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

[Dulanic]

I have to say I agree with some of the things he has to say and he has some valid points (and a few not so valid). But the basic idea is right....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

At the risk of repeating myself, here’s what rich folks do when they get richer: they invest. A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations.

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I’ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I’m only “baby rich” compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.


This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.


Think about it.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

 

[Dulanic]

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.

Fits exactly what he was talking about too... of course that's to be expected.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.


If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.


Tired of hearing about it, they said.

 

[Matt1970]

We are all going to have to pay more in taxes to pay for the super-bloated Government we can even agree to cut $66 billion from.

 

[child of wonder]

Raising taxes needs to be coupled with spending decreases as well.

Simply increasing revenue or cutting spending won't solve the problem. We need to do both and start paying down this ridiculous debt before kids read about the United States in history books 100 years from now.

 

[Dulanic]

Raising taxes needs to be coupled with spending decreases as well.

Simply increasing revenue or cutting spending won't solve the problem. We need to do both and start paying down this ridiculous debt before kids read about the United States in history books 100 years from now.

Agree 100%.

 

[ShawnD1]

We are all going to have to pay more in taxes to pay for the super-bloated Government we can even agree to cut $66 billion from.

Have fun trying to figure out which section to cut. Old people have you cock blocked on medicare and social security. Old people also have you blocked on military spending. Those 3 things are 2/3 of the budget.

 

[Jaskalas]

but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

I thought we were in favor of a flat tax. Of gutting the Shakespearean tax code, removing all loop holes and benefits to the rich, and simply instituting a flat tax.

How is equal percentage for everyone and everything NOT 'same proportion'?

 

[theeedude]

Raising taxes needs to be coupled with spending decreases as well.

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

 

[DrPizza]

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.

I think he explained WHY he thinks they should pay more. Care to address that instead of your typical deflection?

 

[nageov3t]

income tax increases aren't the answer and it doesn't seem like either party in Washington (or any of these outside 1%'ers) are willing to talk about serious tax code and capital gains taxation reforms.

 

[cybrsage]

I think he explained WHY he thinks they should pay more. Care to address that instead of your typical deflection?

Only if it is restated without all the idiotic partisan phrases used to denigrate others.

None of what you wrote actually addresses my statement, care to discuss what you quoted, or is attacking me the point of your post?

 

[cybrsage]

I thought we were in favor of a flat tax. Of gutting the Shakespearean tax code, removing all loop holes and benefits to the rich, and simply instituting a flat tax.

How is equal percentage for everyone and everything NOT 'same proportion'?

I prefer a consumption tax. It will be the same percentage for everyone, but those who spend more real dollars will pay more real dollars.

The Fair Tax is a good starting point.

 

[thraashman]

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.

That's like if the speed limit was 110 mph and he was saying it's reckless and it should be lowered. Then people respond that he can feel free to drive slower. It doesn't fix the problem that it's reckless, it just makes stupid people feel better.

On a side note, didn't you swear to stop posting if Santorum didn't get the nomination? I've read the post where you agreed to that several times and it's quite clear what you said. So since he's dropped out, why are you still here?

 

[thraashman]

I prefer a consumption tax. It will be the same percentage for everyone, but those who spend more real dollars will pay more real dollars.

The Fair Tax is a good starting point.

You realize that a consumption tax is the reverse of a progressive tax and burdens the poor more than any other group? The poor HAVE to spend all their money to survive. They HAVE to consume. The rich can save their money and spend a fraction. A flat sales tax, or consumption tax as you call it (same thing really), means that poorer Americans would pay tax at a rate far higher than the rich. It's actually a horrifically bad idea.

 

[bfdd]

Raising taxes needs to be coupled with spending decreases as well.

Simply increasing revenue or cutting spending won't solve the problem. We need to do both and start paying down this ridiculous debt before kids read about the United States in history books 100 years from now.

a few of us have been chanting that for years. except i don't want to see taxes raised, i want to see deductions done away with.

 

[nehalem256]

You realize that a consumption tax is the reverse of a progressive tax and burdens the poor more than any other group? The poor HAVE to spend all their money to survive. They HAVE to consume. The rich can save their money and spend a fraction. A flat sales tax, or consumption tax as you call it (same thing really), means that poorer Americans would pay tax at a rate far higher than the rich. It's actually a horrifically bad idea.

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.

 

[rudder]

Raising taxes needs to be coupled with spending decreases as well.

Simply increasing revenue or cutting spending won't solve the problem. We need to do both and start paying down this ridiculous debt before kids read about the United States in history books 100 years from now.

But yet the media will still showcase these stories. Taxes would have to be raised a hell of a lot to cover the $1+ trillion deficit we have had the last few years.

At what point do we stop this madness as to not outspend our offspring's ability to pay off this debt?

 

[bfdd]

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.

uh... you don't tax things like food. you tax everything else that's considered a luxury. middle class and up spend a lot more on luxury items than poor. if poor people are getting hit to hard by a luxury tax, that means they aren't budgeting properly and I fail to see how that's our responsibility to pick up the slack. just like i fail to see how it's our responsibility to bail out businesses that fail.

 

[nehalem256]

a few of us have been chanting that for years. except i don't want to see taxes raised, i want to see deductions done away with.

The cleanest solution would seem to be to keep the graduated income tax system and do away with most(or all) deductions and credits.

It find it silly that the first $10,000 of your income is essentially tax free due to the standard deduction. Why not just make an income tax bracket of 0% for the first $10,000 instead. It would be more honest.

 

[nehalem256]

uh... you don't tax things like food. you tax everything else that's considered a luxury. middle class and up spend a lot more on luxury items than poor. if poor people are getting hit to hard by a luxury tax, that means they aren't budgeting properly.

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

 

[cybrsage]

That's like if the speed limit was 110 mph and he was saying it's reckless and it should be lowered. Then people respond that he can feel free to drive slower. It doesn't fix the problem that it's reckless, it just makes stupid people feel better.

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.

Or are you saying the OP is lying with his thread title...or being misleading with it? That is an infractionable thing.

Regardless of all that, just because HE pays less when he can easily pay more while feeling OTHERS should pay more does not magically mean everyone should be forced to do what he is already not doing himself.

On a side note, didn't you swear to stop posting if Santorum didn't get the nomination? I've read the post where you agreed to that several times and it's quite clear what you said. So since he's dropped out, why are you still here?

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.

 

[Incorruptible]

The government needs to stop spending so much money, social security and wars are two of the biggest areas for spending and need drastic cuts

 

[cybrsage]

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.

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.

 

[Matt1970]

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

That's the UK. The spending levels that we are at are going to cripple us.