Video: ‘Tax Kim Kardashian’ Campaign Highlights The Need For A ‘Millionaires Tax’

If you think Kim Kardashian‘s mere existence seems like an excellent case for the concept of wealth redistribution, you’re not alone.

Some California supporters of the “millionaires tax” (which would slightly increase tax rates for those making over $1 million/year) has made a video of everyone’s favorite famous-for-nothing millionaire engaging in various types of shameless consumption over a damning techno soundtrack. The beginning quote about all the swag she gets is particularly barf inducing.

Kim Kardashian, it explains, makes $12 million a year, but is taxed at pretty much the same rate as someone making $47,000/year. And on top of that, she gets a ton of nice things for free! Meanwhile, state budget cuts are affecting important basic services like schools, senior centers, and emergency response. In light of this information, the question “Don’t you think she could pay a little more?” seems rhetorical.

This is all well and good, but why stop there? In addition to the fairly reasonable millionaires tax, I propose an “asshole tax” that will fine Kim Kardashian $100,000 for each heinously stupid thing she says and/or does. Every school would have a planetarium in no time.

(Via Styleite, )

Share This Post:
    • Angee

      Agreed, 100%. Long live public school music programs!

    • Avodah

      Jamie- please keeping writing about your STDs and less about economics. It seems as if you have very little background in supply-side theory.

      On a related note- California has budget cuts because the state (like the entire country as well as individual states) is badly in debt. I love school music too. However, not at the expense of the economic well-being of our country which will one day deeply affect the children IN said school music programs. My God your “journalism” sucks horribly.

      • Sam

        Please ‘keeping’ studying grammar.

      • Jamie Peck

        I could link you to a ton of evidence showing that lowering taxes on the wealthy does not actually lead to more jobs or make regular people’s lives substantially better. Instead I will just say U MAD! and leave it at that. Also, it’s kind of embarrassing how much you love me.

    • Avodah

      Sam,

      I offer my sincerest apologies to you, and anyone else, who had to read my egregious typographical error. It was careless, and I only hope it will not happen again.

      However, I would gently add- it was a mistake. I am, in fact, familiar with basic English grammar and syntax. Unfortunately, Jamie is not familiar with the basics of most economic theories (supply sideist, Keynesian or others).

      If you don’t mind- I’d much prefer to discuss the ideas (or lack thereof) in Jamie’s “article” rather than my typo.

      • Sam

        Chill. It’s a blog. If you want an article on correct economic theories go to another website.

      • Angee

        Wow. You really know so much more than everyone talking about this post. You must be some kind of economic expert.

        Why not actually write something substantial about the economy, instead of just saying the country’s in debt?

        Also, ‘school music’ isn’t a term.

      • Avodah

        No, I am not an expert. @Angee- Unfortunately, the national debt and state debts are enormous problems. When there are large debts it deeply affects interest rates which, in turn, affect the stockmarket. Even if you despise Wall Street, companies traded on the stock exchange employ countless numbers of people (from janitors to CEOs).

        There are more problems including, but not limited to collective bargaining and labor unions, government spending, and lastly, a completely back-logged, overly complicated tax system. It would be impossible to address all of these in one response.

        Jamie’s “article” and comment regarding possible tax solutions for people whose income is over 1 million dollars per year fails to address many of the complexities facing the state of California and our country today. Merely taxing those who Kim Kardashian thinks are rich will take money away from the entrepreneurial endeavors that create jobs, products and services. In my opinion, the jobs, products and services created by the private sector have far more benefits than anything the government can provide.

        I don’t expect Jamie to explain theory (duh). However, I do expect her writing to be rooted in facts or knowledge. Unfortunately, it seems to be opinion and whatever she jotted down in 5 minutes.

        I didn’t have time to proofread this. But I think you can get the idea.

        P.S.
        I thought school music was a two-noun construct referring to music that is in and/or of a school or related to the teaching or creation of music in schools. What is the correct term?

    • Avodah

      Can you please show me that information? What economics department published it?

    • K

      “Merely taxing those who Kim Kardashian thinks are rich will take money away from the entrepreneurial endeavors that create jobs, products and services. In my opinion, the jobs, products and services created by the private sector have far more benefits than anything the government can provide.” – Avodah

      I’m having trouble with a couple of things here. Forgive me, I’ve taken 3 economics courses so far in college, so I’m not an economist.

      First, I’m assuming “taxing those who [Kim K.] thinks are rich” is another typo because I did not see that anywhere nor was it implied. No one wants KK to “think” anything aloud let alone make tax decisions for our country.

      Also – and again correct me if I’m wrong – but usually those “job-creators” in the private sector have a salary separate from profits their businesses generate. Meaning, their personal income obviously come from their business but they are not heavily intertwined – the business is financially its own entity. I think it would be questionable if an business owner thought that a slight increase in taxes on their personal income – not on their businesses’ profits – would significantly affect an established business. Unless you’re on the Real Housewives…

      Let’s say you’re bringing home $1 million+ (in yearly salary) from your own business(es), which is generating its own profits to sustain itself. Would taxing that personal income a little more really affect your business practices… or just your household spending practices (and only slightly at that)? Would you really, say, lay people off at your company for that? I would think for an ethical person, the answer would be no.

      • Avodah

        K, great questions. I don’t think that taxing personal income necessarily always affects businesses owned by individual people. Rather, I think it affects how much people invest in publicly traded companies. However, this is not to be confused with capital gains taxes.

        I believe you are referring to small business rather than large publicly traded companies which is another matter entirely. Nonetheless, personal income and business ownership are usually deeply intertwined.

        I don’t own a small business, but if my balance sheets said I need to save money I would seriously consider letting a few employees go.

        Lastly, no it was not a typo. I really think Ms. Peck’s article insinuates that Kim Kardashian offers great tax policy advice.

        I think I, as well as many other supply-side sympathetic people, see the world quite differently than you.

      • Alex

        Your making the assumption that a millionaire works for a corporation. However, if they are a business owner of a company that has a sole proprietorship or a general partner of a limited liabilities corporation, then their personal assets are actually included in the business liabilities. So while their salaries might be de jure separate from their company, in reality their business profits directly effect their personal wealth. For instance, if a business with a sole proprietorship goes under or becomes less than profitable, then the owner is required to pay his personal assets to debters. So if significant taxes were to affect a person, it could very easily affect their business as well

    • Avodah

      @Alex- I wasn’t assuming they work for one thing or another. I was just giving an example of a person who may invest part of his earnings and how that would be affected by higher taxes.

      As for your assessment of K’s answer- I don’t know why he or she thinks peoples’ personal wealth is so separate from their business.

    • MR

      I realize I’m coming in late on this debate. Missed it by accident, and then I was traveling the last week. Sorry Adovah, supply-side economics is a failed economic theory. Reaganomics and its massive tax cuts for the rich in the early ’80s proved this. The Federal budget deficit balloned – while supply-siders said the US economy would grow fast enough to make up for the loss in Federal tax revenues created by the tax cut. It didn’t. Now that all said the rich save more than the middle class, because they have too much income and can’t spend it all. Saving drives investment and investment job creation. It makes sense to tax the rich more when the economy is growing and saving is also growing, cause the income growth of the economy can then be redistributed away from the rich at a time when jobs are also being created. That’s kind of what Clinton did, but he got extra juice from the tech boom during the ’90s.

      • MR

        PS. @Avodah – sorry I inversed two letters in your name. Yeah I’m sloppy on the typekeys a lot of the time.