Watchhttp://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.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
How come the libs and 1%'rs aren't screaming mad about the tons of money that basketball players make, and actors, and football players?
But if you start a business, bust your hump and make anywhere near that kinda money you are demonized?
Anyone?
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
CBOEtrader says
As a "liberal" I can tell you that no liberal equates government spending with Charity. Quite the contrary in fact. That's very much a republican meme. That's why they say, "thousand point of light" and talk about rich people choosing the charities they want to give to instead of being taxed, and so on.
I agree with this:
CBOEtrader says
But as for the charity bit? That's far from the truth. I hear republicans defining spending on education or safety nets as charity, instead of seeing it is about being civilized and investing in the future, and most importantly as good for the current and future economy.
The partisan BS sure does have a way of getting in the way of simple common sense.
You already know (and I think agree) with my belief about paying our bills as a very real way to become more fiscally responsible. The fact that more has to come out of higher marginal income brackets, is just the way it is. Someone making less than enough to live even a healthy lifestyle, is of course going to pay a much lower percentage (or even zero for federal ) than someone making 10 times as much as what a healthy lifestyle will cost.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
Honest Abe says
Apparently, thinking that people with hundreds of thousands in disposable income (income above taxes and basic needs) can afford to and should pay a few thousand more in taxes, is what Abe calls "demonizing."
I don't distinguish between how people make the money with these beliefs and neither does Buffet or anyone else with common sense about tax policy.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Honest Abe says
Yeah, must be strange to you when confronted with the reality that liberals actually don't care if people make lots and lots and lots of money, they just don't like the way we allow certain people to make money.
Don't worry I am sure that this feeling will pass soon, and you can get right back to thinking that liberals view rich people with hate, envy... -- or whatever.
Honest Abe says
Ooop, yeah I see. You did not even finish your post are you are getting your simplified to the point of absurdity stereotypes back on track.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Honest Abe,
I really can't believe that you actually own a business. Unless it's a one-man operation. You don't seem to have very good social skills.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,717 comments
CBOEtrader says
Why do you (and others) continuously confuse spending and revenue. Designing a tax code for revenue should be done without regard to where the money is spent. Sure you can make adjustments depending on how much revenue is needed, but the structure shouldn't change. Whether captial gains should be taxed the same as income, the level of progessiveness, etc.
Whether it is wasted is an entirely different discussion.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
770 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
tatupu70 says
I think it is a fair question, however. We constantly argue that economic activity is stfled by increasing income and wealth inequality. We see highly progressive taxes as a method by which to ease the income inequality.
We make the argument as highly progressive taxes = less income inequality = higher economic growth.
His argument is that highly progressive taxes does take income and wealth from the rich, but that does not neccesarily mean more is going to the un-rich. It could go overseas, or to a new class of rich, etc. It is a fair point.
I would ask if he (CBOE) agrees with the first part of the argument, that is less income inequality = higher economic growth. If he concedes that point, lets move the discussion on to how to lessen income inequality.
We say higher taxes. What say you, CBOEtrader? How do you propose we lessen income and wealth inequality?
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,717 comments
david1 says
Good point.
david1 says
I would argue that historically, highly progressive taxes do seem to correlate with periods of lower income inequality, but I'm certainly open to data showing otherwise.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
No one has ever, ever, answered the question "How much tax is enough"? Is it 50%? Or maybe75%? Could it be 95%? Or perhaps 100%?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
I've answered that question every time you've asked it.
Taxation should be on a progressive scale with taxes starting at 0% for people who need all their earnings to pay for basic living expenses to 80% for people making over $1 million.
Pretty much what we had from 1946 to the 1970s. Too bad you hate such a prosperous period in our history.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Taxes should be 100% on the machines that do all of the work.
Techno-communism.
See:
http://www.patrick.net/forum/?p=1212137
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
80% on earnings of $1M or more won't be enough. The problem is America has shortsighted, fiscally irresponsible, reckless politicians. The result is a spending problem. A spending problem so enormous that even a 100% tax rate isn't enough.
That begets the ago old question "What happens when you run out of other peoples money"?
So when 100% isn't enough, then what? 100% on $500,00?
And when that isn't enough, 100% on $250,000? And when that isn't enough, 100% on $75,000. And when that isn't enough 100% on everyone who is stupid enought to work because you'll get more in government benefits by NOT WORKING, than by working and paying taxes.
That IS the logical conclusion when so much is promised to so many.
But don't forget to factor in fraud, and abuse, and waste, and misappropriation, and government error, and empire building, and never ending war, and lifetime medical care to all injured vet's, and lifetime retirement for all politicians plus cost of living-inflation adjusted increases, and new departments not yet invented to insure our safety from the boogeyman, and the increased cost to monitor and store every email written, and the cost to monitor, record and store every phone conversation, and the cost to install video monitoring devices on every street lamp in America, and the cost of bridges to nowhere, and the cost of airports without passengers, and the cost of "foreign aid", and the cost to protect our allies, and the cost to police the world, and the cost of cradle to grave care, and the cost to maintain leviathan, or otherwise affectionately, collectively known as "The State".
Nope, 100% tax rate on everyone who chooses to work won't be enough.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
It's plenty enough. You just don't think it's enough because you've been lied to about the causes of America's decline. The main problem with the United States is not the national debt! The main problem with the United States is wealth disparity and the trade deficit. The national debt doesn't matter.
Honest Abe says
You tax it away, take it away, or print it away. Your perception of "other people's money" is like a single idiot sitting on a mountain of bottled water in the desert surrounded by 99 people dying of thirst. Unidirectional capitalism ALWAYS FAILS and results in poor people hauling you off and killing you.
Honest Abe says
As I said above, until you understand the question you will never understand the answer.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,717 comments
Honest Abe says
We do have a spending problem. But that is completely irrelevent to the problems with the tax structure.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
iwog says
Really? I'm not with you on that one.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Money owed to ourselves has no macroeconomic consequences. Even in default, both sides cancel out and the money still circulates in our economy.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be devastating on a personal level if the dollar was devalued or the bonds were defaulted on. Mostly rich people would be affected but retirees would also suffer greatly. However the NET effect of cancelling debt would be more money available to be spent by the government or individuals and new demand would cancel out loss of bond income/equity $1 for $1.
In fact at this point with so much debt being held by foreign interests, a devaluation or default would liberate wealth back into the country and we'd see a net BENEFIT to our economy. This is exactly what happened in Iceland when they were forced to devaluate their currency. It was the BEST thing they could have done.
Here's a fascinating analysis of two nations with two very different solutions to economic crisis, Ireland and Iceland. Iceland devalued while Ireland continues to sacrifice everything to keep its debt intact. Guess which country recovered and which one is still slogging through a recession? Look at what has happened to Greece while it continues to try and protect its bond holders.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/275524-iceland-s-higher-growth-and-lower-unemployment-a-model-for-greece
Extreme wealth disparity and a large trade deficit are the only things I care about. The United States could default on all its debt tomorrow and we'd see the biggest economic boom in history.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Interesting analysis. I wouldn't want be the one loaning the government money, though. Yikes. Like you say, a lot of personal wealth is wiped out.
Isn't a lot of our debt owned by China? Or is that just far-right propaganda?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Yup, a lot of our debt is owned by China. At the same time, our debt with China is aggressively defended by our government. The AIG and Freddie/Fannie bailouts were primarily to avoid China losing $500 billion in equity.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Hmmm...why didn't we just say "skrew China"? If it's better to default, why didn't we do it? Wouldn't it affect our "credit rating"?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
The odd thing about the AIG/Freddie/Fannie bailouts is that there was no legal obligation to rescue China. We could have instantly reclaimed half a trillion dollars in US wealth, but Bush and Paulson decided to let China off the hook for bad investments.
I would like to think Obama would have done differently but I doubt it. All these decades of protecting and nurturing the aristocracy has warped reality so much that even Democrats sometimes rubber stamp welfare for billionaires.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
God Bless America.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
Why not just bypass socialism completly and go straight to communism???
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
Honest Abe says
Abe wants to bypass capitalism and go straight to fascist dictatorship. Who's your favorite Abe ? Mussolini ?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
I don't want socialism or communism. You just don't understand what those words mean. Illiteracy is one of your biggest handicaps.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
iwog says
I think that we can safely say that this inability to understand goes beyond just socialism and communism; what constitutes a free market or capitalism seems to escape Abe as well. My guess is that this ignorance covers all political or economic systems.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Cloud says
How many times do you refuse to use public services because you think spending is too high?
Your argument is corrupt.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
915 comments
Larkspur, CA
Cloud says
So, using your logic if you are against abortion but you will not adopt orphaned babies, you too are a hypocrite?
Or if you believe in the death penalty but also call yourself a Christian - hypocrite?
Nobody wants to pay taxes. The deal is I'll pay if you pay. And if we don't pay, things will get pretty ugly.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Cloud says
No matter how many times we explain it to you, you'll run away from the explanation every single time. You wont contradict it, rebut it, or question it. You'll simply hide from it.
Taxation is meant to accomplish specific social goals. One person voluntarily paying more taxes doesn't accomplish any of those goals. One can easily advocate for making millions of Americans pay higher taxes while also being against sending his own voluntary contributions to the government. It's not hypocritical at all.
Stephen King: "I think we should build that bridge."
Clambo: "I don't want to pay for the stupid bridge, but if you want it so badly build it yourself."
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
Your logic here is valid...that doesn't seem to be the logic taken by those trying to sell higher taxes to the people though.
That, in a nutshell, was my entire point in this thread. Obama infers higher taxation on the rich, equals charity. I feel this sales approach is, at best, obfuscating the issue.
Besides your own, do you have examples of arguments for a higher marginal income/dividend tax with the purpose of lowering the wealth disparity?-- or with the point of never letting it get extreme?
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
CBOEtrader says
You mean implies right ? Or possibly old school infer (300 years ago). In any case can you give a quote or some sort of source/proof that OBama does that ?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
marcus says
I asked the same questions and the link CBO sent me had nothing to do about taxes = charity.
CBOEtrader says
So far CBO has totally failed to provide any source where anyone has stated -- implied or otherwise -- that taxes = charity.
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
Marcus and leo,
I gave you the link. Obama tries to show all the great things $150k could be spent on-- which is completely different than how the goverent would spend it. This is propaganda, or would you prefer to call it lies? Do you disagree with anything I am saying, or just arguing, as would be your partisan nature?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
CBOEtrader says
Right, and in that link Obama never makes a comparison between charity and government/taxes.
CBOEtrader says
Yes, different than how the government spends money if what you are looking for is a breakdown of every item in the budget each time government spending is mentioned by anyone.
However, all the items Obama mentioned are things that taxes are spent on. So not completely different.
Anyway, how the government spends taxes has absolutely nothing to do with Obama comparing taxes to being a charity. How taxes are spent is another issue entirely.
CBOEtrader says
I disagree that Stephen King or Obama has said anything that would make one think they view taxes as charity. I think that making that claim based on the evidence you presented is dis ingenuous, plain and simple propaganda showing your partisan nature, and if you prefer a lie.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
CBOEtrader says
I get it. CBOE likes to say he's above being partisan when in fact he is partisan as hell on the issue of taxes, which is the BIG issue now.
We all know the starve the beast strategy strategy for undoing FDRs and LBJs comie liberal ("charity") programs like social security, medicare and other social safety nets.
After a decade of running extreme deficits with tax cuts (mostly to the rich), unfunded war spending, and massive corporate welfare spending, the Ryan budget says we have to rein in spending on entitlements. "It's only common sense."
Whether the spending that OBama wants to do with tax increases is for investments he talks about or preserving entitlements, somehow partisans such as CBOE say it's charity. Actually CBOE is the only one I've heard say this, but maybe it's a big rant on RW blogs.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
After the bailouts, it's hard to say the USA is not socialist. It's just that we have socialism for the already rich, where other countries have socialism for everyone.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
CBOEtrader says
CBOEtrader says
I agree it does make you sound partisan.
Also, I agree with this comment...
CBOEtrader says
But in this instance you seem to have started with your conclusion: Liberals think that government = charity.
THEN went about trying to fine evidence to support this conclusion. No bad as long as you find actual evidence before posting your conclusion.
I am sorry you feel that someone pointing out that your "evidence" does not actually support your claim constitutes a partisan attack.
Follow
Befriend (28)
149 threads
1,398 comments
>"How come the libs and 1%'rs aren't screaming mad about the tons of money that basketball players make, and actors, and football players?"
At least the athletes (a type of entertainer), actors, singers are generating something of value to people. Now if you want to argue that people "overvalue" this entertainment (or society does) then that is a different argument.
@freak80
>"After the bailouts, it's hard to say the USA is not socialist. It's just that we have socialism for the already rich, where other countries have socialism for everyone."
I agree. I like when Patrick said, "I am against socialism for the rich."
Follow
Befriend (1)
24 threads
557 comments
Honest Abe says
They are. In sports, owners and players fight every 7-10 years over a new CBA and what the maximum salary should be. Owners HATE that they get paid so much. In the media industry, they have strikes as well. Remember the writer's strike a while back?
In the end though, a lot of anger has to do with lack of profits. Owners and media corps that are making money hand over foot are less likely to whine about paying their employees so much. Even in a recession, sports and movies are entertainment escapism, and therefore can withstand just about anything.
Follow
Befriend (1)
294 threads
5,232 comments
We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.
While Steven King may say "Tax me already" Where's the Big Hollywood director screaming to "Arrest the Fraudsters already"?
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
CaptainShuddup says
No, we have a tax problem.
If we payed for what we spent, then and only then would we get our spending under control. IT would focus politicians and those who control them on the problem.
Until then we live beyond our means and blame each other for it.