Why Rich Celebrities Love Democrats

From Ricochet via H/T at Instapundit:

Last week, my wife told me that Michael Stipe, the lead singer for one of the favorite bands of my youth, had opened a rally for Senator Bernie Sanders. I knew the guy was an insufferable lefty, but it still got me thinking about why rich celebrities love to support socialists, seemingly against their own interest.

And then I realized — like a snail coming late to a conclusion that everyone else has long since reached — that it actually is in their best interests to support these policies because “income redistribution” — as opposed to “property redistribution” — doesn’t impact the already-wealthy all that much. Rather, income redistribution is a tax against other people becoming wealthy.

Analysis: True. James Delingpole once dubbed it “the drawbridge effect” — “You’ve made your money. Now the very last thing you want is for all those trashy middle class people below you to have a fair shot at getting as rich as you are.”

Never could make sense of this before, but this argument seems to make a lot o sense.

A One-Percenter Destroys All the Tax Day Claims About Rich People

From PJ Media via H/T at Instapundit:

Happy Tax Day!

He breaks down all the myths about rich people not paying their fair share, how wealth is created, and the tax code.

65%, ouch!

The Week in Pictures -- Tax Day Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Taxing $1,000 per Gun Became a Reality in One U.S. Territory — and Some Worry It Could Spread

From The Blaze via H/T at Instapundit: Civil Rights Update:

Gov. Ralph Torres signed the gun tax and regulation bill into law Monday and stressed that his first priority is the safety of law enforcement and the community.

“It’s something that none of us want, and we want to make it as strict as possible,” Torres said in a statement.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, blasted these as examples of the left targeting guns and noted that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has backed taxes on guns in the past.

“The left is now seeking to tax guns out of existence,” Norquist said in a statement Monady. “The Second Amendment makes it difficult to legally ban guns, but Hillary has led the way to explaining you can achieve the same thing with high taxes.”

There must be a solid case to be made that a $1,000 tax on a $500 pistol is an unconstitutional infringement on a court-recognized individual right.

Are America’s tax migrants bringing California and New York’s high-tax views to sunny low-tax shores of Texas and Florida?

From Glenn Harlan Reynolds at USA Today via H/T at Instapundit:

If I were one of those conservative billionaires (hello, Koch brothers! hi, Sheldon Adelson!) who are always donating tens of millions to support Republican candidates, I think I might try spending some of the money on something more useful: A sort of welcome wagon for blue state migrants to red states. Something that would explain to them why the place they’re moving to is doing better than the place they left, and suggesting that they might not want to vote for the same policies that are driving their old home states into bankruptcy.

That's why Colorado and Florida have turned purple.

If you tax it too much, they will go

From Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit at USA Today:

IRS data show that taxpayers are migrating from high-tax states like New York, Illinois, and California to low-tax states like Texas and Florida. And it’s not just sports stars or star scientists, doing that, but fairly ordinary people — though, of course, people who earn enough money to pay taxes. If you’re living on welfare benefits and don't plan to change that, you won’t move to a low-tax state to escape taxes; if you move anywhere, it’ll probably be to a state that offers better benefits than the one you live in now.

This phenomenon has numerous implications, but let’s talk about two: In time, if taxpayers tend to migrate from high-tax states to low-tax states, and if people receiving government benefits tend to stay in place or migrate from lower-benefit states to higher-benefit states, then over time lower-tax states will tend to accumulate more people with high earnings, while higher-benefit states will tend to accumulate more people who live on the dole.

Which is why I plan to move out of Kalifornia when I retire.

Taxpayers Flee Democrat-Run States For Republican Ones

From The TaxProf Blog via H/T at Instapundit:

Just don't vote for the same loser policies when you get there.

In 2013, more than 200,000 people on net fled states with Democrat governors [led by New York, Illinois, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts] for ones run by Republicans [led by Texas, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Arizona], according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by Americans for Tax Reform.

"People move away from high tax states to low tax states. Every tax refugee is sending a powerful message to politicians," said ATR President Grover Norquist. "They are voting with their feet. Leaders in Texas and Florida are listening. New York and California are not."

Of course, if they’re actual taxpayers, not just voters, then there’s hope. . . . . . .

High taxes are bad, something Governors like Andrew Cuomo doesn't seem to get.

Mileage Tax will Hurt California Middle Class, State Budget

From Breitbart California:

California Democrats wants to create a mileage tax–a new tax on every mile driven in the state–despite already having the highest gas taxes in the nation.

State officials say they need the tax increase, because gas tax collections to pay for roads and bridges has been shrinking. But the real culprit for lower tax revenues is that California’s middle class is being forced by high taxes to move out of state and drive less. A mileage tax increase will just increase middle class pain and generate even lower tax revenue for roads and bridges.

Gasoline tax collections peaked out $2.8 billion per year in 2006, the same year former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, or “cap-and-trade.” The legislation committed the state to use taxes and fees to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Since that time, gas tax collections have slowly trended down about 7.1 percent to $2.6 billion last year.

For the liberals in the California Legislature, it's always about increasing the funding to their insatiable spending desire.

State officials pretend the falling gas tax revenue is partly due to the tiny number of electric vehicles on the road and mostly due to cars getting better mileage. But gas tax collection around the U.S. has continued to increase most years, despite average vehicle gas mileage increasing every year for the past 6 decades. It is only California that has had falling gas tax revenue for the last decade.

I have always assumed the main reason shy Kalifornia gas tax revenue has dropped was due to the increase in CAFE standards. But, if revenue is increasing in the rest of the country, it could mean one of two things. Less consumption due to a decrease in car owning population and/or the continuing poor economic policies in the State which is stifling economic growth.

Fleeing New Jersey, and Its Crushing Taxes, for a Better Life

From National Review:

The home my father thought he owned outright had a co-owner: the local city council and school board. And it was a co-owner with an appetite for spending. Home ownership may have had its privileges, but it became a burden he could no longer afford.

The local property-tax bill alone was enough to make him move. On top of that, New Jersey went from having no state income tax to having one of the highest in the country (8.97 percent for the highest earners, and 6.4 percent for the middle class), and from having no sales tax to having one of the highest rates in the country (7 percent, almost as high as California’s, which is the highest sales tax in America, at 7.5 percent). It was all too much for him to handle.

Saddled by taxes and worried that future tax increases would eat up his retirement income and his savings, this lifelong New Jersey resident, at age 81, did what so many folks in high-tax states like New Jersey are forced to do: He sold his house and moved.

Prop 13 has prevented the selling of one's home while retired, due to taxes, but knowing California's Legislature, they want to slowly, but steadily end Pro 13 to feed the spending beast.

There are two roads ahead for state leaders, and a person need not have a Ph.D. in economics or to have served a stint at the Federal Reserve to figure which one to take. Just do a Google search for the 2014 National Movers Survey by United Van Lines and track where the American people are moving from, and where they are moving to, to understand which states are getting things terribly wrong, creating American refugees, and which states are welcoming them.

California must be high on the list. The Legislature just assumes the weather here will allow them to continue the anti-growth/tax and spend policies they have been able to get away with for years. But at some point, it will be time to pay the piper. But the time the Government of California figures it out, I and many other of my ta producing breatheren will be gone and it will be too late to fix it.

To Roth, or Not to Roth

From Megan McCardle of Bloomberg News:

What will the tax rate on your income be when you retire — higher or lower than your current tax rate?

Hard to say, isn’t it? We’re running some substantial deficits, and we’ve made some big promises to retirees. Those obligations will have to be paid for somehow, and by “somehow,” I mean “With higher taxes on someone.” What are the chances that you’ll be that someone? Pretty high, if you save a lot for retirement.

That makes a Roth sound like a pretty good bet. But unfortunately, the same logic that suggests higher income taxes in the future also suggests that a hungry-eyed Congress might settle on all those fat tax-free retirement accounts as a way to balance the books. What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. Can you really count on that income being tax-free when it’s finally time to collect it?

Do you trust Congress to keep their promises?

Harvey Weinstein wants more tax breaks

From Thomas Lifson at American Thinker:

Taxes, as Leona Helmsley once put it, “are for the little people.” That certainly seems to be the operating philosophy of Hollywood mogul and Democrat moneybags Harvey Weinstein. Speaking at California taxpayer-subsidized UCLA, he asked for California taxpayers to subsidize his business. Ted Johnson of Variety reports:

“There’s no reason for us not to shoot here, except when you do the numbers here and when you do the numbers in New Orleans, it is much more attractive financially,” Weinstein said in the Q&A on Saturday.

He cited the example of “Southpaw,” directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Jake Gyllenhaal, as project that could have shot in Los Angeles were it not for the generous tax incentives in the Big Easy.

But Weinstein said that Los Angeles and California “doesn’t even have to give the same discount” to remain competitive, noting the cost and hassle of having to locate actors and other talent in New Orleans is an added expense despite their generous tax incentives.

But what about the children, Harvey? They need your tax money. And there are still millions more in Mexico and Cental America who need to come to California for free medical care and schooling, and EBT cards and all the rest.

Well, if he had any shame, he wouldn’t be a liberal or a big Hillary Clinton supporter.

It's pretty obvious that Harvey doesn't view himself as one of the little people and the children only need money from the little people.

Let’s Save California Now!

Victor Davis Hansen has suggested some laws that need to be passed now to save California.

1. The Hetch Hetchy Smelt and Salmon Act - Aim: To synchronize water resources with water-use advocacy.

2. The Undocumented Immigrant Equity Act - Aim: One, to achieve economic parity for undocumented immigrants by allowing them affordable housing in affluent areas where jobs are plentiful, wages are high, and opportunities exist for mentorships; and, two, to ensure cultural diversity among the non-diverse host community, bringing it into compliance with the state’s ethnic profile.

3. The Cultivating Diversity Education Equilibrium Act - Aim: To end disparities in California school testing and performance levels accruing largely due to intrinsic racial and ethnic discrimination.

4. The Silicon Valley Transparency and Fair Jobs Act - Aim: To ensure progressive Silicon Valley commercial businesses are caring progressive state citizens.

5. The California Firearms Safety Act - Aim: To prevent unnecessary armed deterrence by private security units in the hire of the affluent.

6. The Fair Housing Adjustment Act - Aim: It would ensure state resources are equally distributed and not inordinately siphoned off to a small minority of the state population. Would encourage existing large homes to downsize through reverse remodeling.

7. The High-speed Rail Equality Act - Aim: To ensure commuters in Los Angeles and San Francisco will have priority in construction, avoiding privileging Fresno-to-Corcoran commuters, where construction of the first link of the high-speed rail line is slated to begin.

8. The Climate Change Adjustment and Fair Temperature Act - Aim: To ensure every Californian the right to live in a house with temperatures at 75 degrees.

9. The One-percenter Politician Act - Aim: To ensure that California’s representatives reflect the rich economic diversity and income averages of the state. It also prohibits inside influence peddling on the part of politicians.

10. The Protect the Peregrine Act - Aim: To stop the wind and solar industry from harming natural ecosystem of California.

11. The Petroleum Fair Use Act - Aim: To ensure that Californians only consume the gasoline they produce and thereby do not promote a larger carbon footprint by subsidizing out-of-state oil production not overseen by California resource legislation.

12. The California Fair Automobile Act - Aim: To ensure so-called imported high-performance and luxury cars do not use an inordinate amount of state energy resources, or leave large carbon footprints on the California ecological landscape, or divert collective resources to the individual from the greater needs of the state.

Read the whole article, it gives more details about the suggested laws and the reasoning behind them.

The Week in Pictures -- Aging Boomers Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Santelli — “How can we redistribute wealth if there is no wealth?”

From Hot Air:

As Santelli notes, much of Europe has been struggling through “recoveries” even slower than ours has been, with much bigger unemployment rates and much smaller economic growth rates — and one does wonder why the Obama administration is so blindly insistent upon neglecting these European countries’ apt examples and instead following them into the economic abyss of ever-expanding government spending and intervention.

First of all, we understand it’s not only in America. There are a lot of hardworking people around the globe who would like to work who are having problems finding work. It seems to be a skill mismatch but maybe that’s oversimplified. But no matter how you slice it, the main issue is, after five years, it’s pretty hard to call these programs ‘emergency spending programs’ and if we’re going to extend the amount of benefit you get with regard to unemployment insurance to be a new entitlement, we need to be more honest about it. I understand. But it really isn’t and shouldn’t be a stopgap measure, maybe it’s something we need to put in the budget as whole and change everything. Why? Because if what the president said is true, if just throwing money at this is good for the economy, then I challenge him to look at the extreme viewpoint in this regard from François Hollande, the president of France, a Socialist, who has tried everything the president is talking about and now is throwing up the red flag. The Journal story today, here’s what President François Hollande said: How can we run the country if entrepreneurs don’t hire? And how can we redistribute wealth if there is no wealth?

Kevin Williamson on "The Age of Envy"

From Kevin Williamson at National Review:

Very good piece knocking Robert Reich's recent article (meet the old article, same as the old article) decrying a tax code which permits the wealthy tax deductions for charitable donations. It's worth reading in full. But here's some of it. I'm digesting the key points made for people who want a shorter version, but seriously, just read the whole thing.

Professor Reich, a ward of the taxpayers of California (at $246,199.84 per annum) and a federal ward before that, is persistently unhappy about how other people use their money, and he scoffs that America’s rich philanthropists are phony and self-serving, investing too much in opera and ballet and fancy colleges, and too little in feeding the hungry and housing the homeless. He particularly resents the fact that our tax code encourages such giving, with deductions that reduced federal revenue by some $39 billion last year — federal revenue that could have gone toward employing men such as Robert Reich.

(H/T Tip Ace of Spades Blog and American Thinker Blog)

Dems may have to admit Obamacare tax increase

From Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman at USA Today:

Remember, in 2009, the president emphatically denied to George Stephanopoulos that the Affordable Care Act imposed a tax increase. Yet, after the Supreme Court decision, going into the 2012 election, the White House again seemed to deny that the mandate was a tax, notwithstanding the administration’s argument to the Court.

Now, as the price for delaying the implementation of the court-created tax penalty, Republicans should demand truth in labeling. The Democrats in Congress must now admit they have imposed a tax on young and healthy Americans to get them to take the bad deal that is Obamacare. And any suspension of this tax must be scored by the Congressional Budget Office so the public knows the size of the tax increase that will be imposed on the American people when the delay ends and the tax kicks in. No longer will congressional supporters of the ACA be able to evade political responsibility.

On the other hand, if the Democrats insist that the penalty is not a tax, then they will be admitting that it is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision. If Congress contradicts what the administration told the Supreme Court, a new challenge can be brought under the precedent of NFIB v. Sebelius. The president, and those who supported this law, should now be forced to bear the political consequences of their legislative and litigation legerdemain. If Obamacare can only legally live by the tax, then its supporters in Congress must politically die by the tax.

Yep, lay the largest tax hike in the history of the Country on the President and Party, who passed the law without a single vote from the opposition.

GOP Should Drop Norquist and Follow Maher

From Lee Cary at the American Thinker Blog:

Egberto Willies, commenter in the Daily Kos piece where Maher is quoted, wrote, "Republicans have always loved cutting taxes on both the backs of the working middle class and at the expense of exploding budget deficits to appease their plutocratic masters."

The Republicans should link Maher's equation - "cut spending AND raise taxes" - with Willies' observation that Republicans love to pile the tax burden on the "working middle class" and take the initiative.

Here are three suggested changes in the federal tax code that, if pushed by the GOP, would demonstrate an enhanced sensitivity to assuring fairer federal taxation. None involve new taxes - just the elimination of tax deduction loopholes that favor the rich.

..............

1. Remove state income taxes as a deductable item from the federal tax code for those making over $500,000.

..............

2. Remove city income taxes as a deductable expense from the federal tax code for those making over $200,000.

..............

3. Remove real estate taxes as a deductible item for all those paying over $15,000 in property taxes.

..............

None of these suggestions for federal revenue enhancement represent new taxes. They merely eliminate tax loopholes that favor the rich and lighten the heavy weight of taxation now resting on the shoulders of the "working middle class."

As a final suggestion to fulfill the "raise taxes" half of Maher's equation of "cutting spending AND raising taxes," Republicans should note the top 20 donor groups, by organizational affiliation, to Barack Obama's 2012 campaign.

..............

Academics, lawyers and federal government employees dominate the list.

.............. Federal employees should be prohibited from contributing.

..............

Also, contributions from employees at universities that receive millions in federal research grants should be strictly limited.

I love this idea!!!! It can be sold as taxing the rich, who happen to be in blue states. This might actually force the blue states to be responsible with their tax plans, since the Feds will not longer be subsidizing them.

Like Alinsky said, make the live by their own rules.

Dear Leader, guns and phones

This says it all about the Obama Regime.

Emails Show Liar Lerner Targeted 'Dangerous' Tea Party

From Investors.com:

In case anyone forgot, Lois Lerner, former head of the Exempt Organizations office of the IRS, who invoked her Fifth Amendment rights rather than tell what she did and knew about the targeting of tea party and other conservative groups, is still being paid with your tax dollars while on "administrative leave."

Yet another reason for her silence has been unearthed by a 2011 email released by the House Ways and Means Committee in which the woman who claimed she had done nothing wrong admitted that the tea party was not only targeted, but targeted at her direction, in response to the Citizens United case that so outraged President Obama because it reaffirmed the free-speech rights of those who oppose him.

In the February 2011 email, Lerner advised her staff — including then-Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then-Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz — that a tea party matter is "very dangerous" and something "Counsel and (Lerner adviser) Judy Kindell need to be in on." Lerner added: "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."

So much for a few rogue agents in Cincinnati.

Tina Brown’s charity gave out just $10K

From the New York Post:

She drew the big names — but didn’t dole out the big bucks.

The celebrity-backed charity launched by departing Daily Beast editrix Tina Brown failed to meet the company’s goals in its first year out of the gate — handing out just $10,000 in grant money in 2011 despite raising nearly $1.2 million, IRS records show.

The nonprofit Women in the World Foundation kicked off to much fanfare in 2011 with a star-studded Manhattan party that cost $168,048 and was hosted by Meryl Streep.

I think this is where a lot of the Liberal Elites' "charity" money winds up going: Networking and self-dealing in the form of lavish parties.