This is hilarious - Stephen King is F'in mad about taxes

z31maniac wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

B430 wrote: I dont understand why the people keeps saying the rich pay less taxes. Whatever the percentage they do pay more $$, substantially more than most people. When you go out to the bar with your friends, does the one who makes the most $$ pay every time? Cuz you know, he makes more money so he can afford it. Do you get pissed off if he doesn't pay?

Do you think we should do away with the graduated tax code all-together? Each American pays the exact same amount?

www.fairtax.org

That's not at all what he was suggesting. I was just pointing out that the bar analogy is really, really radical. Not same percentage- same dollar ammount. I don't think he's serious about that if he considers it for a minute.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Maybe Americans should stop free-loading off the backs of those who have more.

Maybe they shouldn't be going out to bars in the first place?

Look, I understand the rationale and reasoning behind the calls to increase taxes on "the rich". But, I also believe the arguments lose traction because they never address spending with the same fervor.

jmho...............

If any single one of these rich shiny happy people really think they should be paying more in taxes...

This is where to go..

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Until they put up... they need to shut the berkeley up.

racerdave600 wrote: Do any of you have real experience, or are you just spouting numbers? For the most part, what percentage of taxes do you think the "rich" pay from their earnings? Are you saying 25%? Lower? Do you even really know?

I've been staying out of this, but I will chime in here. I would guess I've done either personally prepared or reviewed thousands of tax returns, the vast majority for upper middle class and rich people. The people who think "loopholes" and superior tax lawyers are allowing the rich to generally pay 1% or so in taxes are wrong. Those who think that the rich are paying a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle and upper middle classes are wrong too.

I'd say from the posts here, Alfadriver has the best understanding of the situation (as long as he keeps his billions and trillions straight).

In reply to ronholm:

Isn't this kind of like saying if one soldier thinks we need to go to war and is willing to do so, he should walk out and face the opposing army on the battlefield alone?

Otto Maddox wrote: I'd say from the posts here, Alfadriver has the best understanding of the situation (as long as he keeps his billions and trillions straight).

Eric may have the best grasp on those numbers. But the real problem is the failure to identity the most important number - the one that defines "fair share".

And it's not a failure unique to him, either.

In reply to oldsaw:

Yeah, you are right. I purposely didn't enter the quagmire of what people should pay. But I do have a pretty good grasp on what they do pay.

Alfa driver, you can throw those numbers out all you want, but the truth is, for overall tax burden, those numbers are VERY misleading. Local and state taxes are going up drastically as their revenue is dropping significantly in many places.

And while you are mainly using capitol gains as a significant revenue source, for the most part, it is not for the 1% people I know their main source of revenue. Raising capitol gains will affect people beyond those you are seeking to add additional taxes. The examples you are using are the Warren Buffets of the world, not the ones that will be the most affected.

Some of you have little grasp on some of the issues here. For some in that tax group, and again I'll use my dad here, they've been "weathering" the storm by paying payroll our of their pocket for a while now. So just by saying "oh, this little bit more won't hurt", but in fact it does. Where does it stop? They've been hit several times with new regulations that have taken a toll, and the market downturn in general has hurt. When you have instability, it makes it very difficult to run a business, and when you have a government with a constant hand out always wanting more in tax revenue, as well as a constant barrage of new regulations that can cost millions to implement, eventually enough is enough.

7B while a lot of money is like the us going out to buy a cheeseburger. Until there are real spending cuts, all this talk about more taxation is utterly useless.

While it's easy to say, they are only paying 25%, what's another 10%, the reality is far different.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to ronholm: Isn't this kind of like saying if one soldier thinks we need to go to war and is willing to do so, he should walk out and face the opposing army on the battlefield alone?

He should be willing to do so...

If you believe in something.. DO IT.. Really frign DO IT..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Studd

If he really wanted the Feds to have his money they would have it.. I understand he gives of his own.. But what he wants is to be generous with other peoples money.. and I don't want to hear it..

Forcing them to be taxed instead of allowing them to give takes something very big away from the soul.

racerdave600 wrote: Do any of you have real experience, or are you just spouting numbers? For the most part, what percentage of taxes do you think the "rich" pay from their earnings? Are you saying 25%? Lower? Do you even really know? Do you know what it takes to get to the 1%? Do you know what percentage is fair that the government should take? My dad would die if he knew I was posting this, but he falls in the 1% bracket, but he's definitely not a Buffet or King. He sold his business a couple of years ago and did OK, and still is partners in 2 more. He started with absolutely nothing and lived in poverty, put himself through college and was an engineer with NASA for 40 plus years. At 73 he still works 60 to 70 hours a week. And yes he has numerous investments. So what is his tax rate? It's over 60%. All this federal tax rate hype never mentions all the other fees and taxes you also have to pay. There's also state and local taxes as well as sales taxes. And in his case, the money is also taxed twice as I didn't include what the business pays. So again, what is fair? We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. With all this 1% crap, all you are going to do is penalize people like this who work incredibly hard, and narrow the amount they actually do make. In doing so, many will simply board up shop and call it a day. And will also impact employment numbers, not only for businesses that that shut down, but for all the service people they employ to pick up slack for personal chores, such as yard work, etc. All these things have an impact, ones that get overlooked as the numbers get tossed around. All this 1% crap is a distraction for re-election. The money that would result in taking all the 1% money is nothing in the overall scheme. The government wastes more than that everyday. And what is fair, to me it is having the same opportunity to succeed. The Buffet's of the world are few and far between, the average 1% person is not what you may think. And to the guy that said he'd never have 5 million, why not? Get off your butt and get to work. You never will saying you won't. All the people I know that have lots of money have one thing in common, they aren't lazy. They have an idea and are motivated to make it work.

B430 wrote: I dont understand why the people keeps saying the rich pay less taxes. Whatever the percentage they do pay more $$, substantially more than most people.

They pay more because our taxes are based on a percentage of your income. If you earn more, you pay more. Simple as that. If being American means believing in fairness then the rich should pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as I do...at the very least .

Personally, I think they should pay more as they've benefited much more from this country than most. Yet, we all live here and help make this country run. Step up. Pay your share. The rich need to stop being a whiney little b!tch expecting a break because they're rich. Also, keep in mind that whatever the rich weasel out of paying the middle class will have to make up. The deeply discounted ride for the ones' this country has helped the most is over.

Also remember that in the last ten years the top 1% of wealthy individuals in this country soaked up all revenue gains. The middle class made no progress in the last ten years. I don't know who to blame but I know who should now assist the country in maintaining the stability we all enjoy. The same stability, and infrastructure, that helped make those very same people their vast fortunes.

Sorry...looks like the 1% soaked up all gains in income in the last 20 years. My bad.

oldsaw wrote: Look, I understand the rationale and reasoning behind the calls to increase taxes on "the rich". But, I also believe the arguments lose traction because they never address spending with the same fervor. jmho...............

racerdave600 wrote: 7B while a lot of money is like the us going out to buy a cheeseburger. Until there are real spending cuts, all this talk about more taxation is utterly useless. While it's easy to say, they are only paying 25%, what's another 10%, the reality is far different.

I agree. Spending should be addressed.

We should cut spending on things like oil subsidies. We should stop allowing rich folks to write off their private jets. Subsidies for agribusiness should end as well. According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric. (Link)

These are the cuts we should make as opposed to others. While we're at we are cutting our financial obligations in foreign wars. We are also trying to limit our exposure to health care costs as well as the cost to educate our citizenry. All of those actions are opposed bitterly by the same jackholes who think we don't need to raise taxes on their favorite citizens who just happen to let them use their private jets anytime they want and happen to be the richest 1%.

Xceler8x wrote: Sorry...looks like the 1% soaked up all gains in income in the last 20 years. My bad.

Yeah, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is known for being "non-partisan". I trust more what comes from the IRS than those shiny happy people.

Anti-stance wrote: Yeah, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is known for being "non-partisan". I trust more what comes from the IRS than those shiny happy people.

Then use the IRS web site to notice that wages have essentially been stagnant for ~35 years for the middle class.

In other words, only keeping up with inflation, not beating it.

z31maniac wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: Yeah, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is known for being "non-partisan". I trust more what comes from the IRS than those shiny happy people.

Then use the IRS web site to notice that wages have essentially been stagnant for ~35 years for the middle class. In other words, only keeping up with inflation, not beating it.

The middle class doesn't live better than they did 35 yrs ago?

Message sent from my 4G phone

I wouldn't know.. 35 years ago my Father was fresh out of the Military on a medical discharge.. and we had to sell everything to survive long enough for SSI to kick in

oldsaw wrote: Look, I understand the rationale and reasoning behind the calls to increase taxes on "the rich". But, I also believe the arguments lose traction because they never address spending with the same fervor.

I understand exactly what you're saying, but turn it around- the argument to cut spending loses traction because it is never willing to address taxes at all. That's not finding reasonable middle ground. I'll not characterize what it is in keeping with my new found civility on the topic.

ronholm wrote: If any single one of these rich shiny happy people really think they should be paying more in taxes... This is where to go.. http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html Until they put up... they need to shut the berkeley up.

This is a little ironic. The article this thread is about was written specifically to address this point. Looks like we've gone full circle.

oldsaw wrote: Eric may have the best grasp on those numbers. But the real problem is the failure to identity the most important number - the one that defines "fair share". And it's not a failure unique to him, either.

Indeed it is not. I've still not see the right cite a figure for how low is low enough. Reagan called for lower taxes. He got them. Bush called for lower taxes. He got them. They are now very, very low. Yet Romney wants lower taxes. Is there any amount of tax reduction that will satisfy them? You say the left should say what is "fair". How can they? They've lost every round. Shouln't the burden fall on the people who have gotten what they asked for yet delivered larger deficits and poor economic results?

racerdave600 wrote: Alfa driver, you can throw those numbers out all you want, but the truth is, for overall tax burden, those numbers are VERY misleading. Local and state taxes are going up drastically as their revenue is dropping significantly in many places.

I hear this argument a lot, but think about it- it's apples and oranges. If anything you have much MORE control over state and local taxes than you have over federal taxes. You can't say "I'm not paying more federal taxes because my state taxes are too high" any more than you can say "I'm not paying my mortgage because my cable bill is too high."

On a side note - kudos to all. So far, at least, this is the most civil discussion of this kind in a long while. I notice a couple of familiar faces missing. Wonder if that's a coincidence.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I've still not see the right cite a figure for how low is low enough.

I'm hardly the "right" as I consider myself a Libertarian, but I think for the third time in this thread, I'll post:

www.fairtax.org

I totally agree with the fairtax/flat sales tax... just make sure the necessities are untaxed...

mad_machine wrote: I totally agree with the fairtax/flat sales tax... just make sure the necessities are untaxed...

Hence the prebate mentioned on a previous page.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

ronholm wrote: If any single one of these rich shiny happy people really think they should be paying more in taxes... This is where to go.. http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html Until they put up... they need to shut the berkeley up.

This is a little ironic. The article this thread is about was written specifically to address this point. Looks like we've gone full circle.

I think you misunderstand.. I don't think we should be forcing people to give.

We should be teaching them to give.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Carnegie.html Thus is the problem of Rich and Poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left free ; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself. The best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race iii which it is clearly seen that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good. This day already dawns. But a little while, and although, without incurring the pity of their fellows, men may die sharers in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot be or has not been withdrawn, and is left chiefly at death for public uses, yet the man who dies leaving behind many millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away " unwept, unhonored, and unsung," no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be : "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."

Such, in my opinion, is the true Gospel concerning Wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the Rich and the Poor, and to bring ' Peace on earth, among men Good-Will."