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/
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.
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/...d-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.
^^^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?
This.Originally Posted by Brice
Nothing less wrong, either.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I would personally expect it to be translated and printed in France. Didnt seem to be happening.
What about major american newspapers?
------------------------------------------------
CLUB STEPHEN KING (french website about STEPHEN KING, since 1992) : on : Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
------------------------------------------------
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
I've checked Newsweek every week since it was online and it's not been printed, yet. -K
Thanks. I guess it's an online exclusive then. Again, thanks for keeping an eye on it
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!
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
Of course. I was kidding. Guess you didn't get the joke.I can't wait for Mr. Colbert. I'll make fun of them myself.
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?This.
Nothing less wrong, either.
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.He didn't write those stories.
No, I think that we ALL wrote them. King didn't do it on his own.
John
King has been seen here several times holding a sign asking for higher taxes. Go figure.
If a tree falls in the woods with no one around to hear, does it win literature awards?
Nobel prize in literature, yes, inevitably.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
