Stephen King: Tax Me, for F**k’s Sake!

[MohandasKGanja]

I
How is it fair that a billionaire pays millions of dollars in taxes and a regular joe pays thousands. I try to understand the "ethical patriotism" angle but at the end of the day what makes it fair for someone who is rich to pay more cash than someone who isn't rich? I can understand someone who pays millions of dollars in tax returns being frustrated at being asked to pay more.

Millions always looks impressive when you don't know that they are actually a tiny percentage of the person's overall wealth.

Another thing I want to mention is that the system is often gamed by certain rich people, Let's take the billionaire Koch Brothers - owners for Koch Industries as an example.

A long time ago, they strategically took their money and used it to found/fund think tanks like the Cato Institute (liberatarian philosophy) to put out the Anne Randian ideas that businesses should be unfettered by things like regulations and taxes. Otherwise, rich people will just take their ball and go home. And various other reasons that don't add up when you think about them.

So for decades now, these think tanks have been steadily creating papers and intellectual dogma (aka "hackwork by sophists") to continue to ingratiate themselves to their rich donors and receive regular paychecks. And now this drivel has been firmly ensconced into the public discourse and record as if it actually made sense.

To show you how oily and hypocritical these types are, the Koch's in 1973, tried to get Friedrich Hayek, one of the the darlings of libertarian intellectual though, to come back to the U.S. to head up another of the Koch's think tanks. Hayek, however, said he couldn't come because he had just had bladder surgery and his expenses were being covered by Austria's universal healthcare. Koch basically said, not to worry, you can apply for Social Security benefits (including hospital coverage) when you get here.

So, these rich industrialists encouraged a guy to come over here and use government assistance so he could write scholarly papers about getting rid of government assistance.

You can read about it here, if you don't have a full stomach at the time: Charles Koch to Friedrich Hayek: Use Social Security! | The Nation

[laynes]

This might be the only thing of Stephen King's I enjoyed reading.

[southernbelle]

I think you are on the right track. It would make a lot of sense if someone who makes $24K a year pays $20K of it in taxes, and someone who makes $2 million a year also pays $20K in taxes. That should make everybody happy, AND generate the revenue we need to support our massive defense spending.

No. The person making $24K pays $2,400. The person making $2,000,000 pays $200,000. Each person is paying 10% of his income. The rich person is still paying significantly more, so I don't think it can be argued that they aren't paying "their share". They are making more and they are paying more. I don't expect people to pay the same dollar amount, but I do believe they should pay the same percentage of their income.

[Novice]

No. The person making $24K pays $2,400. The person making $2,000,000 pays $200,000. Each person is paying 10% of his income. The rich person is still paying significantly more, so I don't think it can be argued that they aren't paying "their share". They are making more and they are paying more. I don't expect people to pay the same dollar amount, but I do believe they should pay the same percentage of their income.

So why are the rich quotes as paying 20-28% but Lynnie is paying 30+%???
Where is that fair & just?

[MohandasKGanja]

No. The person making $24K pays $2,400. The person making $2,000,000 pays $200,000. Each person is paying 10% of his income. The rich person is still paying significantly more, so I don't think it can be argued that they aren't paying "their share". They are making more and they are paying more. I don't expect people to pay the same dollar amount, but I do believe they should pay the same percentage of their income.

No, that still doesn't add up. Because 10% takes a much bigger bite out of the living standard of someone making $24,000 than someone making $2.4 Million. If you take $2,400 from someone making $24,000, it dramatically affects their choices in food, housing, ability to drive to work, etc. If you take $240,000 from someone making $2.4 Million it does not have the same effect.

[monk]

Millions always looks impressive when you don't know that they are actually a tiny percentage of the person's overall wealth.

Another thing I want to mention is that the system is often gamed by certain rich people, Let's take the billionaire Koch Brothers - owners for Koch Industries as an example.

A long time ago, they strategically took their money and used it to found/fund think tanks like the Cato Institute (liberatarian philosophy) to put out the Anne Randian ideas that businesses should be unfettered by things like regulations and taxes. Otherwise, rich people will just take their ball and go home. And various other reasons that don't add up when you think about them.

So for decades now, these think tanks have been steadily creating papers and intellectual dogma (aka "hackwork by sophists") to continue to ingratiate themselves to their rich donors and receive regular paychecks. And now this drivel has been firmly ensconced into the public discourse and record as if it actually made sense.

To show you how oily and hypocritical these types are, the Koch's in 1973, tried to get Friedrich Hayek, one of the the darlings of libertarian intellectual though, to come back to the U.S. to head up another of the Koch's think tanks. Hayek, however, said he couldn't come because he had just had bladder surgery and his expenses were being covered by Austria's universal healthcare. Koch basically said, not to worry, you can apply for Social Security benefits (including hospital coverage) when you get here.

So, these rich industrialists encouraged a guy to come over here and use government assistance so he could write scholarly papers about getting rid of government assistance.

You can read about it here, if you don't have a full stomach at the time: Charles Koch to Friedrich Hayek: Use Social Security! | The Nation

Thanks for sharing all that you have. Although this is an interesting story is it "typical" of the very wealthy? Both you and Montana Mama seem to think that the very wealthy are very unethical and I'll trust your judgment on that, but just wanted to make sure that's what you are trying to convey.


Prepare for more face palms ! LOL

No, that still doesn't add up. Because 10% takes a much bigger bite out of the living standard of someone making $24,000 than someone making $2.4 Million. If you take $2,400 from someone making $24,000, it dramatically affects their choices in food, housing, ability to drive to work, etc. If you take $240,000 from someone making $2.4 Million it does not have the same effect.

Even though I understand what you are saying, I'm not getting why we should care whether or not it has an impact on the person making the $24,000 a year. Yes it does have a harder impact but why is that something anyone should care about? Why should public policy try to reflect what matters to an individual person? Doesn't that make society take responsibilty for individual happiness and lifestyle? Isn't that something that most liberal people would lash out against if it was about any other "lifestyle" issue and choice? Why do people want the government to care about what goes on in their personal life when it comes to money but not anything else.

Hope that question makes sense.

[greysfang]

No. The person making $24K pays $2,400. The person making $2,000,000 pays $200,000. Each person is paying 10% of his income. The rich person is still paying significantly more, so I don't think it can be argued that they aren't paying "their share". They are making more and they are paying more. I don't expect people to pay the same dollar amount, but I do believe they should pay the same percentage of their income.

But that's not what's happening IRL. The rich person is still paying a significantly lower percentage, we're only saying they should pay a higher percentage just like most of us do.

[MohandasKGanja]

Thanks for sharing all that you have. Although this is an interesting story is it "typical" of the very wealthy. Both you and Montana Mama seem to think that the very wealthy are very unethical and I'll trust your judgment on that, but just wanted to make sure that's what you are trying to convey.

I don't think it's necessarily typical of the very wealthy. However, I think it shows how some of the very wealthy have used their money to distort and pollute an honest discussion of the situation, for their benefit, and so that they can accrue more wealth.

[monk]

I added another question. That's probably all I'm going to ask about it. I have learned a lot in this thread so thanks again.

[Just Kill Me]

Even though I understand what you are saying, I'm not getting why we should care whether or not it has an impact on the person making the $24,000 a year. Yes it does have a harder impact but why is that something anyone should care about? Why should public policy try to reflect what matters to an individual person? Doesn't that make society take responsibilty for individual happiness and lifestyle? Isn't that something that most liberal people would lash out against if it was about any other "lifestyle" issue and choice? Why do people want the government to care about what goes on in their personal life when it comes to money but not anything else.

Hope that question makes sense.

Because you might be human and give a fuck about your fellow man?
Posted from my iPhone

[Novice]

Even though I understand what you are saying, I'm not getting why we should care whether or not it has an impact on the person making the $24,000 a year. Yes it does have a harder impact but why is that something anyone should care about? Why should public policy try to reflect what matters to an individual person? Doesn't that make society take responsibilty for individual happiness and lifestyle? Isn't that something that most liberal people would lash out against if it was about any other "lifestyle" issue and choice? Why do people want the government to care about what goes on in their personal life when it comes to money but not anything else.

Hope that question makes sense.

This isn't about "lifestyle" as you have previously been schooled.
As for the rest I think that you are being purposely obtuse & are trolling for a response.

[Brookie]

I'm starting to think Monk is actually Ann Romney; she's clueless too.

[monk]

You've made that clear Novice but I'm not. But I won't ask any more questions. I do appreciate the contributions of those who know what they are talking about. Thanks again.

[Novice]

Oh, I know what I'm talking about. Trust.

[MohandasKGanja]

Even though I understand what you are saying, I'm not getting why we should care whether or not it has an impact on the person making the $24,000 a year. Yes it does have a harder impact but why is that something anyone should care about? Why should public policy try to reflect what matters to an individual person? Doesn't that make society take responsibilty for individual happiness and lifestyle? Isn't that something that most liberal people would lash out against if it was about any other "lifestyle" issue and choice? Why do people want the government to care about what goes on in their personal life when it comes to money but not anything else.

I have to head out, but one of the things that is important to distinguish is where a particular person is earning $24,000. In the United States, I believe that that income is at the poverty line, particularly if the person has dependents (children). In that scenario, every dollar counts, and I believe that people at that income level not only are not taxed at a federal level, but are also given an earned income tax credit to help raise them out of the poverty level. But as others have said or implied here, that amount is probably more than offset by amounts they are paying in sales and local taxes.

We need to care about the $24,000 earners because people at this level are a huge percentage of the population and in the United States we have these egalitarian standards about equal opportunity and getting something out of the fruits of your labors. Having a huge number of impoverished and justifiably angry people in this class is destabilizing. It can tilt a country away from democracy and even into anarchy or continuing insurgencies. You can see it throughout history when a very small portion of the population owns the vast majority of the wealth, while the rest of the population is barely getting by. It has happened in Russia, Central America, Southeast Asia, and other places, and there is nothing to say it won't happen here if the slide continues.