Stephen King Campaigning For Fair Taxation [Pic+]

Submitted by: Buiadh 5 years ago in

He WANTS to pay more taxes and he thinks all wealthy should, too. His manifesto is in the Daily Beast. Here it is.
There are 56 comments:
Male 1,059
Can I point something else out about the stupid pie metaphor? So, who supposedly made this static pie that we are supposedly dividing up? The government, I guess? What if I just say, screw your pie, I`m going to go over here and make my own pie. What the hell gives you the right to take away 28% or 35% or 50% of my frickin` pie that I made all by myself? Go make your own goddamn pie and get your hands out of mine!

Now, people, THAT is the argument that conservatives make (or should be making). There`s no grand, government-created, fixed-sized pie. The idea is, you make your own way and everyone else get the hell out of the way and mind your own business.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Wow. Long, rambling, pointless. I really could not see his point. He says something like "the rich think they should be able to spend their own money however they want," as if we`re supposed to say, "wow, really? Those bastards, how dare they?"

mcbooz, by the way, your logic is exactly 180 degrees incorrect. Whenever you tax something, you get less of it. Tax the producers and the job creators and you`ll get less production and fewer jobs. How many more years of Obama`s crappy economy and staggering unemployment do we have to live through before people finally realize that socialism doesn`t work? I guess stupid just never does go away.
0
Reply
Male 766
the government is so corrupt, if we pay more taxes they`ll just waste more of it
0
Reply
Male 2,553
>dang007
I`m sorry, I sort of see what you mean about wanting something more substantial than a quick-to-shout slogan, but is that really the response you choose? You try to make the slogan ridiculous by taking it literally and being all sarcastic about it, right? However, in your literal retort to your literal version of the slogan, would you mind specifying in what scenario he would need to define what pie he means and what ingredients go into it? Namely, what pie do you know of that you don`t need to have more of the ingredients (ergo have to pay for more of the ingredients) to get more pie? I, myself, love pie, and am very intrigued by this concept.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Of course you have not defined what the pie is or the ingredients. But if empty slogans make you happy. Knock yourself out. [/quote]
If you need me to hold your hand and step by step explain the metaphor, I can.

But we both know you`re smarter than that. You just want to nitpick because you don`t want to admit it`s true.

If you want more of the end result, you have to contribute more to the creation of said result.

But if nitpicking, ignoring reality, and general assh­olery is your thing, please don`t let me stop you.
0
Reply
Male 645
"Fact is, if you want a bigger piece of the pie, you should have to pay for more of the ingredients. "

Of course you have not defined what the pie is or the ingredients. But if empty slogans make you happy. Knock yourself out.

0
Reply
Male 646
That`s an excellent point, Altaru. Raising their taxes will give them more incentive to make even more money.

And this I can`t believe: Stephen King finally wrote something I could stomach reading.
0
Reply
Male 38,457

[quote]"Stephen King is a socialist." [/quote]
You say that like a bad thing, like cold-war mentality bad. "Dirty Commie!!" I`m looking at your age, OOOOOLD-Ollie and you better pray the socialists get power or you are gonna starve in those rapidly approaching twilight years.
0
Reply
Male 183
OldOllie - You might want to check out the Stephen and Tabitha King Foundation online.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Stephen King is a socialist. If he want`s to pay more, no one is stopping him. I bet he doesn`t give dick to charity.
0
Reply
Male 321
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with Stephen King on this one.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Fact is, if you want a bigger piece of the pie, you should have to pay for more of the ingredients.

Besides, higher tax rates give the rich an incentive to put the money back into the economy instead of hoarding it.

When they get to keep more, that`s what they do: keep it. It`s not like they`re gonna go out and buy fifty plasma tvs and twelve Ferarris just because they can afford it.

If they`ll end up having to give it away, they have more incentive to invest it back in the company instead of their wallets.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[Quote] Correlation does not imply causation.[/quote]
That is the biggest load of hypocritical double standard bullsh*t I have read on IAB in a while.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
After reading this thread I`m glad I live where I live. :)
0
Reply
Male 38,457


Cajun247, [quote]"Correlation does not imply causation." [/quote]
Doing the same thing over an over but expecting differant results
is the definition of insanity.
0
Reply
Male 442
Just who is stopping him from paying more? He could send everything he owns to the gov`t if he wanted to. And the gov`t would spend it on stupid stuff.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
Who the #$!!? does King think pays most of the taxes?

The 1 PERCENT, DUMBASS.

They already ARE assuming the responsibility, they have been since the very beginning.
0
Reply
Male 907
These people who have already made their money and want to tax people who are getting wealthy are drating non-nice individuals.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
Where is the logic in WANTING somebody to take your stuff away?
0
Reply
Male 645
You need to compare rate paid vs. economy NOT maximum marginal tax rate vs. economy. The data exist. If I remember correctly the biggest effect is the few years after effective tax rates change. When rates (effective not marginal) go up for a few years economic growth is slowed, when rates drop for a few years there is more rapid growth. Unfortunately, the data only implies a correlation not causation, and there are so many other moving parts, regulation state of the global economy, type of economy, etc. that we do not have a fine enough gradation of the data to really tell.

As to what "creates" a job. jobs are created when an employer decides that he can make more money from the work a new employee cost than the employee will cost him. Nothing more nothing less.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]How about we also take our money back from the banks that did nothing to deserve it in the first place![/quote]

...and get rid of the Fed, the REAL cause of busts.
0
Reply
Female 1,329
Sounds like the plot for his next book.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I totally agree slut_etta.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
OOhHH good idea!! How about we also take our money back from the banks that did nothing to deserve it in the first place!
0
Reply
Female 4,086
steve forbes, an extremely rich guy, advocates a flat tax. so why not? i pay, say, 11% of what i make at minimum wage and warren buffett pays 11% of his income. close the loopholes, enforce a flat tax, and (maybe) bingo-bango! some of our economic problems are addressed.

or maybe not. but it can`t be worse than the system in place now.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Bush 2.0 immediately cuts all of clintons programs, massive tax breaks to rich and to corporations and we see another Record Recession! [/quote]

Correlation does not imply causation.
0
Reply
Male 886
lmao...manifesto eh?

Hardly.
0
Reply
Male 38,457

AuburnJunky [/quote]"Tax Breaks and Trickle Down economics created the boom of the 90`s! Clinton`s fiddling with it, ended it." [/quote]
{facepalm}

50s-60s - Highest tax rate ever, best economy we`ve ever enjoyed.

Reagan gave tax breaks and deregulated the banks and a ton of other industries. This cause a short economic growth spurt that didn`t last. His 2nd term saw a Record Recession {up to that time}.

Clinton raised taxes and gave us a record booming economy, defecit paid down, SSI had a surplus... yeah, Clinton was a terrible guy.

Bush 2.0 immediately cuts all of clintons programs, massive tax breaks to rich and to corporations and we see another Record Recession!

Can anyones see a pattern here?

0
Reply
Male 3,482
And Auburn, you claim that Clinton fiddling with the economy screwed it up...

Well, the facts and statistic don`t support you. Of course, considering the internet boom, correlation =/= causation in this case, but still... "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Those eras had different brackets too practically no one reached the highest of them.[/quote]
Through most of the 50s, the highest tax bracket was $400,000, and they paid 90%. Going down to about $200,000 (you`ll see why in a minute), it was 70%

In the 60s, they dropped the highest bracket to $200,000, and left it at 70%. It stayed like that into the early 80s.

During the 90s, the bracket started being adjusted with inflation, from around $250,000 in 93 to $283,000 in 99. The rate was a steady 39.6%.

Now, the last few years the bracket been well into the high $300k range, but the rate has gone down to 35%.

Take from that what you will.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]During the booming growth econimic years of the 50s and 60s, taxes were at their highest.[/quote]

Those eras had different brackets too practically no one reached the highest of them.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@AJ: The way Reagan got economic prosperity was by borrowing money and increasing your national debt from 26.1% GDP to 41%. Basically the big companies got more money and to make ends meet Reagan borrowed a ton of money.
0
Reply
Male 645
I`ll tell you what, when Stephen pays 50% in federal income tax% I will as well.

In regards to the Boom of the 90`s. The money to build capital improvements and develop new applications and test new ideas that let the Tech Boom happen came from investments by people. These people had more money to invest because taxes were lowered AND capital gains are treated differently than earned income. Thus the tax breaks did have a lot to do with the "boom" in the 90`s.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]We had economic prosperity from 1990. [/quote]
Part of the boom of the 90`s was because standards started slipping, creating temporary gains that ended up popping, also known as a bubble.

Creative accounting and the like may create the illusion of prosperity, but in the end all it does it rot away the core.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
No, the internet boom was a major contributor.

Don`t be a dick.

Anyway, the internet boom didn`t really start taking shape until 1995. We had economic prosperity from 1990. Yes, the dot-com bubble expanded on it, but we were already feeling the positive effects.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Tax Breaks and Trickle Down economics created the boom of the 90`s! [/quote]
REALLY?

And I`m sure the sudden boom in internet-based commerce had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

Dumbass.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Tax Breaks and Trickle Down economics created the boom of the 90`s[/quote]
That`s debatable. I`d argue that the internet created the boom of the 90`s. Even IF trickle economics created jobs, the only jobs created by trickle economics would be overseas.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Good for him. He gives millions to charity every year, but emergency services shouldn`t have to rely on charity for vital equipment.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"Tax Breaks do not create jobs and Trickle-Down economics does not work."

Tax Breaks and Trickle Down economics created the boom of the 90`s! Clinton`s fiddling with it, ended it.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Romney paid 42 PERCENT in taxes and charity last year (2011). How much did Obama pay? 26 percent, on 1.7 million of income. Fair Share?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Tax Breaks do not create jobs and Trickle-Down economics does not work.[/quote]
Yup. All the tax breaks do is allow the businesses to report better quarterly profits.
0
Reply
Male 38,457

Tax Breaks do not create jobs and Trickle-Down economics does not work.

Here`s a weird idea, let`s look at what historically worked in the past. During the booming growth econimic years of the 50s and 60s, taxes were at their highest. Now, during economic collaps GE paid $0.00 taxes and the rights 1% pay reduced amounts.

things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm"
0
Reply
Male 6,737
It`s not as simple as him "writing a check". Why should he pay more when nobody else has to?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
In the 1960`s businesses paid $3.00 in taxes for every employees $1.00. Today that number is $0.22
0
Reply
Male 598
If you add up all the money and possessions of the people below or at the poverty line it comes to around $200 billion. Which is the same amount we would get from increasing taxes by just a couple of percentage points to the richest 1%.
So tell me how it makes sense to want to tax the middle and lower income people more, instead of going to the wealthy first? Which is how i hear the debate.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]This would allow businesses to relax a little and use some of the capital they have held and release it for use in day to day trading, thus injecting even more capital into the economy.[/quote]

No, they`d worry about when they were going to have to pay it back again, an economy is a collection of agreements is NOT an engine you can kickstart. Such malfeasance would also create a dangerous precedent in which if there was another depression, the govt could reserve the right to seize your property. It would be government mandated theft.
0
Reply
Male 439
Except it would be a heavy kickstart due to the massive injection of capital into the economy. This would allow businesses to relax a little and use some of the capital they have held and release it for use in day to day trading, thus injecting even more capital into the economy.

All you need is the right catalyst to get the economy moving. However, the politicians and the majority of rich people will never agree to it.
========================

How does giving more money to the government, which would use it to fund entitlement programs, inject capital into the economy? Taxation has the exact OPPOSITE effect, taking money out of the economy to be shoveled into black entitlement holes.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Kingsian apocalyptic scenario if inequality is not addressed in America[/quote]

My hyperbole meter just broke.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
You could take ALL of the wealth of the 1% and still not have enough to run the country. We`re not going to tax the country into prosperity.

----------

Except it would be a heavy kickstart due to the massive injection of capital into the economy. This would allow businesses to relax a little and use some of the capital they have held and release it for use in day to day trading, thus injecting even more capital into the economy.

All you need is the right catalyst to get the economy moving. However, the politicians and the majority of rich people will never agree to it.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
It doesnt matter what the rich celebrities want. The simple fact is the rich politicians who have their hands in dozens of businesses want to stay rich, so higher taxes for wealthy people will never happen.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Hell yes, Mr. King. Well spoken.
0
Reply
Male 2,460
Then write a frackin` check Steve. Give it all away Steve and I promise you can live in my basement free for the rest of your life.

You could take ALL of the wealth of the 1% and still not have enough to run the country. We`re not going to tax the country into prosperity.
0
Reply
Male 439
No one is stopping you, Steven. How much did you pay your accountant last year to find every deduction and loophole to lower your taxes?

If you quadrupled the amount of taxes being paid by the rich in America, it would have very little effect on our present and future debt. It may make the middle class feel better about themselves to see rich people write a bigger check every year, but it will not fix our economy.

You can look it up.
0
Reply
Male 38,457

Now someone will drag out statistics that rich people pay 66% {or more} of all taxes but are only 1% of poupulation totally ignoring that they get 85% of the income and pay less tax in

3

2

1


0
Reply
Male 6,737
Link: Stephen King Campaigning For Fair Taxation [Pic+] [Rate Link] - He WANTS to pay more taxes and he thinks all wealthy should, too. His manifesto is in the Daily Beast. Here it is.
0
Reply