That’s Bill Gates Sr., the father of the richest man in America, explaining what Initiative 1077 actually proposes, and why he’s taking the lead on instituting a high earners income tax in Washington state.
Class warfare?
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
I’m not convinced yet…..but willing to listen. Bill Sr. comes across as a trustworthy spokesman for an idea worth consideration.
Questions I will need to have answered before I’d consider support and not addressed by Bill Sr.’s kick off.
How will it not be used as just a way to collect more taxes?
How is the imitative different that won’t allow legislators to use this change as a way to belly up to a new trough?
How will it be better than the myriad of other states that have both an income tax and a sales tax?
How will we not be the same as California?
re 1:
The whole purpose is to collect more taxes.
Uh oh! Gates Sr. better be ready for the disdain of the trolls.
No mention of Trusts and that they are not taxed.
No mention of his son and what Gates Jr. “fair share” ought to be based on his $50 BILLION of Net Worth.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
I smell a huge rat.
An attorney with a Super-Wealthy son trying to ding folks who are currently working for a living.
This is the ultimate Rich Guy Lawyer Scam on working people.
@1: I thought Bill Sr. did just fine. Your questions are pretty well covered, but to reinforce:
How will it not be used as just a way to collect more taxes?
@2 answered that and I’d add that it will result in fewer taxes for almost everyone but the top 3% AND vastly reduced BO tax for most businesses AND nets a $Billion in the process.
How is the imitative different that won’t allow legislators to use this change as a way to belly up to a new trough?
Audit provisions and any change in rates requires a vote of the public to become law.
How will it be better than the myriad of other states that have both an income tax and a sales tax?
It doesn’t with regard to the taxes per se. Other states have other issues besides taxes, e.g., California is paralyzed by a 2/3rds in both houses to pass a budget requirement.
How will we not be the same as California?
See my previous reply and have Tim Eyman declared a Horses Ass!
Taxing the top 3%? It’s about time they payed their fair share.
20% off my property taxes? I’m on board…where do I sign?
To quote Warren Buffett, we ALREADY HAVE class warfare……and his class is winning!
Wunderlick–
Then why are you allowing the Gates Family and old man Gates super-rich clients to escape the very tax Gates Sr. is proposing?
How is that “fair”??
Further quoting Warren Buffett…
“I believe in equality of opportunity. (My children) should not inherit my position in society, based upon the womb they were born from.”
On giving $30b to the Gates Foundation.
@8
Cyn still doesn’t understand taxes and trusts.
Family trusts are set up to pass assets without probate and are taxable. Most large family trusts are set up with an account attached from which the estate taxes will be paid so the principal passes directly to heirs saving time and legal fees. That is, of course, assuming that the estate is sufficiently HUGE to fall under the estate taxes and was not primarily a farm.
Charitable trusts are usually attached to a tax exempt non-profit. If Bill Sr., Warren Buffet, or even I make a donation to a charitable trust I DO get to take a tax deduction that is LESS than the dollar amount donated and the charitable trust can use my money to aid others. The donar gets a unequitable write-off and a sense of doing right by their fellow man through an organization that shares their values.
Cyn is not just living up to his name but projecting the worst impulses of his own values to Bill Gates Sr.
Off topic:
Hey, I’m getting a Pat Toomey fund-raising ad on HA right now.
I don’t know if it costs the Toomey campaign more if we click through but we should all do so just on GP.
they already revoked our limit on taxation; what makes you think they’ll honor this pledge on existing taxation…
guys..this is just more taxes (net) for all of us.
@12
Politically it is just better to keep raising the tax rate rather than lowering the cap … 50% on incomes over $200k sounds about right.
Hey, we need to collect more taxes. In case you haven’t been paying attention, we have a 2.8 billion revenue shortfall.
You’er mixing your metaphors, but what you might consider a trough, others would think of as how we pay for education and services for our people.
Why does it have to be better? It will certainly be better than a $2.8 billion shortfall. Maybe you need to define “better” a little better.
In California they can’t pass a budget because they amended their constitution to require a 2/3 votes in both Houses of the Assembly to pass new taxes, and the obstructionist Republicans have sucessfully blocked same. And that’s how we’re not the same as California.
I’m not pointing out the onbvious, that this is a citizen inititaive to raise taxes. Surely you already realized this.
4 K
Net worth is not being taxed, income is. I believe that BG Sr. is retired. I am sure has has some income, and he is very well-to-do. If he makes enough income, it will be taxed.
BG Jr. works as the head of the Bill and melinda Gates FOundation. I don’tknwo what he makes, but I assume he will qualify for this tax and will therefore pay it.
As for “net worth” Bill is putting much of his net worth into his charitable foundation, which is working to transform world health and American education. I saw him on UWTV yesterday talking to college students, and he said that he is giving away most of his money because he does not believe that it would be a good thing for his children to inherit vast wealth.
Daddy Love said:
It’s worse than that: CA requires a 2/3rds vote to pass a budget, let alone raise taxes. So far, even Timmah! hasn’t had the balls to go there.
Actually Daddy Love, you have just proved my point. Old man Gates is retired and his income is likely well-sheltered. So the Initiative he is proposing will have little impact on him personally.
And I agree his son has done lots of good things. But acknowledge that he did it by putting appreciated assets that taxes were never paid on in his Trust. My point is, why can’t his Trust pay taxes on earnings?
There are lots & lots of Trust vehicles out there HA loyalists, many used by the super-rich like Gates as part of a tax avoidance scheme….totally legal. But if you are looking at “fairness”, why should someone with a $50 BILLION net worth get away with paying next to nothing to the State? That’s the issue. Yes Daddy Love, we are talking about taxing earnings…proposed by the Daddy of a guy who intentionally takes low salaries. The question is, why not look at net worth?
Isn’t net worth more about Ability to Pay than current earned income??
This is precisely the issue I am raising.
Tax Ability to Pay, which is Net Worth.
Tax Trust Income.
Daddy Gates totally avoided these issues and came up with an obviously self-serving plan.
Don’t you get it? Seems like the Gates name makes your brains turn to mush.
Then again, you clearly don’t know shit about this. WHy not find out a fact or two and come back with THAT?
And again, you do not seem to know the tax laws around charitble trusts. It would be verty easy to find out, but I am not about to do your work for you. Why not find out a fact or two on that subject and come back with that?
And as to your larger point, I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to write a law to tax one man. Taxing income is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It you want WA to tax something else, write an initiative, gets some signatures, and get it on the ballot, lazy ass.
BTW, although it is not on this initiative, BG Sr. also favors a heavy estate tax. So much for self-serving.
Daddy Love–
So you are ok with the richest man in the world actually saving State Tax dollars with this law his old man is proposing??
Gee, the wingnut fools here seem to think that giving your money away to charity, with no expectation of receiving anything in return except for the corresponding deduction and a pat on the back, is “sheltering income” from taxes.
And these are the people that claim that we don’t know anyting about economics and business????
Sheesh.
Daddy Love-
I do know the tax laws re: Charitable Trusts.
You avoid taxes on appreciated assets by putting them in these…and avoid taxes on Trust income.
My question is why not tax them??
And Gates Sr.’s firm specialized in Tax Avoidance and Estate Planning. They are known for their success in guiding super-rich clients around the tax laws.
All I’m saying is the guy Gates Sr. is doing it right in your face.
And there are more Super-rich than Gates Jr. who have the ability to pay and will escape this law with actually more $$ in their pockets.
Why not cut some of the Trust loopholes?
Why only tax earnings?
I’m asking because it is so obvious to folks in the tax planning business that this is what is going on.
Why not ask the proponents family to come clean publicly and show the impact on them??
Seems like you are bent on defending Gates Sr rather than trying to get to the truth?
Why is that?
Why are these unreasonable questions for the proponent of the biggest tax law overhaul in history?
Are you in a trance over the Gates name?
Or just so gullible you throw away the basic premise of “ability to pay” and say this Gates Law is good enough…even if his family skates?
rhp–
Gates controls the charitable trust.
He is giving untaxed appreciated assets…not after-tax dollars.
You seem like a bright guy.
Think about it.
Apparantly the wingnuts think that the Gates (Sr. and Jr.) are playing a game of avoiding federal income taxes which would never be more than 35% of their income, by giving 100% of their income to charity.
With math and business skills like that, I think we could sell them the Aurora Bridge.
# 23: Yes, I know he gives his untaxed stock to a charitable foundation, which operates as a trust. Are you implying that he somehow still uses that money for personal benefit? I’m sure the facts would show otherwise.
I’ve been on the board of several 501(c)3 charities. We’ve always been very careful to protect the tax-exempt nature of the charity by making sure the money goes for charitable purposes. If we failed to do so, we would be personally liable to the donars, and our donations would have evaporated.
Gates has the most to lose if he were to treat the foundation as a source of personal income by co-mingling funds, using them for personal use, etc. It would endanger all of his tax deductions he received when he donated the stock.
Of course, the charity receives the benefit of the stepped-up basis on the stock, and the doner gets the tax deduction without ever having to recognize the appreciation for tax purposes. It’s been that way for a very long time, but nobody wants to change that because it would discourage charitable donations if they did so. The primary result is that the charity gets to spend more money on it’s mission, since it (or it’s donars) don’t have to reduce their contributions by tax payments.
If you want to thange that system, feel free to go ahead and fight that battle. But that’s not an argument against enacting a state high-earner income tax.
rhp–
So what.
The main point is Gates likely gains from the Gates proposal. The richest man in the world actually TAKES money out of the State coffers in a scheme that is supposed to force rich folks to pay more of the burden.
Ironic…and funny.
Gates Sr. must be laughing his butt off.