Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Stick it to blue states a/k/a Country First

Stick it to blue states a/k/a Country First

High state income and property tax states like California, New York, and Illinois are automatic wins for Democrats, giving them a built-in electoral college advantage.

And they stuck it to the rest of us.

So it’s time for payback not out of vindictiveness, but in the interest of fairness, as suggested by John Haywood at Human Events, channeling  Prof. Glenn Reynolds, Taxing Big Blue:

So if Boehner and his team are going to put some tax increases on the table, perhaps by eliminating deductions more than raising rates, they should learn from past mistakes a drive a truly hard bargain….

And let’s hope the Speaker and the rest of the Republican negotiators are smart enough to propose revenue increases that will hurt liberals the most. Start by taxing the ever-loving crap out of Hollywood. I’ve suggested this before, and the esteemed Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, was on the same wavelength last August when he suggested bringing back the 20 percent excise tax on motion picture gross revenue from the 1950s….

Capping the mortgage interest deduction at $250,000, for example, would hurt those rich blue enclaves with high property values – 8 of the 10 richest counties in America voted for Barack Obama in 2012. Taxing trust funds and hoards of foundation money would hurt the Left, as outside of Hollywood, rich liberals are more likely to be sitting on piles of inherited assets, while conservative millionaires tend to be actively generating and re-investing income. Ending the federal tax deductions for state and local taxes – an idea prominently advocated by Newt Gingrich during the Republican primary – would end the practice of federal taxpayers subsidizing the government greed of those big-spending blue states. It’s actually a form of inter-state redistribution as it stands, so let’s do away with it.

Mind you, I am pure on this issue.  I live in two Democratic blue states, Rhode Island and New York.

I want you to tax the crap out of the blue states in which I live because I put country ahead of personal fortune.  Not because I want to hear my tax-loving liberal neighbors squeal like stuck pigs.  I’m better than that.

Country first.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Let’s go further – the wealthy voted for Obama in greater numbers. Let’s not just tax the income earners, but bring back property taxes. A lot of the wealthy don’t earn much income compared to their wealth.

    A bit of an addendum: I don’t mean real estate. That’s only a fraction of what I mean by property. I mean everything: coins, antiques, cars, furniture, real estate, holdings and assets of every stripe – a person’s entire net worth. Tax it all. Say, to begin with, 1%? What would that do?

      WesBEnterprise in reply to beatcanvas. | November 13, 2012 at 3:15 pm

      I assume you mean other than investment in stocks, bonds, and income-producing real estate?

        I mean tax their wealth – every asset. If your total assessed property is worth $1 million, then you owe $10,000 for it.

        If they want taxes, and if taxing the wealthy is cool, then tax the wealth of the wealthy. Every bit of it.

      Sanddog in reply to beatcanvas. | November 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm

      My county taxes our business every year based on furniture, office equipment, buildings, etc… Can you imagine the uproar if the Fed decided that was a good way to increase revenue on the backs of “millionaires”? As much as I’d like to stick it to the left, I can’t imagine requiring individuals to fill out tax forms listing each and every personal possession.

Lets not let the Liberal Professional Sports Millionaires off the hook either.

Oh dear, I’m torn. As a Californian my only joy election night was that my increased state tax would slightly lessen my federal taxes and that was a delight when having to cope with Obama again.

Absolutely not, I live in a blue state, and I don’t want to make the dems squeal because it means I will squeal too!!!!

Hi, I’m from California, and I say, “Country First!”

I can see the ad right now … the actor would be standing in front of the Hollywood sign.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to LukeHandCool. | November 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    I’m with you. Country First!

    stevewhitemd in reply to LukeHandCool. | November 13, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Hi, I’m from Illinois and I also say, ‘Country First!’

    1) raise taxes on public transit and taxis. Put a tax on bus and train tokens. If suburbanites have to pay a gas tax, urbanites pay a transit tax.

    2) limit the mortgage deduction to the interest paid on a house that is 1 standard deviation above the median sale price of a house in the U.S. If the median is $250K and 1 SD from that is $350K, and the interest (these days) on a standard 80% mortgage is $12K, that’s the limit. The interest on your house in San Francisco is $40K? Too bad, sucker.

    Sure, it sounds complicated, but the whole damned tax code is complicated — I certainly can’t make it any worse!

    3) put a small tax on fees paid for abortions, and use the revenue to provide contraceptives for the poor. Call it the ‘Fluke tax’.

    4) tax all income generated by incorporated NGO trust funds at the current capital gains rate. That’ll make Obama think about raising that one.

    5) tax investment income in college endowments at the current capital gains rate.

    6) eliminate the ability of wealthy people to put money into a tax-free trust in the first place. Mr. Buffett, when you die we the people tax your entire estate.

    7) the ‘Hollywood tax’ is a good start but Instapundit is too modest. Put a 20% excise tax on everything, everything from Ho’wood, Motown, Nashville, and Broadway. Plus broadcasters, be they over the air, satellite, or cable, pay a yearly excise fee equal to 5% of their revenues (regardless of net profits). Professional sports channels pay 10%.

    8) the NC Mountain Girl (12:57 pm) tax on excess holdings in a charity is a GREAT idea.

    9) per Sally Paradise, a “Bling Tax”. Obvious.

    10) Starbucks tax — tax any coffee over $1 a cup. Venti, grande, etc., and definitely anything that sounds Italian or has whipped cream in or on it. Fella can’t grab a damned cup o’ joe these days.

    Jack The Ripper in reply to LukeHandCool. | November 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    Would you be willing to move to a Red State?

Let’s see: on the one side you have Boehner–the epitome of the go along to get along DC insider RINO. On the other–Obama with the wind at his back, no elections to face and learned last time how to rule by edict.

Chicago style versus weak knees.

Somehow, I don’t see this coming out well.

Vindictiveness is reason enough for me. And the Republicans would do well to learn a little themselves. They’ve taken studious dispassion to unnatural extremes from which one can only surmise total self-loathing and fear. What did Harry Reid veritably declare after George Bush won re-election? Revenge. And the Left went on to win two elections.

    jdkchem in reply to raven. | November 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Exactly. What has being better than them gotten us? When they squeal ask them what they have against being patriotic.

First we need to draft Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House. Then, he uses “fairness”, “fair share”,”Economic Equality/Justice”, “…at some point they’ve earned enough” in every argument for raising taxes on the rich. Rich Dems, that is.

In fact, whatever percentage the Dems proposes to tax The RIch, GOP counters with: “Let’s make it 100%, just to be sure. Now, that 100% amount actually covers almost none of the budget for this year…so what’s the rest of your plan, Mr. President?”

Call them on everything, increase every percentage they propose, make them completely accountable.

Mind blowing election fact:

The last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket was 1928.

    PookyBear in reply to Syd B.. | November 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    You’ve never heard of Ronald Reagan?

    So that’s the solution? Get Jeb to run, then his son George P to run two or three cycles after his father? And look to the Eisenhower/Nixon grandchildren and great-grandchildren?

    At least Romney was somewhat of a breath of fresh air. I’m sorry, but the Republicans should back away this political nepotism. (Does anyone not think that one of Romney’s son’s might have entered politics?)

    Palin was the chance to break the Republican patriarchy. The Republicans need fresh blood, not blue blood. I pray she returns to state and electoral politics.

legacyrepublican | November 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm

My response is …

1. No State Income Tax deduction — YES!!!
2. No Property Tax deduction above $250,000 — Hard to do
Better yet … No Property Tax deduction — YES!!!
3. 20% excise tax on Hollywood — Yippieeeee!!!!
4. Tax trust funds. — No and Yes

Although this sounds like a great idea, the truth is
that every trust fund is individual. Some are set up
for an incompetent child with Downs or whatever. You
don’t want to harm them.

There is a way around this that works.

A far better choice for this one is to tax principal
distributions as ordinary income. Currently, this is not
the case. I guarantee you this would have far better
result than taxing income.

For someone who has Downs or a medical condition, this
would have no tax implications. But for a partier and
bon vivant, it would hurt them badly. It would result in
the trust funds retaining their wealth. And if you hate
the idea of destroying wealth through a death tax like I
do, this is the best solution.

In theory, the Alt Min Tax was supposed to do this, but
I like my solution better.

    WesBEnterprise in reply to legacyrepublican. | November 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    What is the problem with a trust fund? All it is is a vehicle to manage money, as opposed to outright gifting. To me, it is no different from an estate transfer/gift, and you say you disagree with the death tax (as do I).

    The wealth has been created and taxed already. Why go after t trusts?

    I am more inclined to taxing the extravagant lifestyles like you mentioned, to get the high-riding left back. There are plenty of wealth conservatives who are fiscally sound and enjoy creating wealth, for themselves and others. That should not be forgotten.

      I believe the point here isn’t to tax ALL trusts, it’s to tax those trusts that maintain assets out of proportion to their stated purpose.

      Case in point: the Harvard endowment.

@imfine Your reasoning is part of the problem. One of the reasons the up-to-age-26 coverage on parents’ plans before full implementation and before mass revolt, was to get people who are against it (conservatives and/or Republicans) used to having it and then not want to let go of it. These people won’t go NONCOMPLIANT because they will be hit more in the pocketbook….like you on this issue of no longer giving state tax federal tax breaks. Get up and MOVE from a commie state and move to one that is trying to stay American. There is no reason to stay a slave, and certainly no reason to stay as you look at yourself and realize you will go along with the flow if you can be bought. NONCOMPLIANCE, in the short run, is costly. In the long run it is the difference between FREE and SLAVE.

    imfine in reply to Canusee. | November 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Well my reasoning may be self serving, but realistically you can’t allow businesses to deduct interest and taxes as income deductible and not allow people to do so, because then the business will simply become a vastly more efficient holder of capital. You will push everyone out of homes to become renters and business will start hoarding all the capital. That does not sound like a solution to me.

Let’s be good, sporting losers and make sure they get what they wished for.

As one great man might say:

“It’s the best revenge.”

John Boehner won’t do any of those things you’ve suggested. It is a “wish list” in the purest sense of the term.

I think there is a better approach. Just vote “present” on everything. That way, the Dems will own it, pure and simple.

Tax Hollywood BIG that they squeal like pigs. What they are producing are garbage anyway. No sympathy there.

Yes, I like the Prof’s idea.

Don’t get mad… Just get even!

NC Mountain Girl | November 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm

Two can play the class warfare resentment gain. How many people realize Harvard as an endowment of $30 billion and still aggressively solicits donations?

Look at what has been accumulated in private foundations. Gates has $37 billion. Private foundations are the exception to our system of property and inheritance laws prohibiting people from tying u their wealth in perpetuity after they are gone. Consider that the Carnegie Foundation- assets $3 billion- is now 100 years old and started with $125 million. Obviously the current provisions requiring foundations expend a certain percentage of their assets in pursuit of the exempt purpose isn’t working to limit the size and duration of these entities. These foundations almost always get hijacked by the left. They answer to no one because their boards select their own replacements. Strictly limit their creation going forward. Slap excise taxes on the existing ones to give them all a big haircut. Increase the amounts they are mandated to spend, strictly limit what they can spend it on(no more charity for the affluent) and force them to wind down within a give period, say a term of years after the founder’s death.

Make public charities transparent. Currently they have to send donor letters to everyone who gives over a certain dollar amount. Make them also send out an audited financial statement with the letter. Corporations can’t raise public capital without a prospectus. For donations over a certain threshold – say $5,000- make acceptance of the donation by the charity contingent upon the donor’s acknowledged receipt of the financial statements. Then establish some limits on the hoarding of assets. C-Corporations are assessed an excise tax if they accumulate assets in excess of certain working capital requirements and documented expansion plans. S Corporations are charged a tax at the corporate level if they have excess dividend and interest income. Establish a multiple. Make the public charity pay an confiscatory excess tax on any endowment that exceeds X times their annual spending unless the board has outlined, approved and is regularly updating/implementing expansion plans.

I am very poor.
I HATE hearing all the class warfare evil rich people talk.
I suggest taxing the hell out of anything over 100k for people with 2-3 kids and 60K for family of 2.
tax the living hell out anything above that.

you see being rich is all relative. people making almost 3x what I do are rich to me.
funny no libs agree with MY break point figures.

There should also be a huge Luxury tax on the bling worn by the Housewives of Orange County and of Beverly Hills and of New York…and by Jay-Z.

don't tread 2012 | November 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H.L. Mencken

Make ’em squeal.

You want fair? You want “economic patriotism?” Here you go!
No more Federal deductions for state income tax. You want to live in California, or NY, or DC? Good. Pay me.

Mortgage deduction gone after $250,000. You want an apartment on the Upper West Side? Pay me.

You’re a “non-profit,” or tax-exempt? Not any more. 10% of holdings, then 35% of anything you take in. Bet Cambridge, MA would love a piece of Harvard’s $30 billion endowment. PAy me.

You work in Hollywood? How nice. 10% excise tax on the gross (not the net – we know about Hollywood accounting). Unfair? Not at all! Medical device manufacturers pay 3% – and they actually make something useful.

We can do this all day.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to orthodoc. | November 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Regulate them to death, too. Transparency, babe. Let’s make the colleges and universities open up their books to the parents of prospective students. Make them justify the tuition increases while hoarding huge endowments. Make public charities send out audited financial statements to potential donors before they can accept for than a certain amount from any one individual. Don’t let the likes of a Morris Dees plead dire poverty in his solicitations while drawing an obscene salary and sitting on a huge endowment.

    The CEOs in the profit sector who tired to operate in the manner of the not for profit sector would be in jail.


In theory, yes. In principle, heck no. This would be a tax on Responsible people, in order to pay for Irresponsible people. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will always be very popular for Paul, but Dude! It’s still robbery. (Yes, I know this is a “Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander” post, but I can’t support Class Warfare even against really detestable people.)

    orthodoc in reply to georgfelis. | November 13, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    “This would be a tax on Responsible people, in order to pay for Irresponsible people.”

    Nope, sorry. Responsible people do not insist on other people paying through the nose for their goodies. If you live in a high tax state, with all the “services” that you constantly brag about, then pay for them. Don’t ask me to subsidize your high-rent non-profit life.


Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

As a New Jersey resident I’m in full favor of every one of Professor Jacobson’s ideas: limit mortgage interest deductions, cap personal deductions, eliminate Federal deductions for state and local taxes paid. If we can’t get tax reform intelligently we will get it by giving the Democrats what they say they want, higher taxes.

I continually remind myself of yet another great Churchill aphorism, “The Americans will always do the right thing… after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.”

We will get tax reform, and spending reform, but evidently it won’t be the easy way.

Force them to live off “green” energy. The environmental and human impact alone will cause them to reconsider their uninformed policies. They will also have to make do with the irregular and low density power output from windmills and solar panels. The principal “green” technologies cannot be reasonably isolated from the environment, and their advocates should not be permitted to dissociate from the risk they entail. The Chinese will not forever suffer the consequences of individuals who dream of instant gratification without perceived consequences.

Well, this is a place to start; but, we should also discuss other “well-intentioned” policies which sponsor progressive corruption of individuals and institutions.

Oh, and pro-choice and pro-abortion are a human rights violation. It was a violation under the name of eugenics, it was a violation under cover of “Roe vs Wade”, it is a violation under the euphemistic, unilateral pronouncement of “reproductive rights”. Women, and men, do have a choice, and it does not include the elective termination of developing human life for reasons of personal welfare or livelihood. That policy simply results in a progressive devaluation of human life.

No Dark Things | November 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm

I’m in California and willing to do my part for country AND so I can say to my friends and family (sometimes it feels like I’m the only Republican in Los Angeles) “I told you so”.

    No Dark. There is a Republican in Los Angeles? I thought it was all Democrats and further left–mostly further left.

    I get a call every now and then from someone claiming to be from the CA GOP. I tell them it is a dead give away crank call–there hasn’t been a CA GOP in years. Yes, I hear there is a group that meets on Th nights in a basement in Ukiah, but that really doesn’t count.

      No Dark Things in reply to lichau. | November 13, 2012 at 5:20 pm

      Not sure how much longer I can hold out. I fear sometime soon I’ll be having conversations advocating “social justice” and getting the rich to “pay their fair share”.

“Not because I want to hear my tax-loving liberal neighbors squeal like stuck pigs. I’m better than that.”

I’m not. As a Californian, I say – tax us until we bleed.

I hope the rest of America’s citizens in our remaining 55 states figure out what to do with us when our state decides to declare bankruptcy. Personally, I vote for spilling us up so we don’t have 55 electoral votes to give to the Democrats.

You’re right. Don’t do it for vindictiveness. Do it for revenge.

“I want you to tax the crap out of the blue states in which I live because I put country ahead of personal fortune. Not because I want to hear my tax-loving liberal neighbors squeal like stuck pigs. I’m better than that.”

Just because you’re better than that does not mean you can’t enjoy it!

SoCA Conservative Mom | November 13, 2012 at 6:16 pm

The day after the election I almost posted something about give Dems everything they want. When they propose 10% tax increases, counter with 20%. Make them own it. Then I got to thinking. Here’s the problem, Dems don’t pay taxes. 🙂 I’ve always thought part of the reason the tax code is so complicated is that those who write it never worry about using it.

I don’t want people to squeal. Can’t we just tax the unions? That would seem to me to be a win-win situation.

[…] – that would hurt blue state political machines and liberal institutions the most. (Read More)William Jacobson is on board, even though like myself, he resides in a blue state. (Actually, two blue states, but whose […]

Calif just started the Selling of Exhaust gas amounts for credits. Just nuts..,don’t feel smug. It will spread across the country and the USA will be bailing out California to the tune of $500,000,000 per state!
Also the state Atty Gen, on the short list to be on the US Supreme court, was going to work with a Mortgage co to remeve mortages from the brorower and strip off the mortgage, A new mortgage wouldbe crated that would beless
and tie into the current value of the property. The old mortgae would be packaged to be sold off as a mortgage backed security (!)
Hasn’t gotten avote yet. But sincethe Dems have a super majority in both houses-=should happen soon. Tip:don’t buy them!

Jack The Ripper | November 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm

From an article in The Economist or WSJ a few years ago, it is my understanding that the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) already hoists Blue State Liberals on their own petards, but only the wealthy ones. It caps the deduction for state and local property taxes.

Raising tax rates hurt highly paid and hopefully productive wage earners and small business owners. I suggest taxing dividend income as ordinary income while making dividends tax deductible to companies. This should not hurt businesses and might stimulate the economy by increasing dividends to avoid corporate taxes and even repatriating foreign earnings parked overseas. Moving the tax burden from corporations to the individual stock owner should be almost revenue neutral. Only wealthy investors would be negatively impacted.

Let individual continue to claim the same deductions but either cap the total amount they can claim or limit the rate of refund for deductions to middle class tax margins, say 15 or 20%.

[…] Stick it to blue states a/k/a Country First: […]

Um, blue states already subsidize red states.
(Based on 2005 figures.)