Don't people usually die when he's mad? 
"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."
Always fun to read whatever Stephen King writes. Funniest quote and best funny/sad combo:
Stephen King said: The majority [of rich people] 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.
LOL
This isn't the majority of what he talks about, but I have always liked Stephen King and this makes me like him a little more.
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.
Forget percentages and let's talk dollars because that's what the guvmnt spends. The rich pay more than you and I.
He's being intellectually dishonest.
I'm not rich, but I would pay more if I knew the Gubbyment was doing everything it could to downsize, spend less and cut waste.
I know better.
carguy123 wrote: Forget percentages and let's talk dollars because that's what the guvmnt spends. The rich pay more than you and I.
This is true, but you also have to look at the percentage. 28% of $40k is $11,200. That means you take home $28,800. That's not rich by any stretch. Lets do it for $1M. 28% is $280,000 so you take home $720,000. That's good damn money I don't care who you are. I'm not saying tax the rich to the point they make the same as middle class people like me and the majority of you guys, because that kinda negates the purpose of becoming RICH. You do have to admit that those who are obscenely wealthy can sure as hell afford a larger tax burdon that someone who makes $40k a year. I think that's all he's trying to get across. The percentages are WAY off.
NOW, this being said, I'm not a proponent of taxing the rich an insane amount either. That's something I'll leave to someone else to figure out which percentage is fair. That's going to be the opportune word... Fair.
914Driver wrote: I'm not rich, but I would pay more if I knew the Gubbyment was doing everything it could to downsize, spend less and cut waste. I know better.
bingo. You see them doing so much stupid E36 M3 with the money they do have, and the idea of giving them more is nauseating. It's like giving money to a crackhead.
That's pretty good, in spite of the reckless use of foul language which would prevent me from being able to share it with some people. As a writer, I'll bet he could do better.
However, I am a bit curious as to what he would see as fair, and what impact it would have.
If the top 1% paid 50%, would it matter? Are they already?
He is only addressing the revenue side of the equation, and the presumption is that if rich were taxed more, it would fix things. Would it?
As I understand it, it would not. So what are we also going to cut?
914Driver wrote: I'm not rich, but I would pay more if I knew the Gubbyment was doing everything it could to downsize, spend less and cut waste. I know better.
Quoted for MF'in truth!!!!
carguy123 wrote: Forget percentages and let's talk dollars because that's what the guvmnt spends. The rich pay more than you and I.
Forget dollars and lets talk percentages because thats what's keeping us in a downward spiral. The rich pay less than you and I. /flounder
It's common knowledge that the super rich pay less in taxes than the average tax payer.
That, in itself, is un-American. My idea of America is fairness. The rich paying less in taxes strictly because they are rich is not fair. It should end.
King does make a good point in that if you have profited disproportionately from this great country you should then invest disproportionally via taxes.
To address the point of "De gubmint be wastin' all my taxes!" I don't like the two wars we fought, the tax cut for the wealthy, or subsidies for oil companies. I still pay my taxes because I am a patriot and benefit from living in the U.S. Quitcha belly achin'. The goverment does all sorts of things with money we ALL disagree with. Pay your taxes. A stable country is expensive. A stable and profitably country is doubly so. This goes especially for you rich guys.
N Sperlo wrote:carguy123 wrote: Forget percentages and let's talk dollars because that's what the guvmnt spends. The rich pay more than you and I.Forget dollars and lets talk percentages because thats what's keeping us in a downward spiral. The rich pay less than you and I. /flounder
From here: Filing single: [annual income : tax percentage] $0-8500 : 10% | 8500-34500 : 15% | 34500-83600 : 25% | 83600-174400 : 28% | 174400-379150 : 33% | 379150-upward : 35%
If those numbers are right, the "rich" ARE paying more by either percentages OR dollars. If the numbers are wrong, somebody go find the right ones and post them.
I'm perfectly fine paying to live in the United States. However, as per 914driver, I'd like to see more financial responsibility from the government if they want me to pay more to live here.
That's all the flounder I've got.
Edit: This doesn't account whatsoever for tax breaks or taxes on investment, etc etc... just income tax. Take it for what it is.
the problem I have with critcal rich people who make comparisons of their charitable contributions to paying taxes is that they don't see the idiocy of doing so.
if you pay one million dollars in taxes and you donate a million dollars to charity, some people want you to believe that both payments have some sort of moral equivalency.
yet i'm going to bet that a charity does a much better job than the government ever does of serving a particular social interest, twice on tuesday. How is paying taxes a moral equivalent to donating to charity?
maybe these critical rich people are the real ones that have lost perspective. If Warren Buffet just sees taxes as another place his wealth arbitrarily disappears to, then he wouldn't see any difference between the IRS and the Shriners.
JohnInKansas wrote:N Sperlo wrote:From here: Filing single: [annual income : tax percentage] $0-8500 : 10% | 8500-34500 : 15% | 34500-83600 : 25% | 83600-174400 : 28% | 174400-379150 : 33% | 379150-upward : 35% If those numbers are right, the "rich" ARE paying more by either percentages OR dollars. If the numbers are wrong, somebody go find the right ones and post them. I'm perfectly fine paying to live in the United States. However, as per 914driver, I'd like to see more financial responsibility from the government if they want me to pay more to live here. That's all the flounder I've got. Edit: This doesn't account whatsoever for tax breaks or taxes on investment, etc etc... just income tax. Take it for what it is.carguy123 wrote: Forget percentages and let's talk dollars because that's what the guvmnt spends. The rich pay more than you and I.Forget dollars and lets talk percentages because thats what's keeping us in a downward spiral. The rich pay less than you and I. /flounder
How dare you bring any numbers in here that are not from MSNBC, The Daily Show, or The Huffington Post!!!!!
But in all reality, the fact is that a consumption tax would help get more revenue from people that spend more and also not penalize people for earning and saving money. Something the federal government does not have a firm grasp on... saving money.
The problem with consumption taxes is that they're inherently regressive - most of us spend 1/4-3/4 of our income on basic first-world survival stuff and you'd have to pay tax on that - it's gonna be a a big chunk of an average joe's income.
Ah-ha, that is why there is a prebate on basic necessities like food, E36 M3paper, and stuff like that. The roughly 22% embedded tax would be replaced with a 23% sales tax in the Fairtax. The prebate would cover the 23% of the taxes for those items based on the household.
I am not saying the Fairtax is the end all be all, but it is in the right direction. 
Oh, and wouldn't it be cool to not have to deal with the IRS anymore?
New mind set here!
I hear the rich are paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes and this is unfair so they should pay a larger percentage.
Why not just lower the percentage for the poor?
Sounds equal to me!!
Is the goal to equalize things or just suck more money from taxpayers?
Bruce
Because there has to be an evil, dirty bastard to be mad at.
Bitching about Taxes? Side topic, any accountant worth a damn will know how to shift around money for the 1% through loopholes like investments, offshore accounts, ect.
Warren Buffett paid $7M in taxes in 2010. His company paid $5.6B (which he owns 23% of).
That's AFTER his offshore accounts, etc.
Anti-stance wrote: Because there has to be an evil, dirty bastard to be mad at.
Now you've nailed it.
Especially if politicians can gain power (votes) by promoting the mindset of blaming the evil, dirty bastard.
914Driver wrote: I'm not rich, but I would pay more if I knew the Gubbyment was doing everything it could to downsize, spend less and cut waste. I know better.
Exactly. And if they did that, they'd all find out that they already have plenty of money. And I also know better.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
