The Tax That Turned Ronald Reagan Right

from Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality:




The Tax That Turned Ronald Reagan Right
January 29, 2011

With the centennial of our 40th President’s birth fast approaching, how about a shout-out for the soak-the-rich tax rates that he so despised — and more civic-minded Hollywood stars so enthusiastically embraced.

By Sam Pizzigati


Did Ronald Reagan change history? Well, we all change history in our own way. The more interesting question: What changed Ronald Reagan?

What changed the labor advocate — with enough street cred to get elected president of Hollywood’s actors union — into a labor basher extraordinaire? What turned Reagan the standard-issue New Deal Democrat into the 20th century’s premiere pusher for almost entirely unrestrained “free enterprise”?

The answer? According to Reagan himself, the federal income tax — specifically the over 90 percent top rate on top-bracket income that went into effect during World War II — changed Ronald Reagan. That tax levy absolutely incensed the amiable actor.



At his Hollywood height, actor Ronnie Reagan was making $400,000 per picture. With the top federal tax rate over 90 percent, Reagan used to tell his White House chief of staff Donald Regan, he always chose to “loaf” around rather than make more than two pictures a year.

“Why should I have done a third picture, even if it was Gone with the Wind?” Regan remembers Reagan asking. “What good would it have done me?” ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://toomuchonline.org/the-tax-that-turned-ronald-reagan-right/

That's the root of the problem with Republicans...selfishness and greed. No artist I know would ever base their art on a tax rate. Your art is the benefit, not a lower tax rate. We all know artists who have dozens of unsold paintings, yet they continue to create new works. Why? Goodness, what if these paintings SELL? I'll be *gasp* TAXED on them!!

Bullshit on Reagan. This just further proves what a total sham the was, to his very core.

that $40,000 is more than a year's wages for probably 50% of the workers. Or if someone had been fast on their feet they could had said that was about twice what at least 50% of the workers earned when he ran for President.

blown chunks with Bonzo's side kick in it.

Instead of a classic it would have been a dud.

There is no evidence that Reagan was considered for a lead role in the movie.

Clark Gable was the favorite for Rhett Butler from the beginning. The only others considered were Gary Cooper and Errol Flynn.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_%28film%29

I suspect Reagan took the roles he could get, his fantasizing about "Gone With the Wind" not withstanding.

so *HE* didn't make a THIRD film in a year because his marginal tax rate after making TWO films was 90%.

that doesn't mean that that third film didn't get made, it just got made with someone else. most likely, it was someone else's SECOND or even FIRST film that year. it's not like there's room in hollywood for twice as many movies if only the marginal tax rate were lower.

plus, actors who appear in too many films risk losing their appeal. thus avoiding a third film in a year might actually make you more money in the long run by preserving your draw and longevity.

finally, the market for actors, specifically, is very different from most other markets, including the market for labor in general. once you have a name in hollywood, you are a rather unique good, and your pricing reflects that. many things you do on and off the camera can affect your market value. work takes many forms an compensation often doesn't reflect actual effort or achievement. note how many lousy actors struck it rich by lucking into the right role.

that he applied conclusions drawn from an unusual career and applied it to an entire economy demonstrates that he was never more than a dangerous simpleton.