On Wednesday, President Barack Obama went all social media on us, appearing at a “town hall” style meeting at offices in Facebook. The event, which also featured Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the 19th wealthiest person in the U.S., estimated to be worth a cool $13.5 billion, was broadcast across the web as part of an attempt to reach out to tech savvy voters.
For the most part, Obama stuck to the usual hot topics, including healthcare and immigration. He talked up math and science education, noting how important those areas were to the tech sector. This is something Zuckerberg agrees with in principal, having previously committed to donating $100 million to public schools in Newark, New Jersey.
There is one area where Zuckerberg and Obama may not agree with: taxes and the budget. Obama struck a note during the presentation when he focused on the ever increasing deficit, which he hopes to cut by $4 trillion over the next decade or so. He reminded the audience that his proposal included ending the existing tax cuts for the wealthy (which clearly cannot be referred to as the “Bush cuts” anymore) and suggested that rates should increase for the top earners. Of course, since one of the top earners, Zuckerberg, was in the room, he took the opportunity to address him personally, saying “People like me and you, Mark, (should be) paying a little more in taxes. I know you’re OK with that.”
This echoes his message on Tuesday, when the President said, “If we’re asking people who are going to see potentially fewer services in their neighborhoods to make a little sacrifice, then we can ask millionaires and billionaires to make a little sacrifice.”
Of course, folks in Silicon Valley don’t necessarily agree with the President’s proposal. Many of the top earners in the country are located in the tech sectors in the west, having made money off of stock plans and public offerings. It’s an interesting dilemma for the President, figuring out how to woo the young, rich entrepreneurs out west without abandoning his tax message. It’s a battle that cities, like San Francisco, have been fighting on a smaller stage with companies like Twitter.
Is it just me or are perhaps social media and tech companies becoming the oil and gas companies of the last few decades?
The existing rich don’t mind high taxes since they already have theirs. It is the yet to become rich that high taxes afflict the most. Every new tax law has an out for those friendly to the tax raisers. I guess that is why we have tax accountants and tax lawyers. A simple tax code would be murder on the lawyers and accountants, but a benefit for most.
I love this notion that lawyers and accountants are the folks holding back a simplified Tax Code… Folks can bellyache all they want about everybody else standing in the way but it’s really the taxpayers who make it complicated. Those tax breaks, credits and special deals? All by politicians pandering to one special interest or another. Realistically, folks say they want simple but they mean fewer taxes. Nobody wants to give up their deductions or credits. Trust me, I’ve asked. A lot.
As for lawyers and accountants, even with a more simple system, we’ll be just fine. Most of my accountant friends have work year round since most businesses and the like still need to issue invoices, do their billing and reconcile their statements. Ditto for the lawyers. There will always be work to do, simple Tax Code or no (in fact, a lot of tax law work is directly compliance related for folks who didn’t file/pay on time, etc., not sorting out some obscure deduction). We’ll be just fine.
I think if most taxpayers were to investigate, they’d see that it’s not the lawyers and the accountants hiring the lobbyists to keep tax breaks and exploit more…
You’re headline is wrong/misleading. Zuckerberg did like it. His response to Obama’s statement: “I’m cool with that.”
Agree completely with your response regarding the tax code though.
If I had Zuckerburg or other silicon valley kind of money – I would pay in MORE than the government asked for if they started taking care of people who need it, etc. But the politicians all stink.
I certainly think it’s easier for a person without the wealth of a Mark Zukerberg to be alright with the idea that the wealthy get taxed more heavily. If it were me, would I want to be penalized just because I had worked hard enough to make a great fortune? Probably not, but then again, would I really miss the money? Especially if the end goal is less taxes for all, I’d probably be all for getting rid of the deficit now.
While I agree with the new tech sector/oil sector analogy, we can’t forget that oil and gas are still around doing the same thing! It just keeps getting worse.
I feel like it was a campaign-style visit to draw an attention to Obama rather than real discussion about the most serious issues. Personally, I expected more than eight questions to be answered, not to mention that four of those were asked by Facebook employees.
If the social media companies make so much money, then maybe San Francisco can put their stock into their pension fund and make money off of it.
Not only is Mark “cool with that”, most wealthy Americans agree. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both want to keep our high inheritance taxes because it serves as an incentive for charitable donations.
What the wealthy want isn’t lower taxes, it’s responsible spending. Ah, there’s the rub. No two wealthy people agree as to what consititutes responsible spending.
The problem is that Zuckerberg is at the end (19th from the end) of the spectrum for wealthy. Obama would have gotten all his wants if he tried starting to define wealthy at $1mil of income…not $250K. Either that or he didn’t really understand how an S-Corp or Pass through LLC were taxed…