Billionaires are migrating. Who is Noel Frame, and why is she okay with Jeff Bezos fleeing to Miami?

Photo above - Jeff Bezos newest yacht, the 420 foot "Koru". Yes, it actually IS a sailboat. Yes it DOES have black sails, like something from a Disney pirate movie. And yes, it does have a 247 foot motorized "support vessel" where helicopters and extra staff are kept at the ready. Neither vessel will be docked in Seattle. Jeff has moved to Miami.

When I stumbled on yet another Bezos migrant story (link at bottom) – with commentary by a local Seattle politician no less - I was expecting a counterpunch. Something along the lines of "Bezos IS NOT leaving because of the proposed billionaires' tax". That may be true, but state senator Noel Frame certainly doesn't make this case. In fact, she now says that she predicted Bezos would leave. See below for details. (Does this seem like Aesop's fable about the fox and the grapes to you, too?)

Noel Frame – in case you've never heard of her (and I hadn't before yesterday) – is the mastermind behind Washington state's proposed billionaire wealth tax. Which sounds kind of okay, until you ask her about the details. First, it doesn't apply just to billionaires. Anyone with more than $250 million in stocks, treasury bills, mutual funds, banks balances, equity in a company he or she founded – or ever worked for – is being targeted. Still, that's not a lot of people, is it? Well, those guys are harder to count than you'd imagine. Competing websites, competing claims. Somewhere between 50,000 Americans and 5,000. You'd think the federal government would have a handle on this, no? Maybe those 61,000 new IRS agents do have their work cut out for them, after all.

In any case, the court system doesn't appear to be any better at untangling this. How much is Donald Trump worth? Ask a prosecutor, and then the defense team. Probably more than $1 Billion. Probably less than $10 Billion. You can see the problem here. Any time the State of Washington wants to confiscate X% of the assets from some guy, he's just going to call his lawyer, who he already has on speed dial. “Hello – Dewey, Cheatem and Howe? Connect me to Aaron Bernstein, please. He's in court? Have him call me back ASAP. I'm definitely going to court, too. I just got a tax bill in today's snail mail.” If Washington State doesn't exclude real estate holdings from the wealth calculation, it could get REALLY ugly. How much is that office building worth? Not last year's value. . . . I mean now that there's a homeless camp on the sidewalk in front of it? Probably not worth as much as the tax collector imagines.

Back to Washington state senator Noel Frame, the mastermind behind the billionaire tax. She was elected last year and earns $57,000 annually as 36th district state senator. Her Wikipedia page and bio are mute on details like college degrees, work history, and net worth. For someone who spends all her time thinking about other people's money, you'd expect a little more transparency, no? In any case, $57,000 a year is chump change, as many people would point out. Especially in Seattle, which is an expensive city to live in. So what are Noel Frame's thoughts on Bezos' daring escape? “Jeff Bezos is far from the only billionaire in Washington state.” Yes, she really, really said that. It's a direct quote from the article. You can probably see why dumb people making $57,000 a year shouldn't be in charge of tax legislation.

But why a billionaire wealth tax, specifically? Here's where it gets really bizarre. The state of Washington apparently has ZERO income tax. None on personal income, none on corporate profits. How the heck does THAT happen, in the year of our lord 2023? Washington does have a LOT of other taxes: a statewide consumption (sales tax) rate of 6.5%. Local sales taxes of 4%. Real estate taxes. And capital gains taxes, if you sell some shares of stock before moving out of state. Whether you're retiring to someplace warmer and friendlier, or just fleeing taxes, homelessness, and dystopia in general. Which is evidently what Bezos is up to.

Jeff Bezos doesn't actually run Amazon anymore. He has people who do that for him. But Jeff still owns A LOT of Amazon stock. Nearly $200 billion (with a B) worth. So right off the bat, if Jeff hadn't fled, Washington might have goosed up their tax receipts by a couple of billion a year. But if you think the 1% annual wealth tax is why Jeff moved to Florida, you'd be wrong. Even state senator Noel Frame seems too dense to figure it out, so don't blame yourself either. Mr. Bezos is avoiding that 7% capital gains tax. All Jeff's money is tied up in Amazon stock. Any time he sells shares, 7% will be skimmed right off the top by the state of Washington. Suppose Jeff wants to sell “half” to diversify his investments, in an uncertain world, full of wars and energy crises? Or because he wants to start a solar company, a wind turbine company, a lithium battery recycling company, or a newspaper that doesn't lose $100 million a year, the way his toy the Washington Post does? 7% is a powerful reason to NEVER sell your stock. Or to move as far away as you can, THEN sell it.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Washington state senator behind wealth tax proposal responds to Bezos' departure – GeekWire

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

Right, well this is the juggling act that tax authorities the world over are obliged to perform. Little point in relying upon a higher band income tax, because the wealthiest can easily spirit away liquid assets or make them disappear altogether on a carefully constructed balance sheet. Capital gains and property taxes traditionally work better because you cannot transport an office building to the Bahamas overnight. But if the capital is more mobile, then you are reliant upon inter-state or international cooperation to pin down the greedy b*****d.

Not sure why a tax legislator requires a "high net worth" as qualification for the job. In the UK the conservative administration likes to use management consultants from the big accountacy firms. Ethically and practically very dubious.

My solution would be to impound Mr B's large boat when it next finds port, as we did with the Russian kleptocrats in Lindon. Won't raise much revenue, but gives the hard-pressed average taxpayer a bit of a laugh 😅

Longleggedlady · 36-40, F

@SunshineGirl There are some legal actions that are about to start up where the governments that impounded those Yachts are going to actually have to prove in courts of law that there acts are not illegal and actually constitute acts of piracy, that they can prove that the yachts and other assets are owned by who they say owns them, that those individuals have the alleged links they say they have, if they fail to do so they are facing discrimination and possibly defamation of character and being sued for large amounts for the later. how is the public going to feel when governments have to start forking out some of that tax money. thinking something and proving it in law are two very different things

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@Longleggedlady Righty-ho. In the UK these are viewed as the natural extension of internationally agreed economic sanctions against persons closely associated with a violent, lawbreaking regime. They are being administered by our extremely risk averse revenue authority. And good luck trying to defame some of the shady characters involved 😉