Slashdot Log In
'Gates for President' Group Gives Up
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Mar 08, 2007 02:51 PM
from the know-when-to-fold-them dept.
from the know-when-to-fold-them dept.
netbuzz writes "Dilbert creator Scott Adams had done his best to make this fantasy (or nightmare, depending on your point of view) a viable notion, but after three months of trying the group's leader has acknowledged that it's unlikely Gates will give up his current gig. They've tossed in the towel." Here is our original coverage of this ill-conceived plan.
Related Stories
[+]
Get on the 'Gates for President' Bandwagon 654 comments
netbuzz writes "Dilbert's Scott Adams kicked off the idea in his November 19th blog post, saying there isn't anything wrong with this country that President Bill Gates couldn't cure in less time than it takes to get a new operating system out the door. Today, the idea is moving forward with a brand-new 'Bill Gates for President' Web site. Adams is also back on the campaign trail, flogging the site and Gates' candidacy." A blog post at Network World includes a lot of eye-rolling about this idea, but neither Adams nor the folks at the 'Gates for President' website seem to be taking this lightly.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why would he? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why would he? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to wikipedia, the President's salary traditionally serves as the cap for all government employees, and is currently near half a million dollars. That said, most everyone who runs for President is already independently wealthy, so I don't think pay is a major concern.
A more appropriate question -- given who we are talking about -- would perhaps be, "isn't it a power cut?"
Parent
Re:Why would he? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why would he? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why would he? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean rumour has it, that the goal of a war with Iran has more to do with cutting off the supply of Iranian oil and achieving a price target $90 barrel for oil (which for no real apparent reason accidentally favours the current presidents business relationships) rather than WMDs which autocrats love to make lots of noise about but fear to use because they will end up being personally targeted by those same weapons.
Now of course Bill would make no money from M$ software being made compulsory in every US government department, every US school and every US business. Personally I don't see Bill being interested in any kind of silly nonsense like that, but billy goat ballmer would be whole different story, he would leap at the opportunity and just think how entertaining he would end up becoming, an all new, all singing, all dancing US president, and as a bonus, chair throwing would become a new national sport, cool ;-))) (well at least it is funny from my point of view, not being an American).
Parent
He was a criminal? (Score:3, Funny)
What was he charged with?
Re:He was a criminal? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
No way he'd win... (Score:3, Funny)
This was never about Gates anyway (Score:4, Informative)
What, no Microsoft web server? (Score:5, Funny)
Server: Apache Webserver
X-Pingback: http://www.billgatesforpresident.net/xmlrpc.php [billgatesf...sident.net]
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.4.4
Why would Bill support anything with this kind of response header?
POTUAC (Score:5, Funny)
You're giving up on Mr. Gates's presidential aspirations.
Cancel or Allow?
He didn't stand a chance. (Score:4, Insightful)
They're Right (Score:5, Funny)
Well...in some circles... (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr Hu goes to Washington (after he's seen Bill Gates and the Boeing factory) [timesonline.co.uk]
Clippy for VP! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not a Microsoft fan, but better than neo-cons (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not a Microsoft fan, but better than neo-cons (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only he is unbelievably rich and powerful, but he is responsible for nearly every kind of almost-but-not-quite criminal corporate misconduct in the book and then inventing some. He recklessly and shamelessly exploits everyone and everything he can to benefit himself and the company he sees as an extention of himself.
And you want to give him, in addition to everything he already has, the position of commander of the armed forces.
You gotta be kidding.
Parent
Re:Bill Gates ain't the worst guy in the world (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, he defends the tax so much he wrote a book about it. The argument of the book is basically saying the law that is in place is too lenient and it should be repealed for something like the old one that didn't have loopholes. He wants the rich to pay more taxes when they die.
From Wikipedia:
Gates is co-author, with Chuck Collins, of the book Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes, a defense of the estate tax.[2]
The book on Amazon.com Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes [amazon.com]
I haven't finished it yet because I use it to fall asleep... however your statement is not true in fact and spirit.
Parent
Re:Bill Gates ain't the worst guy in the world (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know about Bill Gates, but William H. Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, supports the inheritance tax.
From Now with Bill Moyers: [pbs.org] "There's a campaign to restore the inheritance tax. And it's being led, believe it or not, by some of the country's richest people including Bill Gates, Sr.
From Alternet.org: [alternet.org] "Case Against Inheritance Tax Is Bogus", By Chuck Collins and Bill Gates, Sr., AlterNet. Posted September 15, 2005.
The reason is obvious -- without the inheritance tax, the US would develop a wealthy aristocratic class. This is one of the main reasons the founding fathers broke away from Britain and developed a constitutional Republic.
Parent
Re:OF COURSE he does! (Score:5, Informative)
Gates and his father oppose the repeal of the tax, not the tax. (Presumably the OP meant to say that).
Parent
Yes! That's a horrible idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
This was brought up a couple days ago, so I'll copy and paste from my previous post on this subject:
Forgoing the income tax for a sales tax is a pretty bad idea.
First, the income tax is progressive. This would be impossible to achieve with sales tax. The only people that would benefit from a "flat" tax (sales or income) are those at the highest tax brackets. In order to replace the income lost from dropping taxes on the top 5%, taxes would have to be raised on the bottom 50%.
Second, a sales tax puts a disproportionate burden on the lowest income families. Those with low incomes--even up to $50k/yr for a single man--spend a very large proportion of their income. The lower your income, the higher percentage of it is spent. People making minimum wage are spending 100% of their pay checks.
Those making $1MM a year, on the other hand, may spend only a small fraction of their income.
And you can say that you would simply not charge sales tax on the things that poor people are spending their money on -- food, shelter and utilities -- but doing so would drastically reduce tax receipts. It would be impossible to exempt those things and the suggestion that it is possible is just used by proponents to try to sell their plan.
Furthermore, this is about Google. Corporations pay a pitifully small percentage of taxes in America. The percentage of taxes paid by corporations has dropped dramatically since the 1950's. Your notion that double taxation is a serious problem is just plain wrong. The tax code currently incentivizes businesses to invest in capital expenditures, R&D, etc.
In summary, the only people that want a sales tax are those that don't understand it's implications and those that could pay less taxes by shifting the tax burden more on the lower & middle classes.
The notion that there is tax injustice because the top minority of Americans pays the majority of taxes is absurd. The people at the top of the food chain reap the highest rewards of our society. Without our national infrastructure, they wouldn't be able to make and horde millions or billions of dollars. They SHOULD pay a tax burden that more closely resembles their share of the US pie, not necessarily their share of the US Population.
Parent
Re:Yes! That's a horrible idea! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Obligatory FairTax plug (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone gets a monthly prebate covering the tax on spending up to the poverty level. This eliminates taxes altogether for the truly poor, and makes the tax effectively progressive.
True, there's a limit to how hard you can punish success and productivity with such a tax, but the overall effect on the economy and, dare I say it, fairness, more than makes up for that.
Website: http://www.fairtax.org/ [fairtax.org]
Summary: : http://www.fairtax.org/fairtax/thumbnail.htm [fairtax.org]
Parent
Re:Estate tax deduction too high in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Not the track record... (Score:5, Insightful)
Suggesting that anyone independently wealthy that reached the white house would use it to feather his own nest is just a gross oversimplification.
Parent