Say, What?
Garrett Gruener, the founder of Ask.com, chief executive of Nanomix, the co-founder and director of the venture capital firm Alta Partners and a member of the advisory board at NDN, a center-left think tank in Washington, is by his own admission a very wealthy man. He is also a very unusual man: he thinks his taxes should be raised, according to his op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. His reasoning is pretty difficult to dispute.
For nearly the last decade, I've paid income taxes at the lowest rates of my professional career. Before that, I paid at higher rates. And if you want the simple, honest truth, from my perspective as an entrepreneur, the fluctuation didn't affect what I did with my money. None of my investments has ever been motivated by the rate at which I would have to pay personal income tax. ...
When inequality gets too far out of balance, as it did over the course of the last decade, the wealthy end up saving too much while members of the middle class can't afford to spend much unless they borrow excessively. Eventually, the economy stalls for lack of demand, and we see the kind of deflationary spiral we find ourselves in now. I believe it is no coincidence that the two highest peaks in American income inequality came in 1929 and 2008, and that the following years were marked by low economic activity and significant unemployment.
What American businesspeople know, and have known since Henry Ford insisted that his employees be able to afford to buy the cars they made, is that a thriving economy doesn't just need investors; it needs people who can buy the goods and services businesses create. For the overall economy to do well, everyday Americans have to do well. [Emphasis added]
In order to get to that point Mr. Gruener believes that the tax breaks accorded him by the Bush Administration should be allowed to expire and the extra money flowing into the government should be used to invest in projects that will have the effect of putting people back to work at meaningful jobs: improving an aging infrastructure and building a smart energy grid are two of the examples he lists. When the not-rich get back on their feet, the economy will rebound, and private investors will have enough confidence to get back in the game.
What will change my investment decisions is if I see an economy doing better, one in which there is demand for the goods and services my investments produce. I am far more likely to invest if I see a country laying the foundation for future growth. In order to get there, we first need to let the Bush-era tax cuts for the upper 2% lapse. It is time to tax me more.
Pretty stunning, that. And right on the money.
For nearly the last decade, I've paid income taxes at the lowest rates of my professional career. Before that, I paid at higher rates. And if you want the simple, honest truth, from my perspective as an entrepreneur, the fluctuation didn't affect what I did with my money. None of my investments has ever been motivated by the rate at which I would have to pay personal income tax. ...
When inequality gets too far out of balance, as it did over the course of the last decade, the wealthy end up saving too much while members of the middle class can't afford to spend much unless they borrow excessively. Eventually, the economy stalls for lack of demand, and we see the kind of deflationary spiral we find ourselves in now. I believe it is no coincidence that the two highest peaks in American income inequality came in 1929 and 2008, and that the following years were marked by low economic activity and significant unemployment.
What American businesspeople know, and have known since Henry Ford insisted that his employees be able to afford to buy the cars they made, is that a thriving economy doesn't just need investors; it needs people who can buy the goods and services businesses create. For the overall economy to do well, everyday Americans have to do well. [Emphasis added]
In order to get to that point Mr. Gruener believes that the tax breaks accorded him by the Bush Administration should be allowed to expire and the extra money flowing into the government should be used to invest in projects that will have the effect of putting people back to work at meaningful jobs: improving an aging infrastructure and building a smart energy grid are two of the examples he lists. When the not-rich get back on their feet, the economy will rebound, and private investors will have enough confidence to get back in the game.
What will change my investment decisions is if I see an economy doing better, one in which there is demand for the goods and services my investments produce. I am far more likely to invest if I see a country laying the foundation for future growth. In order to get there, we first need to let the Bush-era tax cuts for the upper 2% lapse. It is time to tax me more.
Pretty stunning, that. And right on the money.
Labels: Republican Lying, Taxes
posted by Diane at 3:42 AM
5 Comments:
A sane rich person. What's not to like?
However, I suggest he either vigorously avoid travelling in small plaines, or have them rigourously examined before taking flight.
>For the overall economy to do well, everyday Americans have to do well.
Bartkid sez,
It takes a rare rich person NOT to say in the middle of the night, to themselves, with no one around, "It is not enough for me to succeed. Others must fail."
"It is not enough for me to succeed. Others must fail."
Who in the world says that? I know people who are quite wealthy and not one of them has ever intimated or exhibited any such thought or behavior. In fact, they routinely give scholarships, fund public parks, playground equipment for schools in poor areas, give books to schools, vans for community services, send bright, motivated kids to private or specialized schools who otherwise couldn't afford it and that lists only a few things they do to help communities and individuals...all without government intervention. And they create jobs.
If you took every penny everyone has who makes over $250,000 a year, including Bill Gates, Soros, etc. it wouldn't put a dent in the interest on the federal debt or aid one single person in the quest to succeed. Congress always screw it up. Government always perpetuates itself.
Prosperity comes from self-reliance and self-reliance comes from education and the opportunity for good jobs, here at home. Stop the business-hostile legislation, repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT. Stop subsidizing foreign countries to do what we can do. Stop taxing and regulating businesses and people who create jobs until the have to go offshore to survive.
It's one thing to be a good steward of the environment and to give people a hand up so they can be independent, but it's another to be suicidal. And it's suicidal to put that power in the hands of self-serving politicians, no matter which party they are. Over the last 20-30 years, that's what has happened. And look how well Congress has done. Corrupt? Favoring a few well placed big business? Oh yeah. Think GE, oil, big pharm, etc. Ask.com. But the average company? No, they just take the brunt of bad legislation. All smoke and mirrors. And for Pete's sake, abolish the Federal Reserve and put an honest money model into play. Talk about being in bed with a private corporation....
Mr. Gruener knows better. He knows investors have to be free to invest and to create jobs and you don't do that by making the economy so unstable investors don't know what to do. Nor do you increase success by punishing it. He's merely passing out word-Valiums while supporting the political ideology of his friends, who won't really take a tax hit either. The less politically connected job creators will. And the Federal Reserve will collect interest on all of it to put in their own accounts.
You, of course, realize that those banks we bailed out on Wall Street that everyone loves to hate are the shareholders in the Federal Reserve? Look it up, if you don't. What a scam. You're aiming your ire at the wrong rich people.
The people I know who are rich (no, not me) have started businesses you would recognize and many, if not all, are struggling in this economy too. Increasing taxes on them personally or on their businesses does not put them back on solid ground so they expand or rehire people who have been laid off. You do realize many owners pour their own money back into the company when times are hard, don't you? When they save their business, they save jobs.
For the overall economy to do well, everyday Americans have to do well.
Yeah. And for everyday Americans, some of whom are the owners of businesses, to do well, the job creators have to do well.
I'm sorry for barging in on your blog, but the shallow Simon LaGree caricature above made my head explode.
I'll leave now.
Aidan
Aidan sed,
>If you took every penny everyone has who makes over $250,000 a year, including Bill Gates, Soros, etc. it wouldn't put a dent in the interest on the federal debt or aid one single person in the quest to succeed.
Bartkid sez,
Funny how the Clinton budgets produced such surpluses as to give Fed Chairman Greenspan the vapors.
Let the Bush tax cuts expire.
I say it, without ire.
As to to magnanimity of the rich, I agree more with rebbe JC's assessment (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25).
Funny how the Clinton budgets produced such surpluses as to give Fed Chairman Greenspan the vapors.
The dotcom boom...that went bust. No fault of Clinton's. Just happened. But then, neither was the boom. Creative people did that. And yes, I believe they can do it again, if given a breather and bad legislation repealed. During Clinton's administration, we weren't sitting smack dab in the middle of a economic train wreck of the likes of this one either.
As to to magnanimity of the rich, I agree more with rebbe JC's assessment (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25).
Turns out, I agree with JC too. I grasp the concept of spiritual v. worldly pursuits. Rich people, like all people, are good and bad. The comment about rich people lying awake at night thinking of ways to screw the little guy was what I took exception to. My point was simply there are indeed rich people who do give back and give back a lot. Some may be more interested in tax cuts than being altruistic, but not all, and even if motive may be suspect in some instances, they're still giving back. However, many remember where they came from and the helping hands that got them where they are today. Paying it forward.
Unilaterally targeting and maligning the people who are our job creators (or any groups) is bad business. And it's unfair. A history of corrupt politicians and bad legislation over a quarter of a century or more has created this mess. No one made politicians accept donations or bribes of any sort from lobbyists or individuals to promote and pass laws that favor certain industries or corporations. Politicians are responsible for those decisions.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Again, I'm sorry for barging in, but thank you Bartkid for the polite reply.
Aiden
Post a Comment
<< Home