
Bill Gates calls for income tax in Washington state - moonka
https://mynorthwest.com/1658307/bill-gates-income-tax-washington/
======
throwaway122378
Luxury beliefs. The elite promote agendas that will never impact them directly
but will fulfill their internal needs to feel righteous

~~~
koboll
What? He's explicitly saying it will impact him directly.

~~~
kyledrake
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-
gat...](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/07/taxing-bill-
gates-100-billion-counters-bernie-sanders-could-end-homelessness-and)

~~~
lonelappde
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
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.

------
terandle
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

~~~
rootusrootus
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
What specific effect are observing to compare outcomes? OR has better strip
clubs and more people blocking urban intersections and lighting stuff on fire.

~~~
rootusrootus
I don't think I'd go that far. Except for the strip clubs, that's definitely a
plus. We do know how the tax is distributed by income, however, which may be
the only useful metric (absolute values having not much to do with method, I
assume).

------
almost_usual
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?

~~~
umvi
Why should the government be entitled to it, though? The government has shown
itself to be a terrible steward of wealth. I would rather we prioritize
incentives to use existing money more efficiently and cut wasteful spending
vs. increasing the amount of money pouring into the coffers.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
There is a difference between "the government" and "the state" (not US states,
and may also refer to "the people").

It's not that the state is "entitled" to it any more than it's entitled to any
other tax - but consider the state is responsible for society, economy and
infrastructure: overall the state created value. Whereas what is the moral
entitlement of someone who had the sheer fortitude to be born to someone who
had amassed that much wealth?

And if the state gets a decent amount of income from estate-taxes and it meets
its budget-goals and creates value through spending it - or even if it chooses
to lower taxes on everyone else instead, then consider who is the real net
recipient of the estate tax revenue? - everyone.

------
unionjack22
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
> 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.

------
xenocyon
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
"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.

------
tracer4201
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.

------
llrando
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.

------
erikw
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.

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
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.

------
lettergram
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
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.

~~~
throwawaysea
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.

~~~
aplummer
> What does it mean for inequality to "tear a community apart"?

A decent enough summary:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality)

_British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found higher
rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides,
teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of
social goods (life expectancy by country, educational performance, trust among
strangers, women's status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in
countries and states with higher inequality. Using statistics from 23
developed countries and the 50 states of the US, they found social/health
problems lower in countries like Japan and Finland and states like Utah and
New Hampshire with high levels of equality, than in countries (US and UK) and
states (Mississippi and New York) with large differences in household income_

> I also don't think reducing wealth inequality is a foregone goal that takes
> priority over other criteria.

See above "bad stuff".

> A progressive income tax also reduces the incentive to create economic
> value. And most of the time, the increased tax revenue is not managed
> efficiently - for example, California doesn't have "better communities" or
> improved services for all the tax it collects.

There's maybe 15 socialist democracies with a higher HDI than the USA, with
higher taxation (and more progressive taxation). People still work through
higher brackets, buy expensive things etc.

~~~
throwawaysea
Thanks for sharing. However, the paper the Wikipedia article is quoting is not
publicly available, and therefore I can't verify how they establish
_causality_ between inequality and those outcomes. Furthermore, even if there
were a causal relationship, that doesn't mean the US is doing anything worse
than these other countries. For example, countries like Japan or Finland may
have different health outcomes that could wholly be due to genetic traits,
eating habits, lifestyle choices, and other cultural elements. A statistical
test wouldn't be able to easily introduce a qualitative variable like culture
into the study, to separate the effect of such a variable relative to another
input variable like income distribution.

But the point I was originally making regarding communities is slightly
different. Even if there is variance in income locally, I feel like I belong
to _a_ community and city. Most people around me would likely say the same
thing. It doesn't make me feel like a "community" is being "torn apart" due to
variance on income or wealth. The definition of "community" or what it takes
to say that it is being "torn apart" is going to be inherently subjective and
personal, and so such a broad claim doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Lastly, I think every choice has a tradeoff. It is worth noting that America
has produced the bulk of innovations in the last 100 years, both from the work
of public agencies and impactful private organizations. Other countries simply
have not produced the same output in recent times. It is easy to claim that
some other locale has a higher HDI but those same places are benefiting from
the output of the American system as it exists today, with the very same tax
structures that Gates is criticizing. For example: Washington State, which is
specifically called out by Gates, has produced Microsoft, Amazon, Cray
(supercomputers), Starbucks, Real Networks, Redfin, Tableau, Costco,
Nordstrom, REI, Valve, Bungie, Expedia, Paccar, Boeing, and numerous other
globally impactful companies that I have left out. It certainly seems like the
impact and benefit on quality of life is there, and it is cultivated by an
environment that has the right traits on multiple dimensions. Those socialist
democracies you are referencing are not anywhere near in terms of their value
add to humanity as a whole, and I think if they were isolated (not benefiting
from global export of American outputs) they would definitely not have the
same degree of development.

------
human_banana
Almost everyone supports taxes on OTHER people.

------
egypturnash
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
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.

------
throwawaysea
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.

------
munificent
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.

~~~
nostromo
San Francisco, LA, and Portland have similar problems, despite having access
to income tax dollars.

~~~
Vervious
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.

