Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm wondering when the new book drops. I love Stephen King, but whenever an author or similarly creative type makes this kind of spectacle I'm always looking for their angle.

If you feel like you have too much money laying around, donate it. Hell, give it to me.

I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.

He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.

Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.

Also note how he pays a rate on 'income'. I am willing to bet 'income' in this case has a specific definition left out of the article, and that it does NOT cover returns on investment but instead covers what he makes off his books and other IP, actual income. I suspect all rich folks with money reported as 'income' under the same definition that King uses get taxed at the same rate (assuming they make a similar amount).

Shrike325 wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.

How does having a stake in something (even if you benefit from it) mean that you aren't invested in it?

And, again, absolutely no exceptions, Frazz?

Who would get an exception, and why? Profit is profit, any way you slice it.

Well first of all, I would say that the people who wouldn't be able to afford rent or food if taxed should definitely be exempt.

That's just a basic standard I would assume almost everyone would agree on. I'm certain there are more examples, it's just a matter of drawing the line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.

He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.

Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.

Funny, because this is both raised and addressed in the article. Which implies you might want to give it another reading.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

CptJake wrote:I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.

He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.

Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.

Funny, because this is both raised and addressed in the article. Which implies you might want to give it another reading.

Really? Care to point it out? All I can see is King claiming he feels some don't pay enough. I do not see where he has paid extra to Uncle Sam himself. I cannot see where in the article my point is addressed at all. In fact, when called on it King replies "If you want to pay more, pay more, they said. Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough gak for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar." Yet HE does NOT pay one more cent than he has to to Uncle Sam. He chooses what charities HE want to give to.

Well mabye if we didnt give 4 billion away to fraudulent tax refunds... We wouldnt need to tax the rich anymore.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm wondering when the new book drops. I love Stephen King, but whenever an author or similarly creative type makes this kind of spectacle I'm always looking for their angle.

He just had a book published pretty recently, so I imagine it's at least a year till he cranks out his next phonebook.

So far as the OP goes: when the Buffett rule was proposed, many lawmakers who are opposed to it pointed out if he didn't feel his tax was fair, he should write a check.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the entire net wealth of Warren Buffet (or Steven King) are not sufficient to alter the fundamentals of our current economic situation (we spend more than we make). We need to either cut spending, or raise revenue via taxes (probably, both). Since almost half our spending goes to Social Security and Medicare, any cuts to entitlement programs like those will by definition adversely affect the poorest and least fortunate among us. On tax revenues, you have to go to where the wealth is: the wealthy, enjoying historically low levels of taxation; are off the table for guys like Paul Ryan. Arguing that we should balance the budget by cutting to the services to the poor while also asking for the very wealthy to voluntarily disgorge what they'd like to is not only sort of morally skewed; it's probably not going to work anyway since they have just as free to do so since 2000 as they are now and clearly those voluntary receipts have proven inadequate.

TL;DR - Taking every penny Warren Buffet and Steven King has won't make a big difference, but since the 1% have 42 of every 100 dollars in the country, adjusting their tax upwards even fractionally will have an enormous difference.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.

How does having a stake in something (even if you benefit from it) mean that you aren't invested in it?

And, again, absolutely no exceptions, Frazz?

1. Thats the point. If they don't pay taxes THEY DON'T have a stake in it.

2. The Herald of the Coming of the Great Wiener is not into exceptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.

Wait, so you're claiming no one has skin in the game? Or are tax payers somehow magically not citizens?

Nope, you're mistaken. You only have skin in the game if you pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes but can vote to get money from the government, then you don't. Current society is a result.

The "skin in the game" doesn't come from any financial commitment, it comes from being subject to the system itself by way of either the tax code, or the programs it funds.

Horse gak.

Nicorex wrote:Well mabye if we didnt give 4 billion away to fraudulent tax refunds... We wouldnt need to tax the rich anymore.

We burn through that every 2 weeks in Afghanistan alone. You're also misstating the figure; we spent 4 billion under that section of the law; but no one knows what percentage of that is fraudulent; it's a safe assumption that fraud is a fractional percentage of that figure. But this debate is probably best had in the other thread.

Fraz, Horse gak yourself.

Whereas if wealthy people can but influence via campaign contributions, that's okay because they're paying taxes?

Even with full refunds, poor people don't have that much influence. The idea that they'll just vote themselves benefits is empty rhetoric. A theoretical game which hasn't proved true (except in direct ballot measure states in California, where the whole state votes for free candy and less taxes). If poor, non-tax-paying folks really had some massive coordinated power to influence legislation, we wouldn't keep cutting benefits (some exceptions, like Medicare D) while cutting taxes for wealthy people, like we've largely been for the past couple of decades.

As always Im in the middle groun here, I hate the narrow minded class warriors that hate on the rich, but I also think that King has a point, especially about the middle classes paying so much tax.

Case in point, my brother didnt go into the military, he is now one of Mike Ashley (Billionaire owner of Newcastles) top blokes, and he has a salary of about $110,000 US, plus a yearly bonus of about the same in a lump sum if he hits his targets.

HE draws the hate of the jelous class warrior types you see post on here occasionally. They dont see that the poor sap works 80 hours a week. I have told him several times, I wouldnt swap jobs with him just to pay more tax. He does enjoy a better standard of living than me, but not hugely so.

I have a two bedroom apartment, he has a 4 bedroom detached house in a nice area, I drive a Ford, he drives a Jag, but thats about it. He gets less holiday, works silly hours, and here is the good bit.

He showed my his payslip when he got his bonus last year as he was ranting about the tax man. After they took their 40% plus national insurance, he got less than half. I think from his 110k he got about 49k?

He is well off, but he isnt fething rich. He will actually have to put some effort in to pay for all his kids schooling and keep them in Xbox games, he certainly doesnt have large amounts of money lying around because he spends like a trooper. I bet he doesnt have more than 20k in his bank.

He will probably never be a miilionaire, or if he is it will only be adding in the value of his home, if he pays off the mortagage, so maybe when he is in his late 50s?

Why is he paying over 50% of his bonus in taxes?

And people like Mitt Romney, who is worth what? 300 million? 17%?

The poor get money for nothing, the rich have far too much they can never spend it, I cant help but feeling that the middle class, as King says, are the ones that are getting truly fethed over.

CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

CptJake wrote:I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.

He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.

Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.

Funny, because this is both raised and addressed in the article. Which implies you might want to give it another reading.

Really? Care to point it out? All I can see is King claiming he feels some don't pay enough. I do not see where he has paid extra to Uncle Sam himself. I cannot see where in the article my point is addressed at all. In fact, when called on it King replies "If you want to pay more, pay more, they said. Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough gak for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar." Yet HE does NOT pay one more cent than he has to to Uncle Sam. He chooses what charities HE want to give to.

I never claimed he did give money to the government, I said the article itself has discussed (and dismissed) the claims you were making (That Stephen King doesn't trust the government to spend the money wisely).

Hazardous Harry wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

CptJake wrote:I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.

He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.

Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.

Funny, because this is both raised and addressed in the article. Which implies you might want to give it another reading.

Really? Care to point it out? All I can see is King claiming he feels some don't pay enough. I do not see where he has paid extra to Uncle Sam himself. I cannot see where in the article my point is addressed at all. In fact, when called on it King replies "If you want to pay more, pay more, they said. Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough gak for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar." Yet HE does NOT pay one more cent than he has to to Uncle Sam. He chooses what charities HE want to give to.

I never claimed he did give money to the government, I said the article itself has discussed (and dismissed) the claims you were making (That Stephen King doesn't trust the government to spend the money wisely).

He obviously doesn't trust it to spend the money wisely (or at least more wisely than he feels he can on his own) or he would give the 4 mil to the gov't vice charities and causes he thinks deserving. If he thought the Gov't would spend the money better than he could, he would allow them to do so. What King is stating is he feels HE is smart enough to spend 'best' but he doesn't trust OTHER rich folks to do the same. So he desires to use the Gov't Gun to force others to spend other than how they choose. At the same time HE chooses NOT to give more to the gov't than he has to.

I'll go out on a limb and bet $100 that Mr. King has an accountant and or lawyer than ensure he takes advantage of every tax break and loop hole available to him to ensure he pays the minimul taxes he has to. He is smart to so. But if it is good enough for him, it is also good enough for others.

Ouze wrote:TL;DR - Taking every penny Warren Buffet and Steven King has won't make a big difference, but since the 1% have 42 of every 100 dollars in the country, adjusting their tax upwards even fractionally will have an enormous difference.

This is actually enormously wrong. The reason it's wrong is because "having" 42 of every 100 dollars does not actually mean the 1% take in anything like that amount in annual income. The Buffett Rule was estimated by various thinktanks to raise an additional 30-50 billion per year. The non-partisan Congress Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the effect would be 50 billion over ten years.

Whether 50 billion per year or over ten years, the amount is simply immaterial versus the size of the revenue-expenditures gap.

CptJake wrote:

He obviously doesn't trust it to spend the money wisely (or at least more wisely than he feels he can on his own) or he would give the 4 mil to the gov't vice charities and causes he thinks deserving. If he thought the Gov't would spend the money better than he could, he would allow them to do so. What King is stating is he feels HE is smart enough to spend 'best' but he doesn't trust OTHER rich folks to do the same. So he desires to use the Gov't Gun to force others to spend other than how they choose. At the same time HE chooses NOT to give more to the gov't than he has to.

Exactly what would him giving money directly to the government prove? Why would it be fair that he gives up his wealth willingly why others hoard theirs? His point isn't that rich people should donate money to the government as they see fit, it is that rich people should be taxed by the government.

I'll go out on a limb and bet $100 that Mr. King has an accountant and or lawyer than ensure he takes advantage of every tax break and loop hole available to him to ensure he pays the minimul taxes he has to. He is smart to so. But if it is good enough for him, it is also good enough for others.

How is this a good thing? It only shows another advantage the very wealthy have, and ensures they stay wealthy.

sourclams wrote:

Ouze wrote:TL;DR - Taking every penny Warren Buffet and Steven King has won't make a big difference, but since the 1% have 42 of every 100 dollars in the country, adjusting their tax upwards even fractionally will have an enormous difference.

This is actually enormously wrong. The reason it's wrong is because "having" 42 of every 100 dollars does not actually mean the 1% take in anything like that amount in annual income.

Would "control" have made it more accurate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: HE draws the hate of the jelous class warrior types you see post on here occasionally.

Are we referring to the class warfare types who want to continue enormous tax breaks to billionaires while cutting benefits to the poor? Or is that not considered "class warfare"?

I've posted this to similar threads. I think it has relevance here.

CptJake wrote:http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdis53K8n1qbogplo1_500.png

That argument has no basis in reality, it's utterly nonsensical.

Taxpayers voting for the government to give more money to the poor IS giving more of your money to the poor, because THEY pay for the government to do it. That's what taxes are.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdis53K8n1qbogplo1_500.png

That argument has no basis in reality, it's utterly nonsensical.

Taxpayers voting for the government to give more money to the poor IS giving more of your money to the poor, because THEY pay for the government to do it. That's what taxes are.

Vitriol and anger on your part does not negate the argument. Voting to raise taxes on anyone other than yourself is forcing OTHERS to pay. That is the pretty simple point of the quote. Anyone who chooses to give, CAN give without raising taxes on others.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdis53K8n1qbogplo1_500.png

That argument has no basis in reality, it's utterly nonsensical.

Taxpayers voting for the government to give more money to the poor IS giving more of your money to the poor, because THEY pay for the government to do it. That's what taxes are.

Its the opposite. Its theft. you're voting to force SOMEONE ELSE to do the thing you should be doing. Thats the problem with bleeding hearts. They think they have a heart but always want someone else to bleed for it.

CptJake wrote:Vitriol and anger on your part does not negate the argument.

It doesn't need to, the argument is utterly bunk to begin with.

As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:Vitriol and anger on your part does not negate the argument.

It doesn't need to, the argument is utterly bunk to begin with.

As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.

1. I don't believe you're a taxpayer actually. As this subject is income and capital gains taxes, do you actually pay any after deductions?
2. Even if so, you're voting to take a lot more money from other people and do the work you should be doing.

While I realize there are social goods I'm also keenly aware that I'm forcing other people to spend money.

A much better system would be not to have any taxation.

The government could be funded by charitable donations.

Early in American history, the Federal government was funded solely through tariffs.

Frazzled wrote: no. Everyone must have skin in the game.

Fraz addressed this later in the thread. Thanks for clarifying.

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote: no. Everyone must have skin in the game.

This expression confuses me, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly it is trying to say.

If you live in the same country don't you all ready have "skin" in the game? What happens to the country impacts you, right?

Maybe I'm missing somethign fundamental here.

No and no. If you have the power to vote to give benefits to yourself for no cost to yourself then you have no skin in the game. Either be part of a family unit that pays income taxes or don't be able to vote on any matters concerning taxing and spending.

There should be a voter tax of 1 cent per election.

Frazzled wrote:
Nope, you're mistaken. You only have skin in the game if you pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes but can vote to get money from the government, then you don't. Current society is a result.

That's blatantly false, because any given party is at risk of paying taxes at any future point regardless of how much they presently pay in taxes. Not paying taxes now does not imply one will not pay taxes in the future, meaning that there is an inherent interest in the way taxes are assessed and how the resultant funds are spent.

Again, any given citizen can vote himself benefits, and considering that the ~50% of the country that incurs a net loss due to taxation account for a little over 60% of the voting population in the Presidential election (its even higher in Congressional elections) one wonders who is voting themselves benefits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
No and no. If you have the power to vote to give benefits to yourself for no cost to yourself then you have no skin in the game. Either be part of a family unit that pays income taxes or don't be able to vote on any matters concerning taxing and spending.

Everyone has this power. Everyone. You could vote for a 98% tax on all people that aren't lawyers, and require that all resultant funds be funneled into a special lawyers-only healthcare fund.

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote: no. Everyone must have skin in the game.

This expression confuses me, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly it is trying to say.

If you live in the same country don't you all ready have "skin" in the game? What happens to the country impacts you, right?

Maybe I'm missing somethign fundamental here.

No and no. If you have the power to vote to give benefits to yourself for no cost to yourself then you have no skin in the game. Either be part of a family unit that pays income taxes or don't be able to vote on any matters concerning taxing and spending.

Hmmmm, kind of like the only people who should be willing to vote are the ones who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend the nation as soldiers?

Ouze wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Ouze wrote:TL;DR - Taking every penny Warren Buffet and Steven King has won't make a big difference, but since the 1% have 42 of every 100 dollars in the country, adjusting their tax upwards even fractionally will have an enormous difference.

This is actually enormously wrong. The reason it's wrong is because "having" 42 of every 100 dollars does not actually mean the 1% take in anything like that amount in annual income.

Would "control" have made it more accurate?

I doubt that "control" is more accurate a term but the term itself is irrelevant. The reality is that you could confiscate 100% of the 1%'s annual income and still not generate meaningful revenue.

You would get more taking 50% of the top 1% than if you took 100% of the bottom twenty percent.

But that aside, increasing the tax on capital gains to be equal to the tax rate on income would help a lot as well.