Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
We shall see.
The Bush tax cuts combined reasonable measures, such as cutting the estate tax, with some unproductive ones. The dividend rate cut was economically rational but probably not a great idea, politically or financially.
Raising cap gains rates is economically counterproductive and basically an exercise in vindictiveness. Ditto raising marginal rates.
There is a "fairness" issue out there however, and it concerns executive compensation. Plenty of people, myself among them, are outraged over the level of CEO compensation. It represents an enormous failure of corporate governance. The SEC should have dealt with it but didn't. Perhaps Obama's SEC appointees can get a handle on it, but I'm not very optimistic. There are too many conflicts of interest.
Please, no lectures on how desperately important it is to incentivize these incredible leaders. If Joe Sixpack can get his sorry ass out of bed in the mroning to work on the factory floor, the friggin' CEO should be able to do the same. Leadership by example is the most effective. Also, can we dispense with the argument about how "that's the market" and you have to offer these packages to get the "right" CEO. Would Home Depot really have been that much worse off if they didn't snag Bob $200 mill Nardelli? Would Fannie Mae have done worse if Obama pal Franklin Raines didn't take down 90 mill?
I don't have a problem with imposing a punitive rate, and by that I mean something really high, on executive compensation above some arbitrary figure. It wouldn't bother me all that much if it applied to entertainers and pro athletes as well. Myabe a 50% marginal rate on ordinary income in excess of $10 mill a year and a 75% rate on over $20mill.
As long as we are going to enshrine class envy and hate the rich as national policies, I see no reason we all can't play along. This is my proposal.