Update -
This one is, as SueK politely pointed out, old news. How old? From 1991 - and since it's long since repealed, I apologize for not checking the dates and info properly.
Sigh. The internet never forgets - but with automatic page formatting, you can take old news and make it look fresh and sparkling, with today's date and everything.
I apologize for the mixup, and will double-check stuff like this in the future.
(One interesting little factoid, though - you'll notice this tax was supposed to rake in billions. Instead, it ended up costing several hundred million more than it brought in. I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions from that.)
J.
-------------
Original Post Follows
-------------
So here comes Round 2.
New Luxury Tax May Cost More Than It Can Bring In - New York TimesPassed in secret, it took effect 1 Jan 2008. They expect to bring in slightly under $1.5 billion. Maybe.The tax places a 10 percent levy on the retail price of five luxury goods, when the price exceeds a specified threshold. For autos it is $30,000. So when a consumer buys a car that cost $33,000, the tax is 10 percent on $3,000, or $300. For private aircraft the threshold is $250,000, for pleasure boats $100,000, and for jewelry and furs $10,000.
Oddly enough, they learned at least a little bit from the first time around - they're exempting GA aircraft built in Kansas.
But the rest? Typical 'soak the rich' bull. Last time, the luxury tax was quite 'revenue negative'. I don't expect this will change in Round 2.
J.
Comments (2)
" New Luxury Tax May Cost More Than It Can Bring In
By PHILIP SHABECOFF, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 22, _1991_
Other items disappeared in the political give and take of the negotiations, including some types if aircraft made in Kansas, the home state of the Senate minority leader, _Bob Dole_."
Ok...I'm confused. It looks like this is current, according to the NYTimes header. But the attributions indicate that it's a 1991 article. Still, you refer to "round 1" and "round 2", but I see nothing that indicates that the effect date is actually 1 Jan 2008.
So...can you clarify for me?
Posted by suek | February 4, 2008 6:30 PM
Posted on February 4, 2008 18:30
Thanks for the HT, but I must confess, my son clued _me_ in. I had sent him the link because he's a jeweler and thought it might be something he should be aware of. He emailed me back about the date. He didn't know what happened to the legislation - said it "just faded". He said it was stupid anyway - too easy for jewelry to go "underground".
I do remember, though, about a yacht luxury tax...sent a lot of business to Mexico. I thought that was a California tax, but maybe it was this one. I know _that_ was repealed...
Posted by suek | February 5, 2008 11:16 AM
Posted on February 5, 2008 11:16