Close The Loopholes, Tax The Rich!

[subdjoe]

Sunday Reflection: Why the GOP should give Obama the higher taxes he wants
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds | 08/06/11 8:05 PM
Well, the debt deal is behind us, but it's clear that the White House wants more taxes. Instead of fighting this head-on, the GOP might want to think about future ways of giving President Obama what he says he wants. Done properly, it just might be what academics like Obama call a "teachable moment."

One of the things that's been floating around the Web over the past week is a video clip from 1953. It's a short film produced by the motion picture industry, seeking the end of a 20 percent excise tax on movie theaters' gross revenues that had been imposed at the end of World War II as a deficit-cutting measure. (Yes, gross, not net).

In the film, figures ranging from industry big shots to humble ticket collectors talk about how the tax is hurting their industry and killing jobs, and ask Congress to repeal the tax.

They even explain, in a sort of pre-Art Laffer supply-side way, that a cut in theater taxes might actually produce an increase in federal revenues as the result of greater economic growth.

The effort -- which includes a call aimed at "Congressman John Dingell," father of the current Rep. John Dingell, who took over from his father a mere two years later in 1955 -- ultimately succeeded.

But while I'm usually for tax cuts, in this case I think that's too bad. Because with this battle over, Hollywood stopped talking loudly about the damage done by high taxes, pretty much for good.

When, since, have we seen such a firmly expressed appreciation of the harm that excessive taxation can do to the economy, voiced by representatives of the entertainment industries?

Today, those industries are a major source of Democratic contributions and spread-the-wealth rhetoric, even as they prosper based on this tax cut, and numerous other bits of favorable treatment scattered throughout the Internal Revenue Code. It's time for a change.

Were I a Republican senator or representative, I would be agitating to repeal the "Eisenhower tax cut" on the movie industry and restore the excise tax. I think I would also look at imposing similar taxes on sales of DVDs, pay-per-view movies, CDs, downloadable music, and related products.

I'd also look at the tax and accounting treatment of these industries to see if they were taking advantage of any special "loopholes" that could be closed as a means of reducing "tax expenditures." (Answer: Yes, they are.)

America, after all, is facing the largest national debt in relation to GDP that it has faced since the end of World War II, so a return to the measures deemed necessary then is surely justifiable now.

The president's own rhetoric about revenues certainly suggests so. Perhaps the bill could be named the "Greatest Generation Tax Fairness Act" in recognition of its history.

Should legislation of this sort be passed -- or even credibly threatened -- I think we can expect to see Hollywood rediscover the dangers posed by "job killing tax increases," just as pro-tax-increase Warren Buffet changed his tune once his own corporate-jet business was threatened.

And, given the entertainment industries' role as the Democrats' campaign finance ATM, it seems likely that the president might soon reconsider his rhetoric as well.

And that's not the only "revenue enhancement" we might employ. I note that FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who approved the Comcast merger, left the commission to take a lucrative job at Comcast, just as many members of the not-so-successful Obama economic team have left their government positions for lucrative jobs in private industry.

Obamacare drafters went to work for the health care industry at inflated salaries. And drafters of the Dodd-Frank financial bill have gone on to big-shot lobbying and consulting jobs at high salaries.

Because much of their value to their employers comes from their prior government service, I think that the taxpayers deserve a share of the return, say in the form of a 50 percent surtax on any earnings by political appointees in excess of their prior government salaries for the first five years after they leave office.

Some would say that a 75 percent tax on "revolving-door profiteers" would be more appropriate, and I'm certainly willing to entertain arguments to that effect; I'd also like to extend this to members of Congress, but I don't think Congress would ever pass that bill.

Democrats already understand this approach. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., plans on attaching a "poison pill" to the Balanced Budget Amendment that would forbid tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year.

But why should Democrats be the only ones to enjoy the fun of taxing people they dislike?

Businesses that support Democrats have had a good deal up to now. When Democrats are in power, they get the kind of special deals that Democrats dole out to their supporters.

When Republicans are in power, their taxes don't go up because Republicans don't like tax increases. Well, perhaps Republicans should take Democrats seriously in their call for "shared sacrifice."

Such an action would, of course, run counter to the Republicans' no-new-taxes pledges, the importance of which was recently reaffirmed by Grover Norquist in the New York Times.

But even Norquist has allowed that in some cases loophole-closing may not be quite the same thing as a general tax increase, and perhaps he could be persuaded to make an exception, just this once, in favor of higher taxes -- for the educational value, if nothing else.

Because apparently Hollywood and the Democrats have a lot to learn.

Examiner Sunday Reflection contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/sunday-reflection-why-gop-should-give-obama-higher-taxes-he-wants#ixzz1UOPbuuFm

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Junior1942]

We can't close loopholes and replace taxes on the rich.  If we did that, then we couldn't kick old people out of nursing homes. Besides, have you noticed all the fat old people walking/hobbling around Wal-Mart?  If we cut their Social Security they'd be forced to lose weight, and the aisles would be much easier to traverse with a buggy.

[BUGEYE]

We can't close loopholes and replace taxes on the rich.  If we did that, then we couldn't kick old people out of nursing homes. Besides, have you noticed all the fat old people walking/hobbling around Wal-Mart?  If we cut their Social Security they'd be forced to lose weight, and the aisles would be much easier to traverse with a buggy.

sooner or later your hateful words will come back and bite you.
I've seen some pitiful posts, but this tops them all.

[SHOOTALL]

MY BS meter just went off the scale imagine that

[jimster]

I've seen some pitiful posts, but this tops them all.

I have to disagree.  I've seen one or two posts from this person that was a tad more pitiful. This is very close though.

[magooch]

Actually, I do believe there should be a couple of tax increases and at least one loophole closed.  Around 50% of earners pay no income tax at all; everyone who earns money should pay something.  I would propose a minimum income tax for all--even if it's only a buck.  You know ya just got to have some skin in the game--so says obama.

My second tax increase would be on all those liberals who are so against "the Bush tax cuts."  It should be mandatory that they pay according to the Clinton tax rates.  It could be called the "put your money where your stupid mouth is, tax increase."

And finally I would favor closing a loophole around the necks of all the lying dumycrats who are trying to bankrupt this country.

[Casull]

Magooch, I could go for those tax increases. 

[streak]

We can't close loopholes and replace taxes on the rich.  If we did that, then we couldn't kick old people out of nursing homes. Besides, have you noticed all the fat old people walking/hobbling around Wal-Mart?  If we cut their Social Security they'd be forced to lose weight, and the aisles would be much easier to traverse with a buggy.

junior,
Have you been in that muscadine wine again?

[Dixie Dude]

If we tax EVERY penny that EVERYONE in America makes, it still wouldn't be enough to pay the existing expenses and begin to pay down the debt.  This is just a class warfare skeem by the democrats to demonise those who have worked hard to build their business and make something in America.  Are there loopholes, probably, but some of the loopholes were put in place by democrats.  It works both ways.  We need a flat tax for all with no deductions.  We need tax credits only for corporations who hire full time employees with health care benifits. 

[magooch]

First thing you have to understand is the difference between seats at an orchestral performance and taxes.

[Dixie Dude]

A flat tax is a lot more fair.  Everyone pays the same percentage, same as tithes at church.  No deductions for business expenses, etc, for the rich. 
Also, a 1% national sales tax would also cover everyone, including corporations, which buy lots more stuff for operating than an individual. 
Again, an additional 1% tax on all imported items we can make at home. 

[SHOOTALL]

Tax the rich more to do what ? more war where we spend billions and leave only for the deal we posponed to play out anyway ? To support lazy people who would not strike at a snake getting ready to bite them ? To bribe other countries to stay civil or what ever? To support farmers to not produce ? To support green industry that may never be viable ? and the list of waste goes on and on and on .

[subdjoe]

Looks like a lot of people are commenting on the title of this thread, not on the somewhat mocking, tongue-in-cheek opinion piece, poking fun at all those who scream about the tax breaks for large corporations but never mention the tax breaks that Hollywood gets.  And that somehow 'the rich' doesn't include the Boxers, Feinsteins, Kerrys, Oprahs, Streisands, Bonos, Penns and the like.

[SHOOTALL]

I guess after Willie Nelson and a few others it seems they are noticed and checked .

[Hooker]

First thing you have to understand is the difference between seats at an orchestral performance and taxes.

Man that's quite a stretch trying to link that together.
One is a product that is priced according to the own will and supply and damand.
You want a good seat you pay for a good seat.
Last year I paid a bit over 24k in taxes at the end of the year the feds wanted an additional 1500 bucks .
What did I get for all that money? I got the same crap as the guys who paid less or no taxes.
But some probably think I should have paid more . That line of thinking comes from those who have the heart of a thief and no back bone.

Pat
.

[BUGEYE]

besides a flat tax or national sales tax, we could have a national lottery with the proceeds going to the debt.  I'd spend a couple of bucks a week for a chance to win 100s of millions.

[SHOOTALL]

besides a flat tax or national sales tax, we could have a national lottery with the proceeds going to the debt.  I'd spend a couple of bucks a week for a chance to win 100s of millions.

The national lottery is getting elected to congress !

[BUGEYE]

besides a flat tax or national sales tax, we could have a national lottery with the proceeds going to the debt.  I'd spend a couple of bucks a week for a chance to win 100s of millions.

The national lottery is getting elected to congress !

LOL, yeah they end up with 100s of millions.   I'd just like to have their medical plan.

[Junior1942]

We can't close loopholes and replace taxes on the rich.  If we did that, then we couldn't kick old people out of nursing homes. Besides, have you noticed all the fat old people walking/hobbling around Wal-Mart?  If we cut their Social Security they'd be forced to lose weight, and the aisles would be much easier to traverse with a buggy.

sooner or later your hateful words will come back and bite you.
I've seen some pitiful posts, but this tops them all.

Bite me?  Aren't you one of the tea party faithful wanting to end food stamps, Social Security and Medicare?  Without money for food, fat old people would soon become skinny dead people.  Isn't that what the tp wants?  Isn't the tp platform basically an end to individual entitlements?  You know--the old "Get out of my ER; you're bleeding on the floor," tp mantra.
PS: I forgot to mention closing loopholes.  We can't end the 15% oil depletion allowance. Exxon-Mobil needs it.  Just over a year ago they only had $40,000,000,000 in cash on hand and $225,000,000,000 in repurchased stock, same as cash.  I look for them to close their doors any day.

[BUGEYE]

junior, it's the obama socialism that threatened SS recipients.  there is enough money to fund SS, medicare, the military and the interest on the debt.  I get SS but opted out of medicare.
the Teaparty is for fiscal conservatism and I'm on their side.
the people who have a problem with the Teaparty are the parasites who have their hands out wanting some of the money that I worked hard for.
ever watch the rnc or dnc conventions?  the rnc folks have patriotic songs.
the dnc has the macarina which glorifies infidelity and other disgusting habits.
democrats are pitiful mean spirited sub-human maggots that feed on the carrion of their victims which they call constituents.
I'll take the Teaparty.

[mcwoodduck]

We can't close loopholes and replace taxes on the rich.  If we did that, then we couldn't kick old people out of nursing homes. Besides, have you noticed all the fat old people walking/hobbling around Wal-Mart?  If we cut their Social Security they'd be forced to lose weight, and the aisles would be much easier to traverse with a buggy.

.
 Junior, whats a matter with you!?... ...we need to zero the taxes on the wealthy, even give them billion dollar credits, so they can create all those jobs we need. We need to break up unions because they hinder the job making of the rich. We need to tax those 45 million that don't pay tax now just because they don't have jobs and are slobs even if they need to forgo eating or have to sell their first born daughters. And certainly we need to end all asisstence and welfare to the underclass because this money may be needed to assist the 'too-big-to-fail business'....We need to deregulate all business/corps so they can work their magic in the market place.  We need to start a war with Iran so they free them nice 'hikers' and to save the womens, too....and while at it start one in Syria, Lybia, Somalia, Yemen, too, where they need democracy and the womens freed, too... .. .
 
Cutting the taxes on the rich will help pay for all of this God's work.... ....    
 
 
...TM7

Holly cow you saw the light.  Did we finally get through to you tht Private industry is going to do a better job of spending their money and allocating resources than the government and the targeted tax cuts, the targeted loopholes and the shifting the fair playing feild in tax law by giving you a tax break to buy something from someone (usually a heavy donation preceeded) that you would not have purchased because it does not make economic sense other wise.

[DDZ]

Every time I hear the phrase "closing loopholes" It mostly refers to government or someone wanting something from someone else, always in the form of money, freedom, or both. Government always has loopholes to close, because they figure their is always someone that isn't paying enough, or someone that just has to much dang freedom.     

[Gary G]

"Increasing the tax on the rich is equivalent to beating the horse that pulls the wagon" author unknown.

The Panic of 1919 was deeper that the 1929 crash inaugurating the Great Depression. Coolidge cut government spending by reducing the government workforce and he also lowered taxes. The depression was over in less than a year. No one ever hears of it today.
There is a reason: Jobs come from capital investment in production. Capital investment comes from peoples savings deposited, then loaned to business. Government takes that capital from the people by taxation.
That also explains what is wrong with the economy now. The government is now larger than it has ever been and drains more resources from the economy than ever. Remember government produces nothing and is paid for  entirely out of the economy.

Why would I want anyone to pay more taxes that would only be used to expand the government when it needs to be shrunk?

[streak]

Yeah! Let`s find the loopholes and tax the rich.
That should be the solution to everything!
The "Great Society "lives on and expands as well. If the friggin government would just stop all the fraud, abuse, and waste in these give away programs that would close up one massive "loophole". There are generations that have been raised on these programs and that has become a way of life and thus more are being born into the same system and so it continues!
Now we have all of these illegals becoming to learn the same system and this only compounds the situation. in the mean time the good old U.S.A. is starting to
crumble from this excessive strain on its monetary system!!

[Buck-Ridge]

When You ask someone for a job who is going to hire you a poor guy with no money or a guy with a business that has some money. Our country was built for freedom. Why should people that prepare for and make good choices and work hard have to pay more than people who just coast along in life. It isn't govt's job to take from people whe acheive and give it to people who don't. Everyone should pay taxes rich and poor. The gov't should and could do a lot of different things to cut gov't expenses and waste before they take more from the workers. I would like to see some loop holes closed but the reality is like always it will fall on the working middle classes back if taxes are raised.

[sidewinder319]

This is wore out class war fare that is used by the left to cover the biggest political failure in U.S. history. The pitting of one group against an other by the government is foolish and reckless. The non-producing people translate the rich as being business owners. It is only a matter of time before those non-producers attack the business owners. The riots going on in England has been promoted by this irresponsible speech. What has breaking into stores and taking wide screen TVs have to do with not taxing the rich enough?  Anyone using class war fare to make political gain is ignorant and irresponsible.

[SHOOTALL]

Keep the masses happy , wheather its feeding christians to the lions or wealfare its all the same bribe the masses to do what the ruling class wants   

[Empty Quiver]

First thing you have to understand is the difference between seats at an orchestral performance and taxes.

First thing to do is figure how to understand analogies.  If you get better seats in a theater you pay more.
 
Second thing to understand is what a Flat Tax is....if a certain sector earns 60% of revenue and wealth (better seats in the theater), they pay 60% of the tax bill....that is a flat tax.
 
..TM7
.

However, if you don't want better seats or even want to go to the show you don't pay more. Debiting my checking account and telling me my tickets are at the will call window is closer to what you are describing. EARNS, EARNS that is the operative word. Though not always true most money is earned, even that which is gifted was generally earned. When that earned income is confiscated and redistributed the incentive to earn is reduced by a like figure.


When did we decide it was okay to confiscate the fruit of someones labor, essentially once again legalize slavery? I have more, therfore I should lose more? The nation has gone on a campaign to promote slovenly behaviour, as has been shown many times that which you want to discourage you simply tax.


So maybe the answer is to tax until everyone is equally destitute that will certainly get the recipient up and on his feet. Look around it seems to me this plan is being implimented. Soviet Russia, China, and now it sounds as though Cuba can not make this socialist thing work. ( about ninety years it took to get everything working smoothly in the workers paradise?) North Korea seems to still have a handle on it, the refugees streaming INTO the PRK do bespeak to the success of the system.

[Dixie Dude]

TM therein is the problem with your flat tax.  What incentive is it to work harder, get a better education, get a better job, if you have to pay higher taxes.  No incentive for moving up in the world.   By your scale, a person making $100,000 might have to pay $50,000 in taxes, and a person making $60,000 might pay $10,000 in taxes.  Doesn't pay to move up.  Tax everyone the same flat percentage rate with no deductions.  Rich would pay more with no deductions, poor would still pay some, but not nearly as much.  Rich already pay far more in tax.  Why do you think they move factories overseas?  Why do you think they claim profits overseas like GE and not pay taxes here?  Could it be that China has no corporate income tax?  hmmm.  Some European's have less corporate tax also.  JUST CUT THE STUPID FEDERAL BUDGET TO THE BONE, THEN LET'S SEE WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FIRST. 

[Dixie Dude]

Well, China has NO corporate income tax, NO social security, NO child labor laws, NO minimum workweek laws, NO environmental laws.  So how can we compete with that.  Either we renegotiate the free trade agreements and bring at least some of our industry back, OR we put tarriffs on their goods, equivelant to what it would cost to make it in America.  45% of everything China makes comes to the US.  It is only about 20% of what we import.  So cutting off trade with them would affect them more than us.  In 1990 before the Free Trade agreements, we had about 20% of workers in manufacturing.  Today it is about 10%.  If we had the other 10% it would lower our unemployment to around 5% right now.  Also, manufacturing jobs paid health care benifits.  People working pay taxes so that problem is solved.  Simple fact is Ross Perot was right, we are now experiencing the giant sucking sound. 
 
Free trade is great IF it is balanced.  For instance if Japan makes a radio for $2, but it cost us $10 to make, and we make rocking chairs for $2, but it cost them $10 to make, then it makes sense to trade with them.  We make more rocking chairs to trade with them, and they make more radios to trade with us.  Consumers benefit, but we can't do that with a third world country with NO similar laws and regulations. 
 
It also make sense to trade for coffee, tea, bananas, cocoa, titanium, zinc, tin, etc with nations that have it.  We do not need to import fuel, which is half our trade deficit and job killing here.  We also do not need to import manufactured items, especially ones that kill jobs for low income people. 
 
I live in an area that had 10-12 textile mills within 45 miles from me having about 5,000 employees at one time or another.  All provided health care benefits and a high school dropout could work most of the jobs.  These type jobs need to be brought back at least some of them.