Re: Obama Says Make The Rich Pay? Start With Hollywood

[Zetsu]

Bye bye America, like they weren't screwed enough already, lol

[Zetsu]

Bye bye America, like you were screwed enough already, lol

Yeah, they seem to be in a race to the bottom like most Western countries. Scared to make tough decisions because that will mean they are out of office. Hey, let's just get future generations to pay for today's party. They won't mind!

It's kinda funny how the US now is copying what China did in the cultural revolution, and vice versa, though I'm more interested in seeing how things will turn out for both of them.

[Securious]

President Obama and California Governor Jerry Brown are on the same page: the wealthy in America must foot the bill for the massive debts they've run up. Sure, the top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all federal income tax. But they're 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, they're 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:



I'm open to new ideas. I'm committed to solving our fiscal challenges. But I refuse to accept any approach that isn't 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, aren't asked to pay a dime more in taxes. I'm not going to do that.

 

Fine. Fair enough. If we're going to tax those of high income, though, let's start with those who provide that least valuable of services: entertainment. Let's tax actors, singers, and athletes. After all, should their services disappear, our lives might be a little darker – but aren't 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, let's 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%; you're gypping the rest of us. If we can all work 70 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, why aren't 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 there's 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 Truman's day – when, to be honest, movies were better anyway."



Or how about Human Events columnist John Hayward's suggestion – let's 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 wouldn't actors? They constantly claim to have a high degree of devotion to their art, so wouldn't they give their best even if we limited them to a handsome upper-middle-class lifestyle?"

 

Not only that: let's go ahead and outlaw the buying of individual iPod tracks. It's unfair that some artists are paid handsomely for their songs, while others aren't. Let's 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. It's simply unfair for some artists to prosper while others don't.

 

Let's 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? It's 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? Don't those greedy one percenters want everybody to be able to enjoy Skyfall equally? Plus, we'll bring down the deficit, since poorer people will be able to spend money on movies!

 

We can play the class warfare game too.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/lets-tax-hollywood/">http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapir ... hollywood/">http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/lets-tax-hollywood/

as odd as it may appear [I see] more similarities between Obama and the new Chinese Leadership Xi

. As the days go forward look for these similarities, sadly,you will be amazed. Watch for deepening friendship w/ these two...at our peril!

[Vancouver]

I agree with Obama.

[Leopardsocks]

Actors and athletes have to be the most overpaid, overrated parasites in our communities.



I heard O'Reilly screaming on FNC about how he saw NO reason for his taxes to increase to pay for medical care for the impoverished.



Perhaps the $16M a year talking head needs to gain a little perspective. He gets paid 16M a YEAR to talk. More often than not beligerently, but only to entertain. Where does THAT money come from, Bill? Where does the buck START?



Sponsors pay for air time on his show top hawk their crap.



Then the cost of that advertising is added to the cost of goods sold.



So, when people buy the advertisers products, they are paying O'Reilly's highly overvalued wages.



He needs to STFU and enjoy what he's got. He didn't earn it, he isn't worth it, and its far more than most.



Ditto actors, athletes and entertainers.

[Anonymous]

Maybe this would be a good time to revisit the concept of "state within the state".



One of the most trusted architects and executioners of American imperialism's machinations in one of the most important and volatile regions of the world, with deep ties to both the military and intelligence highest circles, working under both Republican and Democratic administrations, is removed based on a purely personal matter? Doesn't pass the smell test.



What is the thought on the timing as well? The most "benign" explanation is that the Obama administration did not want to deal with the hawks using his getting rid of Petraeus during the run up to the election to portray him as "soft" on foreign policy.



If we saw a high military or secret police chief removed in any other country around the time of an election the first thought would be to entertain the possibility of a coup being headed off.



Whether a "cold coup" using voter fraud or something more sinister in the works would be something we would at least consider. Removed on election day, not shortly after; timing here is what has me considering what the nature of this thing is.



If indeed there was no elected representatives with any clue as to the machinations of all that was going on for months (although this has to be seriously questioned as well), it would bring me back to the question of the "state within the state" and the real destruction of any democratic control over the state and specifically its organs of repression.

[Anonymous]

Vivek is still a certifiable loon.