Tax Kim Kardashian!

|
(20)

This is perfect: The Courage Campaign is running an ad encouraging Kim Kardashian -- who made $12 million last year for pretty much nothing except being Kim Kardashian -- to endorse the millionaire-tax ballot initiative. The point is that Kim's income is about 240 times as much as the income for the median California family -- and she pays only 1 percent more in taxes.

We need to make Kim understand how much regular folks are suffering these days. If we do, maybe she'll support paying a little more to help fund criticial services.

Sign me up. Tax Kim. If I had her phone number, I'd call her right now and tell her that her public is waiting -- for her to join the Courage Campaign. Somehow, I don't.

Comments

so we can all make a determination as to whether it's reasonable or not.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

to obstruct his blind devotion to higher taxes and the government that squanders them.

Posted by Chromefields on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 9:26 am

clearly states that her tax rate in 2010 was 10.3% 

Posted by marke on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 9:38 am

10.3% of 12 million is a hell of a lot of tax.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 10:45 am

Actually, it's not a lot of tax. Her functional rate is less than 10.3% because (unlike a lot of middle-class people) she almost certainly itemized deductions, and state taxes are deductible on your federal income tax return. So if she's paying the top rate of 35 % on her federal taxes, her actual state tax rate is 6.7%.

When you consider that the marginal tax rate in the 1960s -- when the U.S. economy was booming -- was at 70 percent or more, the fact that she's paying only 6.7% in state taxes is pitiful.

 

Posted by tim on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 11:34 am

well over a million dollars a year in tax.

I don't know the details of her income or her deductions. If you're a billionaire and invest it all in tax-free muni bonds, then you don't pay any tax at all. And you are investing in your home town. Problem?

Your 1960's argument is a red herring. Just because we had high taxes then doesn't mean that was a proximate cause of the boom. Correlation isn't causation. We had segregation back then - maybe that caused it? Should we bring it back?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 11:51 am

I am missing the math. The fact that state taxes are deductible on a federal return (and they're not deductible if she's subject to AMT) doesn't reduce the effective state tax rate.

Posted by The Commish on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 12:26 pm

Let's bring back those 70% tax rates from the 1960's, when inflation was just starting to make the move that so damaged the 1970's. Hey, do we get back all the deductions that were taken away when rates were lowered? How about the 10% investment tax credit, let's bring that one back so all those people in the 70% bracket got huge credits (not deductions, but actual tax credits if you know the difference). But most of all, let's bring back the 1960's tax rates so we can get back the offshore tax shelters! Yep, the economy and taxes were so much better back then. Geez. Now, this is all about Federal taxes, but in the state of California, where I live, doesn't it bother anyone that someone making under $50K here still pays nearly 10% to the state? (The 9.3% that the CA middle class pays was the top rate until a 1% surcharge was added to million dollar incomes a few years ago "to help pay for the children and firefighters and police" (as if these are the only state employess with nice salaries, huge pensions and great job security). Since the state already blew that 1% bonus, now they want to tack on another 2% - 3%?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 8:09 am

Wow! Where have I been? And here I was thinking that they still exist all over the place. Silly me!

See, this is the problem with the mantra that if you raise taxes the rich will just go to offshore tax shelters. No, the rich will try to hide their money no matter what you do. The only acceptable tax for them is zero.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 8:45 am

effective as a result of bi-lateral treaties and more effective discovery and enforcement.

However the lower tax rates in existence since Reagan have lowered the incentive for moving money offshore. Theories of taxable income elasticity show that a tax rate of 100% will garner the same amount of tax revenue as a tax rate of zero. Inbetween there is a curve (the Laffer Curve) which points to an optimal level of tax typically at around 40%.

When the tax rate either goes down or up from that level, tax revenues fall.

So it's simply not true that the rich think they should pay zero tax. It's simply that when rates become punitive, they take steps to reduce their taxable income. A rate approaching 50% (with the State tax) would typically be regarded as counter-productive.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 9:51 am

in regard to high tax rates and economic growth. A common liberal fallacy.

Posted by Chromefields on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 11:54 am

That they are linked. I'm not a Nobel Prize winning economist, but both Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have made very effective arguments that in fact economic inequality inhibits growth.

Posted by tim on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

Tax her ass and you could pay off the deficit easily

Posted by Kim Cardassian on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 7:42 am

I had just completed a long post where I totally annihilated an "Anonymous" defender of neoconomics and exposed the idiotic Laugher Curve as junk science. I hit "send" on this masterpiece -nothing is more satisfying than totally discrediting anonymous trolls on the internets, you know ;-)

But I was foiled by your Spam filter, which didn't even give me a chance to fill out that EQCA or whatever it is -you know that thingy with the random letters and such. It just curtly told me that my submission triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted -the internet equivalent of "tell it to the hand."

Monk and brown and Meatlick and guest can bicker for days about who's signing whose name, but I can't even post a serious piece with links (or even without for that matter) without the spam filter going all spastic on me. What the hell, SFBG??? Whose side are you on anyway?

Posted by Greg on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 4:34 pm

the dog ate your homework?

Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 8:58 pm

I looked up the Laffer Curve, and there was so much material there that I can't believe anyone in their right mind believes this junk science anymore.

I won't post links because I'm afraid the Guardian will reject the post again, but you can look it up yourself. Here are the salient points, repeated without some of my best zingers.

-The Wiki article on the Laffer Curve actually states that it's criticized because it has "little resemblance to reality." Yes, they actually say that.

-If you're looking for a "consensus" for what is the theoretical "optimal"tax rate even among people who believe in the junk science of economics, there isn't one, contrary to what you suggested. One economist said 65%. Another said 26%. A third said 70%. And yet another said... wait for it... 32.67% to 35.21%. Ooohhh, that sounds really authoritative, so that must be right. But wait, there's some big bullshit bible of economics that was cited in the article that claims the consensus is 70%. So there you have it. Even if you believe in the religion ('cause it sure as hell ain't science!) of capitalist economics, the "consensus" is way higher than you said. But you know what I think? I get the distinct impression that all these guys are just pulling numbers out of their asses depending on who's paying them to produce what number.

-I looked up to see what works in the real world, and in the real world, America gets it's best economic growth rates when highest marginal tax rates are up around 80% or higher.

In a nutshell, the Laugher Curve is total junk. I'm interested in what works to improve people's lives in the real world. And in the real world, you help the rich by helping the rich, and you help the poor by helping the poor... not this bullshit trickle down psych me out Laugher Curve reverse abra cadabra crap.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 10:08 pm

is progressive economics.

The laffer curve makes the weird case that cutting taxes will mean that more taxes will be raised. Like all cults, lafferists can't tell us what the golden ratio of taxes and maximum income are. Which really should be easy considering the nature of what goes into the curve.

Progressive economics is much the same, keep raising taxes while finding new things to spend on. In this tail chasing exercise progressives want to create an endless string of government jobs and entitlements. Then they bemoan that there isn't any money for basic services like schools, although the city has it's own department of labor and environment. Like the Laffers, the progressives can't tell us what the golden tax ratio is, because there is never going to be enough.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 10:26 pm

So if high taxes on the rich are bad, and low taxes on the rich are bad, and there's no magic number in the middle that brings in the most revenue, what then is your answer?

Oh, wait, I forgot. You have no answer! You're just here as an all-purpose purveyor of sarcastic carping against anyone and anything.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 10:49 pm

Define government to do what individuals or corporations can not do.

Public education, basic welfare, defense, public universities, pave the streets, etc...

Get out of the business of social engineering, get out of redundant idiocy like a SF labor commission or dept of environment. etc...

It cracks me up that progressives whine about government while jambing it down our throats at every turn. Prop 8 sucks, let us tell you where you can buy a smoke.

In 1980 SF employed 1/3 of the people they do now, and what do we have to show for it? More feel good laws, more retarded commissions? Thats worked out.

You are the mirror of the Laffer curve types, there will never be enough money to satiate you, because every day you see a need for a new law or commission, because every day you see a need for a new department on departments, a new commission on commissions.

The progressive golden tax ratio = more taxes
the laffer golden ration on taxes = less

both reflexive and doctrinaire.

Progressive in this city and the democrats state wide are shitty stewards of tax payer money, so why give them more?

Posted by matlock on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 12:09 am

Greg is a "class envy clown" so he looks for "evidence" that higher tax rates bring in more revenue even though Laffer (and Reagan) proved the exact opposite.

And it's quite obvious that people will respond if you double their tax rate, and either work less or engage in the same kind of creative tax strategies that were everywhere before Reagan.

Punitive and confiscatory tax rates don't bring in more revenue. Their only purpose is to appease those who hate the successful and want to drag them down to their own level. Deficits can't be fixed by taxing only the rich. It's a myth.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 12:17 am