of your mind. A sales tax hurts low income people because they have to spend everything they make in order to live, and every cent they make is taxed. The rich can spend a tiny fraction of their income living in style, and keep the rest entirely tax free.
Anyone moderating his post as insightful is a moron.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no reason to believe that he did not work for his money
What exactly has "work" been like for Ballmer these past 10-15 years, anyway?
Has it been anything like the "work" that you and I might know? The kowtowing to tyrannical bosses? The ridiculous hoop jumping and bureaucracies, the ceaseless busywork and minutiae, the pressure to "do more with less", putting up with substandard and inadequate facilities and resources, working late hours and riding public transportation back to an Ikea-furnished apartment?
Or has Steve Ballmer's work been...different...a series of trips taken in a private jet, being driven in a limousine from the jet stairs to the luxury hotel accommodations where he'd stay? Dining out at four-star restaurants? Sitting in an expansive office on luxury furniture, droning on to subordinates before driving a company-reimbursed luxury automobile back to a large luxury home, attended to by a professional staff of gardners, housekeepers and dining on a meal prepared by a professional chef?
Yeah, you're right. He has been working hard. And sacrificing. Cut him that $2 billion check. He deserves it.
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:1, Insightful)
Now if you are rich on the other hand, the tax would apply to all kinds of luxury expenses. Buying a ferrari? Well then you are paying 23% of the purchase price in a tax. Buying a plane? The same.
By all means, keep supporting the progressive tax system. I will be more than happy to make millions I can keep shifting through tax loopholes because you are unwilling to close them. The reason a consumption tax is better, is because you can determine your tax overhead at the beginning of the year. No need to manage taxes for your employees paycheck, figure out your deductions, find tax credits, buy your car with your company, buy your vacation home as a company asset. It would no longer matter, because all of these things would become moot points. You would pay taxes on them, end of story.
Re:There's more to it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's more to it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, income taxes are a very inefficient form of taxation because it discourages people from working (Economist Gregory Mankiw wrote an article in the NY Times recently about this). Consumption taxes (sales tax) are much more efficient and fair system of taxation.
Consumption taxes mostly affect the poor. Why? Because they spend a larger fraction of their income on goods. So in that sense it's a much more unfair tax. On the other hand, concerning the argument that an income tax discourages from working: with an income tax you have more money if you work more. How's that discouraging? Could you expand on Mankiw's argument?
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also the people that want to spend the money. They'll claim they're "happy to pay" higher taxes for service X. But what they really want is for you to pay higher taxes so they can enjoy service X. When they say they're "happy to pay", they're essentially saying "I'll pay an extra $10 so I can spend $10,000,000 on things that I want".
Meanwhile, there's nothing keeping them from paying as much extra tax as they want already. Your local, state, and national treasuries are happy to accept any additional amount you'd like to send them. But the "happy to pay" people don't send any extra money. Because "happy to pay" is a disingenuous fraud.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask any business manager and he will be against higher income taxes, in part because it makes it harder to attract new talent when your area has income tax higher than average.
Miracle! If you frame the question as getting more than giving, everyone pipes up in full agreement. Uniform consensus is usually a dead giveaway that the question is half framed. It's also hard to attract talent if your civic structure decays until only Batman is holding the fort.
Around here people are opposed to the HST (harmonized sales tax). This raises more revenue for the province, and helps to balance the books. There are only two alternatives: increase a different tax, or cut programs (unless you count waving the magic wand of waste-free administration, as much beloved by the pumpkin pie in the sky sect). The programs large enough to achieve the necessary cost savings are most likely the usual suspects: education, health care, and pensions.
What people are really in favour of is decreasing taxes while increasing programs. You can sell that proposition any day of the week. You can even return from the political grave to mobilize heroic opposition. (Damn, I thought we had put a stake in that guy. Bill Voldemort. I dare not speak his name.)
Government is a necessary evil. Solutions proposed by the cheerleaders of polarization (no government/all government) are worse than the disease. The useful debate is on subjects such as accountability and effectiveness, not self-interested wishful thinking by sober capitalists cloaked in the gravitas of expensive suits while fixing their beady eyes on their next quarterly bonus payment.
The joy of capitalism is the pursuit of narrow self-interest. That's why it works, and that's also why you don't solicit the people involved for balanced perspectives.
Besides, fat cheques speak louder than words.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there is nothing preventing you from stroking an extra check to the govt. Asking/requiring/demanding your neighbors do the same...not so good.
Re:No surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, particularly if you are a public company in the US, long term = did we make this quarters numbers?
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you see, all of Washington State is obviously evil because Microsoft employs some people here. As a result, any decision made by Washington taxpayers is also obviously evil. (The fact that Boeing, Nintendo of America, Amazon, Costco, Starbucks etc. employees all voted the same way? Well, that's irrelevant.)
If Slashdot didn't post this, they'd need some other paper-thin excuse to bash Microsoft today! And those are hard to think up sometimes!
Re:There's more to it. (Score:1, Insightful)
If you would read actual reports, when major companies were asked if they would relocate to the US under this law, 80% said they would, because it simplifies the tax structure. No more need for an army of tax lawyers and accountants to figure it all out. No new laws to have to brace for.
This past year, Chevron-Texaco paid 9.8 billion in taxes, but only 200 million of that to the US government. A similar situation with Microsoft, because they sell their licenses to a foreign subsidiary, who in turn licenses the products back to the US company for almost all the profit they made. That way they can export their profits, but still claim them in stock reports.
The fair tax would make this type of system impossible to continue. In other words, major companies would pay their taxes for once. How is this a lack of contribution from the rich?
Also, you argue the rich will buy their luxury products abroad. How can they? The sale will have taken place in the US, and thus taxed. Read the bill.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft's Lost Decade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe you've just elected poor leaders who've squandered all your money.
Re:And so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what are you proposing? Some kind of Federal Council of Does-He-Really-Deserve-That-Paycheck? Would it say "yes" to Tiger Woods and "no" to Ballmer? How about Oprah, does she deserve her payday?
Or maybe Ballmer is the *only* one the Government should get to make that decision about? Single out a single person? That's Democratic, right?
What, in practical terms, are you proposing exactly?
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:2, Insightful)
Poor people are some of the biggest buyers of cigarettes which are one of the highest (if not the highest) taxed item. They're also much more likely to pay the stupid tax (ie lottery) .
Quite frankly I get annoyed about all the scare mongering about how more fair tax systems (like the flat tax) supposedly hurt the poor. They don't and all the current system does is allow companies and rich people avoid more tax they should. As far as the poor the benefit tremendously from taxes so actually it's not asking too much that they pay something.
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:5, Insightful)
You, moron, need to read the national fairtax bill. It reduces the taxes on the poor to absolute 0. If you make below the poverty limit, you get a 100% refund of the taxes, with an increase for each dependent. If you did not work at all this year, you would get a refund of taxes up to the poverty limit, as if you had worked (the same refund, for doing nothing). So your argument is null. Under that tax system, the poor would pay absolutely nothing, and would even get paid, if they didn't work.
Now if you are rich on the other hand, the tax would apply to all kinds of luxury expenses. Buying a ferrari? Well then you are paying 23% of the purchase price in a tax. Buying a plane? The same.
By all means, keep supporting the progressive tax system. I will be more than happy to make millions I can keep shifting through tax loopholes because you are unwilling to close them. The reason a consumption tax is better, is because you can determine your tax overhead at the beginning of the year. No need to manage taxes for your employees paycheck, figure out your deductions, find tax credits, buy your car with your company, buy your vacation home as a company asset. It would no longer matter, because all of these things would become moot points. You would pay taxes on them, end of story.
It's a shame that you started an otherwise cogent retort with 'You, moron', because that typically makes people tune the rest out. Try civil debate sometime; you may find that you get better results.
Maryland has a state income tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Amusingly enough....Maryland has also been a leader in the nation for job growth for a large duration of the "recession". We were far less hit with it than anyone else around us.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:5, Insightful)
Europeans.
What amuses me is how America's system of 'trickle down economics', whereby they keep average wages down whilst all the proceeds of growth are sucked up by a largely non-producing elite, has left it in such dire economic straits that only reckless borrowing (both private and government) keeps the whole house of cards propped up, yet no-one actually questions this system. It's as if the more the system fails, the more people believe in it. The more money made by the rich at the expense of the workers, the more people think taxes on the rich are too high; the more average people struggle to stay afloat, the more people think wages are too high and unions should be crushed so people can earn even less.
After firing millions of workers, corporate profits are soaring. So what do the people do? Vote for the candidates backed by those corporations. It's almost as if the American people are committing economic suicide.
Re:There's more to it. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is actually total horseshit. For most high-paid jobs that end up in the top brackets, there are way more people willing to do the job than positions available. No-one's going to turn down a seven figure paper-shuffling job because they only get half of it.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're exaggerating a bit. The Two Minutes Hate is really reserved more for Apple and Facebook these days.
Re:And so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, right. (Score:1, Insightful)
You only say that because you're a racist!
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt 1 million people in WA make 200k (Score:5, Insightful)
Why be cynical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why be so cynical? Can't it be both? I know that so many here are incapable of anything other than binary reasoning, and want their moral conundrums to be perfectly black or white, right or wrong, good or evil, and that is pretty much what drives the "wannabe nerd" moral outrage 'round about these parts, these days... but the real world isn't binary, you know.
Hell, the real world isn't even digital - it's analog. And let's face it: Analog is messy, at best.
And, I think I just created my new sig *grin*
"Life isn't binary... Hell, it's not even digital. Life is analog, and analog is messy, at best".
Regards,
dj
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you have probably been called a racist because of making sweeping statements about groups of people you don't see yourself belonging to.
In the very post I am replying to you show a tendency to make sweeping statements about groups of people, to pigeon-hole others, and to view the world through a mechanism of "us and them".
All in all, those things are a recipe for disaster. Or not, if you seek to rule.... Do you think the holocaust could have happened if it weren't for prejudices in society that the Nazis were able to stir up?
Re:And so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Interesting claim. Let's examine it a bit.
It' not entirely unfair to assume that each member is a reader. In fact, we can safely assume that there are more readers than members, but there are also inactive members (i.e. people who used to read, but don't any more), but since you didn't exclude those (collective readers implies every single person who has ever read Slashdot), let's just go with the highest member number I can easily find - mine: 1,360,093.
Now, Ballmer is selling off about 2,000,000,000 dollars worth of stock. That's 1,471 dollars per Slashdot member. Assuming a low average life span of 60 years, most people will be paying some kind of tax for 40 of them. Now we're looking at paying an average of 37 dollars a year. In any kind of tax (your words). How about sales tax? I think it's a fair assumption that we will be averaging more than 37 dollars a year in sales taxes alone.
There is a fault in my maths though. 1) Average life span is higher than 60 years. 2) On average we will have paid taxes for more than 40 years when we die. 3) There are now more than 1.36 million Slashdot members. None of these facts makes your claim any less idiotic, even if you were being facetious.
Re:National or state makes quite a difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there is an easy solution to that, and we have had that in Europe for ... hum, let's see, in some places 100 years now ... strange how much time these radical ideas about a more equal society take to arrive USA.
The solution is different sales taxes for different kinds of goods. A very high one for luxury goods (an iate or sports car), a normal one to non absolutely necessary goods (plasma TV for instance, cars, etc.), and a very low one, or complete exemption for indispensable goods (non processed food, water, heating, etc). Really, it's not rocket science people.
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ditto. I also live in Washington. We already have one of the highest sales taxes in the country - almost 10% in some areas already.
While Washingtonians may deserve the politicians they elect, we are not totally stupid. I could care less about how this affected Ballmer and a few other people. It was very clear that this was a tricky way to slip an income tax on top of the sales tax and that it would hit everyone before long. The politicians have tried this several times as they desperately want to control more of the citizens money. For our own good of course. ;-)
The problem with "progressive" taxes is that the government only has to inflate our currency to increase our tax rates. No nasty unpopular voting needed...
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully I-1098 was actually a bad idea, because otherwise Ballmer just scammed the Washington electorate.
How did he "scam" them? He inserted his thoughts and ideas into the public debate. Nobody held a gun to a voters head and said "You must do what Mr. Ballmer says is right."
Re:There's more to it. (Score:4, Insightful)
So his argument is that consumption taxes encourage saving money. But that makes it even more unfair to the poor who don't have money to save. Rephrasing his argument: people who can afford to save money can gain more with a consumption tax than with an income tax. In other word, it's a gift to rich people. Which was exactly my first point.
As for the second point and your reply (your sister). I would wonder if it's not actually a gain in quality of life for her that working overtime is discouraged. Her boss certainly won't expect her to do it if there's nothing in it for her. Maybe he'll hire another person -- it will certainly be cheaper for him to hire another person than to pay your sister adequately for the extra time if your numbers are correct. I.e. everybody benefits, it seems. And if she actually enjoys working so much and my point concerning quality of life doesn't hold, then she will certainly also enjoy working overtime without compensation ;)
Lastly, yes, if people benefit extraordinarily, I don't see why they should not also contribute extraordinarily (your point about the taxation quantiles).
Re:Microsoft's Lost Decade (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft's Lost Decade (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot more to this than Ballmer (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an even more pressing concern. The income tax proponents state it as only taxing the rich (i.e. 200k+ income per year). Just like the AMT in federal law, though, it is not indexed for inflation. So even if the state legislature left it unmodified by some miracle, people would start falling into the tax trap.
Anyone who believes we're not in for some massive inflation is in a fantasy world. The Fed is printing money left and right.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:4, Insightful)
I-1098 would apply this tax rate to all income, including capital gains and dividends
Which is a wonderful idea if you ask me. I don't see why some sources of income should be magically exempt - and it gets particularly suspicious when those are the very same sources most heavily used by the richest (and are what is largely responsible for the growing wealth divide).
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair tax isn't what they're suggesting. This is a way of allowing Billionaires to pay even less tax than they do currently. Under it you'd pay absolutely no tax on investment income or income of other sorts. Meaning that as long as you don't spend it you don't pay tax.
The problem with that is that at some point somebody has to pay taxes. This is the same sort of incompetent tax policy that the GOP has been pushing for years. Cut your taxes and then we'll all have more money. The problem is that you can't cut taxes and have an out of control military budget. You get one or the other, not both.
The best plan I've heard that we could reasonably see implemented was Steve Forbes' flat tax proposal. The tax as I understand it is actually lower than what most folks pay now, with generous rebates for people in lower income brackets that are behaving responsibly.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:5, Insightful)
They had their chance to contribute to the healthcare bill, for instance, and not only did they opt out, but they chose to make up outlandish lies like the death panel lie and do whatever they could to kill the bill.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:4, Insightful)
My state went from light blue to dark red. We've got like 2 democrats left in the House, every other major elected position is republican.
With outcomes like that, why would you expect the republicans to do anything but lie and stall? That seems to work wonders. And it once again leads me to idle thoughts about how we could require an IQ test for voting, as a way to weight votes. If you think that the democrats started death panels and are utter failures for not stopping two wars and fixing the economy in 2 years, your vote shouldn't count for much. It's not reliable in the least.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I live in Seattle. (Score:3, Insightful)
Run the numbers for Fair Tax over a longer term period. It continues to shift wealth to the wealthy, further increasing the income disparity between classes in our nation. The bottom line is that money makes more money, and the only way to stabilize disparity is to raise taxes on those with more money. I'd be happy if we could keep the ratio of class wealth consistent, instead of watching the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I think you'll find that this is impossible. Richie Rich has a billion dollars and makes 20 times more interest in a year than he spends. His net worth goes up over time unless you tax him at over 95%, and if you do anything even resembling that, he moves to a country with a lower tax rate. Joe Sixpack makes $35,000/year and spends all of his after tax income, regardless of whether his tax rate is 100% or -100%.
The trouble with class warfare is that it isn't really a war. Poor people are never going to have as much money as rich people short of some communist utopia. The goal should be to benefit everyone, not some poorly planned "redistribution of wealth" zero-sum game. Measures aimed at punishing rich people rarely do anything other than screw over the middle class (see also: Alternative Minimum Tax not indexed for inflation) and thereby push more of the middle class into the ranks of the poor instead of the opposite.
Re:National or state makes quite a difference (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to tax them at higher rates. Percentages already do that. Just tax them at a flat rate.
Do the math. You get taxed 10% on $25,000.00, they take two thousand, five hundred bucks from you. They tax some rich person at 10% on twenty million dollars, and they take two million dollars from them.
Flat tax, two people contributing, one is you at about two thousand, five hundred bucks the other is the rich guy at two million dollars. Total is two million, two thousand five hundred dollars. Of which YOU paid about 1/800th of the total. Say they build a highway from this taxation. Now you and the rich guy can drive on it. Does that feel like you're not "redistributing the wealth"?
Isn't that enough, without the rich guy paying an even higher percentage?
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but me, I'm not rich, yet a flat tax rate seems pretty severe already, and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. The problem as I see it is that the rich aren't paying that rate. Look at what Google just paid in taxes. And it's perfectly legal, by which I mean to say it's perfectly broken.
Re:I doubt 1 million people in WA make 200k (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we didn't vote for the status quo - we sent a clear message to Olympia to trim state spending. The state budget has grown 80% in the last decade, and we're tired of paying for it. We're tired of the Legislature overriding the express will of the people (by twice removing the limits on tax increases put in place by initiative). We're tired of the Legislature raiding earmarked funds for other purposes. Etc... etc...
Or maybe we seen the pig-in-his-trough behavior of the Legislature down in Olympia and are appalled at it - and have no faith that the tax will remain limited to the 'rich'.
Re:There's more to it. (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you figure? The top marginal tax rate (for income above $373650 in 2010) is 35%, not 90%. The way the tax brackets work is that higher rates kick in at higher thresholds of income, they kick in on only the income *above* that threshold. So, for example, below $34000 the rate is 15%, above that it's 25% (assuming you're filing single). If you make $36000, you're only taxed that 25% rate on the $2000 above the threshold. There isn't any scenario where you don't want to make another $100 because you'd be paying anywhere close to that $100 in taxes.
Granted, you can make a little more if you happen to be at the edge of one of the lines on the tax table and aren't pushed to the next one. They're $50 increments, so this gets you at most $13. Enjoy your movie and popcorn.
Re:Microsoft's Lost Decade (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried to forget it as well but the nasty little thing still creeps in on users laptops every now and then.
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:3, Insightful)
Since there was no capital left after the last fiasco, the social programs (which the vast majority support) are being raided to provide more capital so the Ponzi schemes can continue to benefit the few.
Had it not been for the Ponzi scemes, the social programs were sustainable despite being very badly managed in some cases.
Do not confuse social programs with "jobs for the boys" schemes, where huge numbers of people are employed in pointless jobs by left wing governments to create dependents who will vote them back in (Like Blair did in the UK, and Mugabe does in Zimbabwe).
Re:He wouldn't be paying income tax on that (Score:1, Insightful)
Smart people only have better rationalizations for there ideology, not necessarily a better ideology to begin with. An IQ test for voters would not help.