As we head “forward” towards the Fiscal Cliff, one thing is certain: “millionaires” (defined incongruously by the left as anyone with a yearly income of $250,000 and above) are going to be hit with huge tax hikes.
If President Obama and the Senate Democrats get their way, every “millionaire” will see the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001. Fiscal Cliff problem solved? Nope. Letting the income tax measures expire for top earners will raise revenue by a projected $850 billion over the next 10 years. In layman’s terms, this will cover about roughly eight days of spending per year. So what are the Democrats planning to do about the other 357 days of spending? Nothing to see here. Move along.
Spending is the real issue, but nobody wants to talk about that. Since President Obama’s first term, he has added more than $5 trillion to the national debt and his annual deficits have never gone below $1 trillion. Ironic that candidate Obama once accused President Bush as being “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for significantly smaller deficits. Ah, but the media would never call the President out on that hypocrisy and he knows that.
Warren Buffet told Matt Lauer of the Today Show that tax hikes on the rich would “raise morale of the middle class.” In actuality, the middle class’ morale is low because they want decent jobs. After all, this still is America where people are still striving to move up the ladder of success, as opposed to knocking the same ladder out from under successful people. We’re not Europe….yet. Perhaps this is what President Obama meant when he said, “Vote for revenge.”
Victor Davis Hanson wrote: “For Obama, it is inherently unfair that a few — a surgeon, a small-business woman, an investor, or a Lotto winner — should make so much. Thus it is the government’s obligation, along with state and local governments, to take much of it away from the suspect few and redistribute it to far more deserving others.”
Meanwhile, celebrities ardently supported Obama during his election, despite the fact that President Obama spewed enough class warfare rhetoric to make Marie Antoinette look like Margaret Thatcher. But wouldn’t these same celebrities be worried about the impending tax hikes? Aren’t they worried that they could be impacted? Not a chance. Because when it comes to actually paying taxes, these celebrities don’t want to pay their “fair share.” And, guess what? They don’t have to.
Hollywood’s elites are using a whole array of methods to escape paying their “fair share.” They use of offshore trusts, tax havens and the transferring funds to wives or civil partners as tax dodges.
Barbra Streisand, along with other Hollywood big wigs, heavily supported Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax hike measure Proposition 30 –-which is meant to “temporarily” hike upper income earners (i.e. “millionaires” making over $250,000 year), as well as state sales taxes. According to Gov. Brown, this bill is necessary to “close California’s deficit” and avoid deep cuts to public schools and universities. But raising taxes is just a way of kicking the big pension can down the road. (Why upset the all-powerful Teachers Union, which bragged about spending $65 million getting Brown elected, when you can simply confiscate money from rich people?)
But what’s in it for Hollywood’s elite to support such a tax hike? Well shortly after Proposition 30 was passed, Governor Brown signed legislation extending the state’s $100 million tax-credit fund for two more years. This measure allows California film producers a 20 percent or 25 percent credit against income and sales and use taxes.
There’s even more good news for Hollywood’s elite. California Assembly member Felipe Fuentes (D) has introduced Bill AB 2026. This measure would extend the State’s Film and Television Tax Credit Program by an additional five years, for an estimated tax break of $500 million dollars ($100 million per year). The program has already saved the Hollywood industry over $400 million in tax credits to date.
Helps explain why studios, including Warner Bros., Fox and Disney, contributed at least $700,000 to the governor’s campaign committee, according to records filed with the secretary of state’s office.
Michelle Malkin said on Fox News’ Hannity: “It’s disturbingly funny when a politician makes a proposal and then signs off on a second proposal designed to ward off an unintended consequence that proves why the first proposal is a really bad idea. To top it off, an industry that benefits from large tax credits then takes some of their tax credit windfall and donates it back to the cause of forcing the rich to pay higher taxes. Circle of life, Hollywood style.”
And for those Hollywood liberals who still can’t get enough of higher taxes, there is great news. They can voluntarily pay more in taxes thanks to a special program that the Treasury Department has set up formally called “Gifts to Reduce Debt Held by the Public.”
As you might expect, however, it appears there are comparatively few people who are interested in paying more taxes. According to figures from the Treasury Department, the government receives a microscopic sum of gifts every year in comparison to the nation’s $16 trillion debt. As of July 2011, the Treasury had received $2.4 million, or less than 0.00002 percent of the nation’s total public debt.
So, supporting tax hikes are fine as long other rich people have to pay them. As the “Church Lady” famously said on Saturday Night Live, “how convenient!”