Heh. Blog maverick, indeed.
I would be perfectly fine paying a higher percentage of income, both in federal income taxes and as part of a consumption tax on luxury items. If Warren [Buffet] wants to buy or build a yacht for a hundred million dollars. Nail him with a 10pct federal tax surcharge. If I want to buy a Gulfstream Jet for 40mm dollars. Nail me with a 10pct federal surcharge above and beyond current taxes. There are plenty of items, from jewelry to 100k plus cars to 10mm dollars or more first, 2nd and 3rd homes. If you can afford to buy these kind of goodies, and choose to, cough it up.
Will i avoid the Gulfstream or Warren the Yacht because of the surcharge ? Will I drive a used car instead of my new expensive Lexus Hybrid. Nope. You are rich when you know that money is no good unless you can enjoy it. No one on the Forbes 400 or near by is going to let a 10 percent more increase in the cost of a luxury item get in the way of enjoying the lives they have always dreamed of.
Fine. Pay more then. Or finance more quality documentaries for HDNet. Email me, Mr. Cuban. I have a few ideas. But don’t pass off bad economics as altruism. The very first commenter on the post teaches Cuban a little history.
1. You say “Will i avoid the Gulfstream or Warren the Yacht because of the surcharge?” History says that you will avoid buying it in the US. Just such a tax was placed on yachts in 1990, and the net result was that the yacht-building industry in the US was almost destroyed. People just bought them overseas instead, or didn’t buy them. So the tax was repealed in 1992, and it took years for the industry to recover.
Advantage, commenter! Others follow along the same line, and slam Cuban for not volunteering to give more of his money to the government if he’s such an altruist. It would certainly beat wasting money on anti-war agitprop, and would do less damage to Cuban’s reputation.
Now, that said, Cuban scores a solid point against Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.
The perspective that Hillary Clinton is offering that 250k in annual earnings qualifies you as rich is not only ridiculous but its a huge disincentive to those who work their asses off every day and have accomplished a salary that rewards their hard work. It also will impact millions who can least afford it.
I will tell you who will suffer the most if a “tax increase for the wealthy” starts at only 250k. The 50 plus year old executive who has spent the last 25 to 35 years working his or her butt off to reach a 250k salary. The 60 year old executive who is already scared shitless that their job could be eliminated tomorrow and that they have not saved enough for retirement.
Is that who you want to impact Hillary ? Men and women who are approaching retirement already in fear of job security and their futures ?
Not a good idea.
Hillary is just full of ideas that fit that description.
(front photo from D Magazine’s FrontBurner)