Links: Stephen King slams the Tea Party, says he wants to pay more taxes
By Lina CanneyMarch 10th, 2011, 5:01 pmComments (30)
At a rally in Sarasota, Florida, Stephen King lashes out at the Tea Party. He describes himself as a "rich person" (which seems fair), and suggests he should be paying fifty percent of his income in tax. Refreshing.
A tractor trailer hauling 16,000 pounds of printer ink rolled over and spilled ink all over a road outside of Boston. It's the most beautiful car-wreck I've ever seen. Not that the people stuck in traffic behind it cared about aesthetics.
Justin Bieber's fame has reached new heights — probably the height of his penthouse in which he is currently trapped. Apparently, Bieber is not allowed to greet the 500 fans besieging him, under the threat of "inciting a riot." I know Bieber is tiny, but 500 female fans? Is that really enough to make you physically unable to leave a hotel? I, personally, wouldn't know.
And finally, this story of a Walmart greeter reaching his breaking point and returning to rob the store at gun point wouldn't be remarkable. After all, it's a crappy job. But, he happens to be eighty-three-years old.
Commentarium (30 Comments)
If Stephen King is so choked about his low taxes, maybe he should consider giving to charity?
If you listen to the clip, he says he does make that up.
It's not that hard, all he has to do is cut a check to the treasury. The problem is, he wants everyone in his tax bracket to pay 50% before he parts with it.
@jmh: Exactly.
Yeah, I never understood people like King. If he wants to pay 90% in taxes, do it. The address is easy to find. The problem is that he really doesn't want to give 50% of his taxes, he wants to compel everyone else to pay 50% of their income in taxes. Not this taxpayer, Stevie, the scope and magnitude of government waste and inefficiency is not something I can to subsidize.
Not "everyone," "everyone rich." I've heard similar many times on Real Time with Bill Maher, by his wealthy guests.
With "rich" being in the mind of the beholder, of course. People should worry about the plank in their own eyes instead of the mote in another's.
It's refreshing if Steve-o wants to *volunteer* to give half to the government. In fact, he should put his money where his mouth is and do exactly that (and make it retroactive too).
However, NO ONE, rich or otherwise, should be forced to give half of their earnings to the government. Not only is that idiotic but IMO it's anti-American as well.
Government is best that governs LEAST.
Right, kind of like Somalia
MRAGH - Couldn't have said it better myself.
jmh - Somalia has no government so that comment is sort of sophomoric, isn't it?
Yeah, because that comment about "government is best that governs least" is real deep. I Love how you guys always act as if a government that cuts taxes governs less. Your friend Dubya recently proved how completely wrong that is, but keep spewing your bullshit about taxes. Everybody's listening.
My friend W? Not nearly conservative enough for me.
Please don't assume you know my mind; you're not nearly bright enough, ADD. Nice language; profanity is for those who lack wit so it's understandable. Pretty pedestrian though, don't you think?
There isn't a person alive who needs nor deserves to earn more than, say $200 000 a year (after tax). There should be a salary cap on everyone, with the excess used to bump up minimum wage. I don't have a problem with capitalism, but a class based, trickle-down economy is not the right way.
It just pisses me off when I hear about some CEO douchebag getting a $230 million compensation (ie: Terry Semel). Really, do you actually work 500 000% harder than a nurse? Or 1 045 000% harder than a factory worker?
There isn't a person alive who should try to tell anyone how much money he or she can earn. Tell Steve Jobs he shouldn't make more than $200k/yr just because he creates a company worth billions. I doubt very seriously, Rubix, that Terry Semel works 500000% harder than a nurse but I'll bet he works 500000% smarter.
It is a sin to covet what your neighbor has, Rubix.
Phrases like "I'll bet he works 500000% smarter" suggest that SmarterThanYou is not an accurate name.
It's accurate; I'm not necessarily smarter than the CEO but I'm certainly smarter than FuzzyMath.
Hey, actually I'm that person who deserves to make more than $200,000 a year (after taxes). So, can I have it now?
Well, I've been proven wrong, what with all the facts. Good to know! Thanks, STY!
Bo - Sure! Go out and convince someone that you should...and you will.
FuzzyThinking - The facts speak for themselves and sorry I didn't refute your in depth analysis point by point.
Exactly.
It is very generous for a man with a billion in assets to offer to give 50% of his _FUTURE_ earnings to the government.
I'm not there yet.
@ Rubix:
How fucking arrogant you are, thinking you can make the decision on how much someone needs or deserves to earn. Especially since you arbitrarily pulled some number out of your ass, one that must be about 6X what you make and therefore makes you *insanely* jealous.
This whole have-nots vs haves mentality in the country is so absolutely pathetic; you should not be resentful of those who are successful, it should drive and inspire you to aspire to do the same.
Sex day jog
King's sentiment is nice, but it's unrealistic to expect many people to agree with him. I think it's perfectly healthy for citizens to resent paying taxes - it's even fine for them to try as hard as possible to pay less while getting as much use as possible out of public works/goods.
I also think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to try it's best to separate the well-to-do from their money to fund those public works that benefit society as a whole - implementing progressive tax policies and prosecuting tax dodgers as needed.
The system falls apart, though, when the government is run by people who are philosophically opposed to the use of taxation to fund public works -- when those whose job it is to protect the common good approach taxation issues from the (understandably) greedy perspective of private citizens. That is suicidal behavior on an institutional scale -- in other words, a Republican/Tea Party government is inherently self-destructive if left unchecked.
"[Perfectly] reasonable for the government to try it's (sic) best to separate the well-to-do from their money..." An amazingly scary concept. Government doesn't have to "try" to separate citizens from their money, it simply makes it law and appropriates that money.
The system actually falls apart when "people" misunderstand the appropriate scope of "public works." The "inherently self-destructive" Republican/Tea Party's view on the scope of government was the reality for 200+ years of American history. The desire to confiscate a larger and larger portion of the public wealth is truly self-destructive.
So, VOR what "public works" projects should the Federal Government pay for? After national defense and the post office, what would you have the Federal government appropriate and authorize public monies to pay for?
I think SK should take some of his millions and buy an upper lip. Plastic surgery can do wonders these days.
Hey rubix, how many calories per day can we eat? How many gallons of gas can we have? How many hours a day must we report to the government farm? At what age should we expect you obamamorons to say we have taken enough from the nation's healthcare coffers? Most importantly, who is going to employ thousands of people when their salary is capped? Under your reign none of the large employers in our country would exist. Drug companies wouldn't invest millions of dollars to invent drugs because they could never recoup their investment. Charities would cease to exist or those that did survive would be able to do much less.
Stephen King, Warren Buffett, etc. are a bunch of grandstanding a-holes. Nobody is stopping them from sending more money to the government.
Wonedrufl explanation of facts available here.
Now you say something