MY PROPOSAL TO REPEAL THE HOLLYWOOD TAX CUTS gets more attention.

UPDATE: Reader Philip Zanco writes:

Great op-ed on taxing the “rich.” I’ve been saying the same thing for years, but no one seems to pay attention. Let me suggest a few more items:

1. Eliminating the charitable deduction for all estates exceeding $500 million in gross value (Buffett, Gates)
2. Since salaries in excess of $1 million to executives are not deductible, extend this same provision to businesses paying such sums for television and motion picture acting, directing, and production. Extend the same provision to the music industry royalties, etc. (Geffen, Redstone, Spielberg, and a host of other left-coast lefties).
3. Keep the pre-Bush cut tax rates (possibly even raise them) on executives who led firms that either took TARP money in excess of $75 million or invested significant sums of money in special debt instruments or shares of firms that took TARP money, or who were paid significant bonus moneys from TARP firms during the periods immediately before they took funds from the U.S. (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Citibank, JP Morgan, etc.) Make these provisions also applicable to capital gains.
4. Excise tax on all premium television transmissions in excess of 2nd tier cable or satellite packages (HBO, Showtime, etc.) Make the tax non-deductible for income taxes.
5. Extending the corporate accumulated earnings tax to all non-profits having cash, investments, and securities in excess of $500 million (Ford foundation, Pew Foundation, Harvard, Yale, etc).

I could have fabulous fun with this, while reinforcing a teachable moment that taxes enacted have real economic consequences – perhaps prompting discovery of the fact that pulling on someone’s hair really does hurt.

We can hope…

MORE: Reader Joseph Mooney writes:

Professor Reynolds: I read with interest your proposals to raise taxes and how it might especially hit Democratic constituencies. Here are a few more:

1. Quit putting off the full force and effect of the alternative minimum tax – this, of course, bites harder in States with high State and local property and income taxes as you’ve noted. I don’t really favor this, however, because the whole AMT idea is misbegotten – we should have one income tax that taxes income. We should lower rates and do away with the deduction for such taxes.

2. Repeal the long standing exclusion from income accorded interest on State and municipal bonds. This would need to be prospective and it would also sweep away the industrial bond issues that allow favored businesses to trade upon this tax exemption. Furthermore, it would also reduce a source of corruption in our State and local governments, e.g., “pay to play.” It would hit the high tax-spend-borrow jurisdictions which, presently, gain at the expense of the low tax-spend-borrow jurisdictions. It also would have the political virtue of being something that could be advertised as hitting very high bracket taxpayers and banks hardest — and low income taxpayers not at all. Presently when we see estimates of the income and taxes paid by the “rich” – the implicit tax in the lowered interest rate on such bonds is both excluded from the income estimate and from the tax rate as well. I thought one very notable thing about Romney’s one disclosed return was that he seemed, as I recall, to have had no reported interest income of this kind. For the rich who might object, one could argue back that their taxes weren’t being raised unless they were too chicken to take a chance on America by investing in stocks, small business etc. [as Romney seemingly has].

3. As far as limiting the home mortgage interest deduction, I agree. The higher housing costs in certain places are often the choice of the governments there. They create those astronomical housing markets via zoning laws, their choices regarding union shop vs. right to work etc. Once they make such choices, they should not be able to export the costs of those choices to other regions.

Well, it’s amazing what people think of once the subject is opened. . . .