ONTD Political

Kim Kardashian targeted by California tax campaign

12:09 am - 01/05/2012


Kim Kardashian is the target of a campaign asking Californians to support a proposed ballot initiative to raise taxes on its wealthiest residents.





An online video from the Courage Campaign, reports AP, singles out Kim, showing her saying that "being on TV has changed my life, because you get lots of free stuff."

The video says Kardashian made $12 million in 2010 but paid just 1 percentage point more in California income taxes than someone making $47,000 — 10.3% vs. 9.3%. "Don't you think she could pay a little more?" the ad asks as pictures of schoolchildren, firefighters and an elderly woman appear. "Especially to fund education and critical services?"

The campaign’s website says those numbers are “not OK, especially when budget cuts are decimating schools and critical programs for children, the elderly, and the disabled.”

Tax revenue to the state has dropped $17 billion since the recession began during the 2007-08 fiscal year, requiring billions of dollars a year in budget cuts.

The millionaires tax is one of several ballot proposals circulating in California seeking to increase income taxes on the wealthy as a way to help close the state’s annual budget deficit. In 2010, about 41,000 Californians reported adjusted gross income above $1 million, paying about $13.1 billion in taxes to the state, according to the Franchise Tax Board.

A proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown also seeks to raise taxes temporarily, and he has been reaching out to wealthy donors who could help finance his initiative campaign. The Democratic governor said he has found that most wealthy people are not too excited about increasing their own taxes, with some exceptions.

“I talked to Rob Reiner; he was very excited about paying more taxes,” the governor quipped last week. A spokesman for Reiner was not immediately available for comment Tuesday.

Through their reality TV shows and other promotions, Kim Kardashian, two of her sisters and their mother have created a celebrity brand name for themselves, appearing in endorsements for everything from weight-loss products to fast food. Forbes magazine estimated Kardashian made $12 million in 2010.

Kim Kardashian’s father, Robert Kardashian, was an attorney and close friend of O.J. Simpson who played a prominent role in his murder trial.

After a lavish, made-for-TV wedding event last summer that reportedly netted the couple millions of dollars in royalties, Kim Kardashian filed for divorce in October, citing irreconcilable differences just 10 weeks after she wed NBA player Kris Humphries.

The couple’s star-studded, black-tie ceremony was held at an exclusive canyon estate near Santa Barbara in the seaside enclave of Montecito. Kardashian wore three different designer wedding gowns, complemented by her 20.5 carat engagement ring. The couple’s wedding registry at a Beverly Hills jeweler totaled $172,000 and included such items as a $1,650 coffee pot and two $1,250 sterling silver vegetable spoons.

The one-minute Courage Campaign ad flashes pictures of Kim Kardashian in fur and jewels, then compares her 10.3 percent income tax rate with that of a “middle-class Californian” who makes $47,000 a year and pays 9.3 percent.


“Not everyone was born a Kardashian, but we all need to pay our fair share,” the video says.

“We are not judging Miss Kardashian, we are just making a very simple point,” Rick Jacobs, the chairman and founderof Courage Campaign. “It isn’t fair or appropriate for someone who makes that kind of money to pay the essentially the same tax rate as someone who makes $47,000 a year. It doesn’t make any sense.”

According to Jacobs, if Kardashian was taxed an extra 5 percent, she would still make over $10 million a year.

It’s been estimated that the Kardashian family collectively raked in $65 million in 2010.

Courage Campaign is a non-profit organization that was founded in 2006 and now has 750,000 members, based mainly in Los Angeles.


No response from the Kardashian camp.


source
astridmyrna 5th-Jan-2012 06:36 am (UTC)
The Democratic governor said he has found that most wealthy people are not too excited about increasing their own taxes...

Well, of course not. Why should the wealthy pay extra so that their poorer fellow Californians can afford higher education and a roof over their head during hard times? /still incredibly bitter at her "Democratic" governor and his austerity cuts

However, I think an idea for a campaign video would be her wedding and a price tag on everything there (including the sponsored items she got for free). Perhaps find a couple of items that would be the amount KK would have to pay in taxes and have it say "The cost of Dress #2 could keep the LAUSD well funded for a year" or "The cost of this hideous cake could fund X amount of food banks across the state."
littlelauren86 5th-Jan-2012 10:18 am (UTC)
However, I think an idea for a campaign video would be her wedding and a price tag on everything there (including the sponsored items she got for free). Perhaps find a couple of items that would be the amount KK would have to pay in taxes and have it say "The cost of Dress #2 could keep the LAUSD well funded for a year" or "The cost of this hideous cake could fund X amount of food banks across the state."

I definitely wouldn't mind seeing something like that. Though I'm sure in some circles they would just go around calling her a "job creator" or whatnot.
yilei 6th-Jan-2012 10:26 pm (UTC)
I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw this article.

It would have been nice if we would have been able to tax her entire wedding. Surely a percentage of that could have saved a couple of schools.
seasight 5th-Jan-2012 08:47 am (UTC)
Classy.
mschaos 5th-Jan-2012 04:09 pm (UTC)
don't you mean Klassy?
hinoema 5th-Jan-2012 10:05 am (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather address the culture of wage discrepancy, the poor labor laws and the privileges of corporate power that allow people like this to accumulate vast fortunes from the work of the vast majority of others, first.
skellington1 5th-Jan-2012 04:56 pm (UTC)
Except that changing culture and established law his harder than shifting a few bucks around. We definitely need to be working for greater wage equality and lower poverty, but in the mean time, people that rely on welfare programs are hurting, badly. A little redistribution would actually make a huge difference to a lot of people. There's nothing pointless about that.
kaowolfie 5th-Jan-2012 08:08 pm (UTC)
I... really, you know, we can redistribute their taxes into welfare programs while we work to reduce the problems that cause the need for those programs. It's really easy to raise taxes compared to solving problems like wage discrepancy, so it makes sense to use the increased rich people taxes as a stopgap measure while we work on the longer term solution.
kaowolfie 6th-Jan-2012 12:00 am (UTC)
I prefer to embrace multiple vectors for getting what we want, with some used short term and others for long term goals.
keeni84 5th-Jan-2012 01:29 pm (UTC)
Thank you.

atomic_joe2 5th-Jan-2012 10:48 am (UTC)
Just in, response from the Kardashian camp: "Tax? is that the name of a new rapper?"
fashionbabylon 5th-Jan-2012 11:43 am (UTC)
What a pointless campaign.
keeni84 5th-Jan-2012 01:33 pm (UTC)
So Kim Kardashian's personal spending habits and wedding have something to do with the failure of the Californian economic system?

I also hate how the article says she was "just" married for 10 weeks. Eugh, it's not your life people. Get over it.
angelofdeath275 5th-Jan-2012 01:33 pm (UTC)
So why not target a rich old white guy










Hmmmm.
maladaptive 5th-Jan-2012 02:17 pm (UTC)
Because rich women like Kim Kardashian are frivolous.

These campaigns ALWAYS seem to target women who don't "deserve" their wealth, like the Kardashians or Paris Hilton. There are plenty of men who got rich in the same way, but they deserve it, obviously.
archanglrobriel 5th-Jan-2012 04:56 pm (UTC)
Thank you for articulating this so perfectly. I kept feeling kind of puzzled and disquieted about this campaign, but I couldn't put my finger on what the problem was. I kept thinking "Why are they going after her? This is kind of kicking someone when they're down isn't it?"

But now I see it - rich women are frivolous and don't "deserve" their wealth so they're easier targets.
YUCK.
Now that you point this out, I realize that as much as I go "ecch" about the Kardasians and their over the top displays of wealth, they're hardly on the top of my list of rich people who should be called out. There was this show on MTV once upon a time called MTV Cribs which was just chock-a-block full of rich guys who spend gazillions of dollars adding solid gold bidets and stripper poles to their vast estates...why aren't we calling THEM out?
vanillakokakola 5th-Jan-2012 05:48 pm (UTC)
omg, an episode of Cribs would be a BEAUTIFUL way to wage this campaign.

"HEY MTV, HERE IS MY INDOOR SKATE PARK"
zeitgeistic 6th-Jan-2012 12:09 am (UTC)
I felt uncomfortable with this campaign, too, and for the same reasons you've just said. Thank you for putting them to words where I couldn't.
maynardsong 6th-Jan-2012 02:38 am (UTC)
Yup. MTE. I agree pretty hardcore with the spirit of this campaign, but why Kim Kardashian? Why a woman? That's not who I think of when I think of undeserved wealth. But...what prodigal son can you actually name? Because I'm blanking out when it comes to them.
maynardsong 6th-Jan-2012 02:46 am (UTC)
There was this show on MTV once upon a time called MTV Cribs which was just chock-a-block full of rich guys who spend gazillions of dollars adding solid gold bidets and stripper poles to their vast estates...why aren't we calling THEM out?

Can you name any of them? I can't, and that might very well have something to do with it. They're just not that famous. (NB: I'm not saying sexism isn't an issue here.)
archanglrobriel 6th-Jan-2012 03:43 am (UTC)
Oh I totally can - Brandon Davis, Charlie Sheen, the Yin Yang twins, Stavros Niarchos, Aaron Carter, Nick Carter, Bow Wow, Bam Margera, Nick Hogan, Steve O, Spenser Pratt...and that's just off the top of my head. If I were given a few hours with a Google search or a TMZ scroll through I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more easily..
maynardsong 6th-Jan-2012 03:53 am (UTC)
I only know Charlie Sheen. And he's horrible for the whole domestic violence and every ex of his complaining that he tried to kill her thing, more so than any frivolity. My outrage over Sheen's not being held accountable for that, and the fact that "negative" feelings toward him usually only center around his making a fool of himself and no one ever addresses his violence against women, can be the topic of another post, but the rest...I don't remember the last time I heard about Aaron Carter or Bow Wow, and I don't even know who the rest are.
preeho 6th-Jan-2012 05:27 pm (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think one of the contentions is that Kim K / Paris Hilton are widely recognized to represent a culture where you can get famous for, well, being famous. I know I know the name Stavros Niarchos, but I have no idea what he looks like, so I'm not sure how striking of an image it would be comparing him to a middle class woman, you know? I think it's more about who the most recognizable one is, moreso than the idea that "women don't deserve wealth". But I could be wrong, that's just how I'm reading it.
mingemonster 5th-Jan-2012 04:52 pm (UTC)
mte

everything is just worse when women do it, i guess
baked_goldfish 5th-Jan-2012 07:34 pm (UTC)
Right? Clearly she is a slut therefore she must be punished. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.
maynardsong 6th-Jan-2012 02:43 am (UTC)
I don't get why of all people they targeted Kim K. Not that I'm in the slightest bit interested in white-knighting her (her potentially being a victim of sexism does /not/ undercut the ridiculous privilege she has in terms of wealth and it should /not/ exempt her from criticism). Still, why's it always rich frivolous women who get targeted by these things? I don't disagree that they're frivolous, but why does no one pay attention to Prodigal Son type men instead of Paris Hilton type women? Stripper poles and bigger houses than you need and fancier cars than you need aren't really any less frivolous than stupid overpriced shoes.

That said, I very much agree with the spirit of this campaign.
ecrivais 6th-Jan-2012 04:23 am (UTC)
Because her and the kardashian klan are pretty much everywhere. I don't even watch TV and I know who she is.
This page was loaded Dec 26th 2014, 12:56 pm GMT.