Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!

[nehalem256]

Read up on the Fair Tax, it gives rebates to the poor because that is fair. It is not giving the government more power, they already give tax rebates to the poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax#Monthly_tax_rebate

You mean like this
"
Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100% participation).[35] In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud,[36] treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need.[37]
The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform cited the rebate as one of their chief concerns when analyzing their national sales tax, stating that it would be the largest entitlement program in American history, and contending that it would "make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government".
"

How in the world do any conservatives support this POS.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A consumption tax is one of the worst ideas ever, because it is so clearly regressive. The only way it would be made workable would be to give "rebates" to the poor. Which would just give the government even more power in redistributing wealth.

Or you just exempt certain items from being taxable.
Food w/ exception of prepared meals (frozen and cooked)
Everything that has a UPC code on it has to be submitted for evaluation.
Clothing value over $50 is taxed


Sales taxes already exist at the state/local level.
Have the Federal government just have a multiplier and control the exemptions

Example:
Local has 5% sales tax - Fed impose 3X across the board
Retailer collects 20% sales tax - send 5% to state and 15% to Fed.

 

[bfdd]

Oh great, so now the government gets to decide what a luxury is or isnt? I thought conservatives wanted government to have less power?

I don't know what conservatives want, but what I want is a fair and equal tax. I believe anyone holding citizenship should pay the exact same rate, regardless of income. It's called "paying your fair share" if you want us all to participate in society we should all be viewed exactly the same by the law and government. Creating arbitrary "classes" of people based on arbitrary non-sense like race or even income is fucking retarded and breeds hate and inequality.

Or you just exempt certain items from being taxable.
Food w/ exception of prepared meals (frozen and cooked)
Everything that has a UPC code on it has to be submitted for evaluation.
Clothing value over $50 is taxed


Sales taxes already exist at the state/local level.
Have the Federal government just have a multiplier and control the exemptions

Example:
Local has 5% sales tax - Fed impose 3X across the board
Retailer collects 20% sales tax - send 5% to state and 15% to Fed.

I would prefer the reverse. I want the Federal government to take the absolute least from me, while I have no problem whatsoever with the majority of my taxes going to my State. States need to regain their stature and stop letting the Federal system boss them around so much. I don't care if abortion is illegal in Missouri, we Californians should get all the abortion loving Missourians over to California and be productive members here. Competition drives success.

 

[Dulanic]

The OP implies Stephen King's issue is that he is not taxed enough (based on his thread title). Based on this, the easy solution is for him to simply pay more, something he can already do.

I copied the title of the article that is all. I implied nothing.

 

[BoberFett]

That's called austerity, it's been a disaster in Europe.

You can't raise taxes high enough to cover our current deficit without destroying the economy.

 

[Bowfinger]

You can't raise taxes high enough to cover our current deficit without destroying the economy.

Nor can you cut spending enough to do so now. The idea is we only make modest tax increases and spending cuts today. That gets us started but doesn't tank the economy again. As the economy strengthens, we can make additional, selective tax increases and spending cuts, gradually filling our way out of the hole. Unfortunately, the question is whether our debt has already passed the threshold where there is no recovery, that the debt by itself hurts our economy so badly that we cannot restore a healthy ratio of taxes and spending. I certainly don't have the answer, nor do I think anyone else does. All we have are lots of opinions, too often formed strictly on party lines.

 

[BoberFett]

Nor can you cut spending enough to do so now. The idea is we only make modest tax increases and spending cuts today. That gets us started but doesn't tank the economy again. As the economy strengthens, we can make additional, selective tax increases and spending cuts, gradually filling our way out of the hole. Unfortunately, the question is whether our debt has already passed the threshold where there is no recovery, that the debt by itself hurts our economy so badly that we cannot restore a healthy ratio of taxes and spending. I certainly don't have the answer, nor do I think anyone else does. All we have are lots of opinions, too often formed strictly on party lines.

Yes, we have to attack it from both ends. The problem is the depth to which we're already in the hole and the fact is that the economy is not going to improve drastically any time soon. I think we're seeing the new normal. Or in reality, I think this was always normal, we just looked good due to deficit spending during booms. We'll likely have to inflate our way out of this, which has it's own issues.

 

[thraashman]

Go read the thread where it was posted. Learn something. Stop clinging to ignorance on purpose, you will find it refreshing to actually open your mind to knowledge.

I will take that bet. If Santorum wins, you can leave the forum. If he loses, I will leave.

Deal?


(I like to bet in ways I win even when I lose. 😉 )

Well right above is exactly what you said. You later liken it to "Heads I win, tails you lose." Unfortunately the correlation you made there is incorrect. A coin has exactly 2 states, heads and tails. The heads I win, tails you lose has both options referring to 1 of 2 states but worded differently. Your bet references 4 overall states. You stay, he stays is one state. You stay, he leaves is another. You leave he stays is a third. You leave he leaves is the 4th.

Both options you give requires someone to leave at a minimum, him or you. So you eliminate both staying as an option, three states left. If Santorum win, he leaves covers 2 states. Him leaving, you staying and him leaving, you leaving. You don't declare if Santorum wins if you'll stay or leave, but him leaving is required. Then if Santorum loses you again cover two states, one of which is a repeat. Him staying you leaving and him leaving you leaving. Regardless if Santorum loses you leave was part of the requirement. You shouldn't call me ignorant when I clearly understand logic better than you. Not my fault you chose to make a bet misunderstanding the requirements.


Sorry for the thread derailment, I will say no more about this.

 

[First]

If he wants to pay more, he simply can decide not to take any deductions. Easy and simple, but that is not what he wants. He wants OTHER people to be forced to pay more because HE thinks they do not pay enough.

Money and mouth - he should put them together.

This has been debunked ad nauseam. Paying more as a lone individual has no impact and is foolish. Collective action is the only effective way to raise revenue when you're talking in a tax debate. Try to keep up.

 

[theeedude]

You can't raise taxes high enough to cover our current deficit without destroying the economy.

And you can't cut spending enough to cover our current deficit without destroying the economy either.

 

[jackstar7]

This has been debunked ad nauseam. Paying more as a lone individual has no impact and is foolish. Collective action is the only effective way to raise revenue when you're talking in a tax debate. Try to keep up.

A lot of people seem to want the benefits of a society at the lowest costs -- as if lower crime rates, national defense, technological progress, and higher standards of living can be had on the cheap or are not worthy of their individual contribution.

Or worse, that they want to pick things a la carte and ignore whatever they have no personal stake in, apparently believing their needs will never change. Like a young adult caring nothing for healthcare or social security... right up until they need it.

 

[QuantumPion]

That's called austerity, it's been a disaster in Europe.

Yes, austerity hurts temporarily. But shoving the problem under the carpet perpetually will be far worse in the end.

 

[cybrsage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax#Monthly_tax_rebate

You mean like this
"
Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100% participation).[35] In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud,[36] treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need.[37]
The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform cited the rebate as one of their chief concerns when analyzing their national sales tax, stating that it would be the largest entitlement program in American history, and contending that it would "make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government".
"

How in the world do any conservatives support this POS.

Our current system is broken beyond repair. Any INCOME tax is flawed from the outset because it rewards those who get their money through illegal means.

A consumption based tax is the only one that taxes both the law abiding person AND the criminal. That must be why the administration fears it. Besides, if it really did make everyone dependant on the government, rest assured that Obama and the dems would be 100% in support of it. They are against it, which means it does not do that.

 

[Matt1970]

And you can't cut spending enough to cover our current deficit without destroying the economy either.

We can cut more than $33 Billion.

 

[cybrsage]

This has been debunked ad nauseam. Paying more as a lone individual has no impact and is foolish. Collective action is the only effective way to raise revenue when you're talking in a tax debate. Try to keep up.

It has also been proven you cannot solve the problem by even imposing a 100% tax on the rich, therefor it is foolish. Try to keep up.


My point is the hypocrisy of those who demand OTHERS be forced to do what they refuse to do on their own. Try to keep up.

 

[jackstar7]

It has also been proven you cannot solve the problem by even imposing a 100% tax on the rich, therefor it is foolish. Try to keep up.


My point is the hypocrisy of those who demand OTHERS be forced to do what they refuse to do on their own. Try to keep up.

Some folks here are trying to have an intellectually honest discussion. Try to keep up.

 

[nehalem256]

A consumption based tax is the only one that taxes both the law abiding person AND the criminal. That must be why the administration fears it. Besides, if it really did make everyone dependant on the government, rest assured that Obama and the dems would be 100% in support of it. They are against it, which means it does not do that.

I assume they dont want to implement it because any practical implementation would require massive "consumption tax credits" going to the poor which Republicans would immediately brand as socialist.

 

[Bowfinger]

Our current system is broken beyond repair. Any INCOME tax is flawed from the outset because it rewards those who get their money through illegal means.

Any consumption tax is flawed from the outset because it rewards those who get their goods through underground means.

A consumption based tax is the only one that taxes both the law abiding person AND the criminal.

Absolute nonsense. On the contrary, it encourages more criminals by creating a huge financial incentive to turn to the black market. Stolen goods instantly become far more valuable since they won't be encumbered with the high consumption tax. Bartering becomes a standard way of doing business, penalizing those companies that try to remain within the law. Smuggling, both individual and organized, becomes far more lucrative. I will concede that a big consumption tax would be a windfall for Canadian and Mexican businesses. It would be a fiasco for the United States, however.

That must be why the administration fears it. Besides, if it really did make everyone dependant on the government, rest assured that Obama and the dems would be 100% in support of it. They are against it, which means it does not do that.

And that is pure partisan drivel, no more reasoned or informative than listening to static on the radio. You could have just as well slammed your head into your keyboard a dozen times; the value would be the same.

 

[nicolaskl]

Our current system is broken beyond repair. Any INCOME tax is flawed from the outset because it rewards those who get their money through illegal means.

A consumption based tax is the only one that taxes both the law abiding person AND the criminal. That must be why the administration fears it. Besides, if it really did make everyone dependant on the government, rest assured that Obama and the dems would be 100% in support of it. They are against it, which means it does not do that.

Maybe they fear it because it would kill the middle class and ensure that the rich pay hardly any taxes, relative to their income.

 

[Pens1566]

And that is pure partisan drivel, no more reasoned or informative than listening to static on the radio. You could have just as well slammed your head into your keyboard a dozen times; the value would be the same.

I'd argue it would be more valuable if he did just that. First, we'd have some info on how large his head was. I know it's not important, but it is something in comparison to his posts. Second, the potential for trauma and the possibility that it would limit his future postings.

 

[Gunslinger08]

My thoughts:
1. I don't really care what Stephen King thinks about politics. I read his books to be entertained - I don't care about his personal beliefs. He's not an economist or analyst - he's a guy with an English degree who writes fiction that a bunch of people like reading.

2. Stephen King has the ability to pay more in taxes if he wants to. Yes, 1 person doing it isn't going to make a difference. What things in life don't start with just 1 person trying to make a difference though? There have been quite a few wealthy people coming out in support of the Buffett Rule or similar measures. If they all started paying a 30% rate voluntarily, it would do more good than just talking about it.

3. Our system of government and the mentality of the populace pretty much ensures that this is not going to get fixed until there's no choice. To use an analogy, we won't stop smoking until we get diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. This is because it's much easier to just keep going along the way things are. What ultimately needs to happen is a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Unfortunately, people are so extreme on these issues that our political parties have basically become stereotypes of themselves. Democrats can't talk about spending cuts any easier than Republicans can talk about tax increases - they won't get re-elected that way, which is ultimately the guiding moral compass of any politician.

So what do we do? Probably just grin and take it. We're going to get screwed eventually. We're either going to inflate our way out of debt eventually (probably when there's serious talk about moving away from the USD as international banking currency) or just default and tell our creditors to piss off, which could lead to an economic collapse and/or war.

What can we do to prevent that? Stop being partisan hacks that can only ever see 1 side of the equation. We're going to eventually have to pay more for less services, to make up for the years and years of the cheap ride we've had.

 

[blankslate]

If he wants to pay more, he simply can decide not to take any deductions. Easy and simple, but that is not what he wants. He wants OTHER people to be forced to pay more because HE thinks they do not pay enough.

Stephen King supposedly donates money for local fire departments so that they could buy better equipment since he feels that that he's not being taxed enough.

He also makes donations to local libraries.

As for his views about the tax system. He pays taxes and has earned as much a right to express his views about the tax structure in the U.S. as anyone else quite frankly.

 

[bfdd]

Stephen King supposedly donates money for local fire departments so that they could buy better equipment since he feels that that he's not being taxed enough.

He also makes donations to local libraries.

As for his views about the tax system. He pays taxes and has earned as much a right to express his views about the tax structure in the U.S. as anyone else quite frankly.

Good for him and I agree with you. That doesn't mean I agree with him though.

 

[child of wonder]

That's called austerity, it's been a disaster in Europe.

How do we close a $1.3T annual deficit then?

 

[BoberFett]

How do we close a $1.3T annual deficit then?

Hope and change?