CEO of Netflix wants us to pay more in taxes

Are you aware that the CEO of Netflix, Mr. Reed Hastings, has reached out to Pres. Obama and asked him to raise the taxes of anyone that makes over 1million dollars to 50% per year? If you don't believe me, google Reed Hastings. He has his money, so he doesn't care about the rest of us. Not that I make a million dollars, but we would see a trickle down affect with the small businesses that would raise prices to make up the difference. We are encouraging everyone to cancel your netflix account and show this guy we aren't kidding around!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Spindaddydad on February 11, 2009 at 11:46am: Actually, this comes from an op/ed piece where he stated he'd rather pay taxes in the 50% bracket than have CEO's salaries capped at $500,000 per year (per Obama's proposed cap for CEOs whose companies have received bailout money). There's a LOT more to the story than just saying Reed wants to raise our taxes. I knew the minute I saw the title of his piece last week that it would get misconstrued. But of course the headline was meant to be an attention grabber. Guess it worked.

Read the article here; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pihk on February 11, 2009 at 12:28pm: I'm not sure what his point is, Spin? The salary cap Obama refers to is for corporations that have been run so incompetently that they have to seek the taxpayers' assistance. Just like any other welfare recipients looking for a free handout, its not unreasonable for the donor to expect the recipient to meet some terms. Capping executive compensation in this case is a trivial and minimal gesture and the least that can be expected considering the sums being discussed.

Anyhow, given Obama's record fund raising on Wall Street, anyone with half a brain knows this whole thing is almost entirely kabuki theater.

In the midst of record layoffs/foreclosures nationwide, that was one of the most tone deaf op-eds I've read in some time. Cry me a fucking river, Reed...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Spindaddydad on February 11, 2009 at 1:07pm: I'm not sure what his point is, Spin?... that was one of the most tone deaf op-eds
I agree. Reed basically wrote an open letter to Obama addressing an issue that doesn't even affect him (or most all CEOs for that matter). What's the point? To see if it will go viral?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pihk on February 11, 2009 at 1:26pm: CEOs don't often have a good toehold in reality!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ColdOne on February 11, 2009 at 4:06pm: I think he was just arguing that salary caps are counter-productive and he's (rightfully) worried that if we rationalize enforcing caps in this case that it will be easy to justify caps on all executives at some future date.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pihk on February 15, 2009 at 5:35am: There is no "talent" on Wall Street anymore. Just a bunch of completely expendable incompetent gamblers.

As for the rest of your stupid Limbaugh claims:

The CRA Community Reinvestment Act and the idea that everybody in USA should own their own house started this mess.

Proof?

Barney Franks and Chris Dodd helped cause it.

Proof? Who coined the term "ownership society"?

Banks are already almost nantionalized

Isn't that analogous to being "almost pregnant". How does that work?

It really all started with easing credit to help out the little guy and it just spread and everything was OK until markret started to go down.

"It just spread"? Care to elaborate?

The last stimulus package was more social welfare than stimulas.

Are you talking about TARP? If so, you are dumber than rocks.

How about we just take all of Mr Reeds assets over say 5 milion, surelly nobody needs more that that to have a decent life. For that matter lets cap, sport star and movie star pay over some number and donate all their money to the government, seems fair. I am sure Mr Reed does not get his compensation from a pay check anyway.

Is there a point to your straw man argument?

What we should do is make it illegal for anybody in goverment to write a book, like the Clintons who made 10+ million talking about things that under oath they could not remember in court.

Are you just typing for the sake of typing now? You keep mentioning Clinton...and yet he wasn't the President for the last 8 years, was he?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pihk on February 15, 2009 at 12:40pm: Again, there is no talent on Wall Street worth saving. Plenty of talented people out of work who'd be glad to work for fraction of what is being paid.

Regional flight out of Wall Street? We should be concerned because... why?

Food stamps, unemployment benefits, child care? Yeah, that's all part of "stimulus" and I feel better that people in need receive money they will spend right away rather than giving the money to the people who principally caused this mess.

Just a friendly suggestion: Turn off the Fox News.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pihk on February 16, 2009 at 12:47pm: Nice to help people but it won't stimulate the economy. Don't fool yourself.

And your solution is....???; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pihk on February 11, 2009 at 11:59am: You sound like some Rush Limbaugh zombie, but OK, I'll bite:

Please explain how adjusting the tax rate for people earning over $1 mill will "trickle down affect with the small businesses that would raise prices to make up the difference." Don't forget to include an analysis of the lopsided tax cut policies of Pres GWB during the last 8 years. Oh, and remind us what that CEO compensation/avg worker comp ratio is again and how that has historically trended?

Thanks in advance for the anticipated chuckles...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by RonMc on February 14, 2009 at 5:46pm: And you sound like an Obama Kool-Aid drinker, if you think it's going to get better any time soon. If you can remember as far back as 2006, the Dems had 2 years to fix the problems, but were too busy trying to get their cut of the action(and tax cuts), including Obama. Did you really think that all those rich guys(Dems & Reps) were going to make sacrifices? Al Gore won't give up his private jet, and John Kerry wouldn't give up his 5 SUVs.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Spindaddydad on February 14, 2009 at 6:21pm: And you sound like an Obama Kool-Aid drinker
And sounds like you're still neck-deep in the "it wasn't Bush's fault" quagmire.

I have a brother like you: "Clinton's economy was successful because of what George H.W. set up before him? George W.'s problems were brought about by Congress."; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by RonMc on February 15, 2009 at 7:39am: you're still neck-deep in the "it wasn't Bush's fault" quagmire.

Wrong. It is as much Bush's fault as it is Clinton's for hiding his head in the sand versus 1993, 1995, 1997 terrorist attacks, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda(when he & his administration debated the definition of "Genocide" while 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 3 months). Shall we blame Clinton for the Dot-Com bust?

It is as much Clinton's fault as it is George Sr. for allowing the Savings & Loan debacle of the early 90's. Surprisingly, both meltdowns have happened while the Dems controlled Congress(the branch of Gov't that creates regulations & laws).

Actually, Clinton's economy was successful because Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union(trying to keep up with Defense spending). The money slashed from the Defense budget helped jumpstart Wall Street.

That leaves Carter. NO comment.; ▶ Reply to This