Over at Powerline Blog, John Hinderaker made a suggestion about how the GOP should respond to the Buffett Rule. His suggestion is that the Republicans go along with it so long as certain amendments get added to it. Here they are:
The Republicans could say, sure, we’ll go along with the Buffett Rule if you Democrats will agree to the Reynolds Tax, a 50% surtax on the increased incomes of former government officials when they move into the private sector, working for the same companies they once regulated. Or Republicans could offer an amendment incorporating the Clooney Rule, based on the fact that actors and actresses are such advocates of higher taxes: a new, 80% tax rate on all income in excess of $1 million earned by acting in any film or theatrical production. Or they could counter with the K Street Rule, an 80% tax on all income in excess of $1 million earned by lobbying. Or the Ambulance Chaser Tax, an 80% levy on all lawyer contingent fee income in excess of 10% of a recovery. (That one would provoke howling from coast to coast, from one of the Democrats’ prime constituencies.)
Seriously, I think that Hinderaker is on to something here. None of the folks these taxes would hit are job creators (unless you count the gardeners, maids and other servants for the film stars in that.)
No comments:
Post a Comment