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


By iwog   Follow   Thu, 3 May 2012, 5:10pm   11,803 views   123 comments
In Lafayette CA 94549   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

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

A couple of highlights:

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.

Viewing Comments 1-40 of 123     Next »     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    1   8:54am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    That's just it. No one's talking about raising the top marginal rate back up to 80 or 90% like it was in the 50's and 60's (assuming I have my facts straight). Only modest increases are being proposed. When we've got massive deficits and a shrinking middle-class, that's the only prudent thing to do.

    We have to "tax the rich" because they're the only ones that have any money to tax in the first place. Everyone else is broke.

    And if Republicans want to bitch about too much spending, they should look in the mirror.

  2. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    207 threads
    7,648 comments

    2   9:24am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    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.

    Well said.

    It's hard to comprehend how we got to this place, or how much further it has to go before we wake up.

  3. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    3   10:09am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    marcus says

    It's hard to comprehend how we got to this place

    It's hard to comprehend for someone who lives in the coastal California social bubble. For the rest of us, it's very easy to comprehend.

    We got to this place because the Democrats went hard-left starting in 1968, alienating many working-class and middle-class Americans. At that point, the New Deal Coalition was destroyed.

    marcus says

    or how much further it has to go before we wake up.

    It will keep going further until one of two things happens:

    1) The Democrats give up their stance on the social issues that alienate much of America. Judging from some of the comments I've seen on Patnet, this will probably never happen. Maximum personal pleasure w/o consequences is the creed of the modern Democrat religion.

    2) We have a third Great Depression and things get so bad that average Americans have no choice but to return to the Democrat party or risk starvation. The Democrats will become more socially conservative via demographic makeup, despite howls of protest from the party establishment.

  4. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    207 threads
    7,648 comments

    4   11:24am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    wthrfrk80 says

    Democrats went hard-left starting in 1968

    I don't see it. More like the rightward drift accelerated. Watergate contributed to the feeling on the right that they were at war with politicians on the left. Hence anti Carter propaganda, Clinton impeachment, and what we have now. The whole hippie anti war polarity of the sixties didn't help either (even if they were right).

    wthrfrk80 says

    Maximum personal pleasure w/o consequences is the creed of the modern Democrat religion

    This is BS. On average it's much easier for many republicans to live selfish lives, only caring about themselves and their family, than it is for many democrats.

    I think I know what you mean. Democrats are sometimes more likely to indulge in nice vacations , travel and so on if they can, and be less sexually repressed. And maybe sometimes not as good at delaying gratification as a conservative.

    As far as materialism goes ? Not sure who gets that crown. I think that's generally an American thing.

  5. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    5   11:41am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    marcus says

    I don't see it.

    Of course not. Live outside of coastal California and you will see.

    marcus says

    This is BS. On average it's much easier for many republicans to live selfish lives, only caring about themselves and their family, than it is for many democrats.

    The modern Republican party is run by wealthy sociopaths. I'm not advocating the Republican party.

    I was talking about the sexual revolution and the social pathology it has caused.

  6. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    207 threads
    7,648 comments

    6   12:24pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    wthrfrk80 says

    I was talking about the sexual revolution and the social pathology it has caused.

    We are a bit messed up sexually, but I think blaming that on the so called sexual revolution might be an oversimplification. What about marketing, music videos and other business exploitation of the sex drive? I know the sexual revolution helped make that possible, but we were pretty repressed before that. It was inevitable.

    In many ways regarding sex, things are healthier than they were in 1960.

  7. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    7   1:00pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    marcus says

    In many ways regarding sex, things are healthier than they were in 1960.

    Ever heard of AIDS?

  8. msilenus


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    8 threads
    345 comments

    8   1:02pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    wthrfrk80 says

    Maximum personal pleasure w/o consequences is the creed of the modern Democrat religion
    ...
    I was talking about the sexual revolution and the social pathology it has caused.

    There is something very strange going on with sex and partisan identification. Going strictly by the numbers, liberals are better at conservative family values than conservatives. There's a correlation between statewide partisan voting index, and divorce rates, for example; and a similar one for teen pregnancies. States that vote for liberal presidents have fewer of these things. (Not that there's likely anything special about Presidential elections --this is just what PVI looks at.)

    A number of causes have been floated to explain these phenomena and others, but it's hard to credit any of them much. It could be an education thing: you find more liberals amongst the college educated, which probably means a deferred marriage and more mature parents. There was an amusing piece out there some time ago with the thesis, paraphrased: "In blue states, families cause children; in red states, children cause families." Some folks suggest it's genetic. (But then, for some people, everything has to be genetic.)

    Not that I credit any of that much. It really is one of those things that seems to work in practice, but there's no settled theory for it.

  9. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    9   1:06pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    msilenus says

    There is something very strange going on with sex and partisan identification. Going strictly by the numbers, liberals are better at conservative family values than conservatives. There's a correlation between statewide partisan voting index, and divorce rates, for example; and a similar one for teen pregnancies. States that vote for liberal presidents have fewer of these things. (Not that there's likely anything special about Presidential elections --this is just what PVI looks at.)

    I've heard that too from credible sources. And it's strange indeed. Maybe lots of folks are "conservative" when it comes to guns, taxes, the environment, the military, etc... but "liberal" when it comes to sex (but not quite smart enough to use contraception if they don't want babies).

  10. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    392 threads
    20,774 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    10   1:09pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    wthrfrk80 says

    I've heard that too from credible sources. And it's strange indeed. Maybe lots of folks are "conservative" when it comes to guns, taxes, the environment, the military, etc... but "liberal" when it comes to sex (but not quite smart enough to use contraception) if they don't want babies.

    Well I'm not exactly a liberal, but I've been married 20 years without any divorces, I have a kid, no abortions, I like kinky sex, I have lots of guns, and I vote for Democrats exclusively in federal elections but often vote Republican in state elections.

    Someone gimmie a label.

  11. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    11   1:52pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    I've been married 20 years without any divorces

    iwog says

    I like kinky sex

    lol, you must have a very understanding wife, ha ha

  12. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    392 threads
    20,774 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    12   2:07pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    wthrfrk80 says

    lol, you must have a very understanding wife, ha ha

    She's a peach. =)

  13. CBOEtrader


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    26 threads
    510 comments
    Chicago, IL

    13   5:06pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    msilenus says

    There's a correlation between statewide partisan voting index, and divorce rates, for example; and a similar one for teen pregnancies.

    This is a good point. There is a direct correlation between availability of morning after pills and highy decreased rates of teen pregnancies. (Compare Europe to here, for example.)

    Our conservative social values, combined with loose social support systems of teen mothers, results in a boat load of ghetto babies.

    It's really quite sad

  14. CBOEtrader


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    26 threads
    510 comments
    Chicago, IL

    14   5:08pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    iwog says

    Someone gimmie a label.

    You're a demoquack?

  15. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    392 threads
    20,774 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    15   5:14pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    CBOEtrader says

    iwog says

    Someone gimmie a label.

    You're a demoquack?

    Close enough.

  16. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    207 threads
    7,648 comments

    16   5:46pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    wthrfrk80 says

    marcus says

    In many ways regarding sex, things are healthier than they were in 1960.

    Ever heard of AIDS?

    I said in many ways. Besides, aids is a bizarre retrovirus that originated (I think) in Africa. Are you going to say that it's the result of our sexually liberated society?
    Obviously it was spread more than it would have if we still had Victorian values. But I'm not sure that I could from that alone say that I wish we could go back to those repressed times.

  17. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    17   7:38pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    But I'm not sure that I could from that alone say that I wish we could go back to those repressed times.

    Repressed? How?

    Are you talking about the bizarre idea that a male and female should commit to loving each other for life...instead of treating each other as consumer goods to be disposed of when they're no longer "useful"?

  18. clambo


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    1,484 comments
    Santa Cruz, CA

    18   8:13pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Stephen King lives in a poor state and he has a poor grasp of math.
    1/2 of Americans don't pay income tax.
    The "billionaires and millionaires" are very few people.
    You can say for the sake of a twisted "fairness" that we should steal money from the richer guys.
    The result will not be more jobs, more economic growth, more energy, more production, more wealth.
    The result of consifcating more wealth from the rich will be 1. more welfare 2. better pensions for a. GSA b. Secret service c. EPA d. dept or energy, among the various goldbricks in our government service.
    The Secret service duties should be sub-contracted out to some real badasses like Blackwater or similar.
    I grew up on an island in summer where rich people came to visit. We envied them and then missed the money when they left after Labor Day.

  19. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    19   9:23pm Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    clambo says

    You can say for the sake of a twisted "fairness" that we should steal money from the richer guys.

    I'm not for raising taxes on the rich because I envy them. It's because we have massive deficits and only the rich have any real money to tax. I'm not even saying the higher taxes on the rich should be permanent. But the debt is getting crazy and both parties spend spend spend.

  20. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    392 threads
    20,774 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    20   7:23am Sat 5 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    clambo says

    You can say for the sake of a twisted "fairness" that we should steal money from the richer guys.

    That's right. Rich guys should only be allowed to steal wealth from workers. Workers actually taking a larger share of their own production is immoral.

    clambo says

    The result of consifcating more wealth from the rich will be 1. more welfare 2. better pensions for a. GSA b. Secret service c. EPA d. dept or energy, among the various goldbricks in our government service.

    As usual you don't attempt to actually support or explain any of these absurd assertions, you just say them and hope someone takes you seriously.

  21. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    207 threads
    7,648 comments

    21   12:50pm Sun 6 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    wthrfrk80 says

    Are you talking about the bizarre idea that a male and female should commit to loving each other for life...instead of treating each other as consumer goods to be disposed of when they're no longer "useful"?

    I wonder in the old days, you know when sex drugs and rock'n roll were still referred to as "wine women and song" how many of the men who used the services of prostitutes were in lifelong loving relationships.

    This is fascinating.

    http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/87237-sin-city-one-five-women.html

  22. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    392 threads
    20,774 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    22   1:32pm Sun 6 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    MarsAttacks! says

    And there's nothing stopping Cujo Boy from paying more to the IRS than he has too, either.

    That wouldn't solve anything. It would be just as pointless as refusing to drive on public roads because you wanted to reduce government spending.

  23. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    171 threads
    5,574 comments

    23   6:32pm Sun 6 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    I would never want to pay more taxes. Whats the point, when it all goes into a giant pool of corruption at the city, county, state, federal level.

    I've seen too many people take bribes and kickbacks in exchange for sweetheart deals. Throwing more money into that system isn't going to make it better.

    This system will only work if it will be demolished and rebuilt, it has no hope otherwise... too much corruption.... more taxes will not help.

  24. cc0


    Follow
    Befriend
    6 threads
    120 comments

    24   6:19am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    wthrfrk80 says

    marcus says

    In many ways regarding sex, things are healthier than they were in 1960.

    Ever heard of AIDS?

    Hmm ... replacing 5 deadly STDs with a single then-deadly, now-manageable STD is not better, you assert? And AIDS existed in the 1960s so it's not excluded from your hypothetical set. Yeah, things are better.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5450391

  25. country_stroll


    Follow
    Befriend
    48 comments

    25   7:03am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    But what is FAIR?

    Stephen King's argument boils down to the statement below, without bothering to state what he thinks the correct amount of taxation would be -- merely implying that the current rate of taxation is, on its face, implicitly unfair. But is this true?

    "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."

    When it comes time to pay taxes in April, everyone thinks that they pay too much, and that everyone else pays too little. This will always be so, regardless of which progressive tax structure we are currently using.

    When we have a government with little or no fiscal restraint, all tax structures are unfair to those of us forced to pay taxes. I think we would all be better served by focusing on how our tax dollars are spent, or misspent, than on how much our fellow citizen is or is not paying into the kitty. What is worse, the one misspent dollar collected from the little old lady on medicare, or the one million misspent dollars collected from a CEO? Does Solyndra ring a bell?

    As every household knows, it's silly to say that you need to earn more money without first looking at ways to cut your monthly expenses. We ran trillion dollars deficits the last few years because our financial obligations far exceed our revenues. We spend money we don't have. If we raise taxes, we cut into discretionary spending, or investment. What does that do to the job market?

    The truth of the matter is that Stephen King isn't concerned about tax collection fairness, he is concerned about economic and wealth equality. But is it fair to use the tax system to take money from those who have legally earned the money within the confines of US law, and redistribute it to those who haven't? Not in my book.

  26. positivedennis


    Follow
    Befriend
    10 comments
    Idyllwild, CA

    26   7:20am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    On my blog I talked about this issue and referenced King.http://www.prophecypodcast.com/journal/2012/5/4/do-not-feed-the-beast.html

  27. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    207 threads
    7,648 comments

    27   7:24am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    country_stroll says

    The truth of the matter is that Stephen King isn't concerned about tax collection fairness, he is concerned about economic and wealth equality. But is it fair to use the tax system to take money from those who have legally earned the money within the confines of US law, and redistribute it to those who haven't? Not in my book.

    I disagree. Taxes are the lowest they've been in 50 years. If we raise taxes ONLY on income above 250K, this has little impact on discretionary spending. And a 4% hike on income over 250K is not about equality. What are you talking about?

    Simple rule: If you pay your bills, you're far more likely to manage your spending well than if you live on credit. It really is that simple.

    For years we have spent too much on off books wars, tax cuts (mostly to the rich), and corporate welfare, and now we are going to be told we have to cut back on social spending? They starved the beast with credit based gifts to the aristocracy, and oh now we can't afford to honor our commitments?

  28. tatupu70


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    26 threads
    8,389 comments

    28   7:35am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    country_stroll says

    But is it fair to use the tax system to take money from those who have legally earned the money within the confines of US law, and redistribute it to those who haven't? Not in my book.

    Who gives a shit about fair? Life isn't fair. The government needs to build a tax structure that will enable the economy to prosper. Huge wealth or income inequality like we have now kills the economy. Period. See 1929 for exhibit A.

    But if you want to talk about "fair", then King makes a good argument about how the US enabled them to become rich. Part of the deal should be that when you become successful, you must pay a higher share of the tax burden. If you don't want to pay a higher share of the tax burden, then take a low paying job. Or tell your boss to stop giving you any raises for the next 20 years so you won't pay more taxes. Problem solved.

  29. ArtimusMaxtor


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    802 comments

    29   7:37am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    This country, land, nation, whatever serves a purpose. For the people that keep lending to it. It's simple enough to understand of course. Some of it is hard edged killing. Some of it is defense for assets. Your asset well lets think.

    It's probably not anything in your house. Maybe your house. Your car. Another part of it all is coming up with bullshit as to why this is a good system. Touting its merits. killing off all the negatives and intercepting anything of descent that may come into being. Some kind of prefered government must be put in place in a conqueored nation. Take oh say Japan. You wouldn't want to keep the old one. That would be trouble. It enables the financial backers to do business in that land. With very little trouble from a really confused populace. You don't continually give cash away and not expect anything in return. See you can come in with the "front" of Democracy and establish another monetary system that is based soley on lending and loans. Thereby getting the labor you need in that land to do what you need to have done.

    It may not "dawn" upon one that Democracy is the prefered government of people that lend and loan cash. Democracy implies freedom, decision although maybe not the final selection. If in ones mind it is freedom, decision and a struggle to convince ones opponent. Then a tug of war begins. With the opposing sides blaming each other. Struggling to convince. In ever faster thought coming up with what is thought in ones mind to be the cleverest ideas to outwit ones opponents. If not you can draw on whats out there.

    Also if you are fooled into thinking that the final result is your doing. Even in the face of colossal assets ability to print the only legal means of trade at a whim. A "government" that is so much in debt no one wants to think about it or even consider it.

  30. ArtimusMaxtor


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    802 comments

    30   8:31am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Another mistake that is made commonly or not commonly. Is that lenders "protect" their borrowers. They very much do. I have shown you what the end game is in borrowing. Lenders consider their borrowers one of their greatest assets. When you borrow you actually "become" an asset. In that your labor is dedicated to them. You could make the argument no its not. However until what you owe on is paid for it certainly is.

    Now key to all of this is paper or cash. Once again you can't eat it neither can the lenders or debt merchants. It's for all intensent purposes in its cash condition, it's inert. Thats where you have to have a monetary system in place that is nothing but lending and loans in place in order to utilize all of that labor or "capture" all of that labor. Which leads to a very large amount of assets. Albiet considered asset until paid for which can be sold and recaptured. A huge labor force or labor "pool". Which is captured by the "ulitmate" lender in several ways. Advanced assets of course require advanced learning. Who you may consider rich could be someone with an ulcer grinding his stomach wondering how to pay a huge loan back. You could bear the brunt of that potentially of course.

  31. jerrypap


    Follow
    Befriend
    21 comments

    31   9:18am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Enough of this BS about the "rich" not paying their fair share.
    The top 20% already pays 80% of the income tax.
    It is time to for our bloated, corrupt, and inefficient government to stop spending on useless programs and job stifling over regulation.

  32. tatupu70


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    26 threads
    8,389 comments

    32   9:23am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    jerrypap says

    Enough of this BS about the "rich" not paying their fair share.
    The top 20% already pays 80% of the income tax.

    How does this statement have anything to do with this statement

    jerrypap says

    It is time to for our bloated, corrupt, and inefficient government to stop spending on useless programs and job stifling over regulation.

    If the last 20 years have shown us anything, it's that US spending is almost completely unrelated to US revenues. Futhermore, spending levels don't matter when you are trying to design a tax code that will help ensure a healthy economy.

  33. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    392 threads
    20,774 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    33   9:23am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    jerrypap says

    Enough of this BS about the "rich" not paying their fair share.

    The top 20% already pays 80% of the income tax.

    It is time to for our bloated, corrupt, and inefficient government to stop spending on useless programs and job stifling over regulation.

    Nice talking point. Why not expand your mind a little bit?

    There is no top 20% without the bottom 80% making them money, just like there is no top 1% without the bottom 99% making them rich. Capitalism is the exploitation of cheap labor to take wealth away from those who create it.

    Therefore a CEO who is paid $20 million has taken ALL that money away from the workers who created it. That being the case, why shouldn't he pay substantially more taxes than the people who are being exploited?

  34. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    34   9:25am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    jerrypap says

    Enough of this BS about the "rich" not paying their fair share.
    The top 20% already pays 80% of the income tax.

    The "rich" are paying their fair share. I agree.

    But the "ultra rich" are not: Warren Buffett himself is quoted as saying he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Capital gains taxes are 15%, which is much lower than the top marginal INCOME tax rate.

    There's no reason this "Buffett Loophole" shouldn't be closed. Capital gains taxes should be higher for "ultra high net worth" individuals.

    Of course, I'd rather have everyone's taxes were lowered to 15%. But unfortunately the bills are coming due and both parties spend spend spend. How else you gonna buy votes?

  35. david1


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    790 comments
    33 male
    Fort Mill, SC

    35   9:53am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    jerrypap says

    Enough of this BS about the "rich" not paying their fair share.
    The top 20% already pays 80% of the income tax.

    Fair enough. Actually the number I found was for 2009: The Top 25% pay 87% of the income tax.

    The top 25% also earns 67% of the income, however.

    The top 1% pays 37% of the income tax while earning 17% of the income.

    The top 5% pays 59% of the income tax while earning 32% of the income.

    The top 10% pays 70% of the income tax while earning 43% of the income.

    Open invitation to anyone in the top 1% unhappy with his tax bill: I will gladly trade tax bills with you. I only ask in return we trade income as well. I'll trade jobs if you require. Deal?

  36. m1ckey6


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    2 threads
    72 comments

    36   10:06am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Go create some wealth of your own and get back to me about raising taxes.
    The fraud at all levels of government - from military contractors to the endless parade of disability pensioners - is horrifying. Why exactly does this system need more cash?
    The only reason to get excited about people with money paying more is that you expect to get some of the loot. After 30 years of running a business this mindset is well known to me. The lazier the worker, the more they expect.
    I have offered literally dozens of opportunities to people who would have become wealthy if they had put in any effort. I have put up my own capital and knowledge to every one of these people. Not one person has bothered to follow through.
    You don't know what you aren't getting as a society by turning the screws on the wealth creators.
    If you are angry at the banks, turn the screws on the banks for Gods sake! The sheer idiocy of going after everyone that earns money astounds me.

  37. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    392 threads
    20,774 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    37   10:15am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    m1ckey6 says

    You don't know what you aren't getting as a society by turning the screws on the wealth creators.

    This society was rich and afforded people who worked with a high standard of living when the top tax rate was 90% and dividends, capital gains, and interest were all taxed at much higher rates.

    So I think I know exactly what I'm getting when I turn the screws on the "wealth creators". Do you?

  38. ArtimusMaxtor


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    802 comments

    38   10:29am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    tatupu70 says

    If the last 20 years have shown us anything, it's that US spending is almost completely unrelated to US revenues. Futhermore, spending levels don't matter when you are trying to design a tax code that will help ensure a healthy economy.

    Your right. Exactly. Tatupu.

    See thats the thing about a one way conversation or propaghanda. You get so goofy your almost incredulous that the people that keep yammering at you don't get something if even by osmosis. The mistake is "freedom of speech" of course and most importantly the ole game of "tip the bucket" That old serpant and struggle bettween two opposing sides. Cause if it were that way even taxes might be gone. However whats really going on your shouting into a bucket. Think of television like this: Your in a chair staring into a very bright light and several people are yammering at you and your mouth is taped shut. Then you may come to realize its more of a one way deal than you think. Of course don't forget the trained monkeys that can read. I called a radio station once. Got out one thought. The guy cut me off and did a 15 min diatribe. It wasn't that he didn't like me or I said something wrong. I think those guys just make speech's for the most part. I felt a little insecure until I realized he was doing to same thing to most everyone else. So virtually your entire communication system of "facts" is highly managed. Cept for a place like this where we get a fairly substansial number of people that sometimes come and go. It's not fucking CNN or Foxnews. But I like it. I consider people here far more "reliable" their "facts" far more believable and their reasoning way more intelligent than anything on a television or something that debt merchants own.

    Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

    Tommorow: is usury Enforceable ?

    Or hey, lets test some new usury laws. Gee maybe thats the reason they don't take you to court.

  39. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    39   10:39am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    m1ckey6 says

    I have offered literally dozens of opportunities to people who would have become wealthy if they had put in any effort. I have put up my own capital and knowledge to every one of these people. Not one person has bothered to follow through.

    Are you hiring?

  40. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    40   10:40am Mon 7 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    m1ckey6 says

    If you are angry at the banks, turn the screws on the banks for Gods sake! The sheer idiocy of going after everyone that earns money astounds me.

    Seems fair to me, yes.

Next comments »     Last »

Premium member iwog is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 343 milliseconds to create.