All errors should be reported to

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Seattle's tax crazy reporter

I have said for some time that if I owned a news organization, I would ban reporters, copy editors, and all other non-opinion staff from using the social media, particularly Twitter because the tweets show biases -- usually of a Marxist bent.

A great example came today from Mike Rosenberg, a "Seattle Times reporter covering housing and real estate. Formerly at San Jose Mercury News. Also tweeting on data analysis, sports and journalism," according to Twitter.

He popped up on my radar today when Instapundit retweeted one of his tweets: "Jeff Bezos last week: I can't think of anyway to spend my money other than rocketships.

"Jeff Bezos today: I will halt Amazon HQ expansion in Seattle over proposed taxes to fund affordable housing."

Rosenberg's tweet showed that he must not believe in private wealth. He does not want Bezos to spend his money on rocketships. Instead, he must turn over $25 million a year to the city of Seattle, which pays its Politburo $117,000 a year.

That tweet was not his only harangue against Bezos and in favor of more taxes for government. Rosenberg tweeted a link to his newspaper's report on Amazon, tweeting, "Breaking: Amazon is pausing its massive expansion in Seattle as it awaits the city's vote on employee taxes."

Then he retweeted that with this tweet, "Also interesting to note that Seattle's plan to tax big businesses like Amazon is threatening to halt would fund affordable housing. Amazon is probably the No. 1 target in the city for people re: skyrocketing housing costs in Seattle."

Affordable housing is the mantra to sell this tax.

The city government already spends $6 billion. That works out to $10,000 a year per person. That is $2 billion more than the state of West Virginia (hardly a spendthrift) spends on three times as many people.

Seattle already has more money than it needs. It is a tax-and-spend machine that taxes sodas, and grocery bags. Those $117,000-a-year councilmen have a voracious appetite for other people's money.

His newspaper opposes these taxes. Rosenberg pimps for the taxes.

"Amazon would pay $20-$25M a year under Seattle's proposed business tax to fund affordable housing. Jeff Bezos has added $25M to his net worth every two hours, on average, so far this year, per @business," he tweeted.

Bezos doesn't add. He earns. That's the minimum wage for someone who turns retail upside down, giving consumers better service.

But Rosenberg sides with retailers who take out big newspaper ads.

"NYU business school professor: With HQ2 search, 'Nobody has done more to inspire a downward spiral of transfer of wealth from municipalities to big tech than Amazon,'" Rosenberg tweeted.

And he tweeted, "There's a narrative of High Seattle Taxes for businesses. But the business tax burden is 9.3%, only a bit higher than the national median of 9%."

That by the way is not how you do it. How you compare business tax burdens. You go by amount. 9.3% of $6 billion is just under $558 million, while 9% of $1 billion is $90 million.

Rosenberg can be a reporter or he can be a political commentator. He cannot be both. And judging by the holes in his support of Marxism, he should stick to the former.


  1. Bezos likes higher taxes, for others. So I say Sock It To Him. He and his kind are for spending others peoples money, but now that they want some of his, he says keep your mitts off.

    1. EVERY leftist/liberal/prog/socialist/communist/Democrat (but I repeat myself) loves them somehigher taxes for everyone else but themselves. It's just SOP.....

  2. When France raised income tax to 75% one of their most famous sons Gerard Depardieu fled, ironically, to Russia.

    I look forward to the favorite sons of Seattle fleeing likewise.

    Lefties never learn.

  3. I don't care whether Seattle taxes Amazon to death, but this proposal to tax the tech companies that are creating the boom in Seattle in order to subsidize the construction of homes for moderate income families is just a band-aid for the affliction of expensive and scarce housing in Seattle, not a cure. Some people, like Rosenberg, claim the high cost of housing is because people are not selling their homes and so there's too little turnover in the real estate market. Others say the cost of construction has gotten so high housing developers are reluctant to build new homes to fill the demand. Both claims are nonsense. These are symptoms of the housing shortage and pricing problem, not the cause. Raising taxes on Amazon & Friends is no solution to the problem. What the city government of Seattle needs to do is to ask whether there are laws or city regulations that discourage home building, and if there are, how can they be eliminated to promote more construction and to reduce housing costs. Knowing the mindset of Settle's nanny state officials, I'm guessing the city is a major cause of the high cost of housing and the shortage of homes.

  4. From the linked article - “The revenue is earmarked for homeless services and affordable housing, even though the city has roughly doubled its funding for such programs since 2013, to $63 million a year. It spent $1 billion over the past 20 years but continues to struggle with improving the performance and outcomes of its homeless response. Across King County, about $200 million a year is now spent on the crisis.”

    Seattle will become another San Francisco. Provide the comforts and benefits to the homeless and others from around the region will flock there. Dung and needle filled streets await The compassionate Seattle liberals. Business will be driven away and the city will be a financial and physical wreck.

  5. "Jeff Bezos last week: I can't think of anyway to spend my money other than rocketships"

    A professional journalist doesn't know the difference between 'any way' and 'anyway,' and can't be bothered to put a period at the end of his sentence. They wonder, though, why we don't take them seriously.

    1. I am so used to reading lousy writing that I didn't even notice. Thanks for pointing that out.

  6. The tax on Amazon is far too low. Don't you care About the Children(tm), Jeff? This is sound economics and about fairness. As Prof. Miller put it, "House the people livin' in the streets, Oo oo there's a solution."

    Fly, Jeff, fly like an eagle.

    1. And Economics Professor Steve Miller happens to live in Seattle!

  7. Anyone have a proof source of any actual solutions delivered by government (at any level?)

  8. If the tax passes, and Amazon leads (or follows) out of the city, how many of the people who move with the company (or move anyway because the company didn't take them along) will vote in their new residences for the same sort of politicians/policies which drove them out of the last place?

  9. Your math is wrong.

    9.3% of $6 Billion = $558 Million
    9.0% of $1 Billion = $90 Million

  10. In 1997, Paul and Linda McCartney made a TV commercial for the Labour Party, saying they supported higher taxes to achieve a fairer society. When Linda died a year later, however, her will was probated in New York, a city where she hadn't lived for 30 years. Why? She avoided British inheritance taxes saving her estate something like 50 million pounds.

    Remember: When rich people say they support higher taxes, they mean YOU should pay higher taxes.

    1. Linda spent millions of Paul's pounds buying land around their estate in stategic off sets to prevent Fox hunting. A frivolous life well lived. Bezos is riding high now but someday he may regret living in a socialist paradise whose overseers are virtue signalling nincompoops like this reporter. Stuff happens to the high and mighty too.

  11. Another confused Liberal Jew.