Stephen King: I'm rich, tax me.

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Interesting article in today's Guardian. I'm a fan of Mr King's work, even more so after this. I forgive you for Cujo

This articles contains explicite language.

Bestselling novelist Stephen King, who gives away $4m (£2.5m) a year in charitable donations, has issued an expletive-filled call to America to increase the rate of tax paid by the country's rich.

King himself currently pays taxes of around 28% on his income, and at a recent rally in Florida wondered publicly why he was not paying a higher rate of 50%. You're unhappy about it? "Cut a check and shut up," was the response from his listeners, the author writes in a piece for The Daily Beast entitled Tax Me, for F@%&'s Sake! "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."

Some of America's rich do donate part of their tax savings, King acknowledged; he himself gives $4m "to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organisations that underwrite the arts". But, calling himself 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", the novelist says this "doesn't go far enough [because] charity from the rich can't fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny".

America's national responsibilities, such as education and health care, cannot be taken on by the "charitable one per centers", writes King. "That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry," he says. "And hey, why don't we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28% do not give out another 28% of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough."

But despite this the rich, he believes, are "hallowed" in America. "Don't ask me why; I don't get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog gak," writes King. "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 apologise for it.' Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want – those who aren't blinded by a lot of bs 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-fething-American is what it is."

King says it is a "practical necessity and a moral imperative" that "those who have received much must be obligated to pay ... in the same proportion", or the "first real ripples of discontent" seen in the Occupy protests "will just be the beginning".

**Fafnir**

Hey, I liked Cujo!

Also, I agree with him.

He still can't write a decent ending to save his life though.

**Melissia**

"Don't ask me why; I don't get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog gak,"

At the very least he gave me a good laugh.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing spending.

PS - the 1% controls 23% of the wealth and pays something like 40% of the taxes.

**Melissia**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.

Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

IMHO, we should talk about increasing taxes after we get serious about decreasing deficit spending. As of right now, I believe simply increasing the tax rate on anyone is simply a blank check for the government to spend more money.

If I could see evidence of a good faith effort to reduce the deficit (from either party, I'm trying to be non-partisan) that got, say, 50% - 75% of the deficit cut then we could talk about increasing taxes.

The government doesn't control the price of gasoline. Period. Increasing taxes on the rich will not make the life of someone in the middle class easier.

**Fafnir**

Well then, what if they were to lower classes on the middle class while increasing taxes on the upper class?

That would certainly be a start to making life in the middle class at least a little bit easier.

**dogma**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Increasing taxes on the rich will not make the life of someone in the middle class easier.

Depends on what the taxes pay for.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

Fafnir wrote:Well then, what if they were to lower (TAXES?) on the middle class while increasing taxes on the upper class?

That would certainly be a start to making life in the middle class at least a little bit easier.

I think you meant lower taxes on the middle class - hence the FIX. Blatant wealth redistribution like that does nothing to reduce a staggering federal deficit. Unfunded medicare, social security, and other entitlement programs will still sink the entire economy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Increasing taxes on the rich will not make the life of someone in the middle class easier.

Depends on what the taxes pay for.

I think any (responsible) increase in taxes would go towards paying for programs we've already signed into law but operate at a deficit. So at best, we're talking about simply extending the status quo.

I should also have been less precise. "someone" in the middle class may indeed benefit, but it will not make life for the middle or lower class as a whole better.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.

Here you go.
*Put in a budget (I know that just sent all the Democrats screaming from the room). The budget will have a maximum $ expenditure of the same as calender year 2011 MINUS 10%. This includes ALL expenditures.
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 1%
$15001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
>$500,000: 50%

Tax rate is based on any income stream including dividends, earnings, revenues, fees, government benefits, and child support. ANY CASH IN THE DOOR, again no deductions.

If doesn't balance then budget is reduced 5% further each year until it does.

Work for you?

**Melissia**

A balanced budget would only work if we slashed defense and did major reforms ro medicare and social security.

The latter two aren't going to happen because the voting block of old people tend to vote in ways that help them at the expense of younger generations, and the former isn't going to happen because it would make the Republican party have an aneurysm.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

Melissia wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.

Tax rates have dropped across the board. There's plenty of blame to go around. Tax cuts by republicans (when not feasible/warranted) and spending increasing by democrats has totally fethed us. You can google effective federal tax rate by income to see the numbers in from the CBO.

**Melissia**

They've dropped for the top one percent far more than for everyone else, however-- taxes are flatter than any time in recent US history.

"Effective tax rate" and "real tax rate" aren't the same thing. Effective tax rates are rarely real, especially not for the rich.

**dogma**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I think any (responsible) increase in taxes would go towards paying for programs we've already signed into law but operate at a deficit. So at best, we're talking about simply extending the status quo.

Maybe, maybe not. Tax increases can't really be considered in a vacuum. They're, ideally, part of an overall reform package that includes budget cuts, restructuring, and even entirely new programs.

Of course, all of those things, even budget cuts, will require quite a bit of political capital to accomplish; and good luck finding that these days. But who knows, maybe the American people will start to realize that they're just as big a part of the problem as politicians.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I should also have been less precise. "someone" in the middle class may indeed benefit, but it will not make life for the middle or lower class as a whole better.

Yes it will. Even if only say, 15% of the middle and lower classes (Though, really, its arguable as to whether or not there is a true "lower class" in the US.) benefit from taxing the rich, then the middle and lower classes have, collectively, benefited. Simply because a thing does not benefit all members of a group, does not mean that the group as a whole does not benefit.

**Clthomps**

Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.

Here you go.
*Put in a budget (I know that just sent all the Democrats screaming from the room). The budget will have a maximum $ expenditure of the same as calender year 2011 MINUS 10%. This includes ALL expenditures.
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 1%
$15001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
>$500,000: 50%

Tax rate is based on any income stream including dividends, earnings, revenues, fees, government benefits, and child support. ANY CASH IN THE DOOR, again no deductions.

If doesn't balance then budget is reduced 5% further each year until it does.

Work for you?

That's a good start Fraz but I think the flat rates should look more like this:

*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 0%
$15,001-30,000 1%
$30,001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
$500,001- 1,000,000: 45%
$1MIL-$20MIL 50%
+10% To a max of 80% for every 20 Million

People that make under 15k a year need every penny they can get, and people over 1million a year can spare some change

**Sgt_Scruffy**

dogma wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I think any (responsible) increase in taxes would go towards paying for programs we've already signed into law but operate at a deficit. So at best, we're talking about simply extending the status quo.

Maybe, maybe not. Tax increases can't really be considered in a vacuum. They're, ideally, part of an overall reform package that includes budget cuts, restructuring, and even entirely new programs.

Of course, all of those things, even budget cuts, will require quite a bit of political capital to accomplish; and good luck finding that these days. But who knows, maybe the American people will start to realize that they're just as big a part of the problem as politicians.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I should also have been less precise. "someone" in the middle class may indeed benefit, but it will not make life for the middle or lower class as a whole better.

Yes it will. Even if only say, 15% of the middle and lower classes (Though, really, its arguable as to whether or not there is a true "lower class" in the US.) benefit from taxing the rich, then the middle and lower classes have, collectively, benefited. Simply because a thing does not benefit all members of a group, does not mean that the group as a whole does not benefit.

Comprehensive reform is what I'm getting at. Both sides of Congress are so beholden to their base that reform is impossible. I think that if conservatives had any faith that increased taxes would help solve the problem AS PART OF a general overhaul of the federal government, there would be a whole lot less heart-burn over the idea.

I know I (although I am by no means even top 10%) wouldn't mind paying some more taxes if I felt it would solve the deep problems our country faces.

EDIT: I'd be for a federal sales tax on nonessential goods and services. Buying a iPhone is not a necessity. Tax it.

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.

Here you go.
*Put in a budget (I know that just sent all the Democrats screaming from the room). The budget will have a maximum $ expenditure of the same as calender year 2011 MINUS 10%. This includes ALL expenditures.
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 1%
$15001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
>$500,000: 50%

Tax rate is based on any income stream including dividends, earnings, revenues, fees, government benefits, and child support. ANY CASH IN THE DOOR, again no deductions.

If doesn't balance then budget is reduced 5% further each year until it does.

Work for you?

I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %

Then cut all the subsidies and balance the budget properly.

charge interest on the money used to bail out the banks at prime +1%

also child support isn't tax deductible in the states I frequent anyways.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

Melissia wrote:A balanced budget would only work if we slashed defense and did major reforms ro medicare and social security.

The latter two aren't going to happen because the voting block of old people tend to vote in ways that help them at the expense of younger generations, and the former isn't going to happen because it would make the Republican party have an aneurysm.

TBH, if I were old I wouldn't want Social Security cut either (especially if I was depending on it).

I think the under 40s will have to bite the bullet and pay for the codgers while getting nothing in return for real change to take place.

**Melissia**

sirlynchmob wrote:I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %

Which effects poor people disproportionately.

A person making 15k a year will be devastated by by losing $1,500, but ten percent be a pretty small amount for someone making even 50k a year, in comparison.

**Hazardous Harry**

Melissia wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %
Which effects poor people disproportionately.

A person making 15k a year will be devastated by by losing $1,500, but ten percent be a pretty small amount for someone making even 50k a year, in comparison.

Exactly, this is the problem with it. While the percentage of tax taken may be the same, the effect it has on those being taxed sure isn't.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Melissia wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %
Which effects poor people disproportionately.

A person making 15k a year will be devastated by by losing $1,500, but ten percent be a pretty small amount for someone making even 50k a year, in comparison.

Exactly, this is the problem with it. While the percentage of tax taken may be the same, the effect it has on those being taxed sure isn't.

Then we need to think before we use the word "fair".
If I pay 20% and you pay 0%... that really does not feel 'fair' to me!

**Frazzled**

Clthomps wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.

Here you go.
*Put in a budget (I know that just sent all the Democrats screaming from the room). The budget will have a maximum $ expenditure of the same as calender year 2011 MINUS 10%. This includes ALL expenditures.
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 1%
$15001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
>$500,000: 50%

Tax rate is based on any income stream including dividends, earnings, revenues, fees, government benefits, and child support. ANY CASH IN THE DOOR, again no deductions.

If doesn't balance then budget is reduced 5% further each year until it does.

Work for you?

That's a good start Fraz but I think the flat rates should look more like this:

*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 0%
$15,001-30,000 1%
$30,001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
$500,001- 1,000,000: 45%
$1MIL-$20MIL 50%
+10% To a max of 80% for every 20 Million

People that make under 15k a year need every penny they can get, and people over 1million a year can spare some change

no. Everyone must have skin in the game.

**Hazardous Harry**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
Melissia wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %
Which effects poor people disproportionately.

A person making 15k a year will be devastated by by losing $1,500, but ten percent be a pretty small amount for someone making even 50k a year, in comparison.

Exactly, this is the problem with it. While the percentage of tax taken may be the same, the effect it has on those being taxed sure isn't.

Then we need to think before we use the word "fair".
If I pay 20% and you pay 0%... that really does not feel 'fair' to me!

If you end up paying $30million, but have another $30 million left over anyway then you aren't really being adversely affected by the loss of money.

If I end up paying $10,000, leaving me only another $10,000 to live off, then I am most definitely being more adversely affected than you are from the loss of $30 million. You won't struggle to pay rent and buy food with that kind of cash, I will.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

No exceptions?

Because I can think of quite a few where being exempt from tax is the just way of going about things.

**Melissia**

I presume Fraz also wants a tax on non-profits and church organizations (which are not always nion-profit).

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:I presume Fraz also wants a tax on non-profits and church organizations (which are not always nion-profit).

Works for me. I am as constant as the Northern Star.

**dogma**

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

They already do by virtue of being citizens. Moreover people in the lower tax brackets, unlike people in the upper tax brackets, don't generally have the option of simply leaving.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Then we need to think before we use the word "fair".
If I pay 20% and you pay 0%... that really does not feel 'fair' to me!

If the purchasing power of the remaining 80% of your income massively exceeds the purchasing power of 100% of my income, I see no issue.

**Frazzled**

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

**Hazardous Harry**

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?

**Shrike325**

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.

**dogma**

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?

Either way, any given citizen can vote (or buy) themselves benefits, obviously, tons of different tax payer demographics do it all the time; either by way of tax breaks, subsidies, or some other mechanism.

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.