How big a trough do plutocrats need?
53
Good! They should be. They deserve getting nervous and worse. They are no different than Louis XVI and Czar Nicolas Romanov. Let they tremble because their comeuppance is on the way. The only good news for them that there is no more guillotine or firing squads to get rid of monarchs and oligarchs.
40
I remember reading a story about Wilbur Ross pilfering sugar packets from the White House food hall to put in his coffee at home. When you take sugar packets to avoid paying for sugar and you own billions of dollars, that’s not greed, it’s pathology.
68
Does the NYT really think that investing in inner city schools will create more folks like Gates?
16
Rich scammers like Gates should shut up and pay their taxes for a change!
27
I am a democrat and a NYT subscriber. But I don't believe in disproportionately taking other people's money to spend on my own causes.
37
Dems don’t have a platform problem, they have a perception problem.
GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz rebranded Billionaires “job creators.”
Dems need a Luntz.
Rebrand Wealth Tax as a “Credit-Correction.” The rich have been underpaying and burdening us with debt for decades.
Rebrand Medicare-for-all, as “Apollo Care” Apollo is the God of healing and medicine, and healthcare is our moonshot.
Rebrand Universal Child Care as “Angel Investing” Every penny spent on kids is an investment that pays dividends.
Presentation can make the democratic platform palatable.
37
Mr. Gates and other billionaires,
We do not need your charities.... we need you to pay your fair tax share!
69
Bill Gates for President. He “gets it.”
8
America worships the golden calf in the form of such as Gates & Trump. God has failed to send prophets who are sufficient to the problem of human greed
20
Self serving rich guy couldn’t care less about the common man.
23
The comments to this Editorial are impressive. It’s as if every socialist in the Country has made a comment. All 2000 of you.
24
Bill Gates is as socially inept as Mark Zuckerberg. Both understand tech innovation but seem to have zero empathy. It’s Gates’ wife Melinda who has built a great foundation bringing clean water to third world countries and responsible for bringing desperately poor people up from making just $2/day.
Melinda’s work with HIV, cholera, and malaria is saving lives. In the meantime Bill Gates remains almost clueless.
He is STILL unable to explain how he became close with Jeffrey Epstein even a decade after Epstein was convicted of pedophilia! This newspaper dove into the times these two spent together for a week at a time as recent as 2011.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-jeffrey-epstein-friendship-swedish-mother-daughter-meeting-2019-10
No one...NO ONE has any right to be a billionaire when people are dying of starvation around the world and one out of five children in the USA is homeless.
Peter Thiel who became a billionaire with Paypal! used his billions to put Gawker out of business as they had outed him a decade ago--as if no one knew.
Tech giants are stealing our data and the world is worse for most social media.
Jon Huntsman Sr owned a chemical company that designed the foam egg cartons and became a billionaire, gave ALL that money back to his employees, built cancer hospitals and put his nine children through college and no more. Including his son Gov Jon Huntsman Jr. recently resigned as ambassador to Russia.
I know folks who work HARD and are poor!
39
What a splendid argument the Times makes for claiming that the wealth of the rich should be theirs to spend as they please. You don't believe such theft is immoral at all, do you?
20
There is a recent French book titled :
" L'art de la fausse generosite ,la Fondation Bill et Melinda Gate "
By Lionel Astruc. Editions Actes Sud .
"The Art of fake Generosity, the Foundation Bill and Melinda Gate"
A serious investigation of the Bill Gate foundation by the French journalist Lionel Astruc who wrote 16 books about ecology , world economic transactions, etc...
He analyzes how the Gate foundation, pretending to work for health and social inequalities, in fact finances quite unethical institutions, is persuaded that OGM will save the world and pushes some poor peasants at using Monsanto products.
A lot of activities are against the pretending intentions of good doing.A lot of interests conflicts. And Bill Gates has become a huge financial power by which he buy himself more power in the scientific world but also influences research in ways that are very questionable.
The foundation is very opaque.
A radio show for those who can read and understand French:
On French public radio France Inter.
https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-interview/l-interview-16-mars-2019
17
Can the NYT please arrange a forum where Bill Gates has to explain to Bernie how we need to save oligarchy instead of have a just, sustainable and civil society?
48
Those little whiners. I'd sell my Chase AND Microsoft if it wouldn't blow my 1099s up to the point my ACA policy doesn't save my savings from vanishing. Just you wait until I hit the Medicare big time and haven't got to sweat who controls my health insurance!
I'm coming for both of them and I'm gonna buy momma a big purse so I can swing it in their faces when I withdraw my I Bonds, Jamie! He leverages those babies like 70 times real value. Right in the old wazoo!
5
Get out while you still can.
5
“Ben, I’d like to speak with you.”
“Yes, Mr. McGuire”
“Ben, are you listening?”
“Yes, Mr. McGuire”
“Ben, I’ve got two words for you”.
“Yes, Mr. McGuire”
“Just two words, Ben — ‘Wealth Reform’ ”.
“Ben, it’s like the ‘Land Reform’ that worked in many countries, and unlocked all the looted, stolen, expropriated, hoarded, monopolized, and land taken out of any productive use”.
“So, Mr. McGuire, are you saying that all the wealth capital that has been stolen, looted, hoarded, monopolized, taken out of productive use, and hidden in corrupt tax heavens, which is simply making faux-profits by dumping ‘negative externality costs’ on others, our own government, the environment, and our citizens should be shut down and ‘clawed-back’, Mr. McGuire?”
“You’re a smart, moral, and ethical boy, Ben.”
8
One of the key tragic flaws of Capitalism is the false label of "genius". The truth of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and on and on, is that these folks were largely white men who were decidedly in the right place at the right time and in many cases were morally vacuous enough to steal the right ideas at the right time as well.
"Genius" is an entirely racist, sexist, and class based term that divides and separates the haves from the have nots. The "better" billionaires like Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, or Gates, start hospitals and donate to cure malaria. Good for them. I'm sure I'd do the same if I had even a billion dollars as opposed to 50 or 60 or 200 billion dollars.
I firmly believe we'd have the equivalent of Microsoft and Apple independent of these "geniuses". Thomas Edison didn't really "invent" the light bulb, for instance. He stole ideas from a number of other researchers of the era.
For this reason (did Ford invent the car?) we need to temper the wealth of these folks. Redistribution of wealth should be a fully understood and fundamental aspect of a healthy Capitalism. Even Elizabeth Warren's plans will certainly leave these robber barons billionaires. That's how obscene our Oligarchy has become.
We have collapsed fully into Transactionalist culture. Led by the conman Donald Trump, the United States is embracing a philosophy hell-bent on consuming the planet with nothing but ash left.
No one should be as wealthy as these men.
32
If NYT really believes what it's writing let's start taxing newspaper / media companies at 90%, Think of the prosperity they would enjoy. The members of NYT editoral board can pay 90% on their person incomes as well.
Maybe Elizabeth 1% Warren will lower the threshold of her proposed wealth tax so that it applies to herself? Why does she not put her money where her mouth is?
20
Got that, Bill?
4
Snowflake Jamie Diamond$$$
The Only Way we can Win is for Plutocrats and Oligarchs to feel Fear Daily.
12
If the progressive billionaires like Gates are getting nervous, the fascist billionaires in the Koch Network are at Defcon 6. Look for the attacks on Sanders and Warren to start coming fast and furious.
23
The rich are “innovators” and “job creators”...you mean like the Trump clan ???
21
Thanks so much for providing us, your readers, with examples and facts with which we can make more informed decisiones - like who to vote for!
3
Do it! Soak the rich!
Then watch all of America's talent move for other, more lenient tax environments.
Posting statistics about the tax rates in the 1970's is bogus. The world wasn't globalized the way it is today. Billions in capital couldn't just exit a country for another one with the press of a key back then.
Of course, you didn't include the fact that the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. That would ruin your argument!
But go ahead, soak the rich. Then see them all leave and the U.S. turn into Argentina. You're already well on the path with your rhetoric, and enacting the measures you're calling for will seal the deal.
26
“A clean conscience is the softest pillow”
Unfortunately, it would seem that billionaires have either highly selective or no consciences.
10
"Billionaires" have nothing to do with any matters that concern non-billionaires. And there is no amount of tax they can pay, or wealth that can be transferred or donated, or charities, foundations, pledges, investments, aid, welfare, endowments or any other payments that have anything to do making your world better, more just, or less unjust. It's your world, your obligation, your responsibility. Not theirs. And it's not your money or the government's that can make any difference to anything. Get back to work. Grow up. Save and invest your money. Grow your wealth. Manage your life and your affairs.
13
It is you, who have the facts backwards.
It's the billionaires who create jobs. The middle class who work for their pay checks are the ones nervous.
12
Just this last summer, Jeff Bezos lost 38 billion dollars overnight in a divorce settlement. Did he have to shudder the doors at Amazon and lay off all his workers? No, he just got on with still being the richest man in the world. We are talking about people who could literally lose 95% of their wealth and they would still be living better than 95% of the people on this planet, and yet they react to the idea of having to pay taxes as if they were being asked to chop off their own arms and legs.
37
"The Billionaires Are Getting Nervous"
Well, that's sure a good sign.
15
Is the premise of this article that if we taxed the rich more the $250 trillion of unfunded obligations at the federal and state level would be mitigated? I mean, sure go ahead and tax Bill and Warren and Elon. That will raise, what, a few billion?
And I’m no fan of government regulation, by there ought to a law against quoting Piketty and Saez. Phil Gramm’s analysis of their work is devastating - how can we claim the tax code is skewed when the bottom quintile get $10-$15 in govt benefits for every dollar of tax they pay?
I know, I know, the rich are evil and the poor suffer what they must. But please prove to me any entity in history more generous towards the poor than the US federal gov’t, circa 2019.
19
The irritating underlying premise of this piece is that the rich have no right to keep the wealth they have earned, that it must necessarily be given to "the government" to wisely disburse the way "it" wants it to be spent. Bill Gates is exactly the wrong guy to pick on for this discussion...he has already given up billions of dollars and will donate the lion's share of his wealth to his self-directed charities after his death. But, no, that's not good enough for the rapacious Left which thinks their ideas are far better, more noble and less selfish than those of the guy who earned the money in the first place. Just a note: government does a lousy job at managing money.
20
Just out of curiosity, would Bill Gates or any of his fellow billionaires even notice if they gave away 99% of their billions? Realistically, at his age, preciously what could he possibly want that he couldn't buy with $1,000,000,000? Does he ever even consider how many people's lives he (and his peers) could change with just a fraction of their fortunes?
The afterlife is an AWFUL long time, and they can't bring their billions with them. It is quite amazing how selective 'Christians' can be with the parts of the bible that are sacrosanct, while other parts ("It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.") are conveniently ignored.
12
You would be getting nervous too if political opportunists were running around promising to appropriate your money.
11
Where in the conversation is the information that we, the taxpayers, funded the research —the creation of the internet—that Gates, Zuckerberg, et al capitalized on???
Our country used to have some common beliefs...such as
To whom much has been given, much is required.
No success is done single handedly
18
The billionaires are scared of Warren, that's why Bloomberg is entering the race.
13
Taxing billionaires does not necessarily lead to less innovation.
This sounds suspiciously like the threat big pharma uses on us: Drugs must have higher prices or your loved ones won’t get cures. (But pleano attention to the fact that more is spent on advertising than on research!!)
12
Kristalina Georgieva, The new Managing Director of the IMF applauded the Trump Administrations “Bravery to use tax reform to spur more growth” Oct 27, Axios on HBO. This quote appears the current leader of the IMF supports Trump’s tax plan.
1
Thankyou for this editorial. Why should the plutocrats be intellectually dishonest when asked to contribute more to the well being of their compatriots ?
4
200 points to the NYT Editorial Board for not only adding some objective facts to this economic discussion but also debuting the inspired term "perturbed plutocrats" to describe the oligarchs who should be coming to the aid of their country, using their considerable power to build a coalition to do the right thing for all the people, at a time when both the U.S. and the world are in danger of sliding into class war, bloody revolutions and wars.
8
Next to this article online is a piece about how even people with good insurance can not pay hospital bills and are facing law suits from hospitals.
If the Billionaires think they can keep all their money, they are stupider than they look.
Change will happen, either via elections or by more dangerous means.
The center is gone, Income Inequality is now greater than during the Gilded Age of the late 1800s.
Wake up. Your gated communities can not protect you from the change that is going to happen.
Lets make sure that change is via elections and Democracy.
12
Bill Gates is not just a billionaire but one the greatest global philanthropists. I expect a serious journalistic entity like NYTines to at least mention it so that readers can make an informed judgement about his perspective of the tax-plan.
12
People really really really need to get their head around just how much this man has. His net worth is ~106 BILLION dollars. If you were making $100,000 (which to most of us is living the high-life) a year it would take you 1,060,000 years for us to earn what he hoarded in 30 or so years. His wealth is disgusting. No amount of "philanthropy" can make up for what he has done. It's about time for the American people, and people around the to wake up to the fact that we live under a worldwide oligarchy of the ultra-wealthy. This man alone could end homelessness in the US and still have billions leftover. There is not enough material goods in the world for Gates to purchase. Something needs to be done and frankly Warren and even Sanders do not go far enough.
16
I have lived in Europe for many years and found the article below a good description of their differences with the American mentality. In the EU, wealth taxes have failed, no EU country taxes only "the rich". They discovered that the rich can move to another State or country so much more easily than the poor can.
It might help some Americans understand how these countries have found a solution they are very happy with: very high taxes for all citizens from the woking class up, corporate taxes being around the same as the US.
"The average annual income in Denmark is about 39,000 euros (nearly $43,000) and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. Add 25% value added tax on most goods and an addition 7% income tax for salaries above $67k"
SOURCE: "Why Danes Happily Pay High Rates of Taxes
People in the European country see taxes as an investment in their quality of life.
By Meik Wiking
20, 2016"
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-01-20/why-danes-happily-pay-high-rates-of-taxes
10
In 21st century America, we may need to update the adage, “The most dangerous opponent is a man with nothing to lose.”
The importance of billionaires has become difficult to exaggerate. They’re rare, but now for some reason — they’re of very great significance.
Communication/technical billionaires.
Propaganda billionaires. Power mad, control-the-nation billionaires. Fund my own campaign billionaires.
And of course one dangerously crazy, orange billionaire.
Perhaps we should go to:
“The most dangerous opponent is a panicked billionaire.”
Or maybe:
“The most dangerous opponent is a spoiled billionaire when denied his own way.”
4
Gates $100B, Bezos $150B, Walton’s $150B, Koch, Buffet... and all the other other billionaires—probably a trillion held by the top 20 people.
Suppose by magic wand that hoard could be distributed to create a whole bunch of eager entrepreneurs with a million dollars each of angel funding—one million of them.
As an alternative scenario, suppose that trillion was put in the charge of just Gates, or just Charles Koch, or the newest B, the wework guy who was reportedly given $1.7 billion so he would just go away.
Which alternative would you prefer, and which one do you think would portend a brighter future for the economy and the people living in it?
1
If the top 10% of U.S. households continue to gain wealth at the same rate they did from 2013-2016, they will have 100% of the wealth in the U.S. just 33 years from now.
Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/personal-finance/2019/08/04/at-this-rate-the-rich-could-truly-have-it-all-just-33-years-from-now/
5
The ease with which these affluent people lie is appalling.
How can a small percentage-wise wealth tax have such a negative effect on their lives to the point of stifling their innovation? Such fear-mongering tactics are ridiculous at best.
For years, 1982-todate, these fat cats got richer on the backs of America's middle class, and now they are complaining. They are simply shameless. I guess greed knows no limits.
14
Jamie Diamond complains Ms. Warren vilifies them? Has he forgotten what the greed of the banks did in 2008 ? They are villains and scoundrels , they loaned money to people who shouldn't have gotten loans and passed the cost to us . the American public paid for their greed . They should have been held accountable ! As for innovation , credit is due to Mr. Gates , I also applaud his contribution to charity but when it comes to innovation , the U. S. has fallen behind . Has big pharma innovated on badly needed new medicine ? The few new drugs are prohibitive and so have the generic and old ones become . It is all about the money . Of course they're nervous .
6
Since Bill Gates jokes about his $100 billion wealth being taxed away, he is clearly concerned about the Wealth Tax, not income tax and capital gains tax which Bill Gates welcomes and this editorial mistakenly focuses on.
A Wealth Tax is a bad idea. The tax takes away wealth and spends it like it were income. Try spending 6% of your own wealth each year, and you'll see your net worth quickly decline. Eventually, you will have no more wealth to spend as income, just as Warren's Medicare for All plan will eventually spend away the country's wealth, leaving the country without a way to fund fully Medicare for All.
Another example are what will happen to private companies. The New York Times used to be a private company owned by an extended family. The New York Times is currently worth $5 billion. If it were still owned by one person or trust, that single owner would have to pay a 6% wealth tax or $300 million. Where would they get the $300 million to pay the tax? Per its EPS, it currently is on track to make $135 million this year. Perhaps, the remaining $165 million could be paid by laying off enough employees. If the employees cost the company $200,000 per year on average, the company would have to layoff 82,500 employees, almost 20 times the number of employees the company actually has.
Of course that single fictional owner could sell 6% ownership each year to pay the Wealth Tax. This would lead to disaster too (but I have no more space in this comment to expl
8
Lest the people of the United States of America forget : the most important thing to be accomplished in your next election is not who to tax but to remove the most unfit President in the history of your country. The rest of the world does not have a vote but we are all impacted for good or ill by the choice you make every four years. The world is paying a very high price for the choice YOU made in 2016. Please be extremely careful about your next choice.
8
The media is owned by billionaires and so is our "Democracy".
3
I defer to Mr.Gates. No the janitors daughter.
4
I used to have respect for Bill Gates. Now I see he's just another ultra rich guy trying to get more money. How many steaks can you eat at once, Bill?
4
Why when I quoted Kristalina Georgieva, the new Managing Director of the IMF calling Trumps tax cut “Bravery to use tax reform to spur growth” 2 weeks ago is the comment delayed, or buried for a comment dump later tonight? Her comment was made 2 weeks ago, not 2 years ago, as your column reflected the success of the plan?
4
They are not getting "nervous". They are getting very concerned about the future of this country. It is fast moving from offering equality of opportunity to demanding equality of outcome. "Progressives" appear to be simultaneously going after anyone earning and keeping their own money and going after anyone who has saved and invested their own money.
In parallel with various ways to seize money, "progressives" are pushing to eliminate anything that smacks of "meritocracy". Perhaps we're headed for a new form of government, "dumocracy".
9
For those who want to believe the fantasy that Bill Gates is the smartest guy on earth, please go to Youtube and watch Grandmaster Magnus Carlsen of Norway checkmate Mr. gates in 12 seconds flat. That's what I call chess schadenfreude.
1
" The End of Neoliberalism and the Rebirth of History "
Joseph Stieglitz -
Columbia University professor.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/end-of-neoliberalism-unfettered-markets-fail-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2019-11
1
Taxation doesn't have anything to with innovation, let alone job creation. The proof is that after latest Trump tax cuts for the billionaires most of that money went buy back stocks for corporations, while creating more wealth for the same whining billionaires in a perpetual virtous cycle.
That's why is so pathetic watching some billionaires crying diamond tears while putting a blame on Mrs. Warren tax plan and the end of "The American dream".
More on the subject:
https://www.salon.com/2019/11/08/now-mike-bloomberg-wants-to-run-why-are-these-whiny-billionaires-all-up-in-our-faces/
5
Billionaires, by definition, are not loyal to their country or neighbors with whom they have precious little in common. That’s why they go to Davis to hang with other billionaires.
1
How many jobs did Bill Gates create? How many jobs did the members of the Editorial Board create?
8
What foolish liars the super rich have made of themselves. They rely on the collective creativity of our nation to even begin to achieve the "success" that would not have happened without it. Of course Gates is oblivious to the fact that unfettered growth is destroying the biosphere and the very foundation of all of our lives, including his and his family's. Ms. Warren's plan is very likely too little too late. Gates and his ilk need to be taxed in accordance with their negative impact on Earth.
3
OK, America, we are about to loose the 2020 white house again to the party of the worst presidents in history. These guys were mostly jerks and really terrible people. Trump is the worst of the lot. Some how the economy is growing and the pendants won't fess up to how. Unemployment is still going lower, but just what has contributed to this all happening. What has trump done? I don't see it. The wall? Tax bill? Lay it out for us. It's grown steadily since 2009, why is Trump getting all the attention?
There's this: "CALCULATOR FOR THE BILLIONAIRES
Some billionaires seem confused about how much they would pay under Elizabeth’s Ultra-Millionaire Tax. Don’t worry, now we have a calculator for that too." https://elizabethwarren.com/calculator/ultra-millionaire-tax
2
May government of the people by the rich and for the rich perish from this earth!
2
Having heard Bill Gates discussion of the Warren tax proposal, the Times editorial board needs to get better reporters. Warren's idea is divisive and really going to cause immense disruption. You don't have to be rich to see that.
9
“I do think if you tax too much you do risk the capital formation, innovation, U.S. as the desirable place to do innovative companies — I do think you risk that,”
That a pretty non-specific statement. What kind of tax - personal income, tax on savings (a new idea), capital gains tax, business taxes? And how much did he mean by too much.
The editor(s) makes no attempt to clarify any of these points. Although they state that that from the ed(s) pov 100% would be too much - but even then we have to guess they are talking about personal income tax or something else.
So much emotion, so little inclination to bother with essential details. In a nutshell, populism.
"By The Editorial Board - The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom"
IMHO not living up to the byline.
5
Welcome to untethered capitalism. Total race to the bottom
2
so Gates is not the genius we imagined him to be but desite some degree of admirable philanthropy hexx's just another typicaly selfish fat cat defending the pile our society permitted him to accumulate.
3
Translated: We know that higher taxes on the super wealthy do not stifle them. We ask what will they do with all of the money they have sequestered from society. Money should be used wisely to better society and not hoarded to anyone's advantage other than the hoarders. Confucius said "Méiyǒu yǒuyìyì de shǐyòng de jīnqián běnshēn jiùshì wúyòng de, méiyǒu jiàzhí." "Money without meaningful use is in itself useless and without value."
2
I aml quite astonished about the fascination of some to Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. These "french economists" seems to be trend, like the Beaujolais nouveau. I would like to inform that they supported Jean Luc Mélenchon during the last presidential election who had for model Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I am not sure that the US is really in need for confiscation and redistibution model à la Chavez to make it simply. All the billionaires I have heard so far like Bill Gates, Leon Cooperman, Bloomberg, Tom Steyer who are in a lot of case democrat agreed to pay more taxes but warned of the excessive rethoric of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Chillout; it is not because we have a right wing no tax President that the response should be with a radical answer in November 2020
6
Republicans keep banging on about making America great again, well one of those things that made America great was a tax structure where the very rich paid their fair share. Much of our infrastructure is from '60-'70s, the time when the marginal tax rates were in the 70% range. That infrastructure is badly in need of repair and replacement, something that funds generated by raising taxes on the rich would allow. Further, the spending of said tax dollars on the construction would provide much more of an economic boost than handing yet another cut to the rich.
16
The billionaires need not worry. Ms. Warren's plan will never come to fruition. The time for the billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes is still a decade or two away. That's when the billionaires will worry.
3
I quite often disagree with the Editorial Board, but god I love this article! Spot on, and so clearly explained!
6
The billionaires don’t own America, but they sure act like they do.
14
It's a myth that the wealthy "earn" their money. Their money earns their money; they simply clip coupons and collect dividends. Furthermore, much of the wealth is inherited, not amassed by clever entrepreneurs. The country is awash in trust-fund babies living like royalty on the proceeds of inherited money, never having had to lift a finger in their lives. Their income from investments so far exceeds their needs that their fortunes grow, practically unimpeded by taxes. The tax rates that these people do pay is far lower than that paid on earned income; this is the opposite of how it should be. I find it difficult to be sympathetic to the plight of these people, poor dears. Tax 'em!
27
I'm a high school graduate who worked for wages his entire working life. That was a working life that ended at age 45.
It became evident to me very early on that marginal tax rates had quite a bit to do with my ability to accumulate, not capital, but retirement savings. (My earnings years were in California from 1966-1994, between the ages of 18 and 45.)
Once continuing to earn a working-for-wages living in a (Californian) environment that asked of me more than 50% of my marginal income, and I had through (apparently) exceptional thrift (but not investment returns) positioned myself to be able to quit working for the indefinite future, I retired from the workforce.
Except for professional enjoyment (and, mind you, I was a top professional in my field), there was no other reason to continue working.
I suspect the people dreaming up best-and-brightest formulations of a perfect world for the rest of us do not account for people like me. Granted, when one-size-fits-all formulations are what's on offer, how could they.
3
Taxing the ultra-rich may be politically expedient but it won't make much fiscal difference.
Think of it as the apex of a triangle.. the available taxable revenues diminish geometrically the higher you go.
6
still gives us more money than them paying lower tax rate than I do.
15
@Skeptical Cynic Think of it as a lot of money that should be ours, not theirs.
12
@Tufty Thessinger
If they worked for it and earned it lawfully, then it's theirs.
4
Define growth, please.
do you mean growth in Gates' wealth?
Or percentage of kids graduating from high school or college.
Or number of useless gadgets sold?
Or number of jobs created that won't support the worker?
Or money in the banks?
Do we count good things that are not bought and sold, like
healthy kids and safe neighborhoods?
Perhaps we should re-evaluate what we count.
14
Whenever the subject of taxes comes up, one thing is very clear from comments: most people aren't very financially savvy and most don't do their own taxes, so they really don't understand the code, their own taxes, or the taxes of others.
8
"The federal government needs a lot more money"
A dubious argument by The Editorial Board for raising taxes on higher incomes, or across the board for that matter. What the American public has not heard in quite some time from any state or DC incumbent/candidate are the words:
"Our number one priority for raising additional funds is to first reduce fraud, waste, redundancy and irrelevancy in the budget."
When American families in lower and middle classes are pressed for additional cash, what are the options? Demand employer pay increases? Hardly. They are forced to reduce budget by some means - live without - cut out luxuries - find better deals - e.g stretch their existing budget further.
Why do we not demand the same from our elected officials before allowing them to dip their beaks in our wallets?
11
I have an idea. Why don’t we implement a tax code that prevents anyone from ever becoming a billionaire?
Billionism, the billionaires’ religion which can only be purchased, not only horribly twists the minds of its adherents, it is also presents a clear and present danger to our electoral process and American democracy in general.
14
@Tom W
Agreed. 20-50 mil, fine. 40-110 bil, absurd. Obscene.
3
Firstly, your opening para is misguided. When gates started Microsoft he could not have known that it would succeed enough to hit the highest taxation rate. No first time entrepreneur does. But high tax rates can be a disincentive once you have a business that is in the highest tax rate, because the next investment will then start at that highest rate for the first dollar earned. That is particularly true if you are a small business owner with an S-corp or LLC. then you do have to ask whether the risk of losses with the next business are worth it if you pay 70 percent tax. This point would be obvious to any small business owner in the highest tax bracket.
Secondly, what marginal tax rate sfo you consider to be objectively fair and why?
7
@Sandeep
Those who have never owned a business or known someone who owned a business can't relate to what you are saying. I'll tell you where we are going to see the earliest signs of what tax policy and health care policy do to the incentives to work: we are going to see 55-65 year old doctors cashing in their chips and travelling.
8
I'm with Bill Gates. Government spending of other peoples money has never been as efficient as private individuals spending. But if the US wants to emulate the USSR, go ahead.
10
Warren threatens the 'American dream'? How about the 00 percent American nightmare.
And Gates says there will be less innovation? Have you noticed stock buy backs and the hidden wealth of the rich neither of which does anything for innovation, but takes plenty out of our economy? And why should Bill Gate be allowed to determine what is important for our nation? He does plenty of good but little for the middle class who are stuck in neutral or in our country dying early.
17
So, around 1790, did Louis XVI, the French Royalty, the French Catholic Cardinals and bishops get nervous? Fortunately, we’re a democracy so the American royalty and upper classes will only be asked to give more in taxes like the rest of the dying middle class already do.
10
Back in the days of high taxes for the wealthy, there were tax breaks that they could enjoy...and those tax breaks involved things like giving to charity, creating charities, expanding their work force. In other words, the wealthy got tax breaks by giving back to society. That's why we have a Carnegie Hall, the Getty Museums, many hospitals, our highway system, so many of the wonderful things that we enjoy as a civilized society were the results of taxing the wealthy at high rates. Back then it wasn't a smart thing to try to hide wealth in the Caymans because then they didn't get the tax breaks. I don't delude myself that the concert halls and museums would have been built anyway, because that simply isn't true. They were built because the rich found it more profitable to give back to society than to squirrel their money away. Plus they got their names on some pretty wonderful things. Can you imagine in your wildest dreams Trump doing any kind of good for society without literally being pushed into a corner? We need high taxation for the wealthy if we are to survive as a civilized nation.
12
How much is enough for these billionaires? Investment in the working and middle classes always spurs growth. The velocity of money is what makes the economy hum. More money on Main Street means more profits for businesses.
Since Reagan, we have slashed taxes on the wealthy and everyday people have to make up more of the pie. Education, infrastructure, healthcare are desperately needed. Time to revisit Eisenhower era taxes!
14
Most of the wealthy that would be subject to the wealth tax did not make the money they have, they inherited it. They tend to be low risk investors. They are in fact a drag on the economy. It is far more preferable to have people who will spend the money. Consumption is the driving force of the economy, not savings.
13
A healthy environment, the green new deal, lower student debt, excellent schools, and excellent health care will encourage innovation. The wealthy are more likely to buy up patents and bury them as they are to innovate. The wealthy are more likely to buy the elections and bury innovators from gaining elected office. Most of us will never see a million dollars, forget 100 billion. Economics 101 tells us that a growing middle class and srincking poverty is best for business and innovation.
10
I suspect Bill was estimating his lifetime tax burden, not just next year's taxes, when he said $100 billion.
3
The more they have to lose, the less secure they behave.
7
The common mistake is that billionaires think they are smarter than the government to help the poor. No they are not ! That’s how simple it is.
11
How would you trade the government's performance on poverty reduction?
2
When the tax rate at the beginning of the fifties was even higher, we had a national development far greater than now. No billionaires then, no masses of people on the streets of SF.
8
@Charles Welles There was another rate that was higher then. Rather, it existed then, doesn't now. And that would be interest your bank paid on a savings account. Ten percent or so then, 6 during my time, the 70's.
3
wait, we aren't all paying the same percent?
2
Cooperman, among many others, are not so much concerned about paying more taxes. Cooperman explicitly argues that the wealthy should pay more taxes in the form of higher, more progressive rates for the rich. The nub? A wealth tax is terribly hard to administer. It would require three times the revenue dept. agents to determine a value of paintings and depreciated yachts, foreign holdings, etc., etc. Thousands of lawsuits contesting value would go on for years. (As a lawyer, I should like that.) Fourteen countries have tried a wealth tax and have either abandoned the system, or are in the process of doing so. Trump's tax cut was and still is the travesty. 90% of it went to corporations which used it to buy back their own stock, raise dividends or to increase CEO salaries. Little went into R&D. Repeal that move, then increase tax rates for the wealthy, but not with a "wealth tax".
Like her "medicare for all" plan, Warren's tax plan is only intended to sound good. They would be nightmares.
6
Sure. But we really need MILLIONAIRES to be getting nervous. The establishment in America that protects its wealth, consolidates its power and prevents social mobility is FAR larger than 0.1% of the country. I daresay it includes a few on this very editorial board.
6
Without our $800 billion dollar military's control of world trade via the US Navy, the billionaire class of multinational companies don't exist. You may have built it, but my tax dollars help protect its existence while you shipped it.
8
@SteveH
You hit the nail on the head ! The USA 's trade policies are to benefit the multinational US corporations- the same corporations which say they will move away if govt. increases any taxes. But our taxes pay for their safety in foreign lands . That is why warren is right in her assessment .
5
It's time to put this all into numbers that we can all relate to.
Based on a year of work being a standard 2000 hours (50 weeks x 40 hours = 2000 hours):
A person earning $100 an hour would gross $200,000 a year. This would in most areas be a very comfortable living.
$200K is the average salary for doctors in the USA.
We're going to need to start adding some zeros to that wage to approximate the yearly compensation of the wealthy.
$1,000 an hour would be $2,000,000. A large number but still a ways off from the largest yearly compensation.
$10,000 an hour would be $20,000,000. Now we are getting into NYTimes' top 200 of total compensation, albeit the lower end of it. We're still about two zeros from the top gains in a single year, although one year Sheldon Adelson made $15,000,000,000 in a year.
$100,000 an hour would put us at $200,000,000.
$1,000,000 an hour puts us into the $2,000,000,000 range, which is $500,000,000 under the current high water mark for this year - Robert Pera
To further put this into context, we should compare the difference in scale from a highly skilled profession - a doctor to that of a ceo in NYTimes' CEO 200.
$200,000 is to $20,000,000 as $2,000 is to $200,000.
That means that person would be making $1 an hour in relationship to what a doctor makes an hour.
That's the disparity the CEO class has between them and one of the most educated and highly trained class of workers in our society.
10
Gate's line that "bad not just for the wealthy but for the rest of America, too. " is just not true. Most Americans are not participating in the kind of economy he lives in. Most people have NO disposable income to invest in the market .... any market. His passive income must be staggering. How are we supposed to wrap our heads around that figure.
The entire US economy is tailored to help people with money to make more money. It's like the old truism : "you can't get credit unless you already have it".
The middle class tax cut is a myth. So many of us are in the 25% tax bracket, let alone those of us who are self employed and owe 15% of our income to SS. How many tax breaks are there for really small businesses or for sole proprietors? Oh yes, you get to deduct the cost of your health insurance which you bought on the open market an onerous rates. The best most of us can afford is catastrophic health savings accounts with high deductibles.
All the big players keep presuring the FED to lower the benchmark interest rate. It's been at or close to zero for so many years now that ordinary people have no way to earn any money on their deposits other than to gamble on the market. CDs, savings accounts, NOW accounts and money market funds pay next to zero to "borrow" your money. The majority of Americans have been left to their own devices. Mr Gates is out of touch.
21
The billionaires and the multi-millionaires, at least those have appeared on TV shows such as CNBC, have shown where their allegiance is and that's their money and how to keep all or most of it. Forget about the causes that they champion or the charities that they donate to or the patriotism that they profess for their country. Those are just smokescreens to hide their greed.
9
@Paul
Then there are the facts:
2016 - "The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $538 billion, or 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $440 billion, or 30.5 percent of all income taxes."
AND, as you say they support many charities, sports, education and institutions.
When so few pay such a large portion of all taxes collected, it is a little disingenuous to use the word "greed", no?
Maybe "thank you" would be more appropriate?
10
Ms Warren has demonstrated that the universal health care can be paid for without raising middle class tax cuts. The major point that gets lost in all of this discussion is that its a proof of principle - there's enough wealth in this country to easily pay for taking care of the health of all of our citizens without any undue suffering on the part of anyone. Maybe there are other more appealing ways to do this than what she's proposed, but the principle of the thing is that. In corporate-speak world there's the well worn phrase "people are our most important resource" ... if that's true (and corporations never lie), then we need to invest in out most important resource make us healthier, well-educated, with all the tools a society can provide to enable positive proud contributions from each and every one.
3
Republicans knew exactly what they were doing with their tax cuts: bankrupt the United States in order to destroy Social Security and Medicare.
We are in trouble.
17
There's no such thing as an American dream. There is however an American Lottery and yes you can win it, as you can win any other lottery. The question is what are your chances.
11
It's hard to believe that higher taxes would deter a person as wealthy as Gates from continuing to be motivated. After all, he has long since reached the level where more money coming in makes little to no difference to his lifestyle, yet he continues on.
7
Most of the people I know live like me with just enough money to get by. We have no idea what it’s like to have plenty of money to take care of unexpected home or car repairs, or serious health issues, or have complete security to pay all monthly bills. We just don’t have that feeling of comfort, ever. I’ve worked for fifty years, retired as a teacher but didn’t earn a full pension since I took time off when our son was born. We’ve always lived sensibly and frugally. My husband owned a small business with his two brothers and retired after the Great Recession decimated their business.
When someone like Bill Gates boo hoos about taxes on the super-rich, I want to throw up. Try income insecurity for a year, then tell me how hard your life is. And this pales in comparison to the lives of people in poverty. Just stop yourself, Bill Gates.
20
The issue is should policy have a bias towards supply or demand? It's not a matter of opinion but of mechanics. I'll explain:
There's a limit to the efficacy of policy bias of both demand & supply: when that occurs you've reached a saturation point. At that point policy bias can go no further: its lost its efficacy to positively affect the economy. At saturation point a reversal of direction is necessary.
If there's too much demand RELATIVE to supply you get inflationary recessions (stagflation 1979)& government attempts to increase demand has lost its efficacy: so time to switch to supply bias policies.
The source of demand is wages. The source of supply is investment. Supply bias means suppressing wages & favoring rich-investors. Since 81 wages have been suppressed (see graph 2 at bit.ly/EPI-study)
If there's too much supply RELATIVE to demand you get deflationary/lowflationary recessions (also low ROI, so if 1 sector does offer high ROI, investment floods it creating investment bubbles like tech bubble in 1998) That means
Government attempts to increase supply has lost its efficacy, so time to switch back to demand bias.
Supply saturation hit in 98 so 21 years ago we should've switched to demand side. Instead Bush pushed supply, the result: Great Recession.
We're 21 years past when we should implement demand bias policy. Yet Bernie's the only 1 advocating such & he's
called radical (demand existed 1941-81 or when Am was great). Its matter of mechanics.Gates is wrong
5
Stop pretending that rich people pay income tax. The only people who suffer from income tax increases are the middle class.
12
Bill Gates’s argument is risible. Taxing the
Extremely wealthy will level the economicplaying field and create some semblance of equity for Americans who bankrolled the original information technologies when Gates was a toddler and the DOD subsidized research and development of these technologies in university labs. It will provide funds for new. entrepreneurs to emerges during create new wealth, which might be directed at improving our appalling infrastructure. Gates is no saint. He dominated Washington State’s educational systems in the 90’s; many teachers were skeptical regarding the monopolistic control his technology exerted over classrooms. He made his pile; he chooses which issues serve his agenda. Our tax system is deeply undemocratic and regressive. Elizabeth Warren has done her research well and knows that without a more just collection of taxes we will never be able to grow our economy.
5
it is a mistake to couch a policy to increase tax rates on the wealthy and corporations in terms that call in to question the morality of being a billionaire. it is no more immoral to be rich than it is to be poor. the rich are no more predatory than the poor are shiftless. the fact is that most of the wealth attributed to billionaires is wealth on paper only that exists in reality as stock in companies created and owned by them. however it is necessary at this time to raise more revenue to reduce the deficit. annual deficits of a trillion dollars are not sustainable and will eventually lead to economic stagnation. the purpose of a system of taxation should be two fold. taxes should be sufficient to pay for expenditures, and the burden of taxes should be spread equitably among tax payers. a progressive tax system is appropriate, and there should be no loopholes allowing the rich and corporations to pay no tax. the tax system should not be used for purposes of social engineering. given the very low tax rates imposed on the wealthy and the numerous existing loopholes it is appropriate at this time to increase tax rates on the wealthy and corporations, and to close as many loopholes as possible. one thing that economic experience has shown over the last 70 years or so is that there is no evidence what so ever that higher tax rates will result in low economic growth.
11
Having watched that interview, I'm not sure this article is putting Gates's words in proper context. He displayed a deep understanding of these issues and clearly was sincere about being okay with giving more in taxes. His point about not wanting to pay 100bn in taxes was simply him saying the exact thing this article also says, that taxing effectively all of someone's net worth is a poor idea. I'm not sure why you would criticise it while also making the same point.
Remember that (among other things), The Gates foundation's donations of vaccines and other medical equipment have saved literally thousands of lives, and that he has pledged (and lobbied other billionaires to pledge) to give away no less than 90 percent of his net worth.
Almost any other billionaire on Earth is more worthy of ctiticism than Bill Gates. Surprising choice on the part of the Times.
7
If everyone would take a step back, our longterm success as a democracy and an economic power depends on a growing majority of educated, healthy, prosperous citizens, and a shrinking population of homeless or impoverished underclass. Even the most selfish of billionaires must see that we're headed in the opposite direction. They need to accept that the America of the 21st century is headed for decline unless we invest in the next generation.
7
This is why Bloomberg jumped back in. He rightly fears Trump for the nation's sake, but fear Warren or Bernie for his own.
4
Bill Gates has contributed millions and maybe even billions of dollars to charities. If he is forced to pay exorbitant amounts in taxes, these contributions may cease. There will be many people affected negatively if this occurs. It will be a sad day for these people.
5
This is avarice at it's most virulent.
Let me get this straight - Bill Gates, Dimon and other richer-than-god billionaires are threatening the rest of us in the event that they and their shareholders can't gouge the American people and make record profits every. year .forever, while quality of life is getting worse for the working class (astronomical price of health care and housing crisis anyone)? Really?
Talk to people working 2 jobs or struggling to pay their bills or find nice, affordable housing and ask them how your "trickle down" theory is working.
Dear Billionaires,
If you're not grateful for the billion dollars that you already have, then maybe it's time for you to just stop or perhaps you don't deserve that much money. You can't spend that in your lifetime.
8
Democracy is all about compromise. President Obama achieved everything he did by having the courage to compromise with Republicans at every step - for the $900billion stimulus package which brought millions of jobs back, for Obamacare which gave medicare to 20 million uncovered Americans, for the Dreamers etc etc. Democrats can only hope to progress with their Liberal progressive Agenda if they care to understand & accommodate the contradicting views of 40% Conservative Americans. Surely it is right to accept the fact that many, many billionaires have individually done more for welfare of the American people than the elected US Govt ?
2
The billionaires are getting nervous because as their wealth continues to surge, they might need to pay higher taxes, and tax loopholes could be closed?
Welcome to the club. The rest of us been nervous ever since Reagan pushed trickle-down economics, our salaries and savings accounts stagnated or went down, and the cost of housing, preschool and higher education, and health insurance, copays, and surprise medical charges plagued our daily lives.
7
Mr. Gates and other billionaires ignore the fact that Warren's plan to provide universal healthcare (Medicare for All) would allow many would-be entrepreneurs to found their own businesses instead of being chained to corporate jobs that provide health insurance. Could it be that they are afraid of the innovation that would unleash?
12
When are these billionaires going to realize...THEY'RE BILLIONAIRES!!! These out-of-touch elites seem to believe they shouldn't have to be made to sacrifice a little extra, while not jeopardizing their lifestyles in the least, to make the government work for a larger portion of the population than it does now. It's time to get bold to make a demonstrable difference. There's nothing bold about asking those with so very much to provide a bit more to the greater good, especially when doing so will not impact anyone negatively.
3
It's not just Bill Gates who needs to pay his fair share. It's also MicroSoft and all the other tax-dodging multinational corporations. Per Forbes, MicroSoft paid an effective tax rate of just 16.5% on its EBIT. That's probably a bad year, tax-wise for them. They and many others pay far, far less year in and year out here and all over the world. When billionaires tell you we can't afford nice things, it's only because they and their companies don't chip in their fair share, just like everyone else.
6
The historic CEO Round table this year, emphasizing shareholders rather than stockholders, seemed enlightened. But the generosity has to be on billionaires’ terms, not through taxation. Can’t we agree that our nation will do better when we all do better?
2
Most of the wealthy who even bother to give lip service to paying more taxes do so knowing that it is unlikely to happen and, if it does, it will be little more than a minor inconvenience. When faced with the possibility of meaningful taxes their true colors are revealed and they aren't red, white and blue; they're green tinged with yellow.
4
At this point, Gates' wealth almost entirely depends on the capabilities of others. If increased taxation were to fund better education and social nets, he would undoubtedly get richer.
3
So-called benign capitalists like Bloomberg, Gates even gentle Warren Buffet, are enablers of the monster in the Oval Office and his criminal gang in Washington. These so-called philanthropists are able to wear the faces of noble benefactors as they distribute a small percent of their ill-gotten gains to the most downtrodden, whose fate is the indirect result of their criminal system.
And what are these crimes: support of an investor-rewarded economic sytem called laissez-faire capialism, based on a pseudoscience indoctrinated into the minds of authorites who pontificate these principles and politicians who codify them into law-- that the market works best without interference. This principle, of a market left to itself without consideration of its negative impact on 90+% of the human race, is the vehicle for the enrichment of supercapitalists, their enablers and sycophants.
But the pseudoscience is wrong on two counts:
That the market functions best without interference is a lie. It depends on seeing the market as a linear system; reacting to any disturbance by a restoring force, thereby keeping it in balance. But recessions, for example, prove that market linearity has limits. Once those bounds are exceeded the result can be chaotic, even catastrophic.
The second lie is one of noninterference
The controllers of market activity, the rich, constantly interfere, but this manipulation is seen as part of the system and therefore is noninterference by definition.
6
There are matters to consider as we approach a very serious election choice, among others that the human is born selfish, that the powerful is almost always scared to fall, that society is becoming cold and indifferent, that people is disconcerted with so deceptive role-models that media parade, and that the lately-named 1-percenters show slight concern for the soundness of the 99-percenters that somehow fed their triumph.
Gates saying "if I'd have to pay $100 billions on taxes of course I would be concerned" worried me specially for the use of subterfuge against Elizabeth Warren's reform proposal. To me, the more I pay on taxes, welcome; simply, because the more I pay is because I earn more. Period. And please, do not threaten loss of jobs. C'mon now.
Then, somehow too, the 1-percenters should understand that they need to be controlled on their amassing of power without civic empathy; instead they continue lobbying for less regulations and less checks and balances and less... contribution to America.
I am afraid of the binary society that looks is looming; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; with the reduction of manufacturing, the growth of technology on hands of the few, robotics are going to strangle our 99-percent-children under the benevolence of the extra-powerful.
The 1-percenters are-getting worried; well, tell them please, that the 99-percenters already-are terrified.
5
Bill Gates is extremely concerned that politicians will force him to survive on a mere $6 billion. If he can't handle it, I'll gladly trade places with him.
6
Bill Gates innovation? What was the mark-up percentage on the software he "sold"? Innovative, or was it a type price gouging?
2
Let's see what Bloomberg has to say about this--a critical and defining position that must be taken in his ambition to serve as President.
1
Federal spending has increased much faster than inflation or population growth. It is also true that the rich as a percentage of their income pay less than they used to pay. It is also true that upper middle class pay less as a percentage of their income than they used to pay. My guess is that if you can afford the NYT online, that many subscribers are in the upper middle class and they are cheering for tax increases on them, but, not on us.
2
Innovators come from wealthy families. Just the point. It's about time there is wealth equality so that innovation can come from oh, not wealthy. As it now stands, the rich hold the patent for innovation. Bill Gates has let me down. I'm so disappointed.
2
Gates is a thief and slowed the commercialization of computers and the internet. Among his other money-loving schemes was his launch of an inferior 16 bit operating system called Windows in the early 1990s when already there was a superior 32 bit system on the market that he had helped to develop. Dude needs to pay some taxes and give back part of what he has stolen.
4
I’d rather live in a world where there are millions comfortably wealthy than thousands insanely rich.
12
Trickle-down didn't trickle down. That failed experiment has gone on long enough.
Our politicians have a tacit agreement with their donors, the super-rich, to take care of them. Campaign finance reform is the only solution. So that politicians have to listen to the voters.
9
I came across a documentary recently on how poor and even middle class residents of Karachi, Pakistan have to wait days to get any water in their homes and really scramble hard to get some often in the middle of night when the taps come alive for an hour or so. The quantity available is so limited that nobody bothers about the quality even though signs are obvious. Then, the documentary showed homes in gated communities - each with lush greenery and swimming pools brimming with crystal clear water. Yes, Pakistan has an off an on democracy and people vote but the disparity keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Do we also want to live in a similar democracy?
5
Billionaires are the aberration of Capitalism. There is no other way to justify the outrageous levels of economic inequality, thanks to the neoliberal policies implemented in the last 40 years, starting with the so-called Reganomics. Not to mention the financialization of the economy that has created so much wealth out of thin air, giving so much power to the so-called "masters of the universe" behind Wall Street desks.
The question is not whether to increase the tax burden on the billionaires, but how much inequality and poverty is the American people willing to tolerate. US is becoming more and more a Third World nation ruled by oligarchs and plutocrats. Not quite what our founding fathers would have envision for this nation.
After all, Voltaire was right when he said: "the wealth of the rich deppends upon the abundance of the poor"...
10
Bill Gates has done more good for the country and the world than Elizabeth Warren could even dream of. Not that she dreams of doing good.
11
If these billionaires do not want to pay taxes, then move to an third world country. Living in a first world country ain't cheap.
6
It seems that most commentators here are guilty of the adage " Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up."
If memory serves me right, Bill Gates decades ago promised to leave his children only $ 5 million each. Today that might be $ 32 million and thus be subject to the proposed wealth tax. When I compare the conservative income from that, $ 500-750,000 after the proposed taxes, it is no more than many unmentioned parasites of our economy and government make.
I agree that a moderate but graduated wealth tax starting at $ 50 million or so but payable only, as now it is for income tax, upon transfer of an asset is called for. People should not be forced to liquidate investments to pay a wealth tax.
So is an increase in the collection of income tax but that should come primarily from a drastic reduction in "loopholes" that have little or no economic justification. However, along with that there should be unlimited deduction for personal investment losses.
Last, we should abolish trusts or tax them at the max rate for individuals, including the wealth tax. This should apply to all trusts and similar devices/ entities. This will be resisted tooth and nail by the wealthy, lawyers, bank trust departments and charitable organizations but these vehicles have been abused for much too long to be reformed.
Unless we increase tax revenue quicker and more than government expenditures and unfunded obligations, we may revisit the history of 1776 or worse.
3
Taxing the rich is long,long over due.The huge tax cuts for the rich have done nothing for the economy except make the struggle harder for those of us who aren't rich.They've been allowed to skate for 40 years now and it's time for a change.Too bad if Gates and his ilk have to pay their fair share,they'll still manage quite splendidly.They get richer yet go off the deep end when people dare mention raising wages or taxes.They should be thankful that the lower classes haven't pulled a French revolution on them.
10
The nation does not need one billionaire; it needs more whistleblowers. We should be more concerned with the stakeholders and not the stockholders.
10
Exactly. Skin in the game or our society is nothing more than a third world country run by more oligarchs than Russia has.
3
Missing from this discussion is the obvious fact that shifting the tax burden to the rich unburdens it from the working class thereby giving them more money to spend. Not invest, mind you, just plain spend. Does not this have a beneficial effect on the economy? Why is it assumed, as Mr. Gates does, that his investments - and those of his fellow billionaires - has a greater positive effect on the economy than just plain consumer spending?
I can understand that Mr. Gates would prefer paying less tax, but he doesn't seem to understand - or care- that the rest of us would have to pay more.
12
I very much admire Bill Gates for his expertise in many tech fields and generous donations to multiple causes for a better world, but I'll have to take a back seat on his ideas for the economy. You have to remember that is the man who advocated for things that didn't work, such as Common Core standards. His wealth is the result of work in tech and nothing else. He's just a normal human when it comes to knowledge in other fields. I'll trust Warren's or Sanders's plan on the economy over his own.
13
What many don’t realize is that the bulk of the wealth of the most wealthy people is in stock, often of companies they founded, not in bags of cash piled here and there. When they are forced to sell that stock to pay their wealth tax, it will drive the value of the stock down. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax plan started at a 3% rate, then doubled to a 6% rate when she actually did some math. It may well end up at 10%. At that rate, the government would essentially be trying to take the bulk of the wealth of the wealthiest people over a ten year period. But, with founders, investors, and early employees all selling shares to pay their tax, the value of stocks will naturally decrease. After all, stock values are based on what people will pay for a stock and the market will not look kindly on companies where the founders and other key people are liquidating their holdings. As paper fortunes decrease, so will wealth tax revenues. Unfortunately, the costs of running a greatly expanded federal government will not decrease. This is essentially what has happened in Venezuela- lavish government spending was covered by oil revenue, until the oil revenue dropped and the bottom fell out.
4
Except they do borrow against their shares so they do have the cash to then buy property and live in luxury. Also maybe the stocks are all inflated ? Valuations for money loosing companies reach billions... the stock market has become completely disconnected from the real economy !
3
@Ju The wealth tax plans of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders aim to take trillions of dollars of value out of the stock markets. That is going to hurt individual retirement accounts and pension funds, as well as billionaires. To think that you can take those sorts of sums out of investment and put them into government and not hurt the economy is fantasy.
1
One wonders whether Microsoft would have received the initial contract with IBM if not for the alleged inside information and questionable business practice. How does that initial privileged start reported for Microsoft square with the thesis regarding taxes vis a vis innovation? Not at all. If you're handed the future on a silver platter all you have to do is not drop it.
I've got an innovative micro-violín to play a micro-sad song for the macro-greedy billionaires crying "poor me". I'll wait for my entrepreneurial funding until the wealth tax is in effect. Then our demand-driven economy will actually grow for the middle class as more capital gets spent and circulates productively in the regional economies, which actually works, as opposed to the hoarding of capital that follows tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.
6
@LBL: Amazon was expected to get the DoD contract, but Trump ordered that Microsoft get it because he's peeved at Jeff Bezos.
1
A man whom I adore and admire greatly happens to be Bill Gates, not because of his riches but his exceptional quality of kindness towards the poor people. Bill Gates' Foundation has become almost a brand-name of charity all over the globe. I don't have the mind to dissent from what he said on Elizabeth Warren's plan for higher taxes of the wealthy to provide health care for all; notwithstanding it conforms with one of the three rights, "Life" embedded in the declaration of America's independence! I would entreat Bill Gates to consider my apolitical view on this point merely from academic angle. You are well aware umpteen-number of Americans can not afford health insurance, so pay the cost of health-care; as a result they have to suffer from various disease and disabilities and ultimately die a painful death, albeit many of them prematurely. The idea of the self-government is in the first three words of our constitution: "we the people". Constitutionally it devolves upon the elected Government to take care of the people! How a responsible Government achieve it unless it can garner revenue adequate to the task? On the contrary 78% Americans live on pay check to pay check i.e. without next pay check they go without food on the table! Under this circumstance, I think, the aspirant of the next Presidency, Elizabeth Warren has thought to pronounce the cogent idea of 'progressive taxation' to achieve the solemn goal of 'health care for all'.
S. A. Samad, USA
7
Homegrown carpetbaggers. They want to use and use up the people and resources of this country, and only "give" back how much and to who they want.
If they can't keep the gains they've been amassing in financial institutions within the US, they're threatening to leave. Oh no.
9
@Pete
Apparently "the rich" actually pay a disproportional part of income taxes .... At least in New York and according to the Governor:
"Cuomo said the super-wealthy in New York – accounting for 1 percent of tax filers – end up paying 46 percent of the personal income taxes the state collects each year."
https://buffalonews.com/2019/02/04/serious-as-a-heart-attack-cuomo-warns-of-falling-state-revenue/
3
@Si Seulement Voltaire - Ahh, so the 1% are upset because they pay more than 1% of the taxes in the state. One has to wonder how much of the money they are hoarding. A little more than 1, 5, or even 25%, me thinks.
2
@Pete
Nothing in what I wrote said the 1% are "upset" about paying the majority of all taxes collected. They have been doing so for a very long time.
Some more facts:
2016 - "The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $538 billion, or 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $440 billion, or 30.5 percent of all income taxes."
1
"The federal government needs a lot more money."
"It also ignores the possibility that higher taxes could result in more innovation."
I needed a good laugh!
5
Once again, the side line spectators are trying to tell those in the business world how to run their successful businesses.
If the socialists would simply employ a FAIR TAX rather than using the tax code to pick winners and losers we could return to being a nation the world looked up to.
2
Weep not for the rich -- for they have inherited the earth and have legions of clever advisors to make sure they keep it. There are too many ways to enumerate all the perfectly -- ok, more or less -- legal ways to pay less taxes. So while advisors to the wealthy loudly lament any proposed tax increases, they're ready with a menu of options ensuring that it'll all be bearable.
498
@Richard
Which is why the concepts of heaven and hell were invented and they sort of worked for awhile-- or maybe not so much,.
13
@Richard
Of course the wealthy will turn to the wealth advisors for legal solutions to avoid any of these new tax proposals. It is the working class folks that will find the government reaching deeper into their wallets, as well as into their retirement savings.
24
@Richard Long term this isn't a great trend for the Democrat party. Lets put aside for the moment that it's a questionable tactic to attack people for being successful...especially if they have earned their wealth honestly. What's really happening is the party's left-wing hates Big Tech and want to go to war. We know how this is going to end. Progressive zealots are going to drive Facebook, Amazon, Google & the rest of Silicon Valley right into the arms of the GOP. Brilliant move. Let's make a fierce enemy of an industry that would have supported the Democratic party. I don't think it's an accident that Zuckerberg has been meeting with prominent conservatives in the last few months. Facebook, like Amazon & Google, have the financial muscle to credibly oppose the government in court in a protracted fight. It's a lose-lose situation. There's NO widespread call from the American public to do this! Progressives can't abide by anything or anyone who has the power or influence to challenge absolute governmental authority. This political battle is a good example of why the left will never gain any traction in this country. Leftists are determined to drive the Dems off the cliff in a pointless fight. It's going to take more than one lesson & progressives are going to get more than one lesson. This debacle could facilitate Trump winning a 2nd term. The excessive amount of attention to this can backfire, with Trump being reelected & it not being the result of Russian interference.
10
Nothing will change in the system until laws are passed mandating publicly financed elections. The government is bought and paid for by big business and other powerful interests and does not represent the overwhelming majority of Americans. The corporate tax revenue as a percentage of total taxes collected in this country is at an all time low. That is not an accident.
624
This would do nothing to reduce the influence of the wealthy through lobbyists and the like. If most of the info that guides politicians decisions comes from the Chamber of Commerce, Ivy League consultants and other organs of the wealthy, public finance will have minimal influence.
9
@Keitr of course this is a societal level problem and lobbying and the overall influence of money has to be addressed but it is a start.
13
@JW : YES. I've been saying this for years.
Campaign-finance reform is more important than anything, because legislation on everything that threatens our existence -- climate change, gun safety, healthcare -- has stalled for years in a Congress where too many are working for corporate interests,not for the interests of 99% of all Americans,
NO more PACs, no more donations from anyone, any group, any entity. Just identical sums, weighted for location, for every race -- and a campaign season of two months prior to the elections.
Apart from the inherent corruption of the current system, it is ridiculously costly and time-/energy-consuming, and it pulls pols away from the actual biz of governing for too long.
50
Good points NYT’s Board!
Here’s another that the genius made a few year’s ago. Paraphrasing, “as technology continues to diminish human labor needs, Businesses that use such tech may have to pay taxes on that tech to better stabilize the economy for quality of living standards.
That and his support for efforts to artificially control population growth—scream the neurotic ambiguity of a confused elitist mind set. Europeans have rich classes also but aside from the Queen Mother’s Clan they are not so insular as America’s top 10%. Maybe we need a WW on our soil so everyone can share in suffering and gain social empathy or a win-win.
3
What a silly headline. With estimated net worth of 106 billion dollars, even a 95% tax on all of his wealth would leave him with a paltry 5 or 6 billion. I don't think his grandchildren would need to worry about Grandpa taking out student loans.
11
The idea that taxes stifle motivation has always struck me as absurd. First, many successful people are motivated by a lot more than money. And even those who are very money driven aren't going to pass up an opportunity to earn $10 million because it's taxed at 60% rather than 20%. Four million isn't as much as 8 million, but it's still a lot. Heck, if I really want 8 million so badly, the extra taxes may drive me to work even harder to get it!
An opposite argument is often made against social benefits on the assumption that having your basics covered by the government will stifle ambition. That too is silly—again because people are motivated by personal satisfaction as well as money—and also because most of us want more than the basics. If the government gives me a UBI of $15,000, barely enough to get by on, am I really going to pass on working for another $45,000 that might push me into the middle class?
Sure there are exceptions. If the tax rate is near 100%, working may not be worth the hassle. And if the UBI is so generous I can live comfortably on it, maybe I wouldn't get a tedious job.
The actual issue with taxes and innovation is whether large, privately held concentrations of wealth are beneficial to the economy. Does it help the economy that Bill Gates controls $100 billion to do with what he pleases? Or would it be better if some of that $100 billion was divided up and redistributed to others or invested by the government? That's the question to answer.
541
@617to416, To answer your question, the $100 billion better off in Gates' hands because that's the amount the government waste's in an afternoon.
9
@Ryan
The good news is that when Warren is president and she’s spending it on every American’s healthcare it won’t be wasted anymore.
66
@617to416 well said.
21
From Jamie Dimon, the angel: "Some would say [Elizabeth Warren] vilifies successful people.” Ah, "some would say" - a cousin of the ol’ Trump technique, “I’m getting calls, lots of calls!" And yes, Mr. Gates "has said that he thinks the wealthy should pay higher taxes," but let's judge him by his actions now that there's a candidate with just such a plan.
4
Taxes is not the only thing necessary.
the old system that the republicans got rid of while pining for the benefits it gave us, used taxes and regulation as a carrot and stick sort of tool. Business was well regulated, they were incentivized to invest in new tech and creating long term benefits paying jobs by giving generous tax breaks for doing so. They were also regulated so they could not shut down plants just to increase profits when they were already profitable. This incentivized them to manage more effectively and efficiently so that they were not forced to carry dead weight producing goods that do not sell well. GM closing the Cruze plant is a good example. They knew for a long time that the Cruze was not selling well. Instead of retooling for a different vehicle they just dumped hundreds of people off on to the street in spite of having made more than $10Billion in profit that year! Where is the gratitude to the workers who made that profit possible?
The old regulatory system worked from the position of using the economy to build Our nation for Us. The duty of the large business in Our economy is to us to make sure we can run this country well. that means taking less profit so that we all get to have better lives.
2
@magicisnotreal
GM ran that cruze plant as long as they could go on getting a good deduction out of it in spite of knowing those vehicles were not selling well.
1
Under the fuel economy rules that Trump submarined, GM needed Cruze sales to offset thirsty pickups and SUV/CUVs. Once those regs were no longer on the horizon, there was no business need for Lordstown.
1
I walk dogs for less than minimum wage … I'm 53 and this is my second job—just so I can afford health insurance.
I'm not overly concerned about Bill Gates' whining. I suggest Bill should come over and take notes next time I argue with my wife and daughter about how I'm the most expendable member in the family and potentially the biggest drain, I should go without health insurance … or take a long walk into the woods.
Grow up … I have real problems, now and in the future, to worry about.
9
The billionaires should be getting nervous, about paying their fair share in taxes. Millions of children go to bed hungry in the U.S. alone. It's time for a more just and equitable society.
6
I know I am going against the self-righteous flow of the mob, but this editorial is really bad. Bill Gates, in particular states in the Deal Book conference that he is *all for* progressive taxes and that he does not think that capital gains should be treated differently from regular income. He does spends some time pointing out the *impracticality* of a wealth tax.
The quote is thus pulled out of context and represents a further decline in the quality of discourse around the very real problem of income inequality. It also follows the general pattern of going after any group that has achieved economic success.
Finally, there is little doubt that the pitch-fork strategy of defeating Donald Trump is going to fail miserably, and I fear that we are all going to have to endure four more years of having a thug in the Whitehouse.
2
Two words for Bill Gates.
Ok billionaire.
3
To those worried taxing the billionaires will slow growth.....please! It’s already slow, regardless of the Fed still pumping almost free money into the so called investment community. What do most of these industry geniuses do with their money? Invest it in ways that would really grow the economy, provide good jobs to the middle class, even expand their own businesses? No. Too many are using money they should be using to help this country to buy back their stupid stocks, which artificially inflates corporate worth and pads their already egregious salaries and golden parachutes even more! The WSJ is correct with its history of income tax on the super rich. Many really wealthy will not even be impacted, or not much. Trump already gave them yet another tax gift they have no right to have. Take it back and more. Enough with the ultra welfare plan for the ridiculously wealthy....
3
Gates is a famous defender of philanthropy which is a sure sign of a dead social contract so no surprise he opposes higher taxes and spawns fear behind his deceitful grin.
We should not see oligarchs hoard obscene wealth tossing a few crumbs to working Americans whose salaries don't otherwise allow them to provide for a decent living.
With a just democratic society philanthropy will die and we the people will decide how to spend our wealth and not a few untouchable arrogant oligarchs.
4
Billionaires should make good on their threats and start teaching junior college or volunteering if Warren is elected. That will show us.
3
@Michael Kanellos Warren was only pocketing $400k a year while teaching and railling against the rich, while she was one of them.
Yeah, we all "took one for the team" in 2008 when Bush's bailout let the investment bankers walk off with bailouts, throw themselves party, award themselves bonuses––and millions of Americans lost jobs, homes, autos.
Now THAT slowed down the economy.
It's about time that this 30 years of "Hoover Up" rich man Reaganomics, minimal wage, union-busting, tax-favored grand theft real estate and stock market machinations draw to a close. Claw our money back! Many other nations have universal health care and don't beggar young people seeking an education. It's past time that the rich paid up!
3
Read Anand Giridharadas' "Winners Take All".
Everything about this column is foolish. Suicidal for our grandchildren and those who follow.
The billionaires who argue against higher taxes on them are absurdly wrong about the effects.
And Warren and the New York Times are MORE absurdly wrong about advocating such higher taxes.
The tax we need is a CARBON TAX. To shut down the still-increasing emissions of CO2 that ensure continued worsening of climate change, to turn our grandchildren's world into pure horror, shut down our civilization as billions die of starvation and social disorder.
Get out of the bubble of the politicians, "responsible" media, and so-called "adults" of our current generations. Awaken to what's outside that bubble: reality.
1
Boy oh boy, do I love this opinion piece!!! And I saw the clip where gangling Gates wrangled around in his chair and his long limbs seemed unable to settle he was so uncomfortable and I could see he was afraid to say that he kinda favored Trump to Warren. My take on his take of Warren's plan. So glad it was pointed out that when young Gates started out the tax rates for the wealthy were much higher. Who was the billionaire who choked up on camera and was crying because of Warren's plan. These big babies. They have gotten so rich often at the expense of the rest of us in infrastructure and low wages. Can you imagine yourself getting all heated up and crying over having to pay a fairer share of taxes when you have billions anyway and will never even notice the difference? What a sad way to waste your energy or emotions when you should be enjoying your wealth, more than you can ever spend. How pathetic to still be greedy at the expense of others when you have so much. Some enlightened billionaires advocate being taxed at a higher rate. Them's the good uns. Again, great piece! More please.
4
This op-ed is why I am a loyal subscriber to the NY Times! Straightforward writing with ample facts that make a cogent argument that can appeal to the intellect for an admirable businessman like Bill Gates.
This is how our country can come together and discuss things rather than the hyperbole around "fake news"
"In 1975, the top marginal tax rate on personal income was 70 %".
And in GOP Eisenhower's term, that rate was 91%. Business was profitable, Jobs stayed here, wages/ benefits rose, the middle class expanded & taxes enabled low cost state college tuition. The federal govt used taxes and other means to finance our greatest infrastructure project--the natl highway system.
The higher salaries college grads earned meant they paid higher taxes in future that paid back the state taxes that helped finance their degrees.
Missing in our media now are existing role models ---The Patriotic Millionaires, who want to pay more taxes. See web site & twitter. Where's some media exposure on this group?
Or billionaire Nick Hanauer? His Ted Talk---"to fellow plutocrats--wake up. Our inequality is growing and we can do something about it. Want to grow the economy? Tax rich people like me."
His quote in the Guardian:“You can compete to be the richest or you can compete to create positive social changes, so I do that....I used to compete to be the richest. I got bored with that. Now I’m competing in a different dimension...."
Plus, NYT Feb 2019: "They’re Rich and They’re Mad About Taxes (Too Low!)--- An affluent few are raging against a tax law that puts more money — a lot more — in their pockets. Friends call them ‘traitors to their class.’"
These traitors to their class are patriots to the American public interest. They need plenty of appearnces on cable TV news and NYT op eds.
5
@Meredith Nothing stops them from paying more, other than their own duplicitse habits.
War on the rich? See Russia, China, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc. Not good outcomes.
3
Are we speaking of personal income or corporate income....?Re-investment in the economy counts......What did these large corporations do?.......they bought back their stock....Did they change the disparity between the top earners and those
not in that sphere?......Middle America is stuck with the bill...
the work of all their employees is not prized in the same way
as is the guys sitting in the Boardroom. Did they invest
in America ? No matter how you slice it...or phony it up....the many millions more of working Joe's and Janes are the drivers of the economy.....How about worker training in individual corporations which could uptick the nature and skill of the workforce in America ?
“The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values”... the last phrase of the qualifying statement says it all about this editorial. Rest of it is ... well.. just there.
1
Am I being paranoid or may there be a relationship between this editorial and the news about Bloomberg entering the race ? If and only if so, would it not be nice of you to be transparent about the reasons you object to a Bloomberg candidacy and discuss it on its own merits ? Just saying .........
1
This from a guy who stole someone else's ideas at Xerox Park. You can't take it with you, Bill.
3
This is the fight that has been building for decades.
The .1% are ready. "Democracy in Chains" is a deeply footnoted book on how the Koch brothers have been building a foundation to insure tax increases on the rich never happen starting with stacking the judiciary.
Google it. NYT review will save you the $$ on the book. It is all there...
I am very disappointed in Bill Gates. Apparently he wants accolades for doing the right thing. This tarnishes the pledge he made with Warren Buffett to give away his wealth. Bigly!
312
I disagree. He has given away billions of dollars already through the Gates foundation, and those donations of (among other things) vaccines and medical devices have saved literally thousands of lives.
That interview does nothing to suggest he doesn't still intend to follow through on his pledge through his foundation.
10
@Leslie Green His comments are consistent with that pledge. The more the government takes from him and wastes, the less he can manage and grow and give away through his foundation.
8
So over 10 years Bill Gates will pay $70 Billion. Many assets are not liquid, so business will need to be sold. Limited dollars will be available for investment as Uncle Sam will be spending all the money to pay for our dysfunctional healthcare delivery system.
So, the real Bill Gates come out. The Giving Pledge is a mirage to keep the tax collectors at bay. And who really believes that the prospect of having $50 billion versus $100 billion will reduce incentives to innovate? Pure greed after all.
6
Steve Jobs died at 56 I recall. Did not matter how many billions he had, he lost his battle with cancer. Rather than hoarding money in some faraway offshore account, would it not be better invested in schools and universities doing research, and looking for cure for disease or illnesses affecting millions of people? Cancer, Alzheimer, and so on... they don't care about your bank account!
5
Gates response could simply suggest he is more of a moderate than Warren is. What he has said, in a way, supports Biden for the Democratic nomination and slows down Warren's rise.
Republican tax cuts left the middle class unable to deduct consumer interest, union dues, less medical costs, unreimbursed employee expenses to name a few.
This is a part of how the wealth class tax cuts are financed and how wealth is transferred to the rich. Remember Leona Helmsley? Only the little people pay taxes.
The rich make money while they're sleeping. Though all sorts of engineered high interest loans, the working class spends money during their sleep.
The working class are taken for ride while being told the lie that they are pay less.
5
@Mike B No, the tax cuts increased the standard deduction so you did less paperwork to geta higher deduction. Facts only please!
1
I'd like to know how much the government would gain if we first fixed most of the loopholes in both corporate and personal taxes (for the wealthy) before we got into a discussion about higher taxes.
And also let's talk about the insane wasteful spending in government contracts for poor work or outcomes. $93.7M was spent on backend development of Healthcare.gov. Before everyone get's upset about the ACA, I'm not talking about the entire program and I'm not taking sides on it; I'm only talking only about the backend development of the platform online by CGI Federal which barely worked when it launched and had to be completely overhauled. I'm not sure what it cost for the "redo" but I'm sure it was a lot. Now imagine that kind of terrible waste spread across many different programs and contracts.
I believe we spend way to much time on arguing on easy "headline points" when the devil is in the details. VC's wouldn't tolerate erroneous wasteful spending at a startup. And Americans (as VCs of the United States) shouldn't tolerate wasteful spending by the government.
2
A minority portion of wealth is actual innovation. The majority of wealth uses wealth to take advantage of innovation, from incremental (and obvious!) extensions and leveraging of innovation to old fashioned competitive business positioning. E.g., Apple. It’s resurgence was not the creation of digital music, MP3 players, or online music services - all existed in the years before iTunes and the iPod. Apple just invested enough money to make them under one roof, with an improved interface made possible by that investment. E.g., Amazon. Amazon created an online store for books - not close to being the first online store. Since it wasn’t really a bookstore, it leveraged what it created to build its real fortune: selling everything, being the backend for other storefronts, leveraging the backend further for web services (backend for other types of businesses, too). And Microsoft Is famous for leveraging its OS monopoly (which it originally bought from Dr DOS to meet its IBM PC contract) in spreadsheets etc modeled after others like WordPerfect. Smart, good business by all, but I don’t think that’s what we really hear when we think of the term innovation.
3
Slower growth is fine. All thats growing now is the billionaires.
5
Gates wants more. He always wants more. Warren Buffet is logical. Bill Gates is not. He has an edge of mean, always has. A product of his times. Were it not for the 1980's a Bill Gates as we know him would not exist. I will never buy what he says, I know how he dumped junk on the market, all for his personal aggrandizement. Thank God we are not all stuck with him and his ideas.
He still wants to tell the public school system what to do. It will never stop with Gates.
3
" The wealthiest Americans are paying a much smaller share of income in taxes than they did a half-century ago" does not mean that it was a good policy 'just because it happened.
2
Look back in history folks when Karl Marx wrote is dissertation on capitalism and the concentration of wealth in a few and what that lead to in Russia, China, Vietnam, and other countries that adopted communism. If we aren’t careful and redistribute wealth in a sensible way, this country will be ripe for revolution too. I think Warren’s plans make sense and the redistribution will ensure everyone gets quality healthcare and at the same time will deliver a take home increase to the middle class making this class stronger with improved standards of living and retirement plans. It is unconscionable that the top 1% own over 40% of all wealth while the bottom 90% own less than 25% of all wealth.
5
A wealth tax like Warren's is likely unconstitutional. A better constitutional approach is to eliminate the concept of "stepped up basis" in inheritance. It would apply to deaths in the future, but the basis would be stepped down to it's original level which would be pennies on the dollar for most of the super rich. So when the next billionaire passes his children would be faced with a 25% tax on virtually the entire estate. To bite even more the estate tax could be jacked up even higher for the super rich to a level like 50% or more. Will congress do this to themselves? No way. It will have to be limited to people with estates over $100 Million. That will exclude almost all members of Congress.
2
No one has STILL answered my question: If things were so great in the 70's, how did we GET Reagan?
3
What never seems to get mentioned is that when taxes are high one of the ways the wealthy respond is to invest in tax deductible expenses. Rather than give the money to the government, a business owner might decide to invest in updating a fleet of company cars or renovate a facility or even give his employees a raise. Just kidding, that last one likely has never happened. The point is the money is immediately reinvested into the local economy without any government involvement.
6
Thank you NYT. Gates and others are building a massive scare campaign and ironically it's the less-well-off that swallow it. Here in Oz the Labor party proposed removing a gift to a small group of senior shareholders- which allowed them to claim money back from government when they actually paid no tax. But the conservatives ran a huge scare "New tax on senior citizens!!!"
So Warren etal. will have to sell their "Wealth Tax" clearly and carefully.
2
Extreme differences in wealth is what is wrong with America.
5
It's about time someone called these guys on their convenient logic and their veiled threats. They act as though they're all characters from some Horatio Alger story and that every day is a continued hard-scrabble fight for their survival. They need to be reminded under what system they were able to create and why they continue to flourish.
2
For the first time in my long life, I am witnessing the US version of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. His very first actions were to assail some of the wealthy old families who owned a lot of land and supplied much of the country's food. In fairly short order, shelves went bare. Like our "progressives", he seemed to believe in "floggings will continue until morale improves".
We should all be concerned that an Elizabeth Warren takes so much obvious delight in castigating job creators so she can pander to and entertain generations of underachievers.
7
Job creators are those who spend money on goods and services, thereby creating increased demand for employees, goods, and services. Only in the minds of those who buy the self-serving lies of the wealthy are they “job creators” - and they know they aren’t but it works really well in keeping tax and other laws favorable to their increasing bank accounts.
2
Since when did we start believing it's acceptable to take private property from rich people just because they have so much?
8
One billionaire ran for President (and was elected) in order to increase his wealth. Now another billionaire wants to run to protect his wealth and yet another billionaire is trashing progressives for the same reason. Not a good look for the two supposedly liberal (or at least politically moderate) wealthy people.
2
Thank you, Nyt. Excellent piece and inspiring comments.
1
If people really knew how Gates got to the position he is in they would never believe another word he said.
6
America's wealthy are terrified that they might have to share some of their billions with the minions that make that money for them. They should be more afraid of the violent insurrections that income inequality is driving elsewhere in the world. Better to hand over a few billion to the government now, than ALL of their billions to the mobs with the pitch forks later.
Too bad they are so blinded by greed that they can't see that they would ultimately benefit if the little people had more income to spend on their goods.
8
Yes why is self dealing become so prevalent nowadays? It’s like, one flim flam to get elected or appointed, and it’s clear sailing to steal and cheat from there on out. Where’s the justice? Where are the people? If this is “democracy”, then give me socialism.
3
The US has been a wonderful laboratory to learn how to play the states against each other. Now the act has been taken global to play nations against each other. What can go wrong?
2
@Steve Bolger
Yes, if only we could remove all "choice".
Thanks, Editorial Board, for making the history and many elements of this topic clear. Bring it on, Elizabeth. I'm ready to argue your case.
1
Bill Gates is a college dropout and an intellectual lightweight, and his opinion should not mean much. He was a ruthless and corrupt leader in the business world and that is not really disputed. Unfortunately that is what is lauded in America as look who is our current president! Historically this brand of capitalism has defined America; Andrew Carnegie comes to mind. Unfortunately this is not sustainable and Elizabeth Warren is right to reign in the billionares and Wall Street as we are clearly on the path to self-destruction. Selfishness and greed rule the day and this should be obvious to everyone...
5
These billionaires need to decide whether they’d rather lose a few billion of their many billions, or their heads. Because this level of poverty, this level of disparity, this inequity is unsustainable, and I do believe the masses have every right to drag these plutocrats to the guillotine. This is not hyperbole.
5
Bill Gates claims he will be taxed $100 billion.
Why in the world would he say that, other than to create a right wing talking point.
despicable.
3
When I went to college in the 70's taxes paid for about 80% of public college education; now it is about 20%, and so people graduate from college in debt. Why can't we get back to that? As in the 70's, the higher taxes on the very wealthy could be balanced by an investment tax credit for investment in new plants and equipment, and R&D, in the US.
3
What really irks me about the large amounts of money the super rich like Gates get to keep because of lower taxes is that they'll defend that wealth accumulation by pointing to the supposed good they're doing with their philanthropy.
Our basic needs should not rely on the whims of philanthropy. Providing basic needs like housing, healthcare, disaster relief through philanthropy means that dealing with those basic needs is controlled by a few rich people. That's not democracy.
We, collectively, need to insure basic human needs by collecting adequate taxes, especially from the very rich. We can't let the very rich dodge their tax responsibilities by hiding behind their supposed generous philanthropy. That kind of philanthropy is just another level of power for the very rich.
7
Washington State has no income tax. It may be no coincidence that the two richest men in the world (the other is Bezos) decided to live and build their companies here. I work in tech, it's nice being along for the ride!
1
@Crowking
Very interesting...neither does Texas, those Instruments.
Florida doesn't restrict the value of your homestead, so if you expect to get sued out of your entire fortune, at least you can live like a deposed king. Like Trump is going to agree to a deposition.
2
@Crowking If you think taxes are low in Wa, you sure are NOT paying attention.
When is "enough" really not enough? Gates is to be admired for his creations, but we continue to witness millions of our children going to be hungry; witnessing the plight of the "lesser" among us being unable to improve their lot. Gates is not the one responsible for the "system" being broken. But, in the "Land of plenty", too many have far too little.
Since Reagan, the Middle Class' income has remained all but stagnant. Reagan altered the tax codes to be highly in favor of the super rich. I do not begrudge them their wealth, but I am unsympathetic to how many believe their huge share of wealth is 'just about right' for them. Reagan also implemented the taxation on Social Security income.
Somewhere, somehow there must become a balance.
3
Why does the Times always downplay Sanders when Warren would be nowhere without his bravery in 2016?
8
Frankly, if you believe that taxing 80% or similar of the earnings of successful people who work hard and create opportunities for employment, wealth and advance in a society won't fundamentally alter the mechanics of the economic engine you're deluded into the self-righteous cant of those who know they won't pick up the tab and feel entitled to preach and lecture those who will. I, for one, will go into an extended vacation and produce zilch and I suspect many more will do. Churchill said one that socialism is great until run out of other people's money. I would add it isn't that great either before you do.
6
Thanks for this excellent editorial. I pray that Senator Sanders or Senator Warren is elected POTUS and somehow the plutocrats can be subdued. Their devotion to greed over lives is revolting.
7
When was the last time Bill Gates had to choose between food and shelter, or decline medical care for fear of homelessness? Perhaps he is out of touch with the issues facing millions of American's every single day. What growth means to people like Bill Gates is another few Billion dollars, what growth means to me is having enough money to eat and get a cavity filled.
History is filled with wealthy, out-of-touch oligarchs who were either incapable or unwilling to empathize with the people who helped them on the road to glory, and it has not been kind to them. We are rapidly approaching the crossroads, and today's wealthy would be wise to learn from those who came before them.
6
Gates said he would vote for Trump over Warren because of her tax plan. That says it all about Gates.
For all the good he is using his money for, he would vote for Trump who is against much of what Gates believes in, because taxes are more important to him than the environment, global healthcare, etc.
Gates would have noblesse oblige be a guiding principle. It is better to let the nobility decide what to spend money on. Gates, Charles Koch, Bloomberg, etc. are better able to decide how much and what the spending priorities are than our elected representatives? Will Jay Leno and Jerry Seineld will be terribly hurt by having less cars?
In our history, people had experience with nobility and wanted to limit the ability of people to acquire such vast wealth that resulted in the wealthy having too much power. That was one of the reasons for the estate tax.
Warren's plan is one method for providing the money we need to invest in many things only government can provide. The money has to come from the rich. There was significant innovation in the post World War 2 era when income taxes on the wealthy were as high as 90%
At his level of wealth, Gates is score keeping as he cannot possibly use all he has for his needs and desires.
14
Very few of us are designing the next iPod or playing in major league baseball. What is needed is an analysis of the impact of tax increases on the middle class. Sure, the increases will start at the high end, but they'll creep down over time and we can be sure it won't be just billionaires that'll be taxed. What happens when coders, marketers, lawyers, accountants are taxed at 70%? Many just trade time for money; they're not going to be on the cover of any magazines.
3
@Terrence: Every penny of public spending becomes somebody's income.
Last week's SNL skit skewering Elizabeth Warren's Medicare funding got one thing right. Its comment on taxes: "(Mr. Bezos) the Government is a little like Amazon Prime. You reap the benefits, you gotta pay an annual fee."
5
'Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society', Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr. Too little tax means too little civilization. No one seems to know the shape or maximum of the Laffer curve, despite constant reference to its end-points (zero and 100% tax). The history and effects of the tax cuts referred to in this article strongly suggest that about 50% is not inconsistent with the best return to the economy.
7
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out or not, but there's a big between today and the economies of the 60's and 70s that are referred to. Notably, the ability of capital to be moved (for either protective or investment purposes) to other countries. Back East Germany was still a thing, and none of China, India, Brazil, Vietnam or South Korea had emerged as competitors. The US looked pretty given all that good huh? Oh.... and the internet? Not yet.
3
Po' widdle biwwionaires!
7
"lower growth" Does anyone recall the promises of a 'trickle down economics'? Did not happen.
Meanwhile, an awful lot of individuals got extremely wealthy.
The wealthy feed off the plebiscitary. It is not surprising they are worried.
16
I am surprised at the naïveté of bill gates. He is a philanthropist and seems generous. But, not to the everyday Americans who buy his products. Trickledown does not work.
13
@Lynn
The real insult in the super rich's philanthropy is that they think it excuses them from paying adequate taxes. That philanthropy is self serving. It gives them a good public relations facade to hide behind and it allows them to control some of the most important human situations -- healthcare, housing, disaster relief -- as they see fit.
5
No one should get to be a billionaire. No one should get to earn billions. That is a failure in governance, not in the income tax system.
13
@Alex Bernardo: Billionaires emerge from corporations when a particular market expands fast enough to finance its own growth with reinvested untaxed retained earnings.
1
uh the tax system is governance.
1
And from exploitation of the workforce.
3
In fact, there was a roughly 20-fold increase in GDP over the past 100 years, since real gdp doubles about every 15-20 years. Those increases have predominantly flowed to the 0.01% lately.
Such growth means that billionaires are thus not only *relatively* rich but *unconscionably* rich, that is, rich beyond past dreams of avarice. Previous tycoons like Andrew Carnegie could boast of having a wealth equivalent to 2% of US GDP in 1901 but in fact U.S. Steel sold for only $13 billion in today's dollars. Rockefeller too had about $20 billion in today's terms. Pause for a moment to consider the amounts: the most notorious, meanest most "robber barony" monopolies in history were worth less than Uber on a bad day. Bill Gates gives away billions each year and has still seen his fortune double in ten years *in retirement*.
So the rich are indeed getting richer not merely in the sense of being richer than the poor, but in the sense of being richer than the rich *used* to be. And effortlessly so. Bear this in mind, when we soon greet the world's first trillionaire. He or she will have 10x the wealth of Gates and 100x the wealth of Carnegie. The mind reels. Both President Roosevelts considered vast fortunes inherently anti-democratic and immoral. What would they have said about fortunes 100x larger?
23
There are many men and women who sacrificed their life for this country. That did it so that this nation would always be free, they did not do it so that some people could be a billionaires a hundred times over, if that was the case they should have stayed home and let the Trumps and Gates fight the wars. The Gates of the world sit securely in a country that is secured by men and women, who make a living wage, their money in the bank is protected by other people who make a living wage, their lives are protected by police, and firemen, all of whom make a living wage, and to the life of a nation everyone of those people are more important than them.
16
I believe this article is based solely on tax RATES, by year. It's definitely true and easy to show that tax rates have been higher in the past than now. What isn't as easy to show is what happened in the real world.
When rates were higher, deductions were much higher, so taxable income as a proportion of total income was lower than now. In the 70's, you could deduct every nickel of interest incurred for any reason -- home, second home, third home, yacht, jetski, car, etc. You could deduct every nickel of medical expense, all expenses incurred to manage investments -- safe deposit box fees, all publications and investment services.
The last 20 years or so has seen steady whittling away of deductions. So, today, our rates are lower, but the percentage is applied to virtually all income.
If tax rates go up, do you think any deductions will be reinstated? Right.
6
Thank you for this piece. It is time that people understand what is being done to them--why there are so many homeless people now, and how so many of us still do not have health care insurance. The wealthy people will not let go of their privileges and an be expected to make a lof of spurious claims as they have done for many many years.
15
Scroll down to Figure 1 here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality. You can see income divergence beginning at the time of Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. When governments spend their billions on tens or hundreds of millions of citizens--for jobs, health, education, infrastructure, R&D, or whatever--the economy and public benefit enormously. When a few thousand families keep those same funds, these dollars benefit a far smaller segment of the population...often, only the families themselves. It's far better to have millions of people spending and investing than having a small group do it. For example, the 50,000 teachers, cops, and private employees who could be hired with Mr. Gates' $5 billion will buy 10s of thousands more cars, wardrobes, meals, homes, and copies of Microsoft Office than Me. Gates could ever hope to. I bet he understands that.
10
@G Pecos: Since taxation is coercive, it can be viewed as the basic driver of multiplier effect in a mixed economy. Gross multiplier effect in mixed economies tends to fall in the range of 2 to 3, which is why the optimum ratio of public to private spending falls where it does, between one third and two thirds the economy.
I want to write this before I even read the article because I think the perception of lower growth due to higher taxes being a problem needs an answer that stands on its' own.
If higher taxes (on the ultra wealthy) gives us (not just me) health care for all, perhaps lower property taxes instead of needing them to fund public education (that cost should be on the ultra wealthy as well), more attention to the maintenance of state and national infrastructure (not only sporadically), public funding of the entire electoral process, and anything else that will make our Democracy more stable (it is a lie to portray this thinking as socialism), we should all be for it, especially the wealthy. What good is money in your pocket if the country that vouches for the value of that money cannot stand due to internal strife because of the difficulties its citizens face?
14
In fact, there was a roughly 20-fold increase in GDP over the past 100 years, real gdp doubling about every 15-20 years.
Exponential growth means that billionaires are thus not only *relatively* rich but *unconscionably* rich, that is, rich beyond past dreams of avarice. Previous tycoons like Andrew Carnegie could boast of having a wealth equivalent to 2% of US GDP in 1901 but U.S. Steel sold for only $13 billion in today's dollars. Pause for a moment. It's a similar story with Rockefeller who had about $20 billion in today's terms. Even the most notorious, meanest most "robber barony" monopolies in history were worth less than Uber on a bad day.
So the rich are indeed getting richer not merely in the sense of being richer than poor, but in the sense of being richer than the rich *used* to be. When we shortly greet the world's first trillionaire, bear in mind, this person will have the wealth of 10x the wealth of Gates and 100x the wealth of Carnegie. The mind reels. Both President Roosevelts considered vast fortunes anti-democratic and immoral. What would they have said about fortunes 100x larger?
5
It's amazing how in a capitalistic country where men and women are urged to make their fortunes we've somehow demonized those that have. Bill Gates created a company that changed the world and employs thousands, contributes tens of millions to the tax base and, through his charitable efforts, changed the lives of thousands around the world. Other billionaires do the same thing, but all politicians can do is come up with one gasbag idea after another to tax the rich to pay for their pet programs, instead of thinking how to create opportunity to help others realize their dreams. Reason number 53 on why Trump will win in 2020.
6
No one is demonizing Bill Gates or his brethren. Go for it. I admire the guy. But currently after three major tax cuts that went to the wealthy, we can’t even fill our potholes and fix our bridges. Teachers are paying for their students supplies. Many can’t afford their health plans. Our taxes on wealth are too low. And what’s with the vanishing inheritance tax? The kids did nothing to deserve great wealth. How about limiting inheritances to $10 million to each kid? That would last for generations.
2
@Mattbk
On the positive side, it telegraphs how out of touch the Left is with the rest of the country. It's important that every voter understand clearly the Left's values and that it has a problem with private property and wealth, as well as with following the law (ex., immigration).
A leftwing president would be a disaster for America.
3
I am sorry but after giving us Trump, right-wingers need to shut up.
2
When I was a little boy I remember reading that the head of a big company was given a 13000 dollar raise. The tax rate on his earnings was in the 90 percent range I believe. In other words, the huge salaries were given because so much was taken in tax. The actual raise of the salary was reasonable. Those taxes on very high salaries should be brought back to make America great and competitive again.
8
So you say the Federal Government has spent money foolishly for decades and has put us in debt. Now you plan is to raise taxes and give more money to the Federal Government because with more money they'll know how to spend it?? Sorry but that does not make sense to me in the least bit. I'd rather have the money in the hands of philanthropist innovators who have something at stake while attacking the issues such as energy, food production, and the cleaning of our oceans, and that's just a start. The Federal Government will do NOTHING to fix any problems face us as a nation or We, The People.
3
@Dan Please supply some facts to support your contention that government "has spent money foolishly". From my experience in health care, I can attest that the entire private sector of this industry is a bloated wasteful mess and that the Federal Government's Medicare system is much more efficient.
4
Taxes has become a four letter world in the US.
As a matter of fact, according to the OECD, the US is # 31st of all OCED nations with an average tax of 27.1% per GDP in taxes. And that doesn't even include the tax cuts Trump gave to the ueber-rich.
Most of these nations also have a VAT tax of up to 20%, while having much lower taxes on properties.
The higher taxes overall don't bankrupt the rich, but serve as a safety net for all, e.g. universal healthcare at less than half the cost compared to the US; better paid and educated teachers in public schools K through 12, free higher education for all, etc.,etc.
11
@Sarah: Yes, the US public sector falls short of the "sweet spot" where the economic output of a mixed economy is optimized. This is the concept that Arthur Laffer confused. And the US spends big on things best if not used at all, like weapons.
4
I believe there is an easier solution!
Change the tax laws, and have international companies pay taxes on their SALES within the United States. Currently, Congress is not willing to change the tax structure. International corporations pay NOTHING, or very little, to the US Treasury.
Most people with billions would be worth much less if the "Unfair" tax law were changed.
2
I have never believed in that old myth that invention and innovation are somehow encouraged by low taxes. Perhaps it’s because creative people are driven by internal motivations and any financial rewards that result are the just the icing on the cake, coming after the fact and not inspiring it’s beginnings. Maybe there are other kinds of people who are motivated exclusively by money and who are fairly sure that if there is the promise of making and keeping a lot of money, they can just work their special magic and it will rain down upon them. If there’s no certainty of financial reward, why even get out of bed in the morning? The money = innovation argument sounds exactly like what it is: an excuse for the richest to hang onto more... until they have accumulated so much of the money that all the rest of us are serfs. As the essay points out, the claim that cutting taxes and rigging the game so that the rich pay less and keep more has never provided the results promised.
8
One thing wealthy people fear is...losing their wealth. They may have an idea worthy of investment - but fear the risk of failure - like a new software which could revolutionize personal computers.
With income tax rates at 30% max, they may decide to spend the 70% after tax on their mansions - of course that creates temporary jobs for carpenter's, etc., but in the long-term probably for illegals for maintenance work!
However, 70% tax rates actually 'socialize' the risk - if the investment fails the losses are written-off against other taxable income - even if it means 'carry-forwards.'
Thereby high rates CAN lead to risk taking - which can lead more wealth...
6
It's not only reasonable for individuals like Bill Gates to be opposed to an increased tax for billionaires, it is representative of a healthy democracy. Let me explain.
A democratic free market country, like we have, works most efficiently when everybody votes in their own self interest. This means poorer people would vote for more social programs, while the wealthy would vote for lower taxes and trickle-down policies. Ultimately, the majority of the people have the majority say, and the policy that benefits most people gets implemented.
It would be counter to democratic principles for Bill Gates to support a candidate that would take resources away from him.
What needs to stop is welfare states, such as Mississippi and Kansas, voting in staunch conservative policies even though they take in the most in federal assistance. This is counter to an efficient democracy. Also counter is the fact that economic powerhouses like New York and California believe in higher taxation for the wealthy. Wealth-producers should vote in their own self-interest, which would be lower taxes.
2
@Will This makes sense, in a way, if you are a purist. You have to educate people for them to understand, though, and Mississippi and Kansas are not examples of pro-education states. This is why their people don't even grasp the concept that their states are essentially on Federal welfare.
4
@Will This system would work without gerrymandering and electoral college votes.
1
The American dream of effort rewarded is rooted in a commitment to "liberty and justice for all".
Capitalism is a mechanism for finding the win-win. Without proper regulation to prevent monopoly or externalization of costs it becomes win-lose. Vast wealth is accumulated on a scale that immiserates millions of fellow citizens; It is no longer possible to exercise talent or to rise from poverty no matter how relentless the effort.
There is no longer liberty and justice for all, only for an ever shrinking number.
11
The top 20% pays 80% of the total tax revenue. So they do pay a larger dollar sum and a larger percentage of the whole revenue vis a vis the rest of the tax base. The fact that the billionaires pay a smaller effective percentage vis a vis their own income should not matter. A friend of mine thinks this is all that matters in terms of fairness. But I think what matters is that the billionaires pay enormous sums of money. My question is why do we complain about the Millionaires and Billionaires (as Bernie puts it) when they are virtually the only ones padding the US tax revenue. Why do we care what percentage of the fruits of their own labor they take home? It's the fruits of THEIR Labor that we are pilfering.
7
@PJABC Well that makes sense since the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth in 2007 and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%. I'm sure the gap has widened very much since then. So what is your argument?
1
I think the 1960s analogy of higher taxes and higher growth is a bit flawed becuase the USA was basically the only functioning major economy and faced no competitors as Europe and Japan were still in rebuilding mode after World War II
.... However one has to admit states with highest tax rates also have the highest growth rates. One only needs to look at California and adnit that California is still to the left of the Laffer curve (or that higer taxes haven't hurt entrepreneurship and innovation)
7
This is another "too-big-to-fail" scenario into which the American public has let itself get snookered. These billionaire folks are powerful enough that they can inflict, by design or indifference, enormous suffering on the public. Their money managers were not born yesterday, and are earning a pretty penny by making sure that no one will touch more than feels insignificant. They have armies of these financial managers - some would say mercenaries - who could bring the economy to its knees almost at a moment's notice.
So what are we to do? We can either continue on our path towards serfdom - maybe a vassal if you're one of the well-positioned, or brace and prepare for some pain. Each path has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally, I'm not for serfdom. Part of the latter path entails our stopping feeding the beast. Think Bank Transfer Day on a broader scale. Think Sanders, Warren, Gabbard. They are the ones who have the courage to follow through.
9
If high taxes promote growth, please explain why Europe's economy is zero to negative. Their banks all have negative interest rates, which is hardly a sign of economic growth.
Be very careful what you ask for. I have never worked for a poor person. Have you?
7
@Jon Galt: At this point, sustainability is the issue.
1
The author argument is flawed in the sense that he/she is comparing the tax system of the 60s with today. The world economy is completely different than what it was in the 60s or 70s. It would be an absolutely disastrous if you implement a 60s/70s tax system in today's economy. For our liberal market economy to work, it has to be incentives based. While it's true that even if you get rid of incentives, you will still have those Gates or Jobs that will continue to innovate. However now rely on uncontrollable intrinsic motivation for people to innovate, which is arguably not stable or sustainable. I agree we should fix the tax system so the wealthy pay a higher share (even though they already account for an dispportionate high share of the USA tax revenue), but it doesn't have to be in the extreme. US politicians are either zero taxes or 100% tax rate. Why isn't there a middle ground? History has always shown the optimal answer is always in the middle, so let's not go crazy and try to overhaul the entire thing, especially don't try to overhaul the entire system back to the 60s or 70s. A moderate higher progressive tax system would probably work well without hurting our economy, not to mention being more practical as it is more likely to find bipartisan support.
2
I’d love to see Bill try to convince Bernie how much more we need oligarchy than a democratic, sustainable, civil and just society.
14
No-one likes to pay more taxes including very rich people especially when it eats into their assets. I guess they aren't as liberal when it really hits them - which I cannot fault them for. Its always much easier to want higher taxes until it really starts affecting you
9
@Allan Jacobs MD
Exactly. Just listen to all the coastal residents in the top 20% complaining about the loss of their SALT deductions.
Meanwhile democrats have been working feverishly to get that cap raised. They are doing it in secret because they cannot openly admit they are working to help the top 20%.
1
I think the wealthy are getting in the way of true innovation that is much needed for this whole world. We are making this planet uninhabitable and it is the lack of grit and imagination of the wealthy that is getting in the way of recreating the lifestyle of all peoples to life a happy sustainable life.
The rich have bought us war, brutality, injustice, a poisoned and toxic planet and a global entrenched belief in an unsustainable lifestyle.
15
If Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders garner's the Democratic Party ( of which I am life long Democrat) nomination then my party will lose to Trump big time.
When you push looney ideas of taking away people's private health insurance you are going to lose those moderate voters who voted for Trump in the last election.
7
@Amber
Taking away?
Why can’t you see it providing comprehensive health coverage for all?
1
@Amber They say that travel broadens the mind - I'm guessing you haven't traveled much outside of the US? I've lived and worked in 5 different countries, 4 of which have universal health care based systems. I and my family have had the misfortune to have needed the services of said systems in 4 of the 5 countries. Three were in Europe, the others were in Canada and the US. The best health care my family ever received was in the Netherlands - no health insurance required. The worst was in the US where a small consultation was so exorbitant I couldn't believe it. Don't you realize that health insurance does not equate to better health care only to more expensive because you have to factor in the profit being extracted by the insurance companies. Have a little faith or at least research what other countries have been doing (successfully) for the last 50 plus years.
3
OMG..I come from a third world country with universal healthcare GASP! and where you are free to buy your own private healthcare policy if you want. If a third world country and the other sane, rational advanced economies think universal healthcare is a good thing, maybe it is time to realize Americans have been hoodwinked long enough by the insurance lobby?
3
It's ridiculous to think that people are going to innovate less or cause less growth because they make "only" 500 million instead of a billion. They aren't in it for the money up front. The money is just an anomaly of our finance system in which one person can ignore all the people who made the product possible and all the people who bought it.
14
America has had enough "frat boys" running our country. Let's elect an adult for a change. It's time to pay our bills, and mend our home.
16
@Frank R
One, the reason the 1% pay 39% of federal income taxes is — bingo, it’s because they take all the money and leave nothing for anybody else. The “1% pay 39%” meme is a sucker’s game designed to convince everybody the rich pay too much in taxes. That’s a hustlle. A reminder: when Eisenhower was president the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Now it’s 37.
Two, the goal of higher taxes should not only be reducing the deficit, which exists because the rich don’t pay enough taxes, but the rebuilding of a crumbling country — roads, schools, hospitals, water processing plants, mass transit, highways. We have two societies. In the first, the rich live a separate life from everybody else with private schools and planes and healthcare, houses behind gates, and all the food and shelter and clothing anybody could want. The second society: public schools falling apart, public transportation barely being maintained, housing stock increasingly out of reach for just about everybody, and people in bankruptcy from medical bills.
One of two things will happen. A revolution in which millions of ordinary people die. Or one in which ordinary people will run the gallows. A third possibility: rich people decide they don’t need all the wealth. I’m not holding my breath.
Finally, Bill Gates parted with his money for charity with a crowbar to his head. His wife told him he’d be a pariah if he didn’t. Rockefeller, a swine, gave away more at his age than Gates has. He’s reprehensible.
17
@ADN
One, the reason the 1% pay 39% of federal income taxes is — bingo, it’s because they take all the money and leave nothing for anybody else.
******
They "take" all the money?
This editorial is misdirected. It assumes that Gates objects to all tax increases, while the Times' story yesterday says his principal objection was to the wealth tax, which the editorial agrees needs a lot of consideration before it is adopted.
4
Gates has enough money to afford a wealth tax.
3
Republicans don't slash taxes for any other reason than to make themselves and their benefactors more wealthy. The rest is just a sales pitch for those who don't pay attention. Thank you for pointing out the vacuous falsity of the claims of our oppressed, whiny billionaire class.
12
Push harder:
Civil Disobedience is Required to make the plutocrats/oligarchs, Wall Street, big banks, and multinationals feel FEAR deeply and broadly.
12
Why do I have an inkling that Elizabeth Warren’s tax plan is going to fail miserably and the rest of the American tax payers will be bailing it.
4
@CD
Because you’re succumbing to the fear campaign of Wall Street and Republicans.
Resist.
3
The Gates Foundation will improve the human condition more than the Federal Government ever could.
3
Bill Gates and Paul Allen started work on Microsoft in 1975. The 70's were hardly known as a time of great economic performance and expansion. The Editorial Board's argument doesn't hold water.
2
" Started work"? Ha! You need to read the real history of how Gates built Microsoft.
Yes, I don’t want to hear a billionaire’s opinion about the American economy; billionaires have no skin in the game. There have been plenty of bait-and-switch slogans to fool voters into keep the status quo in favor of the Americans with the most influence. They have no new ideas, only more scare tactics, that support their fake slogans because they don’t want a solution to the status quo – lord knows they don’t want to lose money. Citizen United – great name - really!?!
These are different people from the rest of us. Their experience of working less and getting more, is alien to ‘main street’ concerns of working harder for less. They continue to deny their own structural and financial involvement in maintaining lawful structural policies. But Congress is on notice, and they will not be able to sustain the status quo much longer.
There are some billionaires who see a change, a balance, coming and actually welcome it. Their contributions would be welcome, not as charity, but as influencers that help change the laws and current structural policies that supports the wealthy via our own government.
The wealth-rigged game of influence will not be on the right side of history when a balance comes. Get on board, billionaires, and be happy with less – we know you can do it.
10
The pitchforks are coming. If Mr. Gates doesn't like it he could move to China, he has many business interests there. China would be very attentive to him. wink, wink
7
Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation: Another strategy of the billionaires to do "charity" (not social equality) to whatever and whomever they please, spending money which should be invested for the good of the country. Oh! And,Foundations were created by no other than an ominous PR, Ivy Lee, who was hired by no other than John Rockefeller Jr, to "redress the image" (sic) --not to change the murderous behavior of his father--John Rockefeller Sr--for the Ludlow Massacre.
9
Bill Gates is providing 'feedback' to Senator Warren. He does not appear nervous in the least. And history shows us that 'wealth taxes' do not work as over a dozen countries have tried them and done away with them.
What side of history does the NYT want to be on?
A) The side of 'failed economic tax policies'?
B) The side of balancing capitalism and helping the less fortunate in our society. We need 'balance' and compassion versus the 'hail mary passes' of a politician who wants to get elected at all costs...
2
I have zero sympathy for whiny billionaires. Let's do some basic math, shall we? If a billionaire is worth ONE billion dollars, and someone (the government?) comes along and takes 95% of that money to be used for the public good, that former billionaire still has $50 million dollars of wealth. I don't know how many of my fellow readers have $50 million, but I'm guessing very few of them. Are we supposed to feel sorry for someone who is "only" worth $50 million? Please, stop whining, little billionaire snowflakes, and start paying your fair share...
15
Yes, higher taxes will certainly lead to higher growth... Comical.
3
What the government does is prop up the military industrial complex by instigating foreign wars at the neglect of filling the potholes from sea to shining sea.
7
This is amazing. You're telling the man that is basically helping end polio around the world that a person like Elizabeth Warren, who has never run anything of any great magnitude in her life, knows how to spend the money he earned better than he does.
Let's please find a way that brings all mainstream Americans together and leaves the radical left and the radical right to continue to engage in their holier than thou, detached from reality mudslinging battle. medio tutissimus ibis
7
People who work for a living started being unsatisfied with working for corporations when corporations stopped pensions,
started treating employees as expendable, and started replacing long time workers with
contractors. In other words, companies used to care about their employees and their families and now they don't. People who work for a living are just returning that same attitude back on the corporate class in the form of blowback. It is not surprising that corporate titans on Wall Street are running scared. They created the problem of widespread dissatisfaction. They've been keeping the greater part of the country's wealth, and they're not offering any solutions about how
to fix the challenges in housing, health care, education, and infrastructure that are making people angry. Warren recognizes that congress will not change their cozy relationship with Wall Street and someone needs to hit the reset button.
15
A wealth tax to pay for life's essentials for most of us sounds good for the moment but is it the kind of plan that one wants to sustain them for a life time? It sort of builds into the system that there must always be a top .01 just in order to pay for all our daily living expenses. It hardly seems like a way to close the gap between the rich and poor, rather only widen it.
1
@Fran Let's get something straight, Bill Gates didn't do anything at all. Yes, I mean that, except learn fast how to be a monopolist.
He just picked the right parents and became the luckiest man in the 20th century when IBM gave him his monopoly.
The interactive desktop he stole from Apple.
(MAC) (courts ruled such software could not be patented (why ?)
The mouse was dev. by Xerox labs and was given away thinking it useless.
MsDos dev. into Windows he bought from another co. licensed to IBM who was hot-to-trot to get their PC out and was the worst business decision...of the 20th century. That became the PC platform.
Windows then blew off every software written by then introducing it into the windows desktop itself.
Then once resident in the computer, others all failed or sold out...then failed. Few have survived.
If you bought a PC you got windows and paid for it. Any other OS was additional. If any retailer refused windows, MS would discontinue all of their products.
Even MsDos had bugs and IBM had to fix it. I know all of this because I was at
IBM for 10 years, saw this and quit. IBM then had to play second fiddle on PCs (cost) and ended up selling out to China.
8
The top 5% of earners in America pay 58.23% of all income tax receipts. So how exactly do they not pay their fair share? Paying their fair share would be paying 5% of all income tax receipts. Or better yet send a bill for government services rendered to each citizen. Like how everything else in the world works....
5
It is very interesting that this Editorial appears at the same time that multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg tosses his hat into the Democratic presidential primary ring. The reason for mounting this impossible candidacy? Who better to leverage his enormous wealth against the progressive tax agendas of Senators Warren and Sanders? Must protect America’s Second Gilded Age!
6
After decades of tax cuts, billionaires are getting nervous about Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to tax them at a higher rate? A higher rate that is a few percentage points at best? It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. And, by the way, citizenship requires more than paying taxes. Children of the middle class and poor regularly volunteer for military duty. How many children of the 1% do so? I’d wager you’ve never seen a military recruiting station anywhere near a wealthy enclave. So, who are the freeloaders?
7
The billionaires are not nervous. They will just move to another country and take the wealth and jobs along with them.
6
This is taking what Gates said way out of context, but judging from the comments it seems most people are aware of that. Gates gives away billions of dollars through his foundation, that, if given to the US government, would just get lost in their hopelessly broken federal contracting system that's basically an adult daycare for veterans and people with no skills.
3
Mr. Gates didn't invent DOS or windows. He did successfully commercialize them. He was savvy more so than innovative.
7
When was the last time Bill Gates invented something. I think we should take the risk and tax his income.
4
If Trump would raise the minimum wage to $21, he could be President for Life. Or if he would just do the minimum on climate change efforts, he'd win re-election despite the investigations. Sadly, that's not the reality. He's merely a puppet of the money class (or worse, Russian oligarchy). That's why we need Elizabeth Warren to remind us of these inequalities in labor and wealth. It's time for the US government to start working for the people, not the corporations. And it's only the Democratic party that represents these ideas.
5
@Cramton If Warren wins the election I am moving back to Moscow. At least they have a better system.
2
Working at an R1 University, I am surrounded by people that work tirelessly creating the type of knowledge that made Bill Gates' career possible. Not a one has gone on strike because they are unlikely to become billionaires working in academia. Yet we are constantly told that our entrepreneurs will do just that unless they have unrestrained economic power.
12
Economic growth in last 3 decades has resulted in vast income inequality since most of the gain had gone to top 10% richest people and even more to 1%. The consequences of this redistribution are resulted in crumpling infrastructure, weakening of the unions, disappearance of well paid jobs, likely is major contributing factor to opioid epidemic and very importantly erosion of democracy due to significant influence of money in politics. It is about time that these issues are front and center of current political cycle. I would love to see debate between Senator Warren and Mr. Gates.
14
The thing that will actually spur innovation and growth would be a modernized infrastructure...and that takes tax dollars to build. The beneficiaries of modern infrastructure are businesses, commerce. Therefore, taxing wealth, business, corporations is wholly justified. The other driver of innovation or growth is a new technology. Green technology and development of alternate energy sources fits this bill. Some will require government investment ... but private business will reap the benefits. Again, tax revenue will be necessary. Income gains have mostly gone to the top incomes along with the biggest tax cuts. To change that so real growth can happen, these high incomes need to chip in more in taxes. They will probably still come out ahead.
5
"The Trickle Down Economy" was a disingenuous sham from the onset. Enrich the rich and they will invest in the economy for all of us was, and is still, fallacious.
The wealth class has the option of sitting their money on the sideline that most Americans do not. The wealth class has the option of sending their money, and our jobs, overseas... an option that they have often used.
Even if the US income tax rate was a progressive rate from just above the poverty rate to billionaire incomes, the very wealthy have enough unjustified loopholes to maintain their inequality vis a vis taxation.
It is no surprise that Mr. Gates continually purchases Berkshire Hathaway Class A stock, that provides no dividend but steadily increases in value. That the ownership of class A stock holds voting rights outweighing all class B shares, provides leverage in keeping Berkshire Hathaway dividend free, hence tax free, until a sale.
The wealth gap is no accident... it is intentional, yet detrimental to nations stability and security. It must be redressed.
14
What pro business people as Mr Gates don't get is that in the long run, redistribution is better for everyone. It even eases economic downturns and creates a much stronger stability.
Going from crisis to crisis or staying in a perpetual deep, hidden crisis as the US is right now has no benefit, especially for the middle class.
All those billionaires must get poorer. What difference will it make for them. Every new dollar they add to their bank account is worth less than the previous one as they need it less.
But think about all those who are struggling each month, one dollar is the whole world.
This must stop and only the people will change it by voting with their interest in mind.
9
Isn't it odd that Mr. Gates and some others who have complained about the wealth tax proposals have agreed to give away half their wealth to charity. Why object to a few percent to the common good? Perhaps because they object to a loss of control. THEY wish to control how their wealth is used, through their foundations and the targets of their specific donations. Must be nice. Sure, I get to target my charitable donations, but the Republican's tax "reform" effectively takes away the deduction for donations, making it less attractive and more difficult to do so, yet not really reducing my tax burden. So I pay as much or more to the US Treasury as before, and I have rather little control how it is used -- or in the case of some appropriations with which I wholeheartedly agree, how it is withheld for DJT's personal benefit.
8
The issue isn't whether the rich billionaires, millionaires, and everyone in this country should be paying more in taxes. Few are, as the over 70,000 pages of the IRS Tax Code give so many deductions, credits, etc. that fewer and fewer are paying nay taxes, whether one earns up to $60,000 with two deductions as seniors, or $80,000 with 4 or more children, whether the DT organization, the Kushner Holdings, Amazon, etc. There needs to be a tax structure with no deductions or credits for anyone, all income should be added in, even Social Security, Social Security Disability, Housing Vouchers, Food Debit Cards, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans, etc. In other words all government transfers, whether to corporations, farmers, individuals, families, etc. have valued, cost money. However, our country is now borrowing up to 30% more each year than what we are spending, while being $22.9 trillion in debt, promised entitlement spending $30 trillion over the next 15 years with no way to pay for all of it, and next year, and each year going forward, the interest on the debt will be $400 billion. The math is no longer adding up, as people with lots of children, who are actually driving climate change around the world, to the rich aren't paying their fare share.
3
The tax system needs to be reformed so that people with large incomes or capital gains pay much higher taxes unless they reinvest that income into productive activities. A max tax rate of 50% is not unreasonable.
That was the 1950-1968 economy and the max rate was much higher---70% plus.
Eliminate a lot of the subsidies such as energy and capital gains. Those that say people will not invest---what can u do with $$$ if u do not reinvest?
Eliminate the tax shelters. Incentivize savings to a point. No $20M Roth IRA's. Above a certain limit it should be income.
Create a more equitable nation.
Immigration reform needs to be addressed as part of any such restructuring as well as mandatory public service.
In the end, citizenship and the prosperity it conveys needs to be valued and protected much more than today.
4
One of the most thoughtful, reasoned and fact-based pieces that has emerged from the pen of the Editorial Board.
This should be a must-read for anyone arguing against tax hikes on the super-rich who has escaped paying their fair share of taxes contributing to the budget deficit in the nation and more importantly to the increasing polarization of the haves and have-nots in America.
8
As a co-founder of a tech start-up, an issue that is not addressed here is that many potential entrepreneurs are stopped before they can start by horrendous college debt. This means that they just cannot do what so many start-up founders need to do, work long hours for little or no pay to build equity in their company. This also holds for many early employees that can only be offered equity and promise. That requires either the ability to live cheaply with no over-hanging debt or have a family that can subsidize you in college and after (like Bill Gates and you know who).
The severe reductions in taxpayer funding of our public universities is a major cause of this limitation to innovation. Fortunately, federal programs from the Small Business Admin and the Small Business Innovative Research program have partially filled the gap. Entrepreneurship requires a lot of people with wide-ranging knowledge and real opportunity, which takes public investment.
6
@AL: Funding of education is the same problem as funding retirement. It requires shifting income from people's working years to their non-working years.
1
The entire premise of this article is bad-faith misinterpretation, shearing Gates' words from their context. As the editors well know, Bill Gates has repeatedly come out in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy - higher income taxes, higher capital gains taxes, and higher estate taxes.
He absolutely believes he should be taxed more than he is and has been. From the little bit of his comments that were quoted in this paper, he was simply warning that an annual wealth tax, if high enough, could be a disincentive to wealth creation.
this is so obvious it doesn't need saying. originally, when Warren was talking about marginal rates of 2 percent on assets over 50M and 3 percent on assets over 1B, to fund her childcare plan, I was strongly supportive. those are very smart numbers to raise a lot of revenue, put a dent in the moral hazard that is wealth concentration, and remain sustainable - the wealthy would need inflation-adjusted returns on their investments to beat the wealth tax and come out ahead, and that is not unrealistic at those levels. it would be a serious speed bump to wealth accumulation above 1B, but not one so large as to incentivize expatriation.
6, let alone 8 percent, is arguably unsustainably high. especially in a recession, where wealth is diminished by market forces and then taxes. and all of it as a proposal to pay for a health policy that is unpopular with the majority of voters in every single state? including VERMONT where single payer was voted down?
4
@Alex: A wealth tax could motivate wealth dispersion. Maybe Bill Gates gives what he does because he knows how exceptionally lucky he is and feels guilty about it. He could be in the race to Mars or building flying cars instead.
2
This is the grand lie that the plutocrats and their enablers - the Republican party in general and portions of the Democrat party have been telling us.
The world is awash in capital. In fact, there is so much capital seeking returns now which is why real estate keeps going up even though middle class and poorer class incomes don't: the wealthy need a place to park their money.
What people don't understand is that "investment" in stocks, bonds, and real estate are not economic investments, i.e. they don't contribute to GDP. Only when someone builds a new factory in the U.S. is that considered economic investment.
So when we tax the rich, we transfer money out of unproductive hoarding and into the hands of less wealthy individuals who will spend it on consumption, which does spur economic growth.
The plutocrats no longer have a need to make economic investments in the U.S. - everything is made in Asia. So taxing the wealthy and putting it in the hands of less wealthy people will grow the economy. Just ask Keynes.
8
If a few billionaires pull the plug on their tax contributions, it would take the contributions of 100,000 middle clash payers to provide the difference. Most Americans understand the math and that’s why “Progressive proposals” are doomed. How embarrassing it is that a panel of newspaper experts would believe otherwise.
4
It wouldn't matter what kind of taxation/regulation was proposed on billionaires or multi-millionaires because most of them will cry foul. We almost never hear these same wealthiest individuals and their families complaining about the inequality or wealth gap between the richest and everyone else.
If cutting taxes was supposed to close the wealth gap we would have seen it numerous times through the decades. We haven't.
If raising taxes was supposed to shut down growth of our economy we would have seen it We haven't.
When tax rates were at their highest in this country, growth continued. Except for financial crises or recessions growth was not affected. Even when there was serious trouble, often caused by the very financial groups or individuals who are complaining the loudest, they were bailed out by the government. Taxes have been cut and the trickle down that was supposed to happen, didn't. This tired theory simply is a lie. The rich hoard their money and their shareholders want every penny to go to them. Their goal is NEVER to help the workers or lower /middle class society move up in any substantial way, closing the wealth gap.
The billionaires will still be billionaires and the millionaires will still be millionaires if taxes are raised and regulations are imposed. The only difference is they will have more to complain about when they are vacationing in Monaco.
5
I would agree that ultra-wealthy people need to pay more taxes, also a wealth tax. But to me, this category of billionaires is a populist, harmfully distorting term. I would not put in the same category of billionaires oligarchs, conmen (like Trump), fortune inheritors, real business creators, and path openers. I would include here Gates, Bloomberg, Bezos, Jobs (would be a multi-billionaire if he still lived) or others like them. Also, note that Gates and Buffett already pledged most of their fortune to charity.
So, we should always takes risk where the risk falls upon the poor and middle class, instead of those who are weather? Why is is "too risky" whenever the risk falls upon the rich and powerful?
8
Kiddos to The NY Times for highlighting this fallacy and correcting the thinking among the elite. What the article fails to mention is that as the wealthy have come to pay less in taxes those on lower rungs of the ladder are paying a greater percentage of their incomes in taxes in order to make up some of the deficit when one includes all taxation, state, local and federal. Consider also the time the “little guy” puts into volunteer activities to help their communities, from political activities to enabling the public schools his/her children attend so that they can have the activities once paid for by school districts. Need I add to the list?
7
@ James Morgan: No kidding. Parents have to make up the slack at public schools all of the time, from coaching sports to being teacher's aides and running library fundraisers. On top of that, local and state sales taxes continue to rise, a burden that again hits lower-income people disproportionately. Texas loves to brag about having no state income tax, but it doesn't tell you that sales and property tax rates are through the roof - and property taxes in particular are body blows to many seniors who bought homes when prices and taxes were low and who are now being forced to sell their family homes to "investors," because they can't afford the property taxes any more. Those investors tear down the homes, build four condominiums on one lot, and then sell each individual condo for what they paid for one senior's home, so they avoid paying property taxes. Wealthy "investors" are making out like bandits. And they don't have to pay any state income tax, which they would be subject to in other states, and which might help relieve the burden of high property taxes. Could it get any more lopsided?
3
Great wealth affords great power. Always has, always will. Enlightened societies have had governments that inhibit that power (not take it all away) when they saw it being used to harm too many people, which led to instability, revolution, and suffering (too often on a great scale).
The United States government, for all its faults, has been pretty good at keeping us away from dictators, fascists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and a revolution that would undue the revolution and the Civil War that created our country. The all-mighty dollar and the full faith and credit of the federal government remain the "coin of the realm" (at least until the Chinese run the table).
The great wealth amassed in the hands of relatively few individuals does not magically give them wisdom in all things. The very wealthy today all too often act as if their wealth, however obtained, makes them expert in all things, e.g. government, education, economics, international relations---indeed, how to make a better planet for all.
A little humility to what the Republic can come up with through debate and compromise that considers all of us, not only the wealthy, is needed. Imposing and collecting taxes are essential if we want the United States to continue and get better.
8
The editorial states there is a good chance that Gates would get richer under Warren's plan. I cannot tell if they were just being flippant or cannot conceptually comprehend the long term implications of the proposal. Their statement works only if the growth in Microsoft's stock price stays higher that 6% and accelerates over time since there is a difference between unrealized stock gains and cash out the door. Microsoft's dividend is slightly in excess of 1% and after taxes, Gates will be required to sell 5% of his stock EACH YEAR to generate cash (assuming he does not defer the sale by borrowing for a few years). Over 10 years it will be almost impossible for him to have the same or higher wealth.
As a country, we are great at kicking the can down the road. However, it is inevitable that the revenue from the wealth tax will decline over time as the wealthy sell off assets and adjust their holdings. Warren does not discuss how the country will then pay for her proposals but it has to require higher and higher taxes on the bottom 99%. Her floor of $50 million will drop substantially.
5
Self made billionaires like Bloomberg who have a social conscience help society a lot but there are others who assume the govt belongs to them, the courts with their ability to hire high end legal talent get away with crimes and taxes the regular citizen cannot. Carried to its extreme it leads to revolutions and Les Miz scenarios with the wealthy and powerful exploiting the lesser folks living week to week.
Warren Buffett said folks can live on a million a year no need for more but the greedy rich look to avoid paying any taxes .Our infrastructure is crumbling yet 250 million $ yachts are big sellers here in Ft lDLE,.
7
I think the problem with the discussion is the lack of identifying what is meant by "wealthy" or by "rich"?There needs to be some threshold breakdowns on these loose terms. The discussion is throwing in those hard-working small business owners who might (hopefully) manage to make a million or two, (in a good year), to those more passive "Super Wealthy & Super billionaire earners" all into the same category. A Small business owner working 12 to 16 hour days trying to make it, is not the same as Jeff Bezos, etc.
To further the discussion in a more reasonable way that might actually yield some positive results, start creating some varying levels of what are now all lumped in together as "The Wealthy" that need to be punished for trying so hard.
1
@~ Eric : Warren's plan has 2 thresholds for individuals:
Those with wealth over $50 million will be taxed 2% each year (35% over 20 years), in addition to other taxes they pay now.
Those with wealth over 5% will be taxed 6% (70% over 20 years), in addition to taxes they pay now.
1
@~ Eric
Correction:
@~ Eric : Warren's plan has 2 thresholds for individuals:
Those with wealth over 1 billion will be taxed 6% (70% over 20 years), in addition to taxes they pay now.
1
@~ Eric: According to valuation at the margin theory, one could define "fair" taxation as an impost that that makes all taxpayers feel the same degree of pain when paying their last marginal dollar of tax.
2
Bill wants to control where his money goes. He worked awfully hard to earn it. He has a medical mission along with his wife Melinda that appears to be quite effective at doing some good. He knows that Congress is not dissimilar to a sausage factory. I suspect he is right. Congress is simply a team of millionaires as oppossed to billionaires who have excellent perks and benefits. Which side of the bread would you imagine they will be buttering with more tax revenue? Finally the divisiveness in Washingtin precludes progress and has for several years. Didn't this impeach/do not pass bills mentality occur 20 years ago? I await the numerous rebuttals from folks nearly as opinionated as I am.
5
My money is on Warren Buffet, once the richest man in the world, who has given 70% of his wealth to charity, including $36 Billion to the Gates Foundation.
Gates, himself, has given away 22% of his wealth including contributions to the Gates Foundation. Both have publicly stated taxes on the wealthy should be increased.
But taking away the wealth they use to fund these charities raises a different issue; is the government better able to use these resources than they are?
Given that the government has squandered $9 trillion dollars in the ME (half the cost of Warren's M$A plan) in the last 20 years, I seriously doubt it.
3
I have some concerns that this enthusiasm toward some sort of "wealth tax" misunderstands a number of issues. For one thing, there's a reasonable argument that this sort of thing is not possible at the federal level. The 16th amendment very specifically grants the power to levy an income tax, and property taxes like this are reserved for basically any other entity. In Texas, property taxes are the remit of school districts. Any sort of tax specifically directed at the wealthy not on the basis of earnings, but on the basis of holdings is probably a non-starter.
Raising the marginal rate, though? That makes all kinds of sense - at least with respect to individuals - and it can and should be explained that way to voters. Doctor Moneystacks should pay more on the ten millionth dollar he earns than Professor Community College does on the thousandth. There are ways to couch that argument that don't come off as some French Revolution nonsense.
We owe our current tax policy to the great and wise influence of one Milton Friedman - a man whose contribution to politics we would all be richer to lose. He is an absolutist with respect to taxes. Just say no. That's easy to sell. I contend that advocacy for actual progressive taxation is a reasonable counterargument to that position, and we don't have to descend into an equally absolutist enmity to the very concept of wealth to meet him on the field of rhetorical combat.
4
This discussion is somewhat nonsensical since the Constitution allows the government to tax income but taxing wealth is strictly prohibited by the fifth amendment. A tax on wealth itself would require a constitutional amendment which has zero chance of passing.
1
@Gustavo There is already a tax on wealth. That's the capital gains tax.
2
it's almost like you're not familiar with property taxes... what exactly do you think that is but a tax on wealth held in one asset class?
or estate taxes, which is a one-time tax on wealth held at death?
An wealth tax would just be a simplified estate tax filed by the ultra wealthy every year.
the only form of tax that is unconstitutional is a poll tax.
@Mnzr
Not exactly the same as the Warren plan. Now you buy a share of stock for x dollars, you pay no tax until you sell it for x plus some amount of dollars. That is, until you realize the gain.
This is different than the household that is subject to the proposed wealth tax which must come up with the money to pay the tax on that same share of stock before the gain is realized.
This would cause a sea change in the way people invest and seek to maximize profit and minimize taxes.
2
Taxes.
When we’re talking about a Gates, or a Bloomberg or a “New Money”, its a different conversation than when talking about “Old Money.”
New Money thats made it from scratch-really, they don’t want it taxed away because they want to maintain what it represents: success at innovation, management and resulting resource control.
But once they die, frankly it should not pass to descendants. What did they do to create value? Zero.
And I don’t buy the argument “I can dispose of my resources as I see fit.” Once dead-you’re out of the game.
As to fear of offshoring, that’s easily fixed: prohibitive tax offshoring capitol unless its held by a US entity. Require the unravelling of shell corps to tie those Cayman and Channel Island and Swiss, Luxembourg accounts to a tax return. Easy enough to do.
Do away with Tax Letters when passing a simplified tax code.
New Money like Gates and Bloomberg are right in that the right brains should push resources around. But for how long? Under what circumstances?
This is what the tax code and State and Federal rules and regulations are meant to do: define the limits of the market purview.
As to old money, like the Waltons or the Mars or the Sacklers...we have more than enough evidence that wealth at the generational level corrupts values. Its not unreasonable to take control of it upon the death of a founder, and either re-open the marketspace to innovation as a result or reorganize the entity.
2
Higher taxes alone won't spur growth, unless it's tied to more investment in R&D which has plummeted in both public and private sector.
Higher taxes alone won't make the structural improvements that are needed to tackle inequality, though it will help. Breaking up monopolies is crucial. Capitalism is under assault because of anti-competitive practices. Capitalism beats government run businesses (some exceptions) IF there is competition.
It's ridiculous that the wealthy pay a smaller percentage in taxes than middle class. 50% of 500,000,000 is $250,000,000 vs 50% of 50,000 at $25,000.
Why are the forms of income the wealthy receive resistant to taxation? Doesn't make sense.
3
@Sharon: Competition requires duplication of overhead, which is on extravagant display in the medical sector of the US economy.
1
Perhaps our claimed "growth" is measuring the wrong things.
When all or most of our "growth" is speculation, our metrics of the health of the economy and nation are not describing reality.
Bill Gates has actually "earned" his fortune, and has worked (unsuccessfully) to give it away by eliminating misery caused by disease around the world. While he may feel he is better able to spend his fortune doing good then government, there are two flaws in that thinking:
1. Most of the rest of the very wealthy are not so service minded.
2. Warren's proposed wealth taxes (on both income and assets) at the rates proposed would still allow Gates fortune to grow--just more slowly. He can continue to do good works.
Bill Gates is personally responsible for preventing many avoidable deaths world-wide. However, USA life expectancy and health is actually declining both relative to every other advanced economy, and absolutely. Mr. Gates is personally contributing to this decline. Warren wants to use a bit of his money to reverse these trends.
1
Having watched "Inside Bill's Brain" recently, I actually started to think he was an ok person after hating him many years ago for all the stuff Microsoft did to kill Netscape and beat down Apple Computers. Bill Gates is very smart but as many have pointed out, he didn't get to where he is by himself. And while it's commendable that Melinda and he give a lot back through their foundation, from what I saw in the documentary, that money is mostly going abroad.
The tax increases Warren and others are talking about for the very wealthy would benefit those here in the US. Yes, there is time when you need to think about helping those in your own backyard. How many millions of homeless and hungry do we need here before our billionaires act?!
4
We are returning to the past by creating a new rentier class.
More and more capital is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. That wealth is 'invested' to create more wealth. Money makes money makes money.
Companies make money for stockholders by cutting costs. Companies cut the size and pay of their workforce.
The old rentier class owned huge estates and rented them out to those that worked them. They never worked themselves - their income came from the rents they collected. They collected more rent, they bought more land..... the cycle never stopped.
Now we see the wealthy earning more and more money from investments and capital gains. Stock prices go up because the wealthy want income. Income comes in the form of dividends which come from increasing profits which come from cutting costs which comes from cutting the number of employees or the wages paid to those employees.
This system benefits those that HAVE money not those that work.
4
No. Bill is .not. a 'good citizen'. He's an oligarch. He should be paying 80% in taxes to be a good citizen. And he needs to abide by the rules of a democracy, which is everyone gets one vote, and one vote counts as much, no more, than any other vote. What we have now is an oligarchy. It serves no one, and ultimately not even the obscenely wealthy, to live in an oligarchy. Remember what the French did when they figured things out? I bet Bill would rather pay 80% in taxes than be afraid of leaving his house ever again.
4
There are a total of 2,604 billionaires world-wide. Bill Gates is one of 607 residing in the US. Twenty-six of them own more than half of the world's collective wealth. Tell me again why taxing them is a bad idea?
12
The billionaire plan more or less led to Donald Trump being President of the United States. It's not going to break them to have to cough up 10, 20 percent of their wealth. Though it breaks my heart to think they might have to shutter that 19th mansion somewhere, or sell one of the islands. Get a grip people.
7
But Bill: How is it we have more billionaires than ever...yet GDP growth is anemic and has been for many years now?
8
My thousandnaire status would suggest I join the basket-case of proletariats in impaling the profiteers and trust fund socialites. No no, I am not sitting here stewing or envious of someone's else's accomplishments. Over my 27 prof'l career, initially as a CPA and currently a strategist I have advised hundreds across the spectrum of commerce: from NPOs to hedge funds, entrepreneurs to enterprises, and just about all of them were adamant about: sharing as little of their capital as necessary, paying as little tax as necessary, and compensating staff no more than necessary. What I've realized is that greed exists in and permeates every stratum of society. Let's face it, it's truly the American way. Some of us were more fortunate than others, and others were simply more talented.
However, the fact that a huge swath of the liberal base is increasingly displaying tremendous animus at self-made billionaires like Gates, Bloomberg, Bezos et al just b/c they were successful is extremely disconcerting and worrisome. It suggests America has become unthethered from its democratic spirit and ethos of intelligence, entrepreneurship, contribution and commitment and is heading on a trajectory of anarchy and annihilation. I expect many to disagree and dismiss my perspective as typical ivy tower missives casting aspersions upon the less fortunate. However as a life-long black Brooklynite experiencing decades of strife, I am among the less fortunate and today, i'm seeing pure madness.
2
No. It’s not just because they are successful. It’s because we have to work 3 jobs and still can’t make ends meet. Off to job number two now.
6
@Smilodon7 - who's fault is that? It's a rhetorical question. The fault lay with the same Politicians we elect, and our parents for not having the foresight to say: "you know what, perhaps you shouldn't end your educations with a B.A. in sociology and live in NYC). I live in the heart of Brooklyn, we gentrified neighborhoods and communities by allowing laissef-faire development (absolutely no support for middle-class housing) and constricting transportation (i.e. shrinking streets). Yet not one politician has put forth a REAL plan to make housing affordable for the middle-class nor entice banks to TRULY fund the "creative" or "maker" communities.
Hence we have hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs choked by bureaucratic policies and "high rents". Ultimately, the future of this country lies with Small Business, and that begins with entrepreneurism.
We are all championing and clamoring about this digital universe, but we must ALWAYS live and operate in the real world... and in this real world, our problems aren't the billionaires, it is our clueless politicians and our poor connection to REAL issues that matter... and that's painful truth that very few of us want to accept.
Brilliant. Keep your lamp burning. Some of us are listening.
Bill Gates needs to remember that in order for the affluent community in which he lives to flourish, it can only do so if workers, from minimum wage on up, have incomes and services such as health care and good infrastructure that allow them to continue to live there. Without garbage collectors, grocery checkout clerks and public school teachers (and others), the society will not be viable to live in.
4
There are plenty of projects where money can be spent. The question is whether individuals or the government are better custodians at spending that money. Let's do a comparison to see how efficient and effective each dollar goes when it's given to the government or kept by the individual.
2
@George
When it comes to health insurance. We already have that comparison.
The government insurance system (Medicare) has administrative overhead of roughly 2%. Private plans are less efficient by a factor of approximately 5 -- their administrative costs are about 11%. In dollar figures, administration of Medicare is about $132 per beneficiary versus $700 per beneficiary under private plans.
So there's your efficiency -- the government plan is clearly more efficient.
If you want to look at customer satisfaction, the government plan also wins, as Medicare beneficiaries are substantially more likely to say they're satisfied with their plans than those with private insurance plans.
So in the realm of health insurance, the government dollars are both more efficient and more effective than the private dollars. And that's the case even though the government plan covers the elderly who have the most health problems. Rather impressive.
It's actually a fairly simple answer, since you asked.
2
How about the Times start pushing the narrative that Elizabeth Warren is not a wide-eyed radical but scarcely different from an Eisenhower Republican? You know: when the marginal tax rate on the rich was 90%, industries thrived in a carefully regulated environment, and the middle-class was the most prosperous in history.
12
If I took $1 million out of Bill Gates bank account (by some legal means, of course), money that's basically just sitting there earning Bill some interest--like he needs it or could even spend it--and instead stood in front of a department store, handing shoppers $500 each, would that not benefit the economy more than Bill just keeping it?
10
@Carl Milholland: It depends upon how we define "the economy." For banks, stock exchanges, and financial advisors who want that million dollars to stay under their control, handing it out in $500 increments to shoppers would be a terrible decision. They would claim it's bad for "the economy," meaning, themselves. For retailers, manufacturers, and others who produce and sell products, it would be better for "the economy," meaning, themselves. Until we acknowledge that "the economy" is a giant social system full of opposing and collaborating interests, we will continue to struggle with income inequality. Billionaires are a symptom of a sick, imbalanced economy. They represent a tiny part of the overall economy that is doing well only because their hoarding is like a huge hairball clogging the drain that allows money to flow elsewhere. If we look at the big picture, we have to ask ourselves if it is worth it for a democracy to foster a few hundred healthy individuals at the expense of the economic malaise of millions of other individuals who are not thriving in this environment. Some people freak out and claim that if we impose a wealth tax, then all of the billionaires will leave the country. I can't really be sad at this thought. Losing billionaires doesn't mean that the rest of us will stop working and producing. It might actually give the country some relief from the parasites that are destroying our social fabric and ruining our state and federal governments with lobbying.
1
Exactly why would slower growth be so bad?
Who would suffer?
How would it hamper governments from doing their job?
3
@Linda Bushwaugh stockholders would suffer, and that's what determines policy: stockholder value, not democracy.
1
Sorry, but when I hear the NYT and Elizabeth Warren feud with Gates over aggressive “wealth taxes” and much higher tax rates on “Corporations” and the potential impact on innovation & the overall economy, I’m left to wonder who is more aware of the worldwide business and economic environment? I have a bit more confidence in Gates views than those of Warren & the NYT editorial board. It needs to be kept in mind that Gates (and like-minded souls such as Bloomberg & Buffet) are quite concerned about income inequality as well the social and environmental health of everyone on the planet. Buffet, Gates and other very successful leaders have consistently indicated that a higher tax rate on the top 0.1% would be appropriate. We also need to address the tax code loopholes where some very profitable corporations pay little or no tax.
While the NYT commentary states that this opinion piece isn’t a support for Warren’s plan, one cannot separate the overall cost of Warren’s plans with the need (realistically) to substantially increase the level of taxation on the rich & corporations, possibly to the detriment of all.
Thank God that Michael Bloomberg may re-consider a run for President. We need a talented leader with a social & environmental conscience to reverse the course of the last 3+ years. Bloomberg can garner the support of Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans, particularly in key swing states.
2
@Greg Did you like living under Bloomberg's administration in NYC when he was the nanny mayor?
When you have too much money, you focus typically not on growing the economy for the public good, but on preserving your wealth and seeking high rents from your capital.
The tax havens created for the ultra-rich are nothing but reverse engineered welfare for those who don't need more money, but they have no benefit for the country as a whole. Paying your fair share in taxes should be a proud civic duty because you had the privilege to get wealthy and live safely in a free society.
7
@Konrad Gelbke Agreed but we live in Dirt Bag Nation now, an ideology coughed up by corporate values replacing the democratic values of which you speak.
Fine, tax away. But it is the misappropriation of what is collected that's consistently at issue. If Bill Gates paid 6 billion in taxes last year and estimates paying 10 billion under proposed initiatives then those collecting this additional 4 billion are accountable for efficient and targeted distribution where we see real tangible results. That last piece never seems to materialize.
2
@Natalie: It's because we keep electing the same kind of politicians who only want to protect the status quo, and keep the oligarchy intact. It's why Warren is a breath of fresh air, because she is actually devising plans that would change the status quo. Other politicians make vague promises, but don't bother to tell us how they would implement their ideas. Warren shows us her plans for changing the status quo, finally giving us something concrete to work with. Maybe some of her plans will be difficult to implement, but that's to be expected, given the powerful forces aligned against us who don't want the status quo to change because they benefit from it. Still, we have to try, because many of us will not survive if the status quo is not radically altered. This is an existential struggle for the middle classes.
1
Microsoft made 20 billion from cloud services last year. Who built the Internet that is needed for that? It wasn’t you Bill Gates it was the government that built the Internet with taxes. Of the ones who pay taxes...
11
This article is right on. It would be good to roll back to 1975 income tax rates, capital gains rates, and inheritance rates.
I think a "wealth" tax rather than income and inheritance taxes may drive wealthy people to transfer their citizenship to Ireland, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands etc which may not be good for the US. So how about just doing the income and inheritance tax changes, Elizabeth? This will not recoup losses after Reagan Bush and Trump, but would set things right from now on.
By the way, all you anti-taxers, the legal structure, direct governmental money incentives, and physical infrastructure for your profit generation was provided by the US taxpayer, and that deserves to be paid back. In other words, when the company you own made $10 million, a lot of what allowed that income to occur, was paid for by the US taxpayer, so it should not all exclusively yours to keep, based simply on reimbursing dollar for dollar for essential support provided by government. That is probably why you do business here in the US and will continue to do so.
4
Not a single penny will ever be paid in wealth tax.
Do you think any billionaire or even a lowly deca-millioinaire would not hire a legion of financial lawyers and accountants to move wealth offshore, undervalue assets, tie up tax assessments in court, etc.?
Just the valuation system alone would be up for debate on every single tangible item. How much is the stapler on Bill Gates' desk worth? How much is the pencil sharpener worth? How much is he valuing his legendary tote bag filled with books? Multiply these questions by hundreds of tax jurisdictions at local, state, and federal levels. The IRS takes years to figure out some estate assessments that are relatively simple. Each one of these wealth tax returns would take a decade at least to wade through for each year's assessment. Gates, who already has an army of attorneys on retainer, could drag this out well beyond his grandchildren's lifespans.
And what would the government prove? It would show the other world geniuses it is better to pursue their dreams elsewhere. For four hundred years, people have done anything possible to get into this country because they knew they could make their own family wealth here with their own efforts. Taking 6% YEARLY of family wealth is insane, even if one's family owns billions. Take a look at the places that confiscate wealth -- Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, etc...you get the idea. Warren just lost any chance of a presidential run on this one ludicrous idea.
3
The wealthy are very bad investors. Most of them made their money building a business or playing with finance. They hire investors who are dedicated to increasing wealth for the already wealthy without any regard for increasing the total societal wealth for everyone.
Societal wealth increases at a far faster rate if the consumer could consume more.
Adam Smith asked everyone, including the wealthy, to include maintenance in the cost of infrastructure. The wealthy don't want to pay for maintenance and now we have a supply chain problem.
Inheriting wealth makes too many children lazy when they should be a valuable resource for increasing societal wealth. Inheriting money and being part of a dynasty is feudalism. Capitalism requires each generation to build their own wealth.
Feudalism is the slowest way to build wealth and should be replaced by Adam Smith's idea of capitalism which is essentially the American Dream.
If the wealthy want to make decisions affecting society I suggest they get elected and not make decisions based on just making themselves richer at the expense of the middle-class.
Unless people consume it's hard to have entrepreneurs be successful. More entrepreneurs need more middle-class spending. Buying a Van Gogh painter has not increase wealth for middle-class hard working people.
3
@Richardthe Engineer: Karl Marx speculated that, when technology replaces most human labor, ownership of means of production would become the predominant source of income.
1
There's a saying that hard cases make bad law. By using Gate as the example of the "average" billionaire we loose sight of most of the rest who are selfish, stingy, and pursue monopolistic economic policies at the expense of the rest of us or have inherited their billions and are let off the hook. So get over the "Gates Example", it is just a smoke screen for the general policy of increasing the tax responsibilities of the rich.
2
@richard: Buying an ambassadorship from Trump can turn out to be a bad investment.
1
Billionaires and their foundations and corporations and boards are not just "more money." They are like small states accountable only to their owners. They maintain that status in large part by lobbying for the laws that they want, and creating the public image that allows them to continue.
If you think well of Gates, is that based on facts you know? The way in which his foundation has partnered with Monsanto and supported GMOs, which is contrary to the strict, case-by-case approach endorsed by the WHO, and the Precautionary Principle endorsed by environmental scientists, is enough to give me pause.
https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
3
Don't wave the GMO hoodoo around. That's just irrelevant.
@Sonja: Billionaires will soon play with CRISPR to immortalize themselves, or at least live long enough to bore themselves to death.
I have way more respect for self made billionaires than someone who has compulsively lied about their heritage to get ahead.
8
I have noticed with increasing frequency that many many arguments from the conservative and to a lesser extent the liberal, are simply ad hominem attacks. An ability to conduct a healthy, reasoned debate about important issues without attacking the integrity of the other side is critical to the survival of a democracy. There are many issues (most?) for which one side does not have all the answers. If we continue to dismiss the other side, attack their character, intelligence, or integrity as a way of rebutting their claims, I fear for our future.
2
@George
Who is "self-made" and who "lied" to get ahead?
The old depositions from the Microsoft antitrust trial are a hoot.
1
@George: There is no more compulsive liar than the man who has already told more than 13,000 tales since God made him president with the Electoral College.
One area that we (Americans) continues to lead the world in is the number of corporate billionaires we support.
Currently, the most valuable assets of the American corporate billionaire class is their corrupt bought-and-paid-for Presidency, Senate, and Supreme Court.
Without those assets, We The People could return our country to the level of equality that exists in most other "democracies".
All we have left now is the vote... And one party is working overtime to eliminate that little obstacle.
2020 may very well be our last chance, Folks.
Get Out The Vote! If we succeed and lose a few billionaires as a consequence, so be it.
Something is surely wrong, when Bill Gates, through the profits of his predatory business practices, now assumes he has the right to dictate to the rest of us how to live.
5
The Editorial Board of the NY Times is flipping back and forth between income taxes and the proposed wealth tax in a way that suggests they don't understand the difference between the two. This is looking to be a very important topic, one that may likely require a constitutional amendment if it moves forward. If they can't be bothered to learn even the basic differences, or present them in a way so as to not confuse their readers, I suggest they keep their opinions to themselves.
2
The rich are worried, and that isn't a bad thing. While we can debate the particulars of Warren's plans (and I could make arguments against it), I think there is value in this. For the last 40 years thanks to supply side economics, we have been told that the rich innovate, that they create new jobs and new businesses, and that their wealth would 'float all boats'..and the facts tell the truth (if supply side economics worked, Trump couldn't have gotten elected dog catcher in a town in Alabama).
If raising taxes would trample innovation and growth, then how come Trump's tax cut, Reagan's tax cuts, Bush II's tax cuts, didn't generate GDP growth well above the 2-3% we have been seeing? Trump slashed taxes on corporations, and what happened...they bought back stock and they increased dividends and 90% of that cut went right into (rich) investors pockets, who in turn will pay less on it.
Capital gains tax? The discount on this has failed to show it creates true capital formation. All it seems to have done is strenghten shareholder management, if you are a CEO and make most of your income from stock, all you have to do is hold it a year and that 50 million is taxed at 15%, not the full rate...
The cute loophole that lets hedge fund managers and people like Trump pay 15% on their earnings? Same thing.
If the well off are scared of Warren, then maybe they should propose alternatives, instead of whining continually for tax cuts.
3
Tell me about it.
1
When you look back on history for instance with slavery, one wonders why did it go on so long? The answer is people liked what it brought them. We have income inequality that is polluting our politics and disastrous to our climate. When is enough enough? The Bloombergs of the world and the Gates' are wrong, our world cannot afford old patterns and I hope a civil war will not have to be fought to make the changes so very necessary to life. Greed is disastrous to the soul and the planet and the arguments Bloombergs' and Gates' make spurious.
7
Greed is an addiction that can never be satisfied. Gates and his billionaire ilk want everything--tax free.
7
People should not assume that billionaires are susceptible to reason, empathy, or shame when it comes to money. They do not see the world or other humans the way normal people do. Other humans are exploitable resources to them, more than real people who actually count.
Also, their wealth is so massive that it's hard to comprehend numbers that big. You need to break it down to amounts that people can contextualize. Here:
Jeff Bezos made about $78B in 2017. That means he made roughly 9 MILLION dollars per HOUR. Or $150,000 PER MINUTE. He makes tens of millions EACH DAY.
The median Amazon worker was paid $28,500 per year in 2017. That's $14.25 per hour. These workers create all his wealth.
You can look all these figures up.
Now really think about that. What kind of person is unwilling to pay his workers -- the people who create all that fabulous wealth for him -- even $15 an hour, while he makes $9 Million an hour? Without shame? Without disgrace? What kind of person has zero moral qualms with taking so much for himself, and sharing so little with his people, who do the work?
How is he not ashamed to even show his face in public?
You simply do not become a billionaire unless you are (1) ruthlessly obsessed with money, (2) a hoarder, and (3) totally okay with exploiting and underpaying others. We don't need to incentivize antisocial behaviors. Give tax breaks to those who pay their workers well, where the owner to worker earnings ratio is not psychopathic.
10
I guess some innovators grow up in affluent families.
My brother and I, both innovators grew up the son and daughter of the working class. My father was a repairman for Sears and my mother was a teacher. Granted, I went to Carnegie Mellon and my brother went to state university.
Those fancy gas pumps you see at every station, my brother wrote the spec, 25 years ago as a consultant at Schlumberger, describing what pumps would do in the distant future. My mother and I thought it was science fiction. Today, every gas pump in America does the things he said: big color screens, upselling products, advertising, etc. My brother, destitute at 44, died of high blood pressure and an enlarged heart 2 years short of the protections offered by Obamacare. That particular innovation came too late for him.
I coined the word "beta-reader," widely used by authors to talk about the person who reads their work during the development process. I was one of, if not *the* first author to use pod-casting to promote book sales. Back then, it was called "Internet Radio." The book was a best seller. I taught my peers to do the same things and the idea took off. Hundreds of small innovators, none of whom were affluent or highly educated.
I continue to innovate today, not huge things, but small ones, and I teach others to do what I do. That's how innovation works. It's not all venture capital and big companies. There are all kinds of innovation. It doesn't all come from the likes of Bill Gates.
6
Perhaps we're looking at this all wrong.
Instead of billionaires paying too much in TAXES we should be asking
WHY ARE THEY MAKING SO MUCH IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Companies are obsessed with paying employees as little as possible. Want higher profits, cut wages. Wages have fallen behind inflation.
Billionaires always talk about CREATING JOBS (though they are fast enough to lay off existing employees to raise profits).
WHY NOT PAY EXISTING EMPLOYEES MORE?
The best example in support of higher wages is Walmart.
The Walton Family - Walmart heirs - are worth something like $170 billion (it changes based on the stock price of Walmart). Walmart employs 1.5 million people in the US. Annual revenue is $514 billion. Yet how many employees work part time because Walmart doesn't want to pay them benefits? Perhaps sharing the profits with workers and paying them a little more would be a good idea?
12
The most important innovative ideas of the future will focus on how to keep the liberal democratic system from imploding. If it does, then people like Mr. Gates will have to retreat behind heavily-armed compounds, where wealth will be of little value.
4
I agree that tax rates are too low but that is true across the board. The real issue is that everyone needs to pay higher taxes but that is required to reduce our massive deficit. The data from 2016 (the last year that I could access), shows the top 1% pay 37% of all federal individual income taxes while the bottom 90% combined pay 31% The top 50% of all taxpayers paid 97% of all individual income taxes.
What don’t progressives get about supply side economics? If you really believe taxes don’t disincentive risk taking and innovation then you just don’t understand rudimentary economics. Sucking capital out of the private sector to hand over to a wasteful bloated public sector is just foolish. If you want to balance the budget take a look at cutting transfer payments, particularly entitlement spending like Medicare, Medicaid and the dozens of welfare giveaways.
3
And here are the many cases in which supply side policy has been proven correct:
1.
2.
3.
Wait, there must be some examples.
10
Wow. I didn’t think there were any actual believers in supply-side economics left. How many times does that tired fantasy of the right-wing and the wealthy have to be played out to disastrous effects before we have to stop hearing about it? The recessions of the early 90s and the crash of 2008 wasn’t enough for you?
6
@Art Hudson Really? Offer proof that supply side has had any substantive positive effect on the overall health of the average American's life since Reagan.
Just one thing.
Conservatives seem to forget that there are two welfare states, one for the rich and one for the poor. Both were legislated into existence. Each is designed to benefit a targeted population -- and you are either in one or the other, whether or not you currently receive benefits. Neither is going away. One is highly inefficient.
Among the suggestions I most enjoy, when arguing with conservatives, is that they forego their entitlement to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- and refuse their Social Security benefits when the time comes. Moreover, I ask that they ask all their conservative friends to do the same; especially elderly parents. I haven't found a taker yet -- because they believe their entitled to the benefit. Entitlement -- it's a funny word depending on what the user wants it to mean.
Want a balanced budget? Let every American who complains about entitlements forego every entitlement that their particular welfare state entitles them to. Boom, balanced budget in less than two years. National debt? Actually starts to naturally reduce.
THAT is a highly efficient investment strategy that, collectively, has trillions of dollars behind it. Trickle up. Ironically, the billionaires would have more money to invest, too.
Hmmmm. What was that you were saying about supply side?
How do we compare the results of the $1Billion dollars - donated by Melinda Gates for Gender Equality - with the 40% Female Board Member quota in Europe?
2
Yeah--THEIR growth would lower. Instead of X gazillion dollars, they would somehow have to find a way to deal with X-1 gazillion dollars. Haven't most of us heard this nonsense enough?
4
What’s the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? A billion dollars.
We’re not talking about rich, we are talking about obscene wealth that further enriches itself hand over fist and hides that wealth in offshore accounts hidden from world governments.
Remember the Panama papers? The journalist was assassinated with a car bomb. Criminal mindset.
I admire Bill Gates for his philanthropy and the fact that he changed the very structure of human thought with Microsoft. He deserves to be wealthy. I’m just disappointed billionaires are not doing more to save humans from climate change. (Bill Gates has at least been investing in nuclear energy projects, I thank him and feel he should not be singled out.)
2
Gates didn’t actually do much but capitalize on Xerox’s failure to understand the market place. He’s no an inventor and he certainly didn’t invent the personal computer. Don’t buy into the myths he wants you to believe.
1
Think of what would have happened to the NY Times if we had an asset tax back when the newspaper's value was at its peak.
None of the successful family businesses would survive.
One thing that Senator Warren's tax program would do is to great a yuuge demand for lawyers and accountants to avoid and evade such high taxes.
Everyone would be better off if smart people worked on producing something rather than getting paid a lot to reduce the taxes of rich people.
I'm probably too old to get back into the tax shelter game but when you attempt to collect a lot of taxes then you create the opportunities for disgusting tax shelters.
1
Under the Obama Administration, the top 1% paid 35% of income taxes. Under Trump, the top 1% pay over 39%.
So the top 1% now pay 39% of income taxes.
The top 10% pay 71% of income taxes
The top 25% pay 87% of income taxes.
The bottom 50% pay LESS THAN 3% of income taxes.
The Left's answer- kill the golden goose.
2
Bill Gates dropped out of college to start Microsoft. I have to assume your careful attention to detail is reflected in the rest of the article.
@Ernest Montague
When your family is rich, dropping out of college for a lark is not a death march to poverty as it IS for middle and lower class families.
Recommend seeing the S. Korean movie "Parasites" to get on a personal level what extreme economic inequality can do to people and a society. Similar to "Shoplifters", the Japanese masterpiece from last year. Why are American movies not looking at this issue? Could it be the Oligarch's power began in Hollywood in the 20s (see Gore Vidal's "Hollywood") when the very rich began their vilification of socialism? You never hear the very rich in America being described as parasites on our society. Yet they have increasingly controlled gov. and rigged it for their financial benefits. They have greatly contributed to our fading middle class and, w/o a strong middle class there is no democracy. I've been around for awhile (voted for LBJ) and I've never seen such an extreme lurching rightward and takeover by the rich as the last 20 years. Watch how they'll trash Warren and Sanders and pushed the other demos as "moderates" to mold them as a replacement for HRC. Watch when even the NYTimes and WaPo join in the sniping and innuendo of "radicalism" on Bernie and Elizabeth and whoever else dares join them.
6
American oligarchs are panicked because they might lose a tiny fraction of their precious, ill-gotten gains. If they hoarded cats instead of money, they’d be regarded as mentally ill and institutionalized.
9
Its interesting that the second richest guy on earth is complaining about his taxes. He pays no state income tax and apparently, property taxes are so low in his little town that the town is going belly-up and having a hard time paying its fire department and the like. Bezos lives in the same community on the same street as Bill. One would think that the 7th richest zip code in the country would have a city treasury overflowing. But no. The billionaires are whining that someone wants them to share.
Billionairism is a mental illness that is a form of advanced hoarding. It is not good for the billionaires, their communities, or the people around them. There is no sane reason for anyone to sit on a billion dollars of cash and assets. And no, Bill didn't earn it - all of those folks that sat on the bridge everyday trying to drive into Redmond to work for him are the ones who made him rich. Same for Bezos. You can't become a billionaire without a lot of people making mediocre or poor wages. Like the Walton family (owners of WalMart). They certainly don't get up at 6 a.m. to go sit in front of their stores, smile, and say, "welcome to Walmart". No. The billionaires didn't earn it. And they didn't spend their own money starting their companies. They borrowed.
8
What level of taxes did Warren pay profiting from her claims of Native American heritage?
1
Are the ultra wealthy under taxed? Well sure. America is on the cusp of plutocracy.
Even so, given Bill Gates’ long standing level of charitable giving, the NY Times might have made a better choice for their editorial bottom line bad guy multi-billionaire.
2
As long as there are children in cancer wards I can't imagine how Gates or any billionaire can clutch their money tightly.
2
Oh Yeah, we can continue Russian style - serving the rich and their political deathstars - maintain their warped agendas and peculiar concepts.
What Gates is really saying is that "special" people (billionaires like himself, Trump family and their Epstein counterparts) are willing to drop a few crumbs... so long as the whole economic set up is serving their insatiable appetites.
3
Why call stinking rich people "successful"? Just say rich, or stinking rich.
I know many successful people with meager bank accounts.
6
Obscenely wealthy seems more precise to me... since it tends to capture the degree of sociopathic tendencies one would have to have to feel one deserves that much and who tells themselves they ‘earned’ it all by themselves.
Two words about Bill and his cronies:
Greed and power.
3
Oh please! I have a hard time finding sympathy for billionaires that pay a less percentage of taxes that those in the middle class do. If he is so concerned, he needs to start paying his employees more and paying more for their health insurance. That would certainly spur growth in the economy. Stop being such a cry baby.
2
Bloomberg is so nervous about having to pay his fair share that he's decided to run himself.
2
Jamie Dimon is still wearing the tire tracks where Congresswoman Katie Porter ran over him in Congressional hearings. This poor little rich boy couldn't even begin to explain how an employee in one of his banks could live on the pay she received. Now, here, he has the audacity to claim rich people like him are being vilified. Nobody is vilifying rich people. We are vilifying selfish, self aggrandizing, unpatriotic, whiny rich people like Mr Dimon, who make a thousand times more than the employees he could care less about. Gee, Sorry about the "harsh words" Jamie, hope it didn't ruin your day.
4
No, let’s actually ruin their day.
The cost of life is much more expensive now than in 1961. We need more income after taxes just to maintain the standard of living that we had in 1961. Government expansion and its consequent increase in spending is our nemesis not the fact that we are under taxed. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/how-much-more-expensive-life-is-today-than-it-was-in-1960.html
1
Dear Mr. Gates ... your story is breaking my heart!
Please try to do the best you can ... with what you have. LOL!
4
You're the one who needs to wake up. Bill Gates may not be Jeff Bezos or Phil Knight, but he's no choirboy either. Just look how he got started--by stealing other people's ideas instead of coming up with his own.
3
@Boris and Natasha
A little untold story of how Microsoft (ala Bill Gates) stole and cheated their way to billionaire status:
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/apr/13/microsoft-settles-feud-with-wang-software-giant/
This is how I knew about the theft:
I worked for Honeywell Federal Systems (Mainframe Computers later called HFSI) from the mid 1980s through the late 1990s. The IBM Personal Computer and Microsoft crushed the mainframe market, and Honeywell sold most of the business to C.I.E Bull (95% owned by French Government). My division worked under Federal contracts (we all had clearances) so our division was retained until the Federal Government could get rid of Honeywell mainframes.
About this time, another computer company called Wang was in bankruptcy. At the same time, MS Windows introduce a new feature (Object Linked Environment [OLE]) wherein a user could open a second program from within a program the user was already in. We all use this now. Open an Excell document from within MS Word, etc. Anyhow, it was invented by Wang, and Microsoft just appropriated it into their software without paying.
Wang went to court over the patent, and won about $90 Million dollars (while remaining in bankruptcy) via Microsoft investing in Wang. Wang promptly bought my Honeywell division (HFSI) with that money. Wang promptly ended the retirement system from Honeywell by freezing it. (ain't bankruptcy great?). I quit.
This is how things work. (But not for you and me.)
1
Besides the fact that Gates is simply a good human being, it is telling he is being trashed in the Times simply due to his wealth. And with respect to business advice, I prefer to put my faith in a man whose net worth and ROIC easily surpasses that of the Times Corporation and its market cap.
2
Commentary from a guy living in a $63M home doesn’t hold much purchase with this reader.
4
Your tutorial is misleading. I really resent reading chapters staring with " Let's get a few things straight ". What really makes you think that you always have the keys to truth ?
1
Classic NYT, but lets get the facts straight :
You quote the 2011--33.2% (before Obama's taxe increases) tax rate on the rich. In fact, the richest are currently paying closer to 50-55% taxes depending on which state/city they live in.
1
If this piece were turned into a video and delivered so that he could watch it on Fox News, I am sure Donald Trump would enjoy it very much.
1
I would so love to see Mr. Gates comment on this piece.
It seems that the NYT editorial board espouses more conviction in the conclusions of the singular study (Piketty, Saenz) sited on income inequality then the authors themselves who state that their “datatset should be seen as a prototype to be further developed and improved upon.”
Bill Gates has already donated just under $30 billion to his foundation and will likely give away just about the whole shootin’ match to universally agreed upon important causes and initiatives. Warren’s proposal effectively says “Hey Bill- we (the government) are better at deciding how and to whom your wealth should be distributed. Sound about right?”
Can’t imagine why he might disagree!
3
Yeah, the billionaire class is such an oppressed lot!
4
EVERY billionaire should be executed for the crime of hoarding money, and their vast fortunes should be confiscated.
2
Yes Bill, I remember the 50s and 60s when your taxes would have been in the 90% area. And we all know how the country sucked in the 50s and 60s?
Bill have you ever used one of your programs to figure out to the dollar how much cash one can shove in a coffin? 50K? 100K.
Honestly I'm tired of paying taxes to provide the infrastructure that all billionaires abuse in the operations end of their companies.
This country, this world, gave you your billions and it just so happens this country needs some of those billions back for repairs. You should simply ask where do you want the check mailed and suffer through the 50 - 100 billion you're going to have to survive on. We have discount bread and such at the local Wal Mart and I would be more than happy to Fed Ex a loaf to you anytime you feel the need. And I mean bread.
One more thing, Bill, do you honestly believe YOU actually earned all those billions? Really? Just you alone?
1
It interests me that nearly all responders here bemoan our present political, social and economic zeitgeist, yet don’t believe we’ve YET BECOME a ” _______” (oligarchy 3rd world country corrupted government - you fill in the blank).
FACT IS, we already are, and the powerful want it that way and are doing every in their power to maintain and continue destroying our country and the world. Adolescents protesting in the streets while missing classes won’t change a thing.
You can stick a bayonet into the ribs of a man and make him work faster on the factory floor but you cannot stick a bayonet into the ribs of a man and make him invent the iPhone. God Bless America and capitalism.
2
So the rich are greedy and lie to distort truth to amass ever more money.
Even 'reformed' Bill Gates, once the guy who buckled IBM with a contract to install MS-DOS on all their machines but now is the wannabe philanthropist can't resist hoarding his hoard. Gimmie a break. These kleptocrats are evil. Period.
You are wrong Gates.
And BTW-you have the worst customer service (which is none) for your Windows products to the point of it being criminal.
2
You guys sure went out of your way to avoid the phrase "Bernie Sanders."
One of a few thoughtful editorials where the NYT editors have stuck their necks out to posit a not so popular view point. Now, if they can manage to stay away from the both siderism, and not cringe from right wing criticism, that would go a long way towards maintaining their cherished reputation.
Nervous? Are they?
2
Abbie Hoffman had it right, "Eat the rich!"
1
I would like to hear from Warren Buffet on this subject.
I don't know who the old woman in the picture is, but it's clear from the comments that there will be blood.
1
Hahaha I guess we’ll see...my guess is the only ppl who are worried are the oligarchs and their hangers on.
I grew up on a farm where we said, "Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered." I'm sorry super-rich folks, but at some point . . . .
4
I think the Editorial Page's cynosure, Bill De Blasio, would make a great President, don't y'all?
At least Bill and his ilk can afford pearls too clutch.
3
The arrogance of the Board is impressive. The most philanthropic man in the history of mankind opines that higher taxes would hurt the economy, and you push back? Based upon the net worth of the Editorial Board?
Democrats pretend ‘facts matter’. The richest man for most of the last several decades, who is giving it all way, knows the economy better than academics. He built Microsoft. He dominated the PC revolution like no one else. He knows how to run a business and how taxes would have hurt him in building MSFT.
Listen to him, and pretend to be objective. Please.
And you wonder why ad revenues are down for the Times.....
2
Why doesn't the NY Times come clean and say they are all in on Elizabeth Warren.
No matter how they try she cannot win over the moderates and older black voters.
Why are we nor listening to the centrist and only the progressive
1
They want who is copying Bernie and then will safely pivot after taking as many of his base as possible. That’s the same as supporting Hillary before the Primaries...
Gosh ---
Will Bill Gates and all the boys in Palm Springs and Mar a Lago have to eat Kraft Dinner next winter? Will they be drinking Kool -Aid and eating Ritz Crackers in the summer heat?
Oh my. Their warnings will become threats of mayo sandwiches.
The one minority group in America that definitely does not need protection is the 1% especially the billionaires. Stop whining Mr. Gates, you and the the other billionaires are not our masters and overlords, you put your trousers on one leg at a time like the rest of us.
1
Let's see...who should I take advice from on the topic of fostering innovation in the U.S., the Editorial Board of the NYTs or Bill Gates. Yeah, I'll go with Mr. Gates.
1
The Billionaires are getting nervous and Bill Gates on the cover. Really? This is a man who has set the bar for real philanthropy. All that, after leading the PC revolution that lets the Times charge $3.99 a week. I'd trust Mr Gates over the Editorial Board any day.
Pick somebody your own size.
Just to check the NYT facts:
"When Bill Gates founded Microsoft in 1975, the top marginal tax rate on personal income was 70 percent, tax rates on capital gains and corporate income were significantly higher than at present, and the estate tax was a much more formidable levy. None of that dissuaded Mr. Gates from pouring himself into his business, nor discouraged his investors from pouring in their money."
The 1973–1975 recession or 1970s recession was a period of economic stagnation in much of the Western world during the 1970s, putting an end to the overall Post–World War II economic expansion.
It's effects on the US were felt through the Carter and Reagan's (first term) presidency. It was characterized by low economic growth. and inflation which remained extremely high until the early 1980s. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 2.3 million jobs were lost during the recession; at the time, this was a post-war record. In May 1975, the unemployment rate reached its height for the cycle of 9%.
So how did Gates really persevere in that environment in those early stages?
The fact that Gates had wealthy parents to fall back on helped immensely as he built one of the most successful companies in the world.
To be fair, Gates was referring to Warren's proposed wealth tax on billionaires, which I understand to be 6% per year of total net worth, including unrealized capital gains. It's not a one-time thing. So, yes, he is correct that it could reach 100 billion over a decade or more, not counting the rapid devaluation of his net worth (and that of many of us with 401Ks) that would happen when he is forced to sell large amounts of stock to pay the tax. This article ignores that result. A higher capital gains tax makes sense; a wealth tax does not.
After forty years of tax breaks it's way past time we start paying the bills.
It is amazing that anyone thinks we can go on like this, endless tax breaks, endless growth, endless population increase, and so on.
Warren, and Sanders are the only candidates able to see through the fog of delusion.
2
I don't know how many times I've typed these words into Op Ed responses here, but let's do it again.
Money corrupts. Greed corrupts. Power corrupts.
Excesses of money are like a destructive drug - there can never be enough. The more the wealthy make the more paranoid they become, the more selfish, the more disconnected.
I've rarely if ever seen an exception to this. I've seen it in my friend, and in some of my family. The most generous people are those with the least...the most selfish are those with the most.
Let's help the uber wealthy become happier people - tax them, do good with the money we get from them, and let's level the playing field. We avoid doing so at our peril as a Democracy.
4
And tangentially, another reason we don't need Billionaire Bloomberg to run for president, as defender of the failing status quo.
1
Growth itself is the problem, and has been killing the U.S. and the rest of the world for a long time. Tax the wealthy until they are no longer rich, contract the economy, reduce human population, and we'll be on the way to stopping the destruction of our planet.
4
Bill Gates' argument is absurd. Corporate America is sitting on a boatload of cash. Where's the investment?
It is precisely the shift in the tax code away from the wealthy in the last 50 years that has undermined innovation, growth, and development as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Using the resources of society to promote universal access to high quality education, health care, and the other basic necessities of life is the real solution to underdevelopment. Smart, healthy people are the backbone of any smart, healthy society coming up with smart, healthy solutions.
And it requires no genius to come to that conclusion. The world faces immense challenges and our responsibility lies in preparing and encouraging the millions of young people that will and must solve the hideous problems of galloping climate change and endless war.
Where do you get the resources to accomplish that? That, too, is obvious - from those that have them - the Bill Gates's and Jamie Dimon's of the world. At this point their stranglehold on development and/or active opposition, as in the case of the infamous Koch brothers, is a terrible handicap not a help. Talk about a self-serving view of the world... thank you very much!
2
I know a wealthy person who told me he doesn't want a tax increase on his class because, in his words, he not only gives enough away, but knows how to do it more effectively than the government could. So he thinks he knows how to deploy assets for the public good better than the collective will can. Reality: (1) He doesn't give that much away, and (2) He lives at the edge of his means. If his taxes went up substantially, he might not be able to cover his gargantuan mortgage at a very fancy address, and he might have to move. That would embarrass him before his wealthy friends and neighbors, and he cares a lot about appearances. It's about maintaining his lifestyle, I think, because his lifestyle is his identity and it makes him feel special.
2
You get what you pay for, America.
And what have you got?
Crumbling infrastructure.
Beggared public school systems.
A $22 trillion national debt about to get much larger.
But increase taxes, or challenge the sensibilities of Bill Gates, who was given every advantage that wealth could buy?
Never.
3
It's ironic to hear Dimon talk about vilifying. They had a system to make us all rich in 2007. It crumbled to dust in 2008 and we paid to save the banks. Now, they're talking about being vilified after they got the diner and we got the bill. Funny - almost.
2
Seriously: does the Editorial Board not understand the difference between a "wealth tax" and an "income tax?"
The former has been used only on a limited basis throughout the world, and is basically untested / unproven in its feasibility or consequence for an economy. As far as I am aware, every country that adopted a tax of this sort either abandoned it, or rolled it back to the point that it was meaningless. Yet it is the centerpiece of how Warren intends to fund an incredibly expensive set of proposals. Good luck Warren campaign. It breaks my heart, but if she is the nominee, we can count on 4 more years of Trump, and the further decline of our nation with him.
2
The people of the world merely have to see democracy and social justice work - just once, and then they will know the extent of the lies and manipulations they have been subject to in order to keep the rich and powerful at the top of the pyramid of power. The first symbol of civilization, the Egyptian pyramid, symbolic of how one mere mortal at the top owns the lives of everyone below is finally being challenged ... a bit late, after about 20,000 years.
"The Warren campaign calculates that under Ms. Warren’s plan, Mr. Gates would owe $6.379 billion in taxes next year. Notably, that is less than Mr. Gates earned from his investments last year. Even under Ms. Warren’s plan, there’s a good chance Mr. Gates would get richer."
If you think of wealth as "principal", there is only a finite amount of it, and if you tax it to fund a constant revenue stream, you will eventually run out of money (Bill's $100 billion would diminish after 11 years to $50 billion, and he would only be paying $3 billion instead of 6). If the claim is that the wealthy will "likely" earn more than they lose in taxes, why not limit the tax to a maximum of their growth in net worth? That way, if the "likely" happens, you collect the same amount of taxes. But you don't deplete the principal, which is required to sustain the revenue stream. Yes, the wealthy stay wealthy (which they would anyway if they're making more than they're losing), but if they're doing as well as you say they are, a capped 6% tax would yield almost as much as one that drains the principle.
1
I am a little late to this discussion, but here are my views.
Mr. Gates, and all the above average wealthy (uber rich) wish to bequeath their success to their children. Those who have less, or nothing, to bequeath see the above average wealthy running a rigged system for themselves and their children.
The system is rigged. Facts cannot be hidden. Harvard graduates run the country and 99% of them are from very rich families. (Yes there are token middle class students at Harvard.)
Now, one asks: Is there any reason these uber rich make access to their level of wealth impossible? The answer is that their children are mostly just average kids, like the kids of the poor and middle class. So barriers to power (and great educations, etc.) give the wealthy families a big boost for their kids. This an "in thing" among the well off (by this we mean better than middle class).
Regards the middle class and their children, we see that their role is to supply engineers, managers, lawyers, accountants, and other moderately educated workers for the uber rich businesses.
2
When Bill Gates speaks we should give it a serious thought.
He and Melinda are truly outstanding people on this planet.
True humanitarians who save thousands of lives and put their money toward the betterment of humanity. In their case every dollar saved on taxes will contribute to the better world. Wish that would be the case with other billionaires. Perhaps the tax increases could be mitigated by more generous taxes write off provision for those who give so generously.
Anyone who says we should allow even more of a rigged economy, to allow for the strip-mining of every single resource that’s left in the middle class to the few...? You are aware... That’s the definition of Oligarchy. So what you’re arguing is that democracy is invalid and undesirable. To have each citizens’ vote be equal, representation by our politicians for the interests and wellbeing of the country, should be sublimated in order to allow one person, Bill, to let him have the freedom to rule us and we should just be grateful if the effect of anything he decides to do has any positive effect on anyone at all? That’s what you’re arguing for? Really? Do you hear what you’re saying? Do you realize you are not going to become a billionaire just by believing we should all pray to them...
1
The 1975 tax statistic is telling--and contains the essence of how revisions in tax policy should be sold.
Warren, if she were a clever 'salesman' instead of a break-down-the-doors crusader, would be demanding "Eisenhower Taxes!" Putting that face on our warped tax structure would awaken the nation to what has really happened. Beginning even before 1975, the wealthy began to erode a quite progressive and reasonable tax table.
"Eisenhower Taxes"--that's the way to label the push for greater equity in our listing tax structure.
If this awful reality isn’t reversed, there’s little hope for a decent future for all, or for this country. In the ‘50’s, when the US tax rate for the wealthy was at its zenith, we experienced the greatest economic growth spurt in our history. Why is it that very few seem to grasp this obvious truth?
3
Richard: this is factually false. Additionally, the growth in GDP i. The ‘50’s was a direct result of the end of WWII and the baby-boomers entering the market for consumer goods. Tax rates had absolutely zero to do with it.
Baby Boomers were under fifteen years old in 1960. Your assessment is what’s wrong. The wealthy were taxed at much higher rates than today and people were put to work on huge infrastructure projects of the type we seem unable to do any longer.
The wealthiest are fearful for the first time in a long time and Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as a prospective president is the reason. Neither candidate is accepting PAC contributions or large single donor contributions and hence limiting their financial ties and commitments to those kingmaker’s, I also expect that this Wall Street fear is the reason potential latecomer Democratic presidential candidates such as Michael Bloomberg, Sherrod Brown and others are being recruited by the plutocracy to rescue them and maintain the status quo.
In light of Biden demonstrating that he is past his prime and Buttigieg being too inexperienced they are desperately seeking their Trojan horse of mediocrity to continue doing their bidding. Hate to say it but if the Dems manipulate another candidate of mediocrity and status quo the younger energized wing of the party may well sit this one out as many did in 2016. Hopefully the lesson was learned, we need everyone to show up and vote the GOP out of office wherever possible in 2010. Our constitution will not survive four more years of this administration.
2
The lesson .was. learned by the stooges on both sides of the aisle, that it was preferable to have Trump for the oligarchy, than have Bernie. Apparently, the 100,000 who own this country and write the laws for their, no one else’s benefit, feel there is still strip-mining to be accomplished from what is left of the middle class. Enough. Bernie is better than pitchforks and guillotines. The Hamptons is not a defensible location... as that brilliant professor at Brown has noted.
The high tax rate, post WWII era up to 80s or so, also coincides with the highest innovation period in our history, a direct consequence of the revolutionary scientific and technical discoveries made at our leading universities, government and private labs, with the subsequent evolutionary developments still paying off handsomely. Example of theses discoveries include the transistor, integrated circuit technologies, lasers, liquid crystal displays, computational algorithms, to mention some, which subsequently led to the invention of GPS, the smart phone, health diagnostic tomography (MRI, CAT scans etc.). Add to that the discovery of DNA and subsequent sequencing and slicing techniques with their great promise of better disease detection and cure. Yes, today we are the beneficiaries of a golden era in science after WW II, which not coincidentally overlapped a high tax era, whose benefit was a generous support of scientific research, of which the Gate's and Bezo's of this world are the most salient beneficiaries. Sadly government support has dwindled since its peak in the 80's and nearly reached a disastrous low with Trump's latest budget, but kept barely alive by a supportive, but not overly enthusiastic Congress. Yes Mr. Gates, your greater tax contributions, combined with Congressional support for the sciences would usher in another golden era of S&T for the US and to the benefit of mankind if a large portion is dedicated to fight global warming and public health.
4
Bill Gates, the third richest man in the world…repeat…THE WORLD…is worried the government is going to take too much of his money. I’m still trying to figure out where the product repository of intrinsic value is that all that wealth created. If I had a 1929 Franklin automobile, I could take it on the road and drive it. Windows 3.1 is worthless.
2
Hank: he is not afraid to give up his wealth. He has already put in place directives to disperse the vast majority of his money. He simply doesn’t want a bloated and wasteful government to take it and spend it on priorities that most Americans do not support.
1
@William - "... spend it on priorities that most Americans do not support."
I hear this a lot, but never a list. How about filing in the blanks on that claim. Are we benefiting from the $1.9 Trillion Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018 yet , speaking of wasted money?
Money is NOT the driver of invention (now called innovation.) Necessity is, was and will always be the Mother of Invention. And a lot of innovation these days is kind of detrimental to our personal well being as citizens. No longer do people concentrate on inventing things that will have a positive outcome on the nation and it's people, more likely they spend their time innovating ways to take more money from people faster and in ways that they can't avoid. Financial services used to account for just 8% of GDP and is now close to or above 30%. These services don't create wealth, they just move it around. My money to some already wealthy person's pocket most of the time. And they will try to tell me they are "helping" me.
2
@Hugh Robertson: The ideal computer app simply condenses money into one's bank account.
@Hugh Robertson
Innovation is less than invention. Innovation is working for someone else and improving that person's business. Invention is creativity. We in America are now mostly innovators, and those few of us that can invent are brushed aside by powerful businesses protecting their own positions. Bill Gates was a opportunist innovator who has been falsely credited as an inventor. He did not invent the PC, IBM did. He did not invent DOS, he bought an outfit that did. He did not invent Windows, Xerox did.
Example: Fossil Fuel vs. Renewable energy. etc.
1
Yep. Middle class stimulus is what we need.
5
Elizabeth Warren is confronting all the people who can help this country to go away of the current crisis. With taxes plus taxes, you never will build a rich innovative country.
Here is what Bruce Springsteen had to say about these facts. From "Badlands":
Baby got my facts
Learned real good right now
Poor man want to be rich
Rich man want to be king
And a king ain't satisfied
Till he rules everything
This explains to me, how so many people could defend Bill Gates and all the other summoners of cash, though they will never be rich or powerful. Your desire for what Bill Gates has does not make you the same as him...
It is time for us to grow up, and stop being overly influenced by and dependent on man-children like Bill Gates, and it is time to stop believing the reckless entitlement is sanctioned by financial success.
Innovation arises out of opportunity and well-being. Bill Gates had semi affluent upbringing, this is the biggest contributor to his "success". The goal of the polices of people like Warren and Sanders is to bring that kind of opportunity, based on our overall prosperity, to the largest number of people possible. When we are not competing for imaginary resources (money), we are much more likely to do/design/problem solve in a way that is more beneficial overall, but we definitely do not have to make decisions based on market forces that are at best ephemeral and ill conceived.
Of course Bill Gates would be opposed to this - in a world that looks like that, he likely would not have been a billionaire in the first place.
1
They should pay the same tax rates as the rest of us. Period.
2
Over the last few decades we have been reverting back to the conditions that existed prior to the Great Depression. Gates, Dimon, etc. are today's robber barons. There are less companies to compete with one another due to a constant stream of mergers and acquisitions. The U.S. government is deeply in debt. Is another recession around the corner? I think the signs are there.
2
Although Mr. Gates is at heart a decent man, his philanthropic work is well known, he is still a ruthless capitalist when called for. He didn't make Microsoft what it is by 'playing nice'.
For this article, he is being 'The ruthless capitalist', which no doubt has served him well in the past. But, it is just the same old thing we've been hearing since the Reagan Administration. It's the Republican 'trickle down economics' he's advocating, and which we have seen, time and time again, just does not work. Has never worked, actually.
His statements are misleading, not supported by calculated facts. It does show the fear Warren strikes into the rich. For as the Wehrmacht feared Patton, so does Wall Street fear Warren. She's the 'best damn economic field Commander' the Democrats got. However, as analysis shows, she would not be driving her tanks over the rich. But she would certainly surround them, and they wouldn't be spending their extra cash on stock buy backs and new yachts as what usually happens when you give the rich more money. When free to choose, they don't re-invest in business expansion, new factories or anything that the extra wealth given to them was ideally intended for.
I don't say Mr. Gates is a bad man, his generosity is legendary, but he needs to get real, tell the bloody truth. The billionaires boys (and women) club has been running rough shod over the Nation's wealth distribution for too long, and it's time to restore equality to it.
8
Mega wealthy people typically have their assets in stocks, real estate, precious metals, oil wells, etc. and some cash.
Warren's plan will necessitate Mr. Gates to sell vast amounts of Microsoft stock which will depress its share price.
In fact, most S&P 500 companies will have this situation.
The stock market will take a deep dive dragging down the entire economy.
Save my 401K -- Defeat Warren!
4
The only people with their facts backwards are the New York Times editorial board. If you want prosperity, you reward it, you don't punish it. The money in someone's pocket is HIS, and the burden of proof to get more of it is on the government, not on HIM to justify keeping it. As usual, the NYT has things backwards.
6
@JOHN
We have had tax cuts since Reagan causing increasing deficits and debt and inequality in this country. How much "reward" do Bezos and all the other multi-billionaires need exactly?
As the article starts - correctly, when Gates started Microsoft, tax rates were 70%. How did Gates manage to grow Microsoft after being so "punished?" How about the companies who grew in the 1950's when tax rates reached 90%? America's most successful decade. We built the interstate highways and so many companies grew and we had the best economy in the world.
How could that be?
6
@JOHN Much of that money in HIS pocket came from middle-class American tax payers. The dubious tax write-offs, offshore tax havens, and absurd "depreciation" regulations -- written by Congress for their wealthy backers -- allow billionaire Warren Buffet to play a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Joe Lunch Bucket helps to subsidize the uber-rich.
Trickle down economics don't work. In the 80's, it trickled past our house and kept going. The greed in the 80's was horrendous. It looks like we are back there again. I remember when I was a kid in the 80's, I could stretch $2.00 pretty far and then practically over night it seemed that the price of a can of Coca Cola went from about 35 cents to 50 cents. Wall Street is mostly to blame for a lot of America's woes, but people are also very irresponsible in this country. You have 2 people who make the same amount of money and work at a similar job. Person 1 buys new clothes, shoes, always wearing the latest fashion, lives in a luxury rental apartment, drives a Mercedes (lease), goes to eat at restaurants 5 times a week, runs up his credit cards, pays the minimum payment every month, goes on vacations, etc. This type of person will try to shake a rich man down if desperate enough to get out of their debt and maintain his lifestyle.
Person 2 wears the same stuff all the time, goes on a real vacation once every 2-3 years ( if that) rarely goes shopping to buy clothes, could care less about being in fashion, drives a non-flashy car like a Toyota or a Honda, pays off their credit card each month, they own their house (have equity), they have money saved up for emergencies. It is very hard to convince person # 2 that shaking rich people down is a good idea.
10
@Former Republican: Person 1 probably produces more secondary employment (multiplier effect) than Person 2. Person 2 probably sleeps better.
You forget person 3, who does everything person 2 does, yet still can’t make ends meet. And they never can afford a vacation.
As Bezos pays no taxes at all, his distribution network chokes cities with polluting trucks and all traffic come to grinding halts.
7
@jaco Taxes on income, not wealth.
Wealthy people equate the number of dollars they own with, self worth, social stature, intelligence, wisdom, genius, and of course power. When you tax their money you are chipping away at their soul. Bill Gate has a Jesus complex he equates money with divinity when in fact he plagiarized CPM from Gary Kildall to create Windows, something Jesus would never do, and the rest is history. When money is everything, everything is nothing except yourself.
A wise man once said, "Don't hide the income, increase the deductions." That's EXACTLY what the wealthy do with their dubious "shelters" and write-offs. It doesn't matter if they're taxed at 30% or 70%; when their tax attorneys are done with their machinations, the 1%-ers make out like the bandits they are.
2
Bloomberg is a rational actor.
If the Dems get in and inflict huge taxes on billionaires they will lose oodles. If Bloomberg spends a fraction of that now, enters the Dem race and acts as a spoiler, he ensures 45 redux.
Bloomberg saves oodles of money under 45.
Which he then spends on projects like gun control.
1
Hey, if I can post a second time here -- should have put this in the first post -- the economist Rob Larson has a great short explainer (funny, too) on how the public sector is the true innovation incubator -- a fact that one would think would be utterly obvious, almost a priori (who else can do tons of basic R&D, free from the confines of profit-generation?), history aside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jTCBirELDU
I don't work for Current Affairs, but I do subscribe! I recommend it, and to the nonlikeminded. They're libertarian socialists-ish: very funny, very smart. Nathan Robinson does his homework but also has style. And is not shy to self-critique -- his literal self or the left in general.
Just saying. I doubt they're a literal competitor to the NYT, but NR does do op-eds for the Guardian which are worth reading.
If the NYT were really smart, they'd give NR an op-ed job. I'm totally serious. They won't, but they should. It looks so lame: the NYT should hire at least one socialist, for god's sakes. Have the other op-ed types rip 'em to shreds -- if they can. But there are about 3,129,386 rightwing op-ed types. Michelle Goldberg is as left as they go. Doug Henwood writes extremely well and knows his stuff, too. Why not hire him? What's everyone so afraid of: that they might make a lot of sense to people? :)
1
The real backward facts are embedded in the backward thinking that the Federal Government can use the money better and more skillfully for the benefit of others than, for instance, Bill Gates. To think so is utterly ridiculous and ignores the facts about our government's capacity. The Dept of War sucks up $15 billion every week. Start there.
3
Gates is a plutocrat? I bet the author misspelled it and Microsoft Word autocorrected it.
Not a single word of recognition of the enormous benefit Gates has brought to almost every breathing person in America and elsewhere.
1
It would be logical to tax billionaires as little as possible...if their savings were guaranteed to be recycled back into the local economy. This might have been the case in the past, but is no longer true in the global economy.
Billionaires take the money they save from lower taxes and chase profits all over the world, often hiding them in offshore accounts, or using them to open factories...in China. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy may not lead to any benefits for ordinary Americans.
1
Our infrastructure is crumbling and we have indebted our youth so that the wealthy can keep more of their investment income and pay lower tax rates than working people. All while they automate and outsource our jobs. How is any of this good for America?
4
"Let's see, as a typical American CEO, I make $20,000,000 per year in salary and perks, but you know what, if I lay off another 5,000 employees and increase the percentage of our remaining workers to contracted non-benefited status, I can make $20,000,000 and 10 cents. Decision made...send out the pink slips today."
4
@Cowboy Marine
And the company's stock price will go up because of layoffs! A win-win for me and my investors.
2
And that right there is why we need a financial transaction tax, stock buyback tax and higher tax rates for capital gains, carried interest and dividend income on a progressive scale.
It might be wise, as a condition for speaking on this subject, if Mr. Gates were asked and disclosed what his effective federal tax contribution is.
Can't claim hardship if there is none.
1
It is not "being" wealthy that benefits society, it is what a person does (in terms of creating a business, employing workers and providing something of value) to pursue being wealthy that benefits our society as a whole. In that sense, society should make it harder, not easier to become wealthy. We seem to have forgotten that and think that any kind of financial wheeling and dealing that is the source of so much of today's ultra billionaires wealth is the same as wealth achieved by hard work. I would argue that any small businessman, plumber, electrician or carpenter that works in pursuit of making a living ('profit') is a much more admirable example of what free market capitalism is about. Let's celebrate making a living and not the greed that typifies so many of the ultra-wealthy that are put up on pedestals. (These comments are not directed at Mr. Gates, although I wonder how much of his wealth comes from importing from communist countries, and how much tax avoidance does Microsoft engage in).
4
Wow, an editorial worth the ink!
1
It's been fun for Mr. Gates and his wife to travel the globe disbursing a small percentage of their vast wealth to the charities they choose. In many ways they have personified the concept of noblesse oblige. But the fact is, nobody needs multiple billions of dollars to live on. In fact, it's dangerous for individuals to have the kind of power that comes with that kind of money. As one example, there have been rumors about billionaires who are less altruistic than Mr. Gates buying up all the available housing stock in certain areas, with the goal of charging higher prices to first-time home buyers later. Whether that's true or not, no one should have that kind of power.
1
Bill Gates was clever at marketing and was in the right place at the right time to take advantage of other people's work.
He was no genius.
He doesn't deserve to be Rockafeller or Carnegie rich. Nobody does.
1
For people like Gates it's all about control. They don't like paying taxes because they can't control how the money is spent. They much prefer donations where they maintain control, don't have to pay any taxes and are praised to the heavens by the media. They're so arrogant as to believe they know what the people need rather than the people themselves.
It's selfish, anti-democratic and very ineffective. Let's tax them back to humility. We the people.
4
Elizabeth Warrens tax plan doesn’t affect anything under 50 million dollars. If you can’t live on 50 million, especially when middle class citizens are living small fraction of that, I have no sympathy for you. The very wealthy in this country have been so pampered for decades that they can’t imagine contributing their fair share. Too bad!
3
We don't have a wealth problem in this country we have a morality problem. A lack of morality breeds concentrated wealth and power at the expense of the poor and middle class. It places a higher value on money than it does on people. A lack of morality says that no matter how much money and power I have, it is never enough. Our current corporate business models are immoral and unjust. Extreme concentration of wealth and power will never breed a healthy society.
6
Billionaire is an amoral concept. There are people in this world that live on a few dollars a day. No one can work that much harder than someone else.
All so-called innovation was built on the backs of Giants, to paraphrase Einstein. Another paraphrase, 'behind every great fortune lies a crime or deception'.
Taxation levels need to go back to levels just before Reagan came to office.
We either want to live in a world run by Oligarchs or one where the bounties of the world are spread more evenly.
For those wanting to claim that 'hard work' entitles one to third insane amount of money, I ask them what the children of the poor should be entitled to.
4
Oh, cry me a river!
Nothing like a bunch of pampered, panicked plutocrats whining that they are so special and do so much for the citizens of this country that they must to be excused from citizen responsibility and paying their fair share of taxes to keep our country going.
As opposed to the rest of us salaried folk, whose incomes have been stagnating in real dollar terms for decades, and who don't have giant tax loopholes to dive through to avoid paying taxes.
Plus, I would love to know how much of these multi-billionaires' money actually comes from tax write-offs and the transfer to taxpayer money to their enterprises--bank bailouts, military and government contracts, sales to the government, etc.
And tell us why so many federal politicians and cabinet officers leave government with lots more money than when they started working for the government and then learned the government-lobbyist system?
The billionaires system is capitalism without citizen & societal responsibility--or socialism for the rich.
Besides, Trump and the GOP cut taxes for the rich and are running the federal deficit sky high. Somebody's got to pay the interest. Who better than those who benefitted handsomely from all these tax cuts and loopholes!
Ask why does the richest country in the world have lousy roads, crumbling infrastructure, the most expensive health care in the world but lots of citizens do not have health insurance...?
Oh yes, and trickle-down economics really works, just wait
2
Once again, Melinda Gates needs to sit Bill down and explain to him how he already has more wealth then he can ever spend, even in philanthropy, and that he needs to let some of it go for the overall benefit of rest of the nations citizens.
Melinda was the best thing to ever come in Bills life, helping him become more human and empathic, but he still seems to jump his leash sometimes and go rogue.
1
I ask these billionaires to think of how they became rich. Did they do it alone? No. Should they assume everything they have should be theirs only? No. Without the work of millions who often live paycheck to paycheck they would not be rich. The gall of Dimon and Gates is way beyond chutzpah. During the financial crisis they certainly cried and cried. And who rescued them? Again, it was the wage earners, with the bailout. Well, newsflash: it's time you bailed out the bottom 90% and shared the wealth they help you accummulate. And don't give me the nonsense about economic impact. It doesn't fly.
4
Oh, those poor schizophrenic billionaires. Half the time they extol themselves as meriting obscene earnings due to their dedication, drive and risk taking. The rest of the time they moan about how tough it is to make money when taxes grow or their profit margins shrink, and ask if it is worth it .
The reality is these apex predators, if they are truly worthy of the name, will simply double down on risk and effort to maintain their dominance in the hierarchy. None of them want to be seen as a loser that quit the game, took his ball and went home.
4
My advice to Bill Gates: shut up. Taxes on the wealthy have decreased to the point of absurdity. The middle class and poor are carrying the tax burden of the country, a country that gets deeper and deeper in debt every year there is a Republican in the White House, despite the party's claim to fiscal conservatism. Billionaires, your greed is now bearing fruit--a frustrated lower and middle class that is coming for your money. Be glad it's not your head.
3
For a long, long time people in this country have confused great wealth with intelligence or character.
Maybe this is starting to change. Billionaires serve no purpose in a healthy economy. They are extremely lucky aberrations who gun up the works.
They need to learn how to get by on a few hundred million so that all Americans can know what it means to live in a country that looks out for the well being of all of its citizens.
3
And there are more billionaires because the middle class is being paid less than ever.
They system is rigged and the wealthy have rigged it even more in the last 4 decades.
It started with Reagan who began taxing social security!
Wake up America!
2
Thank you NYT for setting the record straight on taxes. I cannot fathom why most of these billionaires cannot give up a billion here, a billion there. They'll have plenty left and still make more. What animates these people? Power? They have that already as they run the world.
2
Targeting 600 or 700 very specific citizens to fund your socialist plans is a fool's errand. They can just move out of the country and then where would you be? Where would we all be?
The TImes should be more responsible here, there is a big difference between income and wealth generated by stocks. Taxing income is a viable mechanism for a government to fund services for its citizens. Gate's is retired and his income comes largely from the proceeds of his holdings that are also taxed. The appreciation of his holdings is making him wealthy and is not taking money from people's pockets !
Of the 15 European countries that tried a wealth tax since 1990 12 abandoned it for various reasons , it just didn't work.
Maybe the Federal government needs to learn to get by on what it can reasonably tax its citizens and stop driving us into unimaginable debt.
2
During the I love Ike Repub days the top tax rate was 90% and the US paid for things but people like trump think live for today and put spending on a charge card and file bankruptcy later. Trump put a trillion $ tax cut on a charge card and then added billions for a wall that is obsolete.
I am sick of hearing people state how great trump is for the economy. Anyone with a brain would have shored up medicare and SS before a tax cut.
trumps job growth first 3 years less than Obama last 3 years. Obama all time record 70+ straight months over 22 million new jobs.
Unemployment rate dropped by over 10% under Obama and under Obama the stock market more than doubled.
Trump is a fraud when it comes to the economy where is his promised 6%GDP. And have you seen the cost of groceries or appliances/cars lately?
2
Gates pontificates from on top of a fortune he obtained by cutthroat monopoly practices forcing all of us to use and pay for his mediocre products- his own tax on any of us that ever used a PC. Sure he has whitewashed a portion of his fortune, like Rockefeller who monopolized the railroads, then rebated a portion to society, in his name, through philanthropy- Gates may have been forced to by the courts after Microsoft was found to be too powerful to fail. Still, his fortune came through cheating his competitors and customers. Anything he says about taxes is just as meaningless and self-serving as anything other oligarchs have to say: the Trump/ Koch antisocial ("taxes are for suckers") or the other "Atlas Shrugged"/Zuckerburg-Steyer narcissists ("billionaires make progress happen").
4
@Fran Cisco
That was a great point! Personal computers are awful, and are engineered to fail early, so that you have to buy a new one.
It has created a lot of electronic waste, and wasted our time and money.
1
The pushback coming from these billionaires only proves to me that Senator Warren is on to something.
4
If the zillionaires like Gates, Bloomberg, Bezos, and the Kochs don't start paying their fair share, it will get very ugly, no matter who wins the election in 2020. The younger generation is fed up with debt imposed upon them to enrich these kleptocrats. The pitchforks will come out. It will look like Hong Kong. It will be another French Revolution.
The solution? The Make America Great Again Tax - 70% top tax rate and reversing the Citizens United decision, like we had when America Was Great. Rich guys, shut up and pay up!
2
Many, many people do not understand high finance, so when a billionaire cries about more taxes and says it’s going to hurt the little guy more, the little guy thinks, yeah, it must be true because a billionaire knows what he’s talking about, or he wouldn’t be a billionaire. But to put a fine point on it — the billionaire is lying, just like our Stable Genius lies. Lies, lies and more lies. Many, many people do not understand that, either.
4
Lies. He is just another technocrat that throws money at causes to hide his shame for destroying the social fabric of the U.S. Charity is not the same as economic justice. Had he stayed in school and taken some humanities courses this rubbish fiscal logic (trickle down theory) he would not be spouting.
2
Deeply disappointed in Bill Gates on this issue. I subscribe to his Gates Notes, a thoughtful and diverse blog that displays his wide ranging interests and intelligent perspectives on these interests. And yet, on the wealth tax he sounds like a Fox news analyst who couldn't be bothered to read the actual proposal and is just sounding off on the official Fox viewpoint. Surprising and disappointing.
2
Maybe when the billionaires start caring, things will finally change.
1
@McLean123
Maybe when it stops mattering so much what a tiny group of people think, things will have changed.
"There are no wise few."
Growth for who? GDP 'growth' is benefiting a small minority of individuals.
People just look at the graphs of US inequality since 1945, it's gone through the roof as have the living standards and job protections of most.
And as for those bleating on about what a wonderful philanthropist he is......oh get real. A few hundred million thrown here and there like bones to dogs is meaningless. Him and his ilk have made BILLIONS from exploiting everyone else.
3
When will the 70% paying a higher % in taxes than Bill, etc.....vote in their own interest. It's been over 30 years that they have been waiting for that mythical GOP trickle down.
2
Bill Gates should listen to his father who said that rich people don’t pay enough taxes.
3
In 1950 my father had a statuette of General Douglas MacArthur prominently displayed in the living room. Gates sees himself as a transformative leader. Get over it Mr. Gates. Nobody will remember you in another 30 years. Your out sized ego will be pared down after your tax rate matches that of your private secretary.
2
It would be interesting if the NYT did an analysis of the international competitiveness of U.S. corporate taxes for investors, small businesses, and start-ups.
It is a painfully simplistic and pandering argument that taxes used to be higher, therefore raising them would be inconsequential.
We are in a new domestic and international reality, with different competitive pressures and expectations.
Both sides of the argument are valid. The answer should be about balance and tolerance thresholds, instead of this sophomoric perspective that one side is right and other categorically wrong.
Americans typically confuse business with economy.
For them economy is making money .
They forget that the concept of eco- nomy .from greek "oikonomia " literally oiko the house , nomia , les regles de gestion.
The art of good maintenance of a house.
Which means that all aspects of the life in the house are to be considered , and all the inhabitants. The house does not mean the roof and the walls in that notion...
So the field of economics is clueless about tax increases as economics is about most other areas: “Some evidence here, little evidence there, and no evidence for there there. So, sorry can’t help you. Now, back to research.”
The editorial may have a point but the problem is people like Warren and Sanders are running amok with their increase the taxes, penalize the rich ideas. It is not clear if these spectacled-pols ever took the discipline of doing the math, and a sobriety test of what it would take.
So trash bin to their ideas. And till a credible tax increase policy hits our ears, Gates is right to worry about the irresponsibility of it all. The man earned his billions for crying out loud. While these leftists just want to eat other people’s pies.
2
In response to Mr. Dimon's comment, "(Warren's tax)....vilifies some very successful people."
She couldn't be more right. Take oil and gas (Exxon, Koch Bros, Putin, etc). They are killing the planet while they rake in the dough. And Oil and coal have rigged (that's a good word, she ought to use it) the political system by appealing successfully to racists and homophobes/misogynists to hurt innocent people and deny them their basic rights including healthcare--all to enshrine in law that they should be able to continue their corporate monopolies without suffering any consequences from the harm they are causing. ("Corporation" means "limited liability"--owners and executives are generally not held accountable for any corporate harm)
Perhaps Mr. Dimon would like to comment on the following:
*Tillerson-Exxon knowingly burying the science about climate change.
*Mr. Gates knowingly violating the anti-trust laws to drive a competitor out of business.
*A $7 billion loss at Chase from a trading scheme gone awry (this after the financial collapse) with just such a trading scheme in aggregate (all the bankers do the same thing) being the cause of the financial collapse. The shareholders and the government covered this loss--the government because they were loaning Chase money at 0% at the time, one of the results of the financial collapse. The point for Mr. Dimon: Prevent billionaires from rigging the financial system, violating anti-trust laws, or killing the planet with oil.
2
Gates' idea of higher taxes would be laughable.
YOUR thinking is so misguided. Let's simplify things for just a minute. You work 10 hours a day. As a reward for your success, you will be allowed to keep three hours of the fruits of your labor (before state and local taxes, that is). The fruits of the other 7 hours, or 2x plus what you got to keep, will be handed to an increasingly bloated government bureaucracy, for people who have never worked a day in the private sector to determine through group think the best way to spend your money, including, as AOC wants, raises for them! And you will be motivated to do this, how?? and why?? and nothing will change, and nothing will be better, and who will we blame then, when the other people's money runs out??
1
Nervous billionaires? Warren just got my vote.
3
Trickle-down supply-side economics doesn’t work. Didn’t work for Reagan; didn’t work for GW; didn’t work for Kansas; and in its latest iteration, didn’t work for Trump. (Or, maybe it did—the rich got richer.)
As my father would say, “What a lot of malarky!”
Why do people keep buying this nonsense?
2
So, progressives are just fine with people like Mitch McConnell having a few trillion more per year to spend?
Well said editorial board. Gates and wife like to come across as generous and intelectual (and they are) but they should know money speaks louder than words.
How do you spell plutocracy? B.i.l.l.g.a.t.e.s. also spelled k.o.c.h.b.r.o.t.h.e.r.s. See Forbes list of richest people for alternative spellings.
1
Mr. Gates is no mathematician nor is he very nice.
1
Whether it's a comment about Elizabeth Warren or android and anti trust regulations it's consistent with his behavior in the 80s and 90s. He's a rich business man and is not entitled to any more political power than the next person.
To attain his wealth he exploited other people's innovations in software and hardware and recognized the value of monopoly. So in my opinion Bill Gates' opinion is not especially valuable.
1
The hard punch comment in this editorial is " It ignores the question of what the government does with the additional money." If additional government revenues go to more military spending, subsidies to fossil fuel companies, agriculture and pharmaceutical firms, we simply add directly and indirectly to the burdens we now face after decades of having done so. it is ironic, if not sad, that the current political rhetoric decries "socialism" while it runs rampant in government polices and laws.
We may soon face a new problem: decline of fiat currencies world wide. If the respect for the US dollar were to decline because of debt levels and ascendancy of other global economies, the door opens more widely for a private currency to emerge; plans have already been announced. Where will that leave the US government and its economy-related policies?
The forward thinkers of economic policy in this administration see the future as a larger limit on the borrowing credit card. After all, the payments won't start on their watch and will tarnish other reputations and assume theirs will be fine, or won't matter by the time it happens.
While no candidate's policies are close to the scrutiny of being codified into law, it doesn't mean we should ignore essential messages. We need to hear more on how government resources will be used in addition to how they will be increased. What we do know is that decades of just tax cuts have exacerbated wealth inequality and debt.
1
Important considerations are missing here. 1) The high taxes in Europe and UK have definitely led to a flight of brains and capital and less innovation. 2) Wealthy people (notably Gates) often do good things with their money without much fanfare. Where would the Washington Post be without Bezos? Where would San Francisco General or the Newark Public Schools be without Zuckerberg? 3) Rich who are afraid of taxes leave the country for lesser taxed jurisdictions. Peter Thiel in New Zealand? Eduardo Saverin in Singapore (now the 2nd richest person there)?
1
@John
Seems odd that if billionaires are so charitable and philanthropic, that they would be opposed to...oh, I don't know...making sure every citizen in the country that allowed them such great wealth could get health care?
Oh wait, their "charitable" donations are tax deductible, meaning they deprive public coffers AND they get to control the direction of foundations AND they get their name on the building. Public schools are supposed to be funded by taxes, and perhaps if the rich weren't so unwilling to pay them, there'd be enough funding for them without having to rely on the the charitable whims of those who want tax deductions.
1
@kryptogal
Many do not oppose universal health care; they just know that it's too expensive right now. You should know that universal health care in California alone would be $400 billion (https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html), and that's more than the entire net worth of Bezos, Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg combined! (wikipedia). Then, however, there are the Koch brothers and those of their ilk who are using their wealth to destroy our democracy. It's not the simple thing that Elizabeth Warren makes it out to be.
@John
Health care as we are currently paying for it already costs more than that. Universal health care would cost the same and cover more people. It's just a matter of switching funding sources and a single payer has increased efficiency and economies of scale as well as increased bargaining power to drive down costs. Overall the costs won't increase, though who pays will shift. The obscenely rich will still be obscenely rich, just slightly less so.
I was surprised by Bill Gates's comments. He works with Warren Buffet to channel money into Foundation work. Buffet famously complained that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
The 2017 tax cut was supposed to spur investment and wage increases. Instead, most of it went into stock buybacks.
Innovation is increased when people can get a good education, emerge from it unsaddled by substantial debt, and stand a chance to compete against energy and pharmaceutical companies not protected by lobbyists and Congressional Representatives and Senators. They stand more of a chance if they don't have to compete against those who have so much money they can and do use it to squash the competition.
And when the rest of us aren't threatened by medical bills and have money in our pockets to spend, innovators have a larger pool of customers who can help them succeed.
1
The IMF has stated that trickle down doesn't work. It doesn't. The periods of greatest growth and innovation and a strong middle class are when the rich pay their fair share for the roads, the schools, the military, the bridges, the healthcare system. A strong gov for the people by the people needs resources. History is the lesson. Gates is protecting his fortune made from gross over charging for static electricity
1
how's Canada doing?
I have always been impressed by the Gates Foundation and all the good it has done. At the same time, I don't think it excuses him from the fact that right outside the foundations doors are thousands of homeless sleeping on the streets. Even with 2 of the richest men in the world, Seattle is going to have to wait decades to build a few transit lines and other desperately needed infrastructure projects because of debt. I wish more billionaires would be ok with the anonymity that comes with simply paying their fair share in taxes vs the fame from donating via their own foundation.
@Fish
If you're impressed, is that based on your research, or their advertising? The research I did gave me shivers.
I do want to take some exception to this column, specifically the following.
"President Trump initiated the most recent experiment in 2017. The International Monetary Fund concluded in a recent report that it had not worked."
First, Putin's Trump did not "initiate" the 2017 tax cut. The GOP, when they control the House, secretly cooked that up. Hump merely signed it.
Second, that tax cut is no longer an "experiment" since, as the editorial pointed out, "Congress has slashed taxation three times in the past four decades, each time for the stated purpose of spurring innovation and investment and growth. Each time, the purported benefits failed to materialize." So if it is no longer an "experiment", what is it? Well, it is a service to the plutocrats. As it was reported during the 2017 tax cut "debate" the plutocrats told the GOP to "get that done" and otherwise don't even bother calling for campaign contribution.
As to Bill Gate, no, he does not mind paying a bit more on income tax. The question is how much more is a bit more, my guess is maybe $100 or so more. For the rest of the Plutocrat class, I would think the figure is considerably less than that.
1
I'm not sure that picking on Gates is wise.
Not all billionaires are created equal. Gates has shown, through his philanthropy, that he cares about society and humankind, not just himself. He also is incredibly smart, smarter, I think, than the NYT editorial board. And so, when he says what he has said, we should listen,
He hasn't opposed higher taxes for the uber wealthy--indeed, he supports tax hikes for billionaires. But he raises a valid issue in that there comes a point of diminishing returns.
Like it or not, the economy, which had been in a holding pattern for 2015 and much of 2016 (the S&P gained just 40 points between Jan. 1, 2015 and Nov. 1, 2016) picked up, instantly, when Democrats lost the White House. It has gained 1,000 points in the past three years. Unemployment is at record lows. The U.S. economy is, by virtually every measuring stick, stronger than any other in the world.
This benefits a lot of folks who aren't from Wall Street. Retirees and those near retirement can breathe easier, knowing their nest eggs will last. It benefits working folks who can be pickier about where they work and get paid more. And it is the reason that if the election were held today, Trump, as awful a person as he is (and he is truly awful) would beat any Democrat now in the race (please run, Mr. Bloomberg).
It strains credulity to think that we can increase federal spending by $30 trillion, as Warren wants, without denting what we already have, which is substantial.
2
YR UNEMPLOYMENT GDP INFLATION
1975 8.2% -0.2% 6.9%
2018 3.9% 2.90% 1.9%
I always laugh when I read in the NYT complaints about Reagan. How do you think we GOT Reagan in the first place, if the '70's were so wonderful?
2
You start off with confusion. There was no wealth tax then either.
If you raise taxes very high, people will still try to make money. But over time, that money will be made in China or India or other places that treat citizens are a free people, where liberty and equal protection are preferred over special interests and envious theft by high taxation to benefit yourself with other people's money.
1
@David
You can tell that Republicans have really run out of believable talking points for their bogus trickle down fantasies when they start referring to China as a place of "free people" and "liberty".
1
The question is, how much of the nation's GDP should be in the hands of private individuals, and how much should be controlled by elected representatives, so that everyone has a say as to how it will be spent?
Clawing back some of the money from the billionaires in the form of taxes, so that it can be spent for the common good, on projects agreed to democratically, seems more than reasonable.
1
I am sorry Mr. Gates. I am not concerned so much about innovation, unless if it is for helping the average American who pays a lot more taxes compared to the wealthy ones. For all the taxes I have been paying, I have in return so far expensive health insurance, can hardly buy my monthly groceries, and forget about any kind of vacation time. Please, let's innovate by better sharing the wealth of this country.
4
"But the alarm bells are out of all proportion with Ms. Warren’s plan. Describing his concerns on Wednesday, Mr. Gates at one point suggested he might be asked to pay $100 billion."
Mr. Gates said in the same sentence that he was just kidding. It was hyperbole. To represent it as a serious statement is a severe distortion of reality, in service of a false narrative.
2
Bill Gates is painfully aware that the value of Microsoft stock did not go up from 2000 to 2016. Microsoft pays a dividend of less than two percent annually. If he was taxed at six percent, he would have lost over four percent of his Microsoft stock every year for sixteen years.
If he is already losing money by owning this asset, will he want to lose even more, by spending money at Microsoft on research and development?
Gates is raising the alarm that confiscatory tax policy will cause companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google and Amazon to spend less on research and development.
Its not incidental that the rich are rich. They pursue riches with a selfish and singular focus, with motivated superhuman efforts others are unwilling or unable to exercise.
In this zeal for enormous personal wealth, they incidentally happen to change the world with innovations, creativity, amazing progress and products.
They are indispensable, if that kind of growth rate or progress is what our world need and seek. No one else may be tempted to put in that effort.
Taking it all away is unfair but so is not taking away some to redress the very damage wrought in pursuit of this fortune. Pumping half of a 100 million-or-above fortune back into society wouldn’t make the slightest dent in personal comfort a human being can experience.
In return for this enormous contribution back to society, they could get legal bragging rights/credits, a lifetime pass from humility. While financially equal to someone half their wealth, they will now have twice as much swagger, which may satisfy some craving for wealth in the first place.
1
If any of your readers believes that ANY sized tax hikes will be used to reduce the deficit or the debt, I have some swamp land to sell them. Note that not one Dem candidate has made a reduction of the debt a priority. (Yes, of course I know that the GOP is just as bad, which is why I'm like nearly 50% of the country without a party). Using debt reduction as part of the argument for higher taxes is farcical.
What difference does it make if America's 600 billionaires are getting nervous?
What does matter is that America's middle class workers, who have committed decades to building a strong financial base for their families are getting nervous. And they are.
I'm nervous because there is no way on earth billionaires are going to pay for a $45 trillion dollar Medicare For All plan. We have 600 billionaires. We'd need 600,000 of them.
I'm nervous because I am absolutely certain I'll be taxed heavily to pay for a $20 trillion Green New Deal - after I've been taxed for Medicare For All.
I'm nervous because my wife and I both worked and saved for two decades to put our three children through solid, if not Top Tier schools - we couldn't afford private universities. And now Elizabeth Warren wants us to pay for everyone else's student debt.
I'm nervous because an absolute capitulation on protecting our borders and a promise to provide health care, education and food stamps for the ensuing millions of additional illegal immigrants will add trillions of dollars more in taxes.
I'm nervous because reckless promises like "Reparations for African Americans!" will cost hundreds of billions of dollars more that we don't have.
It's great class politics to say "the billionaires are nervous." We hundred million Middle Class Americans are nervous. And so should be those who want Donald Trump to lose.
3
Any decent economist understands what Daniel Bernoulli understood over 300 years ago--namely the more money you have, the less important is the next thousand/million/billion dollars in driving your decisions. Mr. Gates sometimes chooses to ignore this for reasons that I don't quite fathom--he really should know better. A high marginal tax rate would contribute to society and the less wealthy among us far more than it would impact the most wealthy, including Mr. Gates.
For some others in that highest tier of wealth, it appears not to be the money but the power--being above and controlling everybody else--that drives their kleptocratic behavior.
1
This editorial sensationalizes an excellent interview of Bill Gates at the Dealbook conference. It is entirely reasonable for someone to say that a high tax regime might (keyword MIGHT) stifle some innovation while admitting, as Mr. Gates did, that taxes should go up. The title of the editorial is click bait; Bill Gates - just like his good friend Warren Buffet - are just fine paying billions more in taxes. And they aren't nervous to do so. Mr. Gates just wants the outcome, in my view, to be balanced. That's why, for example, he suggested some increases be done in a way that balances and rewards innovation (like the 10 year capital gains proposal he mentioned). Based on what I heard at the conference, I'm wondering if the authors of this editorial even attended/watched the same session.
1
When you hear about all the marvelous things billionaires' foundations do, you are repeating their own advertising. Instead, take a hard look.
Recent studies have shown that most of these foundations prefer a "solution" that by some miracle enhances the revenues of major corporations in their investment portfolio. They are also major donors to one another's foundations. Why would the Gates Foundation be the number one donor to the Clinton Foundation? That's just one example. Why any of them donate this way isn't clear.
In the meantime, do you see major facets of our social lives improving? Has education improved? Has health care? Life expectancy, vaccination rates, environmental pollution, public transportation? Job security for those who do a good job? A general sense of happiness?
What will it take to see that what we're doing isn't working?
1
I live a stone's throw from Bill. Outside of the little hamlet, Medina, all one has to do is drive down any street in Bellevue and see the homeless wandering around, begging from cardboard signs, obviously in ill health. Drive a little further through the Seattle surrounds, one can see crumbling infrastructure everywhere, along with tent cities on streets that no longer have names.
Washington State residents are among the highest taxed in the world--we pay tax on virtually everything. Now they are about to tax electric vehicles because they do not pay the petroleum taxes the state demands (regardless of their contribution to cleaner air), yet this revenue still does nothing of note regarding the poor and infrastructure needs.
So where lies the answer? Bill is a noted philanthropist (unlike our other wealthy neighbor, Jeff Bezos), but this isn't enough.
Simply, the average taxpayer can no longer shoulder the burden of maintaining our cities and caring for our poor. Regardless of what side of the argument you're on, it just can't continue like this.
Bill and other profoundly wealthy people like him made their incredible fortunes off the backs of We The People. There should be some reasonable payback.
4
When people who are smart, creative and innovative are freed from the stultifying jobs they hold down to provide health insurance for themselves and their families, the economy will be stimulated in all sorts of new ways.
Let's try Warren's plan for 5 or 10 years and see what happens. If it's a dismal failure, we can get rid of it.
If we keep on doing what we've always done, we're going to keep on getting what we've always gotten, which for 99% of us means poorer while the 1% get ridiculously wealthier.
2
In the article I learned that the arrogant “Jamie Dimon complained on CNBC that Warren ’uses some pretty harsh words’ about the rich. Then he added, ’Some would say vilifies successful people.’ ”
That comes close to saying that being rich equals being successful. Of course that leaves a lot of very successful teachers, journalists, social workers, and state department employees, to be defined, I guess, as unsuccessful. Rich people are rich for a variety of reasons which include luck, theft, and inheritance. Some (like Trump) combine the three.
1
The great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (on the court 1916-1939) put it succinctly-
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
I think every American who loves democracy understands, at this moment in their bones, what he meant.
We are living his warning.
Now, all we have to do is choose.
And believe that We The People are still "free and brave."
4
Thank you, Paul King. Contrary to what certain vainglorious folks may think, greed is NOT good. That’s why it is (still) one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Are we to believe that had Gates not started Microsoft the world would somehow be less worth living in? I don't care how wealthy any one is, I do care how the wealth of a handful of individuals translates into political power that can overwhelm the will of hundreds of millions of average earning individuals. Taxation that pushes the wealthy to pay their fair share is one way to help balance out the power differential.
The notion that someone "earns" a billion dollars has to be completely dispelled. No one earns a billion dollars in the same way as no one swims across the Pacific ocean. Both are inconceivable feats beyond the capacity of a single human being. No, you don't earn a billion dollars. You accumulate a billion dollars from the labor and ingenuity of hundreds if not thousands of other people.
Realize this. Bill Gates has gotten nearly half of his wealth AFTER he quit working and started giving away his money. The system just keeps transferring money to him (without him having to exchange any labor in return) at a faster rate than he can give it away.
4
The argument wealthy people like to deploy is that they are paying all the taxes, and it is true, as Mitt Romney pointed out, that half the population does not pay income federal taxes. However, the wealthy are the ones who take advantage of the nation's resources the most in their businesses: the infrastructure and the education system, and reap most of the monetary rewards, so it is fair that they pay for that privilege. Depending on an individual to play fair may work some of the time but certainly is not guaranteed. The population needs protection in the form of enforced guidelines as well as the maintenance of the country, and all this takes money.
1
The NYT Editorial Board seems to overlook the major differences between an income tax (Constitutional , by Amendment) and a wealth tax (Not Constitutional).
Further in explaining the impact on Gates, they overlook the fact that the 6% wealth tax is applied each year, and amounts a total of 70% over 20 years. That's not 70% of income, but 70% of wealth.
Could Gates make up the difference when the share of MSFT goes up, like it did last year? Sure. Will the government reimburse him when MSFT goes down, as it have many times over the years? You already know the answer.
Increase taxes on the wealthy, by all means. We could start by undoing the Trump and Obama/Bush income tax for the wealthy.
But why force those who have accumulated wealth to liquidate it and move it to other countries?
I wish there were a way to essentially outlaw wealth in excess of $100 million in this country. Everything more gets turned over to the government. That is still an enormous amount of money, and it would hardly hinder innovation. In short, nothing good comes of people having more than that. They don't create more jobs, give back enough to justify their wealth. Mostly what they do is use their wealth to manipulate the levers of government and hoard.