PDA

View Full Version : King has a piece in The Daily Beast



mae
04-30-2012, 05:54 AM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

Tax Me, for Fuck’s Sake!
by Stephen King • April 30, 2012

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain’t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey’s governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey’s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett’s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn’t fair. “He should just write a check and shut up, ” Christie responded, with his typical verve. “I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check—go ahead and write it.”

Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

Tired of hearing about it, they said.

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (jaws of life are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

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, “Okay, 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.

And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios, they keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: Don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you.

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck em if they can’t take a joke.

Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.

At the risk of repeating myself, here’s what rich folks do when they get richer: they invest. A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations. Don’t think so? Check the tag on that T-shirt or gimme cap you’re wearing. If it says MADE IN AMERICA, I’ll…well, I won’t say I’ll eat your shorts, because some of that stuff is made here, but not much of it. And what does get made here doesn’t get made by America’s small cadre of pluted bloatocrats; it’s made, for the most part, in barely-gittin'-by factories in the Deep South, where the only unions people believe in are those solemnized at the altar of the local church (as long as they’re from different sexes, that is).

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 dogshit. 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 the 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 to some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage 1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God’s sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope’s balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!

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 Gov. 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.

This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year, during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebeneezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.

Think about it.

mae
04-30-2012, 09:43 AM
Nice, over a thousand comments already at The Daily Beast! When a scholarly collection of King's non-fiction is published a few decades hence, this essay will need oodles of footnotes though :)

Randall Flagg
04-30-2012, 12:29 PM
Glorious! I love King's prose. When he rants, it is eloquent vulgarity at its best.

DanishCollector
04-30-2012, 02:06 PM
This must mean that the print version should be in Newsweek, assuming this piece isn't an online exclusive.

Ben Mears
04-30-2012, 03:35 PM
Uncle Steve should round up a cadre of his rich pals and target a few of the areas he is so concerned about. I'm sure they would be able to manage the money more efficiently and effectively. Throwing good money after bad isn't working. The problem isn't the lack of revenue; it's the irresponsible spending by both parties.

jhanic
04-30-2012, 03:44 PM
Thanks, Ben. My feelings exactly.

John

you ever seen a ghost?
04-30-2012, 06:13 PM
i didn't know they were affiliated. was his last piece from The Daily Beast ever printed in Newsweek?

-justin

EXPLORER
04-30-2012, 06:17 PM
Glad to find this here as I was trying to find best place to share this piece

DanishCollector
04-30-2012, 06:44 PM
Yes, the Mildred Pierce review was printed in Newsweek, so I guess this here piece must be too.

you ever seen a ghost?
05-01-2012, 05:06 AM
i did not know about the Mildred Piece reprint in Newsweek...do you have a scan?

you should e-mail me!

-justin

DanishCollector
05-01-2012, 05:30 AM
The Daily Beast and Newsweek are the same now..the first printed version of both pieces are in the magazine and the Daily Beast is just the online appearance. So the magazine publication should be considered the first true publications. Yes, I'll scan it for you.

mae
05-01-2012, 06:03 AM
Uncle Steve should round up a cadre of his rich pals and target a few of the areas he is so concerned about. I'm sure they would be able to manage the money more efficiently and effectively. Throwing good money after bad isn't working. The problem isn't the lack of revenue; it's the irresponsible spending by both parties.

I think the point he's making is that it should be mandatory, and not reliant on charity from King or anyone else.

you ever seen a ghost?
05-01-2012, 06:04 AM
one piece of information re: online appearances. if it is a simultaneous print and online appearance (like a newspaper), i only list the print appearance, because if i went down the road of listing every online version of a print article, i'd be in trouble.

from what i can gather, this piece was printed online on March 20 and the magazine appearance was April 4, so the leadtime is almost enough that i would want to print the online version as first.

-justin

Iwritecode
05-01-2012, 06:54 AM
Uncle Steve should round up a cadre of his rich pals and target a few of the areas he is so concerned about. I'm sure they would be able to manage the money more efficiently and effectively. Throwing good money after bad isn't working. The problem isn't the lack of revenue; it's the irresponsible spending by both parties.

I think the point he's making is that it should be mandatory, and not reliant on charity from King or anyone else.

I agree with Ben. What's the point of giving them more money when they don't make good decisions with they money they have now?

It's like giving a kid $20 and he goes and blows it on pop and candy and then comes back asking for more when he sees a new toy that he wants.

mtdman
05-03-2012, 05:34 PM
Why am I supposed to care about what he thinks about politics? Just because he's known for writing books? I'm tired of rich people whining about not paying enough taxes. You want to pay more, then put your $$ where your bitching is and donate it.

Why is this guy's opinion so important?

Randall Flagg
05-03-2012, 08:12 PM
Why am I supposed to care about what he thinks about politics? Just because he's known for writing books? I'm tired of rich people whining about not paying enough taxes. You want to pay more, then put your $$ where your bitching is and donate it.

Why is this guy's opinion so important?
Perhaps (at least here on the site), Stephen King info is relevant. Overall, the choice to consider his comments important-or not is yours. The fun thing here is discussing it all.

RichardX
05-04-2012, 05:40 AM
Approximately half the country pays NO INCOME TAXES. Not because they are rich but because they are poor. However, I doubt King is suggesting that these people ante up their fair share. Although he is espousing a principle of "fairness" which sounds great what he really is suggesting is wealth distribution. There may be some valid arguments for wealth distribution, but he should be more honest in what he is advocating.

Robert Fulman
05-04-2012, 06:22 AM
Why am I supposed to care about what he thinks about politics? Just because he's known for writing books? I'm tired of rich people whining about not paying enough taxes. You want to pay more, then put your $$ where your bitching is and donate it.

Why is this guy's opinion so important?It's important to note that his argument is not "Stephen King should pay more taxes" but rather "All rich people should pay more taxes". However, to make the second argument, while at the same time not voluntarily paying more taxes seems hypocritical to me.

Beyond that, there are only four kinds of people in the world:

Non-Rich people who think the rich shouldn't pay more taxes
Non-Rich people who think the rich should pay more taxes
Rich people who don't think the rich shouldn't pay more taxes
Rich people who think the rich should pay more taxes
What makes his opinion valid (other than the fact that he is an American) is the fact that he is a member of the rarest of the four groups (#4). Because he is a profesisonal writer, he is a good choice as spokesperson (at least in written form). I am just about as apolitical as they come, but I tend to agree with him that members of Group #1 are an interesting bunch. If I ever make $10M in one year, I'll be happy to pay $5M in taxes, and I'll blow the rest on a bunch of Gunslinger S/Ls, each with its own custom solid gold slipcase.

RichardX
05-04-2012, 06:49 AM
Why am I supposed to care about what he thinks about politics? Just because he's known for writing books? I'm tired of rich people whining about not paying enough taxes. You want to pay more, then put your $$ where your bitching is and donate it.

Why is this guy's opinion so important?It's important to note that his argument is not "Stephen King should pay more taxes" but rather "All rich people should pay more taxes". However, to make the second argument, while at the same time not voluntarily paying more taxes seems hypocritical to me.

Beyond that, there are only four kinds of people in the world:

Non-Rich people who think the rich shouldn't pay more taxes
Non-Rich people who think the rich should pay more taxes
Rich people who don't think the rich shouldn't pay more taxes
Rich people who think the rich should pay more taxes
What makes his opinion valid (other than the fact that he is an American) is the fact that he is a member of the rarest of the four groups (#4). Because he is a profesisonal writer, he is a good choice as spokesperson (at least in written form). I am just about as apolitical as they come, but I tend to agree with him that members of Group #1 are an interesting bunch. If I ever make $10M in one year, I'll be happy to pay $5M in taxes, and I'll blow the rest on a bunch of Gunslinger S/Ls, each with its own custom solid gold slipcase.

Regarding group #1 I think the basic explanation is that most Americans don't engage in class warfare. In fact, the poor tend to admire the rich and famous and want to be them. Maybe they even believe if they work hard they have an opportunity become rich themselves. Whether that is a reasonable belief or not is a different question. It's a culture of consumption and commercialism. So trying to pit the have nots against the haves doesn't gain a lot of traction. Things have to get a lot worse to break that cycle.

mae
05-04-2012, 07:41 AM
Again, all King is saying is that being taxed more should be mandatory for the rich, they are already being taxed less than ever, and it's not a question of him personally writing a gift check to the IRS, because that's a drop in the ocean, because if it's mandatory and the taxes are raised on the rich across the board, especially the 0.1% who won't even feel a dent, then that can have a positive impact on the debt and the economy and what have you.

Ben Mears
05-04-2012, 08:49 AM
I understand King's point (although his cheap shots a Christie's weight are juvenile) but take 25, 50, or 100% of the one percenter's money and it still won't make much of a difference. The problem isn't how much the government has it's how much and the way they spend. What is truly disappointing is the divisive nature of the current administration's class warfare message. If leading by example is a virtue then beginning with the President all elected officials should be willing to give up their bloated (and guaranteed) pensions, along with free healhcare for life, and save/invest for their unguaranteed retirement like the rest of us. Talk about the haves vs the havenots. My guess is they make up much more than one percent of the population but probably not a conversation they would like to have.

Brice
05-04-2012, 09:17 AM
I agree mostly. I think our government could run on far LESS tax money than they're getting now if it were run more efficiently and sensibly. It is ludicrous to think having a job (any job) for a few years should automatically pay you for the rest of your life so you could literally not have to do anything else.

mae
05-04-2012, 09:31 AM
http://www.sabotagetimes.com/people/stephen-king-the-master-of-horror-terrorises-the-right-wing/

I’m what Stephen King lovingly refers to as his ‘constant reader’. For the last twenty-plus years, I’ve stuck with him through thick (The Stand Complete & Uncut) and Thinner.

My first taste of the Maine man’s writing came at the age of 13, when I picked up a dog-eared copy of Carrie in a charity shop, intrigued by the image of a glassy-eyed girl drenched in blood. Since I was about as adept at making friends as a wasp with a social disease, the plight of teenage outcast Carrie White struck a chord with me. And despite the book’s somewhat laboured epistolary style, I found Carrie’s telekinetic revenge on her high school peers to be curiously cathartic. The only joy in my weekly PE lessons came from imagining the basketball backboard as a deadly weapon. It’s no wonder, then, that many fans like me felt that the book (and its excellent film adaptation) were mischaracterised as horror pieces, when the reality was far more tragi-comic.

My second sampling of King’s work was much less complicated. When my Mum first brought home IT from the local library, I was bewitched by its cover which depicted a run-down clapperboard house transformed into the leering face of clown. Challenged by my own coulrophobia to pick up the doorstep-sized tome, I devoured it in three days. I think this early introduction to King’s occasional bouts of verbosity helped me to develop an early tolerance towards his longform approach. Admittedly, it’s not a view that’s shared by more fairweather fans, who carp that much of his output is so overwritten that it could give Lou Ferrigno back pain.

Nonetheless, I soldiered on through his back catalogue, discovering the wonders of The Shining, Salem’s Lot, Cujo, Christine and The Dead Zone. As a young child, I’d loved the dark and distressing worlds conjured up by Roald Dahl, and felt that, in many ways, my love of King was a natural extension of this. I became convinced when I finally got around to reading his classic short story Gramma, and noticed the similarities to Dahl’s comically creepy George’s Marvellous Medicine.

Having caught up with his back catalogue, I soon found myself buying each new book as it was released. Over the years, King churned them out with a level of prolificacy that would make James Patterson look like J. D. Salinger. Of course, not everything was a gem. King himself claims to remember very little of The Tommyknockers, since it was written at the height of his cocaine abuse. I also struggle to recall much of that particular work, although my septum took less of a hammering for it.

The nineties were an interesting time for King, as he toyed with the idea of slowing down his output, and exploring concepts of the resolutely non-horrific variety. His triptych of feminist stories, Gerald’s Game, Dolores Claiborne and Rose Madder won him few new fans, but amply demonstrated an emerging political voice largely absent in his earlier work. There’s a widely held belief that people grow more conservative as they get older; one trend that King seems more than happy to buck.

As the author turned his back on the supernatural scenarios that had once been his bread and butter, horror-averse critics belatedly began to recognise the quality of his writing. Free from the dripping corpses, paranormal disturbances and “pendulous knots of intestines glistening like bloody rope”, they were free to discover his uncanny ear for dialogue and fascination with small-town mores. They also applauded the intertextuality of his literary universe, that skilfully wove connections between disparate tales separated by time, space and even genre.

Along the way, King also kept his writing fresh by exploring different formats, from the serialisation of The Green Mile, to the first widely distributed e-book, Riding The Bullet. He followed these with a combined approach in a serialised e-book, The Plant, which he bravely opted to distribute online using an honour system in lieu of a fixed price model.

It probably helped that his filmic output had also slowed down, leaving studios to focus on his better work. Frank Darabont and Rob Reiner, in particular, can claim responsibility for rehabilitating King’s reputation on the silver screen. Darabont delivered a trio of impeccable movies - The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and The Mist, and Reiner gave us Stand By Me and Misery. Some of them may have taken a little longer to find their rightful audience, but they’re all generally perceived as classics in their own right.

Now in his mid-sixties, King is finally making good on his promise to slow down. Although few years pass without at least one new title hitting the best-sellers list, he seems to be easing slowly into a kind of semi-retirement. As well as running a couple of radio stations in Maine, and penning a ceaseless stream of recommendations for other authors, he also writes a number of magazine columns which allow him to cast a non-fictional eye on real-world events.

So I was delighted to see him hitting the headlines again this week, as he authored a coruscating critique of right wing politics for The Daily Beast. Entitled ‘Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!’ this diatribe rallies against the Republicans’ habit of looking out for the interests of the top one per cent, and telling the rest of the population to go fuck themselves. He argues that high earners, like himself, should be paying more taxes. He also makes a compelling argument against the viewpoint that rich people can simply donate more to charity, and that this will solve the world’s ills. In spite of his own charitable giving ($4 million a year), he understands that these discretionary donations won’t impact “the care of [America's] 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.”

Lamenting the right wing’s unconditional love for the unfeasibly wealthy, he writes “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.” Now imagine how much more interesting Question Time would be if the writer of Firestarter went head-to-head with Louise Mensch.

King’s increasingly liberal viewpoint should come as no surprise to anyone who read his recent political satire Under The Dome. But they may be shocked that he’s able to articulate it in a piece of work short enough to be read during a toilet break.

Perhaps the best thing about King’s screed, is the closing paragraph. It proves that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, he does have a few good endings left in him:

“Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.
Think about it.”

If it’s years since you last read anything by ‘The Master of Horror’, maybe these 1,600 powerful words will convince you it’s finally time to revisit Castle Rock. You might be surprised by how much the old place has changed.

mtdman
05-05-2012, 05:02 AM
Why am I supposed to care about what he thinks about politics? Just because he's known for writing books? I'm tired of rich people whining about not paying enough taxes. You want to pay more, then put your $$ where your bitching is and donate it.

Why is this guy's opinion so important?
Perhaps (at least here on the site), Stephen King info is relevant. Overall, the choice to consider his comments important-or not is yours. The fun thing here is discussing it all.

I'm not questioning the posting of the article. I'm questioning why I should care what he thinks about politics more than anyone else, and why celebrities think they need to use their celebrity to talk about politics. I don't care about his politics any more than the dude down the street. Why I have to hear him constantly blathering about them, why I have to read them creeping into his stories, I don't know and don't care for.

And again, if the rich think they're not paying enough, then feel free to donate to the federal government. I detest having to pay any taxes at all, and think that the fed wastes $$ like crazy as it is. Why give them more? The government should live within its means as it is now, not continue to spend $$ it doesn't have. Fix that before you ask for more.


King’s increasingly liberal viewpoint should come as no surprise to anyone who read his recent political satire Under The Dome. But they may be shocked that he’s able to articulate it in a piece of work short enough to be read during a toilet break.

LOL to that.

WeDealInLead
05-05-2012, 12:58 PM
Why am I supposed to care about what he thinks about politics? Just because he's known for writing books? I'm tired of rich people whining about not paying enough taxes. You want to pay more, then put your $$ where your bitching is and donate it.

Why is this guy's opinion so important?
Perhaps (at least here on the site), Stephen King info is relevant. Overall, the choice to consider his comments important-or not is yours. The fun thing here is discussing it all.

I'm not questioning the posting of the article. I'm questioning why I should care what he thinks about politics more than anyone else, and why celebrities think they need to use their celebrity to talk about politics. I don't care about his politics any more than the dude down the street. Why I have to hear him constantly blathering about them, why I have to read them creeping into his stories, I don't know and don't care for.

And again, if the rich think they're not paying enough, then feel free to donate to the federal government. I detest having to pay any taxes at all, and think that the fed wastes $$ like crazy as it is. Why give them more? The government should live within its means as it is now, not continue to spend $$ it doesn't have. Fix that before you ask for more.


King’s increasingly liberal viewpoint should come as no surprise to anyone who read his recent political satire Under The Dome. But they may be shocked that he’s able to articulate it in a piece of work short enough to be read during a toilet break.

LOL to that.

Celebrities are using their fame to support whichever cause they're behind because they CAN and WANT TO. You just did the same too except on a smaller scale and no one asked your opinion.

pathoftheturtle
05-08-2012, 08:50 AM
I think it is true that there are bigger problems with our government than revenue, but I don't believe that the main obstacle to addressing those at present is really that Democrats act like raising taxes is the only thing that matters: I believe that the main obstacle at present is Republicans acting like not raising taxes is the only thing that matters.

http://www.cbpp.org/

WeDealInLead
05-08-2012, 02:34 PM
This article went over like a fart in a church over at dansimmons.com. It's VERY conservative and those folks believe rich people should be rewarded for being rich. Basically tax cuts to rich would create more jobs. Because that worked well so far. I can't imagine corporations closing shop in some third world country and moving back to US because they got a tax break.

mae
05-09-2012, 01:05 PM
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Stephen-King-Buffett-Rule-Daily-Beast-tax-spend-62568-1.html

I'm sure that, like me, you were relieved to hear that Stephen King has finally weighed in on the Buffett Rule, which would attempt to make sure that millionaires pay as high a tax rate as their secretaries.

King is one of my favorite writers—I'm racing through this column with indecent haste so that I can start his most recent book, The Wind Through the Keyhole—but I'm sorry to say that the article he wrote for The Daily Beast was not his best effort. It seems mainly to argue that rich people like money (which I'll buy), Chris Christie is fat (which is true, and kind of funny—but mean, very mean) and so millionaires should pay more in taxes (wait—what?). I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, I'm just saying that the logic King deploys to prove his point is not exactly rigorous.

This should not be a surprise—most discussions of tax policy and government spending throw off more heat than light. Everyone has their own numbers, their own projections, their own agendas. Logic, generally speaking, is not highly valued. Nor is civility, common sense or, in the end, effectiveness.

The real problem, though, is that we're not even talking about real money.

Take the Buffett Rule. In the form that some supporters are currently trying to get passed, it would raise $47 billion over 11 years. That's less than $4.7 billion a year (assuming it's spread evenly—and am I the only one who thinks this trick of giving one big number and then spreading it over many years should be outlawed?). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 2011 budget deficit was $1.3 trillion. $4.7 billion is basically 0 percent of our deficit.

So why are we wasting our breath on this? Why is Stephen King devoting valuable writing time—time he could be using to finish up that sequel to The Shining (grown-up Danny Torrance! Sweet!)—to arguing an issue that won't actually fix any problems? Why is Warren Buffett spending even a second on it, when he could earn enough in that very same second to pay down our entire national debt?

Some will undoubtedly say that discussions about how much and in what way people should monetarily support their country, and how we should spread the cost of government, are worth having. Some will also say they're fun. Both are right, to a point, but I suspect that's not really what's going on.

What's happening is that we're scared. By spending lots of energy and invective on the Buffett Rule, we can satisfy ourselves that we've treated our debt problems with the seriousness they deserve, but without having to have the frighteningly real arguments that we need to have.

We can also avoid having to grapple with more than one or two actual numbers. The Economist recently published an interesting chart that ranked some high-cost tax expenditures. As you move up the list, you begin to see where the real money goes (or, in this case, doesn't come in)—but no one is seriously suggesting major changes to the tax deductions for employer health insurance or mortgage interest.

And that doesn't even begin to touch the discussions we need to have about Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; and federal, state and local employee pensions—the areas where the numbers really start to add up.

Sooner than we expect, we're going to have to start talking about the real money—trillions, instead of billions. And it will come from everyone, not just millionaires—in the form of lower or foregone Social Security benefits, less generous municipal pensions, and more expensive health care.

Now that's scary.

No wonder we don't want to talk about it.

Brice
05-09-2012, 08:54 PM
^^^What he said! :)

Yes, I see nothing more wrong with a celebrity sharing their views than I see in anyone else doing the same. Why should they not? I'm sure hearing someone else's ideas and opinions won't hurt much.

And yes, King could send more $s to the IRS, but that's kinda intentionally missing or evading his point that ALL the rich should pay more. If you disagree with that that is fine, but it's falling upon a fallacy to criticize him for sharing a view or suggesting he should pay more himself as opposed to arguing his point.

And if you hate reading his opinions so much why read them at all?

Jean
05-10-2012, 02:22 AM
Yes, I see nothing more wrong with a celebrity sharing their views than I see in anyone else doing the same. This.
Nothing less wrong, either.

pathoftheturtle
05-10-2012, 06:51 PM
Right; the mere fact that someone has earned a lot of money does not prove that they're capable of making good decisions about other people. I couldn't agree more.

Brice
05-15-2012, 09:38 AM
Precisely so. And i've met plenty of ordinary people in my day to day life that I only WISH would keep their thoughts and opinions to themselves. I will steadfastly stand up for their right to express their views I just really think they shouldn't. One needn't advertise their ignorance. Money or the lack of such is a nonfactor. Money just gives you a bigger audience.

pathoftheturtle
05-16-2012, 02:24 PM
Precisely so. And i've met plenty of ordinary people in my day to day life that I only WISH would keep their thoughts and opinions to themselves. I will steadfastly stand up for their right to express their views I just really think they shouldn't. One needn't advertise their ignorance. Money or the lack of such is a nonfactor. Money just gives you a bigger audience.Well, here's the way I like to look at it --

If we didn't have so many ignorant loudmouths, then who would Stephen Colbert make fun of?

That always makes me feel a little better.

Brice
05-16-2012, 05:49 PM
I can't wait for Mr. Colbert. I'll make fun of them myself. :D

divemaster
05-20-2012, 09:59 AM
Oh, for fuck's sake.

First of all, the wealthy already pay a disproportionate share of income taxes. The top 5% of earners account for almost 60% of total income taxes. The much maligned "1%" pay about 37% just by themselves. Add to that the U.S. corporate tax rate (which is the highest in the world and even Obama wants to reduce), and believe me, the rich are not getting off scott free.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, enacting the "Buffett Rule" would yield between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. If we collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years, — it would not cover the Obama deficit for 2011 alone.

Look, if King wants to pay more, every tax return has a mechanism to donate extra to the Treasury. But that's not the point of his piece. His point is not that he pay more. But that someone else pay more too. And someone else. And that guy over there too.

He keeps talking about charity from the rich as not solving the problems facing the U.S. According to King, some rich folks give to the "wrong" charities or otherwise the greater good is not served. But no one is saying King's charitable contributions are a substitute for tax collecting. No one is stopping him from giving more to the U.S. Treasury if he thinks that's where the greater good lies.

But here's the rub. The fact that King doesn't do that (and tries to obfuscate the situation by talking about charitable gift-giving), means that even King knows that giving more money to the U.S. Treasury is like giving a gambling addict more money for rent. Hint. That money ain't gonna go towards the rent. It going to keep being spent on what is causing the problem in the first place.

We all hear of extremely rich people going bankrupt. Take the star basketball player who makes $20,000,000 a year. And declares bankruptcy. What, he can't live off all that money? Do you really think bumping it up to $22,000,000 a year from here on out will solve his problem? How is our Congress any different?

If we have a spiraling defecit with the tax receipts we collect now, collecting an extra pocktful of change from the "rich" isn't going to magically put us in the black. Why the hell should we give Congress more money to waste?

Further, King says that rich people creating jobs is a "crock of bullshit." And mentions that the rich invest instead. What the fuck does he think happens to money that is invested? If people invest in Microsoft (or Caterpillar, or Kraft foods, or what have you), does he think it gets buried in the yard? Has he not heard of research and development, and opening new offices, and creating new products? Who sells those products? Investment by the rich is a huge factor in U.S. job creation.

The harsh truth is that approximately 50% of the U.S. population pays no income tax at all. In fact, some even have government programs to cut them a check every tax period. That may be good or that may be bad, but saying the extra coin we would suck out of "the rich" will solve our problems while half the population doesn't pay any income tax at all is disinginuous.

Brice
05-20-2012, 10:25 AM
I do wonder how many folks choose the option of paying extra to the treasury dept. though. Most people seem to be okay with others paying more, but not too many people out there are going to say you know what the govt. really needs? More of MY fuckin' money. :)

DanishCollector
05-31-2012, 12:25 PM
Anyone here know if this piece was published in print, and is so in which issue? Because it's controversial, mayhap it's just an online exclusive?

herbertwest
06-01-2012, 02:10 AM
I would personally expect it to be translated and printed in France. Didnt seem to be happening.
What about major american newspapers?

DanishCollector
06-01-2012, 04:48 AM
Well, Daily Beast and Newsweek magazine are basically the same now, so if there's a publication. it should be in Newsweek. But can't find any info

sentinel
06-01-2012, 06:27 AM
I've checked Newsweek every week since it was online and it's not been printed, yet. -K

DanishCollector
06-01-2012, 09:58 AM
Thanks. I guess it's an online exclusive then. Again, thanks for keeping an eye on it:)

Ben Mears
07-26-2012, 04:44 AM
Now that the president has made it clear that SK isn't responsible for his success he should have no problem voluntarily turning over more of his income to Uncle Sam. Problem solved!

pathoftheturtle
07-30-2012, 03:45 PM
...
Further, King says that rich people creating jobs is a "crock of bullshit." And mentions that the rich invest instead. What the fuck does he think happens to money that is invested? If people invest in Microsoft (or Caterpillar, or Kraft foods, or what have you), does he think it gets buried in the yard? Has he not heard of research and development, and opening new offices, and creating new products? Who sells those products? Investment by the rich is a huge factor in U.S. job creation.
...Ok, more specifically, then, I believe he meant that they outsource and they offshore.
Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens?newsfeed=true)

I can't wait for Mr. Colbert. I'll make fun of them myself. :DOf course. I was kidding. Guess you didn't get the joke.



Yes, I see nothing more wrong with a celebrity sharing their views than I see in anyone else doing the same. This.
Nothing less wrong, either.But what is "a celebrity"? Just why is it that entertainers and artists in all fields tend to be more liberal than businesspeople in other industries do? Perhaps they feel it is their job to speak for the people. King is not responsible for his success -- we are. His wealth comes from his audience. So my question is, does a popular person, someone who is successful precisely and only because his ideas or personality appeal to many, have any more right than average to wield influence?

mtdman
08-03-2012, 03:09 PM
Now that the president has made it clear that SK isn't responsible for his success he should have no problem voluntarily turning over more of his income to Uncle Sam. Problem solved!

He didn't write those stories.

Ben Mears
08-03-2012, 05:00 PM
Now that the president has made it clear that SK isn't responsible for his success he should have no problem voluntarily turning over more of his income to Uncle Sam. Problem solved!

He didn't write those stories.

Exactly. Since he didn't write them SK should be happy to give Mr. Obama the money the books earned. We can rest assured he would spend it wisely.

jhanic
08-03-2012, 05:25 PM
No, I think that we ALL wrote them. King didn't do it on his own. :P

John

oil-man
08-04-2012, 01:39 PM
King has been seen here several times holding a sign asking for higher taxes. Go figure.

pathoftheturtle
08-14-2012, 02:41 PM
If a tree falls in the woods with no one around to hear, does it win literature awards?

Jean
08-15-2012, 10:42 AM
If a tree falls in the woods with no one around to hear, does it win literature awards?Nobel prize in literature, yes, inevitably.