Jeff Bezos would owe $2B a year under proposed Washington wealth tax

I didn't even know Bezos lived in Washington State.

Jeff Bezos would owe $2B a year under proposed Washington wealth tax

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, one of the richest men in the world, would owe close to $2 billion a year in state income taxes under a proposed wealth tax in Washington.

Washington state lawmakers introduced a bill earlier this year that would impose a 1% levy on "extraordinary" intangible financial assets including cash, stocks, publicly traded options, futures contracts, pension funds and bonds, but not income.

Legislators estimate the tax would raise about $2.5 billion in new revenue. About 100 taxpayers in the state have wealth in excess of $1 billion, according to the state Department of Revenue.

But experts say the levy would only target about a dozen individuals living in Washington and would be overly reliant on four of them: Bezos, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates and MacKenzie Scott.

I think that even if implemented, the wealth tax would never get close to raising 2.5 billion. However States are the Laboratories of Democracy, so I'm all for Washington State trying this out. I'm curious as to what would happen.

 

Soak the rich! How about Bill Gates and Elon Musk. Soak 'em all until they have to eat canned beans and stale bread like the rest of humanity.

Edit: Oh yeah and LeBron James. Especially LeBron James.

 

I think the first thing that would happen is he would move out of State. Fundamentally, Im in favor of less taxes, but the ultra rich paying a bit more probably isn’t a bad idea. It can seem quite obscene how much money some have, while others are starving.

 

A paltry $2 billion? Small change to Jeff.

Problem?

Btw, if Jeff alone would pay $2 billion, and Gates is also living in Washington, why would it be difficult for the state to raise the extra $500 million?

 

Because the estimates assume these billionaires will just sit there like some shlub, and allow their money to be taxed away rather than employing the most highly skilled tax lawyer in existence to protect their fortunes.

So that's (IMHO) true for all wealth tax proposals; they'll never collect what they estimate.

 

So...another great argument for MMT.

After all,

"Money (for a sovereign currency-issuing government) doesn't grow on rich people": Stephanie Kelton.

 

Can't you keep your fantasy tales in another thread? This one is about wealth taxes.

 

Wealth taxes which Conservatives reject.

So how do you propose to fund government?

 

In the OP I said I'm willing for Washington state to try this out. I'm willing to let them experiment.

 

Good. Now all you have to do is get the GOP to agree.

 

The GOP isn't in power in that state. This is an intra-Democrat struggle.

 

Interesting. So.....the deficit hawks among the Dems will prevent the experiment in Washington?

Education in economics urgently needed......

 

And that is one reason we need a much more limited federal government which would result in more power in the hands of local authorities. Instead of having a small handful of elitists at the national level imposing their will on their subjects with no recourse for the subjects, having local authorities in competition with one another to find the correct balance of government is much better. If a local authority gets out of control wacky, the subjects can pick up and move to another locality that better suits their beliefs of what government should be. Having localities that vary from hyper-liberal utopias all the way to ultra-conservative havens allows citizens to choose. The results can be compared as in an experiment, and the ideas that work best can be improved upon. Competition is a wonderful thing.

 

I think Jeff will hand on his feet, somehow.

 

And if the experiment proves higher taxation rates on the ultra wealthy result in more prosperous development for all, what then? Where will the ultra wealthy go?

 

To a locality that implements MMT I suppose... after all, MMT would win, correct?

 

You got it! You are now an MMTer. Be happy!

 

Why would Democratic deficit hawks prevent a tax increase? Where did you get that idea from?

 

I don't like the idea that Washington State's wealth tax will grab the rich's wealth, slowly draining it away.

But, in the article it mentioned intangible assets (I'm not going to list them here.) I looked but didn't find the kind of assets which would cause businesses to fold up and go out of business. The article didn't mention property, buildings, or land. It seems to be more focused on stocks and cash.

 

I agree. Even little beginner steps represent real progress for the DP.

 

For the same reason Biden is not yet certain he can count on the votes of the so-called "moderate" Dems, to get his $1.9 trillion covid rescue package through congress.

In orthodox economics, increased taxes/borrowing, AND increased government spending, make balanced budgets (the fetish of deficit hawks) more difficult to achieve...

 

So you think Democrats thinking of increasing taxes are worried about deficits???

Your argument makes zero sense. The issue is a tax increase, not a tax cut.

 

OK, so I want to understand why Washington state WON'T introduce higher tax rates on the super wealthy.

Dems are divided on the issue of higher taxes. Why is it so?

Eg Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren, cf Biden:

"The former vice president is one of the more moderate candidates in the race, and his tax plan would not raise taxes on the rich as much as some other candidates would. Still, Biden’s plan includes a number of tax increases for higher earners and businesses."


Is Joe being influenced by pressure from Repubs to eschew wealth taxes?

 

again, there are no Republicans in this story. This is all Democrat

 

Fire have of it. You know how the last few times we had “shutdowns” becauce Congress couldn’t agree on a spending bill? Government agencies were ordered to send home “nonessential” workers. So, do the same thing, but tell them “you aren’t coming back”. Some adjustments would probably be necessary to establish the actual number of “nonessentials” to let go.