Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    ‘Millionaire Tax’ Tweet of the Day

    ‘Millionaire Tax’ Tweet of the Day

    This seems like pretty good advice to the GOP, although the pathetic political ploy needs to be called for what it is (as I did last night):

    Update:  Time for an invervention, Obama’s on a tax hike bender

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:
    ,

    Comments


    When Bill Clinton passed a “millionaires tax” back in 1993, there was an exception for Hollywood celebrities and sports figures.

    When Barbra Streisand sang at the MGM Grand in 1993, the head of MGM was paid less for the year than she got for a week. Guess who had to pay the millionaires tax ?

    Of course, the unintended consequence of that “millionaires tax” was that corporate executives capped their salaries at $1 million, and made up the rest with stock options. This lead to the largest transfer of equity in the history of the world, as these executives acquired roughly 10% of the Fortune 500 through stock options over the next 10 years.


       
       0 
       
       0
      SukieTawdry in reply to Neo. | September 19, 2011 at 2:43 am

      It wasn’t exactly a “millionaire’s tax” as the executive paid no additional taxes. Under Clinton’s law, the portion of an executive’s salary that exceeded a million dollars annually was no longer a deductible expense for the company paying it (unless certain “performance” criteria had been met).

      It did, indeed, result in increased transfers of stock representing in-lieu-of payments. But mostly, executive salaries continued to soar because the law contained so many loopholes and companies were able to reward “performance” based on even the vaguest and most ephemeral of goals.

      Special taxes on the “wealthy” never work as intended. They do, however, keep tax accountants and attorneys well employed.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Spiny Norman | September 18, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    Speaking of exceptions, does anyone else find it a bit ironic that this scheme is called the “Warren Buffett Rule” when it will affect about 235,000 taxpayers, but not Warren Buffet? He famously pays himself only $100,000 a year, and his “investment income” is Berkshire Hathaway’s, not his personally.

    I agree. It is phoney measure to whip up support in a demoralized base. Obama is taking similar advice about Obamacare – Don’t talk about it.


     
     0 
     
     0
    teapartydoc | September 19, 2011 at 6:48 am

    It is hard to force your way when you are in the process of becoming irrelevant. His only chances to regain relevancy are to get another war started or to give the Europeans a few hundred billion dollars, both of which will make him even less popular.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend