Ken Mitchell is incorrect

Reader comment on: Another Revolving Door Example
in response to reader comment: Only for Regulated Businesses

Submitted by Fast Eddie (United States), Feb 9, 2012 09:46

Reynolds original proposal was in a post on Instapundit on April 10, 2011. It proposed " a 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was." He went on to give as an example somebody making $150K at the White House leaving for a job at Goldman Sachs paying $1 Million.

This is far too broad. For example, all of the top security guys (e.g. Secret Service and FBI honchos in the Senior Executive Service pay grades and at the top of the regular GS pay grades) all make more than $150K. So if some of them do security work OR ANY OTHER WORK for Goldman, they're going to pay Reynold's tax. And, of course, Reynolds choice of $150K was just used as an example. The White House and the federal govt. in general pay far less than $150K to the vast majority of their employees.

Reynolds should have been very specific about the necessary relationship between what the person did as a federal employee and what private sector activities would be subject to his special tax. It is silly to make the test one which is limited to just the name of the private employer, irrespective of the job duties at that employer.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Reynold's nutty idea [90 words]Fast EddieFeb 8, 2012 13:51
Only for Regulated Businesses [44 words]Ken MitchellFeb 8, 2012 15:22
⇒ Ken Mitchell is incorrect [214 words]Fast EddieFeb 9, 2012 09:46

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Ken Mitchell is incorrect by Fast Eddie

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.