Skip to comments.Letís Tax Hollywood
Posted on 11/15/2012 5:14:22 AM PST by SJackson
- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -
Let’s Tax Hollywood
Posted By Ben Shapiro On November 15, 2012 @ 12:36 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 3 Comments
President Obama and California Governor Jerry Brown are on the same page: the wealthy in America must foot the bill for the massive debts theyve run up. Sure, the top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all federal income tax. But theyre not paying their fair share! Let Jerry Brown explain, hot on the heels of convincing Californians to raise their own sales and income taxes:
Revenue means taxes, and certainly those who have been blessed the most, who have disproportionately extracted, by whatever skill, more and more from the national wealth, theyre going to have to share more of that.
This, of course, is pure Marxism the idea that there is a stagnant pool of national wealth, and that the rich plunge into it, shoving others out of their way, to hog all of the wealth for themselves. And Obama feels the same way:
Im open to new ideas. Im committed to solving our fiscal challenges. But I refuse to accept any approach that isnt balanced. I am not going to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me, making over $250,000, arent asked to pay a dime more in taxes. Im not going to do that.
Fine. Fair enough. If were going to tax those of high income, though, lets start with those who provide that least valuable of services: entertainment. Lets tax actors, singers, and athletes. After all, should their services disappear, our lives might be a little darker but arent teachers more valuable than bit actors in Red Dawn? Furthermore, they were four square behind Obama and Jerry Brown. Time to put their money where their mouths have been for so long.
With that in mind, lets embrace the following solution to reach tax fairness: all income earned above $250,000 shall be taxed at 90% provided that it is earned within a five month period. If you work all year long for your $1,000,000, you should be taxed at normal tax rates. But if you put in a month of work to shoot a film, your taxes should rise to 90%; youre gypping the rest of us. If we can all work 70 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, why arent these actors, athletes, and musicians doing their fair share?
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit also has a fantastic idea: reviving the excise tax on movie profits. The movie excise tax was imposed in response to the high deficits after World War Two. Deficits are high again, and theres already historical precedent. Of course, to keep up with technology, the tax should now apply to DVDs, downloadable movies, pay-per-view and the like. But in these financially perilous times, why should movie stars and studio moguls, with their yachts, swimming pools and private jets, not at least shoulder the burden they carried back in Harry Trumans day when, to be honest, movies were better anyway.
Or how about Human Events columnist John Hayward’s suggestion lets regulate Hollywood wages and fees. The price controls and fee limits on medicine in the Democrats health-care proposals assume doctors will provide the same care and effort if their incomes are controlled, so why wouldnt actors? They constantly claim to have a high degree of devotion to their art, so wouldnt they give their best even if we limited them to a handsome upper-middle-class lifestyle?
Not only that: lets go ahead and outlaw the buying of individual iPod tracks. Its unfair that some artists are paid handsomely for their songs, while others arent. Lets bundle them together, so that the best artists subsidize the worst artists. Adele ought to cover Limp Bizkit. Bruce Springsteen ought to cover Kenny G. Its simply unfair for some artists to prosper while others dont.
Lets also place taxes on film equipment. If the federal government can do it with medical equipment, we ought to do it with film equipment, too. The film industry needs that equipment enough to pay a little more for it.
Or how about federal regulation of movie prices? Its unfair that some people can afford to go to the ArcLight a really nice theater while others are stuck at the Regency. Why not mandate that Hollywood subsidize the cost differential? Dont those greedy one percenters want everybody to be able to enjoy Skyfall equally? Plus, well bring down the deficit, since poorer people will be able to spend money on movies!
We can play the class warfare game too.
How about requiring that all movie, news media and the like contracts be made public and and then an upfront 25% tax ....no exceptions....I bet that would send them screaming and running for the borders
Raising taxes on government workers would raise hundreds of billions.
The president and vice-president should pay a rate of 85%, or 100% would do it because Bronco Bama just loves playing the White Hut denizen.
I’m all for it. Tax entertainment at the rate a pack of cigarettes is taxed.
Why shouldn’t they get the sin tax, too?
Tax Hollywood..sounds good, but first, pull the plug. Stop supporting them.
And stop supporting entertainment networks that are the corporations for the MSM...pull the plug on dish and cable.
People pay into a system that mocks them, lies to them and abuses them and mainstreams Un-American values.
We cancelled our cable/dish whatever and do NOT regret it.
You have to have the power in Congress and the White House first.
And, yes, let’s starve the beast too. No sit coms, no MSM, and do not support their sponsors..
And the best movies are the old ones and everyone who made them are all DEAD.
Hollywood often funds tax-exempt foundations that work like termites to advance leftist causes.
By law, for a foundation to retain its tax-exempt status, it must give away 5% of its assets every year. A competent money manager normally can earn more than that level. If the endowment has enough assets, this has the effect of allowing foundations to have eternal life.
I think the Founding Fathers would shudder at the thought of independent bodies who report to nobody would be given a “carve-out” to be fairly free to influence public policy and social attitudes, but this is exactly what leftist foundations do. (Like the Tides and Soros Foundations to just name two).
In a time when government is searching for more tax revenue, one untapped source is to change the required payout from 5% to 7.5%. This would force foundations to spend-out their assets at a rate slightly faster than they can earn on the investments. This would flush billions of dollars into the economy in the form of wages from the resulting grants and expenditures. Government would gain tax revenue that came from that.
Just as important, it would make foundations mortal. The Tides and Soros foundations would spend themselves out of business. And given leftist economics, the temporary increase in foundation spending would be spent ineffectively, just like leftist know how to do. Who knows, maybe the Tides foundation would try to restart Solyndra.
You know, that’s not a bad idea. Let’s propose a surcharge on movies and music sales, maybe even a VAT on each stage of production. After all, TPTB in Hollywood feel so strongly more people need to pay their “fair share”...
Come on Hollywood. Spread your wealth.
Cap ticket prices at $5.00. Wait... Better idea. Movies are free. They will be paid for with advertising dollars, not unlike Facebook.
That will force Hollywood not to produce crap.
I have been saying this for years. Big Hollywood! I’m tired of hearing the Left’s rants about big oil and big corporate businesses. The multi-million dollar paydays that Hollywood actors get for each of their movies should be taxed at 60 per cent. Just the threat of that would shut up these hippocritical Leftists who use their celebrity status to promulgate their left wing agendas.
I like the way you think. How do we get people to lobby for this idea?
Need to send this to some R's in congress, would love to see them propose all this on the floor.
Argument should be that since that category of “rich” has virtually any direct impact on jobs, targeting them for an income tax increase would be less damaging than targeting the true job creators in the upper middle class and higher who create businesses and directly employ people.
I hate any tax increase. But this little “poison pill” is about the most attractive way to swallow the hemlock of an increase in income taxes on a certain category.
Taxes are for the “little people.”
“How do we get people to lobby for this idea? “
Keep repeating it where the topic at hand gives the us the slightest opportunity. Should it be seriously proposed, the left will squeal like stuck pigs because foundations are a major source of funding of social activism.