A couple of months ago, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) was asked about wealthy people like Warren Buffett who believe they should pay more in taxes for the nation's benefit. The Republican governor said they should "shut up" and rely on a voluntary system in which the rich pay more to the treasury, but only if they want to.
Associated Press
And while Christie added, "I'm tired of hearing about it," Stephen King responded this week, "I'm not tired of talking about it." The best-selling author, whose success has made him very wealthy, argued in colorful terms, "Tax me for f@%&'s sake."
It's true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions.... What charitable 1 percenters can't do is assume responsibility -- America's national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can't fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, "OK, I'll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS." That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.
What of those wealthy Republicans who insist they shouldn't apologize for their riches? King isn't impressed with this argument, either.
What some of us want ... is for you to acknowledge that you couldn't have made it in America without America..... 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.
It seems to me Stephen King should start a political blog. I'd read it.
Leave a Comment:
The One Percent must be held accountable and made to pay their fair share. This is what real Americans are demanding from this this do-nothing Congress. Incomes for the top percent of taxpayers have shot up at an obscene pace even as incomes and wages for the vast majority of Americans have fallen. Poverty is at record levels while the rich get big tax breaks on their market investment and corporate jets. Hit 'em in the pocketbook and stop forcing deficit reduction on the backs of the middle-class. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The 1% do pay their fair share.
They made 16.93% of the income - paid 36.73% of the income taxes - with a real tax rate of 24.01%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/27235.html
Meanwhile half the country paid virtually no income taxes. No sales, and payroll taxes don't count here. King is talking Federal income taxes only.
Could someone define what a "fair share" is. If it means removing all deductions and loop holes, I'm for it. If it means letting the Bush tax cuts expire fore everyone, I'm for it. To be fair, why should a renter subsidize a home owner? What a shock it will be when the payroll tax reduction expires. And unemployment insurance. It should be an interesting lame duck session.
I hate that stupid statistic. What do you think would happen if those people who paid no income taxes paid? They wouldn't have enough to live on and would need government assistance; hence, they aren't taxed.
Shooter, you're using AGI numbers. That 16.93% only proves that the 1% are using tax loopholes to the detriment of the country. Considering the top 1% actually made over 20% of the total income.
Wrong Shooter. How can you stack percentages against the willingness of men and women in the armed services, police officers, fire fighters, etc. to give their lives for our the principles built into our society? *That's* doing your fair share. So, give me and your bean-counting-as-patriotism a break.
No, the 1% do not pay their fair share. They actually have money left after paying basic living expenses, unlike many of us who have to go without just to get by. And how is it that they only make 16.93% of income but control 42% of the wealth. Sounds like somebody is cherry picking a definition of income to mean what they want it to. http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/
Shooter's claim is 100% false:
As a percentage of their incomes, middle- and low-wage Americans pay MUCH more than those at the top.
Indeed I am. It's what the IRS provides. If you have a problem with what that includes, lobby for changes to the tax code, not what people make.
So you think everyone should be as miserable as you are? That's not very nice.
Because they are good at accumulating it. It's a talent.
One has nothing to do with other, a non-sequiter.
Hardly. If you have a problem with local taxes, write a letter to your Town council. This post is about Federal income taxes, everybody pays a defined amount of SS, and an unlimited amount of Medicare tax.
"Pay their fair share" means NO DEBT. All of the federal (public) debt comes from tax cuts for the rich. And the rich are going to have to pay it back one way or another.
"Half the country paid virtually no income taxes" thanks to Republican tax cuts.
And the top 1% does not make 20% of the money. In this year, the first time in history, the top 1% makes 93% of the money, which they take out of the GDP. so it never circulates. This is the first time in history that income has been this unequal.
Being born rich is a talent I wish I had. Most of the 1% were born in the 1%. It's an aristocracy.
I wrote:
To which Shooter replied:
And *that* friends tells us all we need to know about Shooter and his "Party before the people" crowd. "Paying their fair share" in his mind is all about percentages and bean counting. For other Americans its about doing what needs to be done. Non sequitur indeed.
How about the Gov't make some cuts? Would King be singing the same tune if he had to write a check to the GSA or a failing "Green" company? Once Gov't can reel in it's waste, and be fiscally responsible, then you can talk about taking more of people's money, not a penny till then.
Here we go again with over-used and much refuted 47% pay no federal income tax remark, often accompanied by ‘the wealthy pay more’ claim.
It’s true 47% per no federal income tax. That’s up from 38% the previous year. One in two Americans are now considered low income, and 60% of that 47% make $20,000 or less a year. There's a reason why that group owes no federal income taxes, but truth is there are many more kinds of taxes than the federal income variety. The CBO estimates there are about 10% who actually pay no federal tax at all.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/12/14/20111214-of-2-in-america-low-income.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/americans-paying-no-taxes/
That doesn’t even address the 55% of corporations who pay no taxes as reported by the GAO in a report that looked at a seven year period of taxes.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf
As for the wealthy pay more taxes, that’s also true if one only looks at the actual dollar amount. One percent of $1,000,000 is actually more than 12% of $50,000. Do the math. But is anyone really going to argue this is a fair breakdown?
Too much detail to looking at this issue for it to be possible to bring it up here, but there are very informative looks out there. It does require more than just taking
talking points from Rush and Fox, however.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
This report, in addition to the examination of percentages of income actually paid, vs. the tax rate, also looks at the disparity of wealth distribution in the US. It’s long, but very informative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
Informative article that examines the tax rates on different types of income. The overwhelming majority of those in the top 1% do not derive their income from salaries. Since most of it comes from dividends (no taxes) and capital gains (tax rate of 15%) , it does make a difference, and citing the 35% tax rate doesn’t fit.
Very good comment and well cited.
Excuse me, are you insisting that everyone risk their life before being able to say they paid their fair share? I would guess then you have a large problem, because most people are military or public safety types. Oh well.
Cite please.
No they aren't.
http://www.investmentu.com/2007/October/forbes-richest-400.html
How are you doing eap/contessa? I actually was worried that you were Breitbart for a while because you stopped blogging here after he died. Lol just kidding (well a little bit). But never the less am glad to see that you are OK
a good place to look for information about wealth distribution:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Fromnytosc- What he is talking about (referring to King) is that he would like to repeal deductions for upper income earners or otherwise implement the Buffet Rule so that the minimum amount for upper income earners would be 30% and that he would like the base rate to increase to 50%. Repealing the Bush tax cuts would actually only increase the base rate to 39% which would be far lower than what King is asking for when he says "fair share." You can disagree w/ him, certainly, but since you asked what it is that he's saying I'm going to assume, based on previous statements he has made, that this is what he means when he says "fair share."
From the 1%'s point of view, I'll wager this is some of the best horror King has ever written.
Ha! Good one Freddie!
I have other favorite authors, but Stephen King just jumped WAY UP on my list of favorite people.
George Lakoff made the point in his 2004 "Don't Think of an Elephant" that Republicans frame this as a moral issue: people who are poor, out of work, uneducated, unemployable, suffering from any chronic illnesses, etc. are inherently immoral or else their lot would be different. That is why Republicans don't feel a need to apologize for their riches since they honestly feel they deserve the riches, that the riches have accrued to them as some distinction of merit.
Those of us with half a conscience have to retake the morality issue. It should not be so hard to make the point that good, moral people have become victims to all of the above maladies since the economic policies of the Bush years took down the markets. We have to get the message through that Romney and all of the Bush acolytes he is adding to his entourage will only reverse whatever fragile recovery has begun under Obama; and, that Obama needs Democrats in both houses of Congress to help since Republicans have shown no willingness to do so.
Stephen King stepping up to the political stage to knock the Republicans back a notch.
Awesome.
We've had too many days and nights of the Republicans acting like the Can-Toi, it only makes sense that this author, who loves to bash bullies in his books, would say something against the "party of no class."
I predict a whole news cycle of mixing Stephen King mythos and political ephemera.
John Boehner can get killed by the clown from IT.
Nancy Pelosi can go Carrie on all the ignorant anti-women Tea Party Freshmen.
Governor Ultrasound can wake up to suddenly find to his horror that he's become a pregnant woman.
Mitt Romney can finally admit that Randal Flagg is his campaign manager.
It's only fitting, karmic justice for the party that seems to have collectively sold its soul to Leland Gaunt.
There'll be watergate if Gan wills it.
For the Republican 1%, "we the people" is a la carte.
It seems to me Stephen King should start a political blog. I'd read it.
I am pretty sure he can write a little. :)
We get the same reaction whenever one of the top 1% say "raise my taxes".The republicans say if they want to pay more taxes "write a check".So if republicans are so worried about the national debt why dont they "write a check"!
Let's start with you. I see you don't understand the relative sizes of of what you're commenting on.
One cannot "write a check" to diminish each years deficit, much less the entire debt. There is no amount of tax that will offset the deficit each year.
Ponder this... the deficit each year is larger than all the personal income tax collected, from all the nation, from all the year. Put another way, the credit card bill is bigger than our salary.
The millionaire's tax would only cover two and a half months of the payroll tax cut. That's it, that's all. The only real reason to raise taxes is for retribution.
Maybe they don't because, like Ann Romney, they don't think of themselves as wealthy!
Thanks joca41 and make sure to ask them why they weren't concerned about the debt through two tax cuts, two wars and a prescription drug benefit.
Hmmmm. let put this a different way.
Writing a check is just a waste of money. It helps no one and just makes you worse off. Why do you think King won't write the check?
By your thinking, Shooter, it doesn't matter if we pay down the debt because it will never get smaller, no matter what we do, unless we stop spending as much. Seems to me that's just wrong. Because every penny spent on paying it down does reduce it, even if we can't see the change. I've got a friend who messed up his federal taxes a few years ago by not changing his number of dependents when he got divorced. He's been paying on it every month now for 3 years. The amount due still looks as big as it did when he first found out, but it is going down and will be paid off.
As for raising taxes for retribution...retribution for what? The fact that the rich can take breaks I can't? The fact that the Governor of Florida talks about loaning his re-election campaign no more than 72 million dollars as if it's the amount I pay each month for my glucose test strips? Talk about out of touch.
The problem with our country's debt is that it was never meant to be paid off in full. It's how the world does business, with countries owing money and constantly paying on it.
Then why are your GOP buddies suggesting that people like Buffett and King write checks?
And your arguments that the 1% do pay their fair share are misleading; you take the nominal figures to arrive at a percentage of federal revenue that comes from the 1%. But as a percentage of their income (which doesn't even include investment gains), they pay a lower rate than many of us in the middle. Explain how that is fair.
What you are talking about is the "real rate" I provided.
This is why anecdotal arguments don't work well. The headline guys you're thinking about aren't representative of the 1%.
Well, if you can't tax away the deficit, there's nothing left but to spend less, yes? Past the left has actually decided that paying down the debt doesn't matter. Heck, borrowing doesn't matter. Printing is what's happening now.
Sad but true. Our nominal debt hasn't been paid down since 1956.
I would point out something very important for you to consider, shooter. The capital gains rate (the rate at which most of Mitt Romney's money is taxed) is 15% which is lower than the marginal rate of most middle class Americans. Rich people don't have jobs in the way you and I have a job. They make money in other ways. Those ways are taxed at lower rates than the ordinary income rates. That isn't fair. Full Stop. Regular middle class people shouldn't be taxes at higher rates than rich people.
Now, middle Americans also pay social security taxes and medicare taxes. Guys like Mitt Romney pay those taxes on their earned income. Social security taxes are capped. They are only collected on income below $105,000 (or some similar number depending on where the index puts it this year.) I know because my earned income is more than $105,000 and the last few months of the year my paychecks are larger than in the first part of the year. Rich people like Mitt Romney who live off their investment portfoilios, don't pay social security or medicare taxes on their investment income even though I would argue managing an investment portfoilio is a real job.
The tax issue is a matter of fairness. Everybody should be paying about the same percentage of tax. That percentage should be tied to the cost of the government services we collectively want. Everybody should be paying about the same percentage. The poor might pay a little less and the rich might pay a little more but right now that isn't the case. The rich pay a whole lot less on a percentage basis. That is unfair.
No matter what happens to your company, as long as you work there you are guaranteed a paycheck, yes? What happens to investors if they are wrong? They lose their investment. (except banks) Now, if employees are willing to bet their college fund on the company, or may be go without paychecks for a while, that gets a lower rate. So, which do you prefer? A certain check, or the possibility of no money at all?
They will in 2013.
Are you kidding me? A flat tax would be terrific. Sign me up for that one.
Yep. Now let's see if Shooter has a clue where the money goes.
Spend less on what? Let's see if Shooter has a clue.
Obama offered a budget that would have cut the deficit by 5 Trillion dollars in 10 years. But the GOP knocked it down, because it included a tax revision. he said we could NOT get the budget straight without an increase in taxes for some people. but the GOP in their Norquist fueled ecstasy wouldn't go for it.
Republicans operate under the false assumption that everybody who's rich worked harder than anybody else to accumulate all those bucks.
There's a saying in financial management that applies here: If you have $1, turning it into $10 is work. If you have $1 million, turning it into $10 million is inevitable.
There's nothing wrong with making your money work for you. But it shouldn't confer any special moral status--or tax advantage.
Good one!
King should pay the back taxes he currently owes before he starts running his mouth!
Interesting, the only proof I can find about King owing back taxes is in the comment sections of various articles. I even found one that said he owed over a billion dollars in back taxes. It's almost as if people are making up lies to attack him.
Of course, I could be wrong. I would love some proof that he owes back taxes. If you provide that, I will apologize for calling you a liar.
If you listen to the argument, it's clear that the Republican's just don't get it (again). The issue here is fairness. The rich should pay at least as much as the middle class. That's the point. Their response it that the additional revenue from taxing the rich will not do much to eliminate the deficit, so why bother. This is NOT an argument about balancing the budget or getting rid of the deficit with one quick change as they see it, it's a matter of fairness. No, increasing their tax burden will not get rid of the deficit. Nobody is saying that. It's a matter of fairness. They just don;t get that. Or they choose not to.
This is NOT an argument about balancing the budget or getting rid of the deficit with one quick change as they see it, it's a matter of fairness.
Excellent somebody gets that. Onward.
Fairness. I'm sorry, but that doesn't work as a motivation for human beings. And let me tell you, a lot of the crap that has to be done, so you can sit in isolated glory pontificating to the rest of us... requires motivation.
The 1% whine that they're "paying more than their share" in taxes, but I believe the real question isn't the amount of taxes one pays, but the amount of income one has after taxes. So if I make, say, $100K and have $70K left after taxes (25% effective rate) but someone makes $3000K and has $2000K left after taxes (33% effective rate), who's better off? Who can live more comfortably on their income? And why do we let people get away with claiming that a high personal income makes people job creators? What jobs do they create? Assembly-line workers for high-end Mercedes or assembly-line workers for Ford Focus?
The founders of this great country are rolling over in their graves over how much taxes are being paid by anyone, nevermind the rich. Revenue is NOT the problem, spending is.
Spending on what? Let's see if Richard has a clue.
This job creator idea is totally false. It comes from the Reagan era and his trickle down theory. It has never worked and will never work. The job creators are the American people that are living well and spending their money. If there is no demand for goods or services, no rich person is going to hire more people. What causes demand for goods and services is the middle class with extra cash to spend.
Sorry, but that's not how the world works. Labor is like a bunch of people standing around with nothing to do, until someone arrives with an idea and the money to make it happen.
As for demand, it's ever present, it never goes away. Having money to pay for that demand is something else altogether. That requires a job.
The top 10% complain that they're paying 50% of the taxes... but do they realize that they're making 90% of the money?
Why do the fair share detractors never do the math on minimum wage, to see why "half the nation" doesn't pay taxes.
Working full time at above minimum wage, say $8 equals a gross paycheck of $340.00. Times that by 4 for a month, still gross equals $1360 less the minimums taken out for FICA, Federal at .14% for both equals $1169 left to pay rent (say, $400), lights (say $50), car insurance (say $50) leaving $669 for any other bills, food, gas. This is without car payments, cable TV, cell phones, internet, or any other trappings of civilization.
Maybe this is why the government allows deductions for people living on minimum wage to the point where they get to keep their money, because its poverty level. Let's see Mittens live on minimum wage. Yet, people all across this nation are living on it, and the rich want to take minimum wage away?
Your forgetting the free money provided via EITC and refundable tax credits.
Table scraps. Nothing more.
Thank you!! The best way to broaden the base of taxpayers is for employers to pay their employees a living wage. If the 1% ers don't want to pay any taxes, why don't they try living off of a minimum wage job for awhile?
and therein lies the downside to a meritocracy...if you're a success, it has nothing to do with luck and chance and everything to do with being a hardworking, intelligent person. flip side: if you fail, it has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with being lazy and stupid. if you'd like something to read rachel, might i suggest a little alain de botton 'status anxiety'? excellent read!
Excellent, we need 8,000 more people like this to speak out. I'm very happy that he railed against the tea-tards and their delusion of grand taxation.. Idiots! Norquist and Armey, et al should have their heads displayed on pig poles..
Eliminationist rhetoric isn't going to help your case.
Okay, how about exiled. Is that okay shooter?
Glad to hear this from such a hip dude like Stephen King.
Make it easy for everyone to pay their fair share. remove the payroll taxes remove fica femove medicare tax from workers. make accounting for business easier. when you buy goods or services you pay a straight 18% tax on it, that way everyone pays the same rate buy a hot dog or buy a Bugatti the tax is the same rate for everyone. the rich dont pay into social security or medicare or fica for the most part as they either are payed as consultants, independent contractors, etc and pay themselves thru s corps and non profits they set up to avoid any liabilities. lets remove all of that, and tax at the source. hey you would even get partcipation from illegals they buy services and goods. want them to pay in amke them do it. what about the under the table workers avoiding leans and garnishments by working for cash? source point collection of goods and services solves this as well. lets work smarter not harder. hell you could even get some of the dope mans money too he buys things dosent he?
Here's something odd that I am noticing. People who start from modest backgrounds and do something to become wealthy are for their taxes being raised.
People who are born rich are for their taxes being cut.
This is why stephen king is my favorite author. all of his books reflect a parody/parable of what is going on in the world. i would be willing to bet that most people who read his works think of them as horror stories. well they are! they are a reflection of what is going on in the world today. the greed, the lack of a conscience, disregard for others, etc.
If these liars really want to pay more tax, then do it...I bet they don't skip the tax deduction page on their tax forms. I'm sure thet take every single deduction that they legally and illegally can
Want to guess how I know you did not read the article?
Yes, just like the honest people on the other side who are so worried about the increase in deficit that will bankrupt the children of this country.
See how they do so many things to make sure that they are contributing to the deficit reduction already:
Yes...the honest people on the other side sure do lead by example.
Oh....I forgot already who said: “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.” Should we then take it as him saying: "I don't give a rat about the deficit that was caused by us lowering my taxes."?
Ted Cruz from Texas quotes in The Dallas Morning News that, "He will go to his grave with Ronald Wilson Reagan defining what it means to be president." Perhaps he should look more closely at Reagan's tax cuts, instead of trying to please his tea party followers in his hunger to be elected. Just another Latino politician who suddenly develops a specious need to be patted on the back for his success through the democrat policies set in place for him in my book.
Having read King's book "On Writing" which is as much autobiography as it is a primer on writing, I have to say the man is a genius who built his name and brand by hard work, terrific writing, and an imagination that must have been honed by watching every episode of the Twilight Zone ever filmed. Like Rachel, I would read anything this guy wrote because in addition to being wealthy and successful, he is something most wealthy people are not: grateful. He recognizes that many people who got rich the old fashioned way (by inheriting, ala Mr. Romney) don't have the sense of gratitude that comes from having made it on your own. When he wrote Carrie he was teaching English in a high school. He poured blood sweat and tears into his writing, and got where he got by his own hard work. Romney and the "don't tax the rich crowd" don't understand how a guy like King who is wealthy wouldn't want to hold onto it. But for heavien's sake, how many new cars, new homes, and swimming pools can these clowns own?
My guess is, The Michelin Man is probably tired of hearing about Dieting too... If jowls were brains, Christie might actually be mildly intelligent.
More non 1% Republicans have probably read a Stephen King novel than a political book. Perhaps Mr. King can write a horror story about the true aims of the ultra-right wing.
I'm sure Shooter is a very smart person!But as far as speaking for the 1% paying their fare share, I think I trust what Warren Buffett has to say on the subject.And lets not forget right wing God Ronald Reagan saying the same thing as Buffett nearly word for word!