Even though it’s from CNN’s web page. It a constributors opinion. But it’s a classic opinion of liberals. With Dem Candidate Bloomberg set to spend Billions this election season . . . a liberal professor in California (he’ll be passing his thoughts on to impressionaable college kids) says he’s actually spending tax payers money.
The public is effectively picking up at least 40% of the tab for Bloomberg’s massively financed run.
Now how does the liberal professor come to this conclusion?
A presidential run can be one heck of a binge. If Bloomberg ends up putting in $5 billion, for example – a number not unrealistic given his spending to date – that could potentially save the Bloomberg estate $2 billion in estate taxes. In effect, we would all ultimately be paying in part for the mayor’s ride.
That’s right! By Bloomberg spending HIS money, it will eventually mean less money for tax payers! He’s spending money that should partially go to the government!
Then he Professor doubles down:
Now, in fact, Mayor Bloomberg has signed a giving pledge, promising to give the vast bulk of his wealth “to support organizations that will make a better world.” And he has been a generous donor to many charities.
Most of his money wouldn’t be subject to the estate tax by doing this. So what does that mean?
. . . the fact that he’s splurging on his campaign is costing the charities dearly.
The charities will never see any of the spent money. So when Bloomberg spends $5 billion to run for president, we the people lose either $2 billion in tax revenues or $5 billion in public charity.
A rich person spending THEIR money . . . hurts either tax payers or charritys.
This guy is teaching people . . . this is the crap that many liberal professors are pounding into the heads of our kids daily!
I said the crap MANY LIBERAL professors are putting into college kids heads.
Just a coincidence then that so many college kids back Sanders and other liberals who want to give stuff for free and make the evil rich pay for it. Right?
How many do you believe are liberal and spreading this message?
Nah maybe not a coincidence… college educated tend to lean toward liberal. However it doesn’t mean they are being taught liberalism. The main goal of college is increasing critical thinking. It’s possible that critical thinking tends to produce people who see liberalism (progressive) as a righteous cause.
Then this (by him spending HIS money now, we won’t get it later) leads us into the wealth tax where they want to confiscate it now so they can spend it now.
The key here is “college kids.” We don’t call them college men, or women for a reason. They don’t have any grown up responsibilities. They pay no bills, very few taxes, they don’t own property, they live in a world of theory pushed by elitist professors who do not value freedom of thought. College messes them up pretty good. Hopefully by the time they reach 35 they figure out that NOTHING is free. It all comes with a price.
I think the exercise here is simply giving an example of stupidity – and in this case, stupidity in a person who has dangerous influence in the shaping of our next generation.
Quoting libs from this board elsewhere would be to give examples of how professors with dangerous influence have succeeded.
And vagely hints that 90% top marginal rate wouldn’t hurt. He’s still have his 5 billion to run for officer (but nothing left after that).
Contrast this with a progressive spending tax, a tax system touted by Gates, among many others. Under a spending tax with marginal rates of 90%, say, as the income tax had for decades, Mayor Bloomberg could still spend $5 billion running for President. But he would have to pay $45 billion in taxes – 90% of $50 billion, leaving $5 billion to spend – for the privilege of doing so. This is why I have argued in more formal academic work that a progressive spending tax might indeed be the last best hope for campaign finance reform.
Our current tax system encourages our growing number of billionaires to spend it all, now, on any whim or fancy. That’s crazy. Maybe it’s time to get a tax system that lets billionaires be billionaires, but that charges them an appropriately hefty fee when they binge on personal spending. If we don’t, we can expect many more “self-financed” campaigns of all sorts, not just Mike’s.
He’s right about the facts he states (sort of - he doesn’t account for cash growth through investment of that $5bb) , but he ignores others and comes to the wrong conclusion.
The consumption multiplier is higher than the government expenditure multiplier, so spending $5bb on an election is economically superior than being taxed $2bb when he dies. Additionally, the people he pays owe corporate taxes as well, so in addition to the money that sign makers and meme farmers and video editors make will be spent or reinvested, they’ll be paying a portion of that as taxes.
So the op-ed is factually correct, but limited, and thus arrives at a suspect conclusion.
