Reed Hastings
Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway.
Instead of trying to shame companies and executives, the president should take advantage of our success by using our outsized earnings to pay for the needs of our nation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Just give him your money. Geesh, it’s like this guy is a masochist, and a sadist.
Vizzini on February 6, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Or, perhaps a starting place could be for guys like this to simply pay more tax voluntarily. Oprah, Gates, The Donald, how about it?
* crickets *
That’s what I thought.
Blacksheep on February 6, 2009 at 5:38 PM
I hate Netflix’s pop up ads! Please Obama, please tax this jerk and his company into bankruptcy.
Ars Moriendi on February 6, 2009 at 5:43 PM
This fellow should show us his tax returns for the last few years; if he is actually paying what he claims he’s paying (one-third of gross income), we’ll know he’s not a complete hypocrite.
calbear on February 6, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Somebody should clue Reed Hastings in. If he REALLY has a burning desire to dispose of 1/2 of his obscene compensation package, he should give the money to private charities.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on February 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM
If all these wealthy libs just paid their “fair share” they could fund the spendulus scam.
JammieWearingFool on February 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM
he only pays 33% on taxes? My wife and I are at 35% and we’re nowhere near his earning level.
YellowDawg on February 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Um, Mr. Hastings, ever stop to think for a moment that the problem isn’t that Washington doesn’t take in enough money, but that it SPENDS too much?
Frigging idiot.
Seriously considering canceling my Netflix membership.
UltimateBob on February 6, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Looks like it’s time to switch to Blockbuster, hopefully they run their business a little more honestly than Netflix.
clearbluesky on February 6, 2009 at 5:52 PM
“Sheer callenge of the job?” I like that my job is challenging, but if my pay is cut too much I’d rather just go work at Starbucks. I still want to be, you know, compensated for the extra work.
patriette on February 6, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Maybe its time for some new glasses then, Reed. Because your vision sucks.
If I’m going to get taxed 50% at $1,000,000, I have no good reason to want to make more than $900,000. If taxes were lower, I wouldn’t mind making more money, and the more money that I make, assuming a flat tax rate across the board (which is only likely in a dream world), the government makes more money, too. I can just get richer and richer and always pay the same percentage. I have no incentive to stop making more money. THAT is much better for the economy than telling the wealthy “You’re too rich, so we’re going to take more of your money.”
jimmy the notable on February 6, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Fixed it for him.
Darth Executor on February 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM
There went my Netflix account. Barely knew ya, but no more of my money to you, Reed.
Casper the Friendly Host on February 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Its perfectly honest. They’re trying to make money off the business, not run a movie-charity. They would rather you keep the movie longer. Its no different than airlines changing airline prices on different days of the week. It still costs the same to fly the plane, so why the different price?
I have known Netflix does this since their start. Its the reason that that kind of a business model works assuming that more of the people keep the movie longer. If they’re sending out less movies, then they are making more money off of that flat-rate fee that you pay. They can’t just send out 30 movies per month to every customer. If they did that, then the fee would be higher and less people would participate and the company would fail.
jimmy the notable on February 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Ohh, this is the Netflix guy? I was wondering why you linked that.
I don’t rent movies anyway.
jimmy the notable on February 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM
I just love it when people who have gamed and manipulated their way to a cushy lifestyle tell the rest of us to “sacrifice.”
Granted, I’d be better off raking in a million or ten a year and losing half of it, but if I actually earned that money I’d be sore as hell about putting so much of it in Osama Obama’s hands.
Wonder where his bank is? Switzerland or the Cayman Islands?
MrScribbler on February 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM
If this guy is so ashamed of how much money he makes, there’s an easy solution. March right down to HR and demand that they cut your salary in half.
Instead he magnanimously offers up the salary of everyone else as a sacrifice to asuage his guilt.
MarkTheGreat on February 6, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Eff you, Reed Hastings. Donate the difference to charity and don’t write it off if you’re in such a giving mood. Assclown.
Kid from Brooklyn on February 6, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Heh, yeah. The problem is they advertise some packages as being unlimited movies per month which leads people to believe they can get as many movies as they want per month obviously. It’s not until you dig down into the terms of use that you see this -
How many people are going to bother digging through the terms of use when the package advertised says unlimited? Not many i’d guess.
clearbluesky on February 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM
And it starts with the banks. The government’s involvement in business to this level only makes our present situation more worrisome.
The whole jealousy thing and CEO pay is a red herring. The money they make is in reality a drop in the bucket when you see the money these companies generate. This is just politicians playing class warfare. If we could convince the CEOs only 100k a year what would that really mean financially for most of the these companies…for most very little.
Jamson64 on February 6, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Bottom line I think he makes valid argument that most are missing.
Simply by limiting compensation to 500k you will make it harder for companies to retain talent. If they simply raise taxes then one can earn more. I don’t agree with raising the taxes but this is his main point.
Jamson64 on February 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Speak for yourself.
surrounded on February 6, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Is Netflix asking for a bailout?
Buy Danish on February 6, 2009 at 6:37 PM
I’m with you on that.
Ann NY on February 6, 2009 at 6:38 PM
If total federal government revenues are approximately 20% of GDP, then nobody should pay more than 20% of their gross income in taxes.
If I earn a million dollars, and I want to give half of it to my church or college or other charity, why should the government prevent me from doing that by taxing half of it?
If I want to lend out a half-million dollars a year to a couple of small businesses so they can expand and hire people, I’ve just created four new jobs. How many jobs would the government create with a half-million dollars of my money?
rockmom on February 6, 2009 at 6:40 PM
I applaud your willingness to help, so cut a check and STFU, the rest of us still like having the “choice” of giving our money away.
Tim Zank on February 6, 2009 at 6:40 PM
That comment was directed to Mr. Hastings by the way!
Tim Zank on February 6, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Cannot give up my Netflix addiction. This guy is a douche, though.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM
How about he raises his own taxes and leave the rest of us alone?
Dritanian on February 6, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Time to cancel Netflix, I guess.
This guy is able to pay as much taxes as he wants, right now. No one stops him. So why isn’t he?
lorien1973 on February 6, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Hah! More likely to the Robert Byrd Pork Farm in West Virginia. What a tool.
Of course, Mr. Hastings doesn’t have to wait for The One to raise his taxes. The Treasury takes donations from marks — errr, patriotic citizens.
Paul_in_NJ on February 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM
1) As has been pointed out, I’d rather not listen to the guy until he puts his money where his mouth is and writes the government a big fat check. He can even do it in my name if he wants to.
2) This is a classic bait-and-switch – threaten something horrible (further government control of wages), then reduce the threat to something slightly less horrible (massive tax increases – resulting in the same thing, BTW) and hope people will be relieved.
They really do think we’re that stupid.
Merovign on February 6, 2009 at 9:36 PM