Bill Gates: I don't pay enough tax!

[ScottishJohn]

I've not posted here for a long time. But I saw this and was interested to see what people would think. Often the debate here takes place in a fairly polarised manner, but this comment struck me as being quite interesting because it is not framed as a question of it being one thing or the other, it is an interesting middle place. If I can explain what I mean: often the debate about taxation, and public services and so on contains a postion which says withdraw from taxation, cut public services, rely on freewill giving and charity and then another position which says, increase the size of government, increase public services, and tax and spend more. I am simplifying a bit, but the reality is often just as polarised.

However, it strikes me that Gates is saying that those who are amongst the very rich need to do both. Need to fulfill what I understand as being a responsibility to their government and society by paying taxation which is proportionate to their ability to pay, AS WELL as being philanthropists and giving charitably to the causes which move their hearts.

I don't know an awful lot about Bill Gates, and I am aware that factions sieze and own personalities and then those people are tarnished for the other faction. However I am impressed by what Gates is doing in terms of his own fortune and giving. I think some issues need to become almost apolitical and not debated in the tired partisan way we approach so much of politics.

I'm interested to hear what everyone else has to say.

BBC News - Bill Gates: I don't pay enough tax

 

[Kalevalatar]

We have a similar "problem", if you like, here in Finland, albeit one of much more modest in scale, of course. Whether one takes the TOP 20, TOP 100, TOP 1,000 or TOP 5,000 earners in Finland, they invariably paid 28% or even less in taxes, and this is the pattern. Now, quite a few of them in the top have expressed their willingness to pay more and their sense of shame of paying so little compared to the avarage taxpayer. The low tax %, of course, goes back to the universal adage that the more you earn, the less you have to rely on wage income alone, a.k.a. it takes money to make money. In other words, the wealthier you are = more loose money to work for you so you don't necessarily have to work yourself. Finland has a flat tax capital gains rate of 28%, hence 28%.

It is the dilemma, certainly: how to find the smartest balance.

We do not want to tax the investment money to death, yet we do not want to give it a free ride on the avarage taxpayers' expense either. One could make the argument that this "wealthiest" money is the one that most benefits from our first-class tax-paid infrastructure. Then again, they also contribute the most, in terms of jobs and taxes: even a relatively small percentage in taxes of a large sum of money is still big, big money into our public coffers, plus the "avarage" tax money paid by the job-holders.

Twenty years ago, I would have given an entirely different opinion. However, since the reality now is that globalization has gone from zero to spheres, in both good and bad, with capital set to change countries in a blink, IMO, while we (Finland) have decided of a modest hike from 28% to 30% on capital gains -- and many of our northern/western European neighbours have reach the same conclusion -- I think 30% has to be the top cap of it.

Because, we need this money. We need the investments, we need the jobs here (as opposed to in India or China), and above all, we need the taxes, from the jobs as well as from the stocks. In the past, for a long time, the focus was on jobs and salaried income. The world has changed since, and we need to face the new reality: money tends to accumulate, and today, the taxable money is increasingly in stocks and capital gains, and we don't want to lose it. And in order not to lose it and to court it, we need a "business friendly", i.e. globally competent total environment including taxation.

Here in our Nordic welfare "heavens", this is the money that keeps us in business and that makes us so great. Big money, big business is not our enemy. Instead, we need that perfect balance, a consensus: you scratch my back and I scratch yours, and I think we have that, or something close to that.

Now, of course, Mr. Gates is speaking as a US-American and they still don't have that social contract in place and are still looking for that magical wand to do it. So in that respect, discussion openers like this are probably in great demand on that side of the pond and welcome indeed.

 

[ulu]

Warren buffet, bill's friend, said a similar thing recently. I liked gates before , but I like him even more now.
With information so readily available now about everything (foxcomm etc) it seems almost unfathomable to have billions and not be willing to give any up to the country that allowed you to do so well.
No one who becomes overly successful does it alone.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's one thing to embrace paying more taxes after one has accumulated great wealth and quite another when one is yet working their way towards that wealth. If these men really wanted to help reduce our deficit they would donate money that would relieve some government funded aid agencies instead of donating to the private sector.

 

[TerranceL]

There is a method the IRS created a few years ago for people to just send them money.

If Bill thinks he's not paying enough taxes he's more than welcome to send whatever he wishes to the IRS.

 

[chris4243]

It's one thing to embrace paying more taxes after one has accumulated great wealth and quite another when one is yet working their way towards that wealth. If these men really wanted to help reduce our deficit they would donate money that would relieve some government funded aid agencies instead of donating to the private sector.

There is a method the IRS created a few years ago for people to just send them money.

If Bill thinks he's not paying enough taxes he's more than welcome to send whatever he wishes to the IRS.

Wouldn't necessarily work. First of all, a few individuals voluntarily paying higher taxes wouldn't add up to that much on a government scale. Second, eventually individuals die. Third, our politicians might decide that the new income merits more tax cuts.

Also, who wants to reward greed and penalize altruism?

 

[rambot]

Also, who wants to reward greed and penalize altruism?

randians?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Wouldn't necessarily work. First of all, a few individuals voluntarily paying higher taxes wouldn't add up to that much on a government scale. Second, eventually individuals die. Third, our politicians might decide that the new income merits more tax cuts.

Also, who wants to reward greed and penalize altruism?

Ok. But he seems to think he doesn't pay enough taxes.

If he believes that, why does he need the government to point a gun at his head and force him to hand over the money?

 

[chris4243]

Ok. But he seems to think he doesn't pay enough taxes.

If he believes that, why does he need the government to point a gun at his head and force him to hand over the money?

Do you consider voluntary donations or other charitable giving to be taxation now?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Do you consider voluntary donations or other charitable giving to be taxation now?

No.

If someone believes that he or she does not give enough money to the government, why does he or she need the government to force him or her to give more? Is that person incapable of acting on his beliefs?

 

[TerranceL]

There is a way if you contact the IRS that you can actually send them money. If he doesnt' feel he's paying enough why doesn't he do that?

 

[rambot]

I think the argument is that he doesn't pay enough TAXES...not that he doesn't want to give CHARITY

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I think the argument is that he doesn't pay enough TAXES...not that he doesn't want to give CHARITY

So then why doesn't he give more money to the government? To my knowledge there is no law forbidding that.

 

[omanid]

strange thing to complain about.
he should just donate money instead of broadcasting that he thinks he should pay more.
to me this is a: "look at me! I want the 1% to love me"

 

[omanid]

So then why doesn't he give more money to the government? To my knowledge there is no law forbidding that.

true that.

 

[rambot]

So then why doesn't he give more money to the government? To my knowledge there is no law forbidding that.

Explain to me how that's not charity.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Explain to me how that's not charity.

It isn't charity in the sense that he's being coerced to give money to the government.

If he believes that he's not giving enough money to the government (which is what a tax is) it's perfectly acceptable for him to offer more.

If he's using the excuse that he "doesn't pay enough taxes" as an excuse to support levying a tax on everyone else, then, quite frankly, he has no credibility for any reasonable person.

 

[TerranceL]

Explain to me how that's not charity.

You need to have the difference between a government and a charity explained to you?

 

[KarateCowboy]

There is a method the IRS created a few years ago for people to just send them money.

If Bill thinks he's not paying enough taxes he's more than welcome to send whatever he wishes to the IRS.

Amen.

Wouldn't necessarily work.

Work for what? I'm pretty sure that they could figure out a way to get that money.

First of all, a few individuals voluntarily paying higher taxes wouldn't add up to that much on a government scale

What does that matter? If Bill Gates believes he should pay more taxes there is nothing stopping him.

. Second, eventually individuals die.

Tax payers are individuals. You're applying that reasoning selectively. Shouldn't you also say that since tax payers are individuals who die, that taxing them would not work?



The Daily Caller recently posted a video where a journalist interviewed these Gates and Buffet types who say they should pay more but then refuse to. The reporter pointed out the fact TerranceL just highlighted. She then asked them if they would like to pay their fair share. They all balked awkwardly and scrambled for excuses not to. Their main reason was insane: they do not want to pay (what they claim is) their debt unless everyone else has too. Why? They say that people with their wealth owe this to 'society'( a word that means ' a bunch of people'.). Their reasoning is summarized thusly: "My subjective opinion is that I owe this money as a debt to society. But I will only pay what I believe to be my debt if everyone else is subjected to my standards" That is hypocrisy. Also this sick, twisted reasoning makes it rather plain and clear that their interest is the power to subject others to their will, so they may feel self-righteous. One of these jerks actually claimed that if he payed his debt to society it would not matter, and the millions would not help anyone with anything. It's not controversial to call that lunacy. Their thesis bears repeating: "My subjective opinion is that I owe this money as a debt to society. But I will only pay what I believe to be my debt if everyone else is subjected to my standards"

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/p...d-higher-taxes-but-unwilling-to-pay-up-video/

 

[chris4243]

Work for what? I'm pretty sure that they could figure out a way to get that money.

Work for reducing the deficit by any significant amount.

What does that matter? If Bill Gates believes he should pay more taxes there is nothing stopping him.

I give up. How could Bill Gates increase the tax rate on his income group (that's what I assume he meant by his not paying enough taxes)? If you want to interpret it the incredibly unlikely way as that Bill Gates is personally not paying enough taxes even though other people like him are, how do you propose Bill Gates raise his personal tax rate?

Tax payers are individuals. You're applying that reasoning selectively. Shouldn't you also say that since tax payers are individuals who die, that taxing them would not work?

The same reasoning doesn't apply. New taxpayers are born all the time. People willing to donate money to the government and having any significant amount of money, those aren't born too often.

The Daily Caller recently posted a video where a journalist interviewed these Gates and Buffet types who say they should pay more but then refuse to. The reporter pointed out the fact TerranceL just highlighted. She then asked them if they would like to pay their fair share. They all balked awkwardly and scrambled for excuses not to. Their main reason was insane: they do not want to pay (what they claim is) their debt unless everyone else has too. Why? They say that people with their wealth owe this to 'society'( a word that means ' a bunch of people'.). Their reasoning is summarized thusly: "My subjective opinion is that I owe this money as a debt to society. But I will only pay what I believe to be my debt if everyone else is subjected to my standards" That is hypocrisy. Also this sick, twisted reasoning makes it rather plain and clear that their interest is the power to subject others to their will, so they may feel self-righteous. One of these jerks actually claimed that if he payed his debt to society it would not matter, and the millions would not help anyone with anything. It's not controversial to call that lunacy. Their thesis bears repeating: "My subjective opinion is that I owe this money as a debt to society. But I will only pay what I believe to be my debt if everyone else is subjected to my standards"

Patriotic Millionaires | Higher Taxes | Treasury Department Donation | The Daily Caller

Yes, they analyzed it correctly. Who are these trillionaries you are talking about (the individuals who you say it would be lunacy to say that if one of these individuals donated more money to the government it wouldn't make a noticeable difference)?

Given that they can't solve government level problems, they brag their low tax rate to the population in the hopes that they'll eventually figure out to raise the tax rate of that group, while donating to charity. Where's the hypocrisy? In that they don't want the government to penalize generosity and subsidize greed?