Stephen King: "Tax me, for fuck's sake!"

[AndyZ]

Vtboy, I'll give you a post when I'm awake and aware enough to give you something useful.  I just wanted to give Callie something.

I would like to comment on this.. but given I just lost 1/4 of my grant to the IRS after something like 19 months of sending them proof I'm still too enraged that they taxed my disability and got away with it.

Yeah, imagine my surprise when I found out at the start of April that beyond not having worked a day all year, I owed taxes on my unemployment.  Recursive taxation for the fail.

[RubySlippers]

The only issue I have is lets say they increase taxes by 5% on everyone to be fair that never brings in 5% more income to the government. Poorer people will just work off the books and not report the extra income, middle class and the wealthy will find more loopholes in the tax law or more deductions to lessen the impact. So lets say you wanted 5% more effective income you might need to tax actually 8% more assuming 3% will be lost due to these factors.

And I will note according some experts in the underground economy nations with a high tax rate have a proportionally higher off the books economy its hard to study but in Greece at one place you could get a soda with a receipt for 4.5 Euros or pay cash without one for 3 Euros, a sign off the books in in play. How much of that goes on in high tax nations is unsure but ancedotal evidence is its pretty much there in some form.

[Silverfyre]

That's quite the sweeping generalization you make there about all levels of society, Ruby. Any factual evidence to back up such a claim or is just speculation that such a tax hike would make entire levels of economical society go "underground" and work off the books?  Not every job market gives such opportunities.

[AndyZ]

Sorry, but I'm lost here. If the point is that this lost soul's opposition to gun ownership cannot reasonably be inferred from his homicidal rampage, I agree. Since there is no question but that he sincerely wants handguns proscribed, your example seems to create room for the possibility that Al Gore has decided to blast greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a means of mobilizing resistance to the practice. Perhaps so, but I think it more likely Gore is just a very flawed human being who, despite understanding the damaging consequences of his conduct, prefers his luxuries to promotion of the commonweal.

Yes, to the extent people are even aware of Bob and his views on roses, they may point out his hypocrisy. But, who really cares about Bob? If there is serious and pervasive public debate on the dangers of growing red roses, it is unlikely many will become pro-rosies or anti-rosies because of who Bob is or what he does. The situation is, unfortunately, different with celebrities, as attitudes toward them often rub off on the public positions they take. If Al Gore is perceived to be a hypocrite or otherwise a bad person, there will be many who, without examination, will reject the merits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions simply because they are repelled by him. This is the other edge of the celebrity sword.

Larry Craig and Al Gore are indeed similar in the respect that their private conduct departs from their publicly expressed views. My point was only that Larry Craig's homosexual acts, unlike Al Gore's consumption of fossil fuels, are expressions of a very fundamental aspect of his nature. I think it is thus more likely (but not certain) that Craig's sexual conduct indicates his private views on LGBT issues diverge from his public pronouncements, than it is that Al Gore's personal gluttony provides reliable proof he does not believe the science on global warming.

The fact that I eat to the point of obesity, for example, does not mean that I doubt the connection between obesity and shortened lifespan.

I do not agree with your premise, that Al Gore either must be a mass murderer or incapable of reasoned thought.

I am certainly disappointed that, after all his good public work in alerting the world to the global warming menace, Al Gore has not adopted a less pernicious lifestyle. However, to consign him to a category peopled by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (actually, to a worse category, since these people killed only millions, not billions), is putting a bit too fine of a point on the matter. 

Nor can I imagine that Al Gore, after so convincingly articulating and popularizing theory and evidence linking human activity to global warming, fails to understand that his excessive con sumpton of fossil fuels is inimical to good environmental health.

Among human beings, perhaps among all things, imperfection seems to be the unfailing rule. I know some very good people, but have yet to meet a saint.

Though I have taken steps to reduce my own carbon footprint, I know there is much more I could do. It would by no means be impossible for me, for example, to bicycle 30 miles to work each day, erect a windmill on my front lawn, install geothermal heating in my home, and eliminate animal proteins from my diet. Each of these choices, however, would involve sacrifices I prefer not to make. If you were to infer from my doing less than I can that I do not believe the science of global warming, you would be dead wrong. I only hope this does not make me a mass murderer or a mindless.   

Is it possible Al Gore does not really believe we are burning up the planet with our profligate ways? Sure, it's possible, but I doubt it. I think it is far more likely that, like me, he is just another imperfect human being.

And, for the record, I don't think human beings possess free will any more than do other beasts. We are all pinballs bouncing off the bumpers of nature and nurture.

I am not a tax expert but I am quite certain that when corporations fail to pay what they owe in taxes they, like individuals, become liable for interest and, in appropriate cases, for penalties.

Okay, let me try to elaborate further. 

This may be changing a little as I try to re-explain it, since I never attempted to enumerate this point before.  Apologies about confusion as a result.  Though I feel like it's basically the same, I certainly feel as though I learned a lot. ^_^  Maybe just better phrased?  Or maybe I'm still phrasing it wrong?  I know I'm terrible at explanation.

My claim is that someone who attempts to create a public policy for something that they do cannot believe in the necessity of that action.

The crazy gunman was created as an extreme example in order to better explain this claim, as well as one of my attempts to disprove it.  Although it seems as though the madman is opposed to both guns and murder, he is willing to use both, and therefore sees them as necessary and useful tools.

You mentioned that you eat to obesity but do not dismiss the correlation between obesity and shortened life span.  This doesn't break that rule because you (presumably) neither push for a law against obesity.  You accept that eating to obesity will shorten your lifespan, and so long as none of my money is going towards your medical care, I have no right to stop you.

Basically, from my understanding, you don't believe that a shortened life span is a sufficient price to pay in order to eat less.

Now, let's go on to global warming.  You say that you believe that the world is being wrecked by carbon dioxide.  Therefore, before the natural end of your life, the world will cease to be habitable by human beings. 

I would expect such a revelation to cause a horrified outcry, as people scurry and fight in every possible way to save the planet.  People with such faith would do everything they can in order to stop the onset of carbon dioxide, that every molecule launched into the atmosphere would bring some measurable amount of time to the inhability of Earth.

If people make such a claim (and some have), then it makes sense that they'd try to halt the creation of carbon dioxide.  This would be a logical result of the belief that human life will end if we do not act; only the most sociopathic of us would be unwilling to have the human race continue even if we ourselves would die in the process. 

This is admittedly a leap of logic that I left out in earlier posts: even if you don't care about destroying yourself, it doesn't give you the right to injure others.  For example, I wouldn't care about people smoking if the secondhand didn't send me into violet coughing fits, no matter how much damage they do to themselves.

But, let's say that you don't believe that you ought to interfere with the ending of humanity.  Let's say that even as you burn through fossil fuels and talk about how it destroys the planet, the destruction of the planet does not bother you.  Would you then try to push for others not to use fossil fuels via laws while ramping up your own?  Would you buy multi-million dollar houses on the coastline when the coastline is going to be the first thing to go?

Now, I understand your point about how some people will just automatically follow and listen to celebrities, there's a difference between simple ad hominem attacks and pertinent information.  For example, there's an awful lot I could say about Al (Second Chakra) Gore that I've left out of the conversation which shows him for the monster that he is but isn't pertinent.

If the only people who make such claims cannot follow them, perhaps they shouldn't try to pass laws which affect us but to which they are exempt, whether legally or politically.  However, you weren't the one to bring celebrities into this debate, so I realize you probably already know this.

That's quite the sweeping generalization you make there about all levels of society, Ruby. Any factual evidence to back up such a claim or is just speculation that such a tax hike would make entire levels of economical society go "underground" and work off the books?  Not every job market gives such opportunities.

I don't think she's claiming that every single level of society will do this, although diminishing returns is pretty well documented.  However, you're correct in that the poor have a much harder time on simply packing up than the rich do.

Here's how it works in economics, though you shouldn't have too much trouble in seeing how it works in taxes.  If you do, let me know and I'll explain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

[Oniya]

Now, let's go on to global warming.  You say that you believe that the world is being wrecked by carbon dioxide.  Therefore, before the natural end of your life, the world will cease to be habitable by human beings. 

I would expect such a revelation to cause a horrified outcry, as people scurry and fight in every possible way to save the planet.  People with such faith would do everything they can in order to stop the onset of carbon dioxide, that every molecule launched into the atmosphere would bring some measurable amount of time to the inhability of Earth.

If people make such a claim (and some have), then it makes sense that they'd try to halt the creation of carbon dioxide.  This would be a logical result of the belief that human life will end if we do not act; only the most sociopathic of us would be unwilling to have the human race continue even if we ourselves would die in the process. 

This being an extreme example, I still feel obligated to point out that every non-plant organism on the planet creates carbon dioxide.  Therefore, if someone wanted to completely halt the creation of carbon dioxide molecules (at least to the extent that they were personally responsible for it), they would be obligated to kill themselves.

Minimizing, on the other hand, would be something a lot more 'sane'.

[Silverfyre]

I am quite aware on how diminishing returns works, but thanks for the wiki link for a quick and dirty primer.  My point is that her theory on entire parts of society going underground due to a tax hike are rather ridiculous.

[RubySlippers]

I didn't say complete segments I said more underground economics will be in play. For example John Doe a carpenter might work for ACME on the books for some work then on their time do work on the side for cash and not report it that added income not taxed. And I will note since I'm in that economy there has been an increase of such activity those unemployed long term often have to go to this to survive since your not paying taxes on this income the social security and medicare taxes are not paid, from relatives in this in high tax locations its far worse. This is the most common form this would take.

And others will find more tax cuts, things to deduct or fudge a little making a 5% tax increase not bring in 5% more income its usually less say 3.5%, so to get 5% one clearly needs to tax more say 7.5 or 8% to get the desired income for the government.

So common sense would be the rich having the most options would hide all the money they could legally from increased taxes.

[vtboy]

My claim is that someone who attempts to create a public policy for something that they do cannot believe in the necessity of that action.

I would agree with this if it were true that human beings always act consistently with their beliefs. In my experience, they do not.

You mentioned that you eat to obesity but do not dismiss the correlation between obesity and shortened life span.  This doesn't break that rule because you (presumably) neither push for a law against obesity.  You accept that eating to obesity will shorten your lifespan, and so long as none of my money is going towards your medical care, I have no right to stop you.

Basically, from my understanding, you don't believe that a shortened life span is a sufficient price to pay in order to eat less.

Sorry, but treatment of my obesity-related ailments will be covered by Medicare. Thank you for your payroll taxes. Any inference that I dispute either the link between obesity and illness or the appropriateness of Medicare would be incorrect.

Now, let's go on to global warming.  You say that you believe that the world is being wrecked by carbon dioxide.  Therefore, before the natural end of your life, the world will cease to be habitable by human beings. 

I would expect such a revelation to cause a horrified outcry, as people scurry and fight in every possible way to save the planet.  People with such faith would do everything they can in order to stop the onset of carbon dioxide, that every molecule launched into the atmosphere would bring some measurable amount of time to the inhability of Earth.

If people make such a claim (and some have), then it makes sense that they'd try to halt the creation of carbon dioxide.  This would be a logical result of the belief that human life will end if we do not act; only the most sociopathic of us would be unwilling to have the human race continue even if we ourselves would die in the process. 

This is admittedly a leap of logic that I left out in earlier posts: even if you don't care about destroying yourself, it doesn't give you the right to injure others.  For example, I wouldn't care about people smoking if the secondhand didn't send me into violet coughing fits, no matter how much damage they do to themselves.

But, let's say that you don't believe that you ought to interfere with the ending of humanity.  Let's say that even as you burn through fossil fuels and talk about how it destroys the planet, the destruction of the planet does not bother you.  Would you then try to push for others not to use fossil fuels via laws while ramping up your own?  Would you buy multi-million dollar houses on the coastline when the coastline is going to be the first thing to go?

My point about Al Gore was that, although his wanton consumption of carbon-based fuels might suggest he does not believe his public pronouncements on the causal connection between man-made greenhouse gases and the menace of global warming and on the need to regulate the former, the inconsistency may have other explanations. For example, Al Gore may simply be a latter day Louis XV ("Apres moi, le deluge") who assumes he will not live to see the worst of global warming, and gives not a tinker's dam about the horrors it will inflict on future generations. Or, he may think himself more entitled than the riffraff, and believe that when everyone else stops guzzling fossil fuels there will be plenty of atmospheric capacity for him to go on doing so. Or, like someone addicted to cigarettes or gambling or promiscuity, he may regret his behavior, but lack the strength to give up the private jet and the SUV. Or, he may have performed some sort of cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the additional good works he is able to perform thanks to use of the private jet and the SUV more than offset their aggravation of the environmental problem. Or, perhaps he believes that, until there are regulations requiring sweeping changes in carbon fuel consumpton, the value of individual sacrifice. Or, he may be thoughtless when it comes to his own behavior and his otherwise good judgment may just fly out the window. Or, he may just be a pig.

In short, the conclusion that Al Gore does not believe what he preaches is possible, but hardly ineluctable.

Now, I understand your point about how some people will just automatically follow and listen to celebrities, there's a difference between simple ad hominem attacks and pertinent information.  For example, there's an awful lot I could say about Al (Second Chakra) Gore that I've left out of the conversation which shows him for the monster that he is but isn't pertinent.

If the only people who make such claims cannot follow them, perhaps they shouldn't try to pass laws which affect us but to which they are exempt, whether legally or politically.  However, you weren't the one to bring celebrities into this debate, so I realize you probably already know this.

OK. And, further to your point (I think), look at the buckets of ink we've spilled over whether Al Gore and Warren Buffet believe what they say, as opposed to the merits of their statements.

[AndyZ]

This being an extreme example, I still feel obligated to point out that every non-plant organism on the planet creates carbon dioxide.  Therefore, if someone wanted to completely halt the creation of carbon dioxide molecules (at least to the extent that they were personally responsible for it), they would be obligated to kill themselves.

Minimizing, on the other hand, would be something a lot more 'sane'.

Depends on the levels required, the Earth's ability to handle unusually high CO2 levels, the damage done to the Earth and its habitability for human life, and how long it would take for the Earth to become uninhabitable according to the various theories.

I'm trying to find information about how long we're supposed to have or how much each tonne of CO2 is supposed to raise the temperature, but the data doesn't seem to be consistent, so I won't be able to go into significant detail on this.

I am quite aware on how diminishing returns works, but thanks for the wiki link for a quick and dirty primer.  My point is that her theory on entire parts of society going underground due to a tax hike are rather ridiculous.

Apologies if my post came off as rude or condescending.

Sorry, but treatment of my obesity-related ailments will be covered by Medicare. Thank you for your payroll taxes. Any inference that I dispute either the link between obesity and illness or the appropriateness of Medicare would be incorrect.

I should probably stop posting on here for a while; I'm having horrible luck at being clear, but I'll try to finish this out.

Would it be correct that you would decry a public policy that would ban excessive eating which leads to obesity?

My point about Al Gore was that, although his wanton consumption of carbon-based fuels might suggest he does not believe his public pronouncements on the causal connection between man-made greenhouse gases and the menace of global warming and on the need to regulate the former, the inconsistency may have other explanations. For example, Al Gore may simply be a latter day Louis XV ("Apres moi, le deluge") who assumes he will not live to see the worst of global warming, and gives not a tinker's dam about the horrors it will inflict on future generations. Or, he may think himself more entitled than the riffraff, and believe that when everyone else stops guzzling fossil fuels there will be plenty of atmospheric capacity for him to go on doing so. Or, like someone addicted to cigarettes or gambling or promiscuity, he may regret his behavior, but lack the strength to give up the private jet and the SUV. Or, he may have performed some sort of cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the additional good works he is able to perform thanks to use of the private jet and the SUV more than offset their aggravation of the environmental problem. Or, perhaps he believes that, until there are regulations requiring sweeping changes in carbon fuel consumpton, the value of individual sacrifice. Or, he may be thoughtless when it comes to his own behavior and his otherwise good judgment may just fly out the window. Or, he may just be a pig.

In short, the conclusion that Al Gore does not believe what he preaches is possible, but hardly ineluctable.

Yeah, I see your point here.  He might figure that he doesn't want to suffer in silence, and that the actual level of CO2 wouldn't be important provided it was stopped before it became catastrophic, so he might want everything to be banned in order to stop himself.

Thank you for disproving my claim ^_^ I thought I had something airtight there.

OK. And, further to your point (I think), look at the buckets of ink we've spilled over whether Al Gore and Warren Buffet believe what they say, as opposed to the merits of their statements.

I actually learned something I consider useful, though I apologize if you feel your time was wasted.

[Shjade]

I realize I'm pretty late to this and am somewhat dredging it up (though it was still on the first page!), but only just came across this and thought the folks who were heartily discussing the subject might find it interesting.

Response to Warren Buffet by CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, T. J. Rodgers.

[AndyZ]

I can only speak for myself, but feel free to pull up old threads that I've created if new information comes to light which might change the course of the conversation.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Response to Warren Buffet by CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, T. J. Rodgers.

People like this guy won't be happy until the working class lives in tin shacks with a life expectancy of 40.  Oh, and if we signed our first-born over to Satan he'd probably be tickled too.

In the 1960s, we had marginal tax rates of over 70%, we were the world's largest creditor nation, the world's largest economy, we landed men on the moon...all while defending half the planet from a superpower.

Back then we had to worry about thermonuclear war.  Today, there are women in the Sudan who have to worry about getting gang-raped so they can go out and get water for their children.  This guy's just butt-hurt that he might only be able to afford two yachts rather than three.

Someone give Rodgers a purple heart.

[TheRedFear]

Article Linky

Stephen King lays out a pretty solid argument for raising taxes on the rich, and clarifies a lot of tax equality talking points and misconceptions.

To me, the article makes a lot of sense.  In fact, I think it's goddamn amazing!  He laid it out better than I ever could.  I can't really see any obvious flaws in his argument or logic.  But what about you guys?

My only question is...who precisely is stopping him from cutting a check to the Federal government? They won't send it back. In fact if all the "Tax me for fuck's sake" liberals in Hollywood would actually put their money where their mouths are like that I might even give a fuck what they have to say on this issue.

Ah, good ol' Will Smith. He won't be moving to France anytime soon. 

[Will]

Because him sending a check would be nothing but a drop in the water compared to the money brought in from increased taxes.  And that's what he's trying to encourage.  Silently sending in checks doesn't encourage or change anything.

[TheRedFear]

Actually if every single Will Smith, Warren Buffet, and Stephen Kings of the world got together and set 1-10 million dollars each, you just might be surprised....

Besides. The money from raising taxes would be a drop in the bucket for getting out of deficit. And what little our economy gains in the short term, we'd likely lose several times over in job loss, inflation, and all those other natural consequences of tax hikes and people like Mr. King never have to worry about.

But more importantly, if King put hismoney where his mouth is it would give him this little thing called credibility. As it stands now Mr. King, it's easy to run your self-righteous mouth about tax hikes when we all know they won't impact you in the least. Your well-payed lawyers will do what they've always done. Find the loopholes that let you dodge these new taxes.

When Warren Buffet and Stephen King want me to do anything but laugh at thier thoughts on taxes, they need simply do one thing.

Put up.

Otherwise?

Shut up.

[Question Mark]

Actually if every single Will Smith, Warren Buffet, and Stephen Kings of the world got together and set 1-10 million dollars each, you just might be surprised....

Besides. The money from raising taxes would be a drop in the bucket for getting out of deficit. And what little our economy gains in the short term, we'd likely lose several times over in job loss, inflation, and all those other natural consequences of tax hikes and people like Mr. King never have to worry about.

But more importantly, if King put hismoney where his mouth is it would give him this little thing called credibility. As it stands now Mr. King, it's easy to run your self-righteous mouth about tax hikes when we all know they won't impact you in the least. Your well-payed lawyers will do what they've always done. Find the loopholes that let you dodge these new taxes.

When Warren Buffet and Stephen King want me to do anything but laugh at thier thoughts on taxes, they need simply do one thing.

Put up.

Otherwise?

Shut up.

People who make this argument seem to forgot two very important facts, and commit three major fallacies.

Fact #1: The tax hike is just 1.7%.  That's it.  I wish Obama would do more, but considering the massive freakout amongst the GOP, and with Fox News whipping the conservatives into a frenzy, I suppose he'll be lucky to just get the 1.7%.  It's not even technically a tax hike, he's just letting Bush-era tax cuts expire.

Fact #2: It is not just a drop in the bucket.  Since the tax cuts were put in place, we've lost trillions of dollars in tax revenue, and what do you know, we also lost jobs and our economy tanked.  If tax cuts for the wealthy resulted in more jobs and a healthier economy, I'd back it up.  But they don't.  And it's not just a drop in the bucket, it's a major percentage!

Fallacy #1: "If they care so much, why don't they just write a check?"  Because if only the small handful of millionaires willing to do so write these checks, their donations would actually be just a drop in the bucket comparatively, and would have little to no effect.  However, if the entire millionaire+ populations pays slightly higher taxes, the increased revenue will be readily apparent, and will help take the pressure off the economy.  Personal donations will only really hurt the donators.  Not to mention, people don't like writing checks worth millions of dollars when they don't know if it will do any good.  By raising taxes, at least they have the comfort of knowing they're required to pay.  That can go a long way.

Fallacy #2: "It's just a drop in the bucket."  Oh how I hate this expression.  It must be something used a lot on Fox News: a lot of Republicans and conservatives have been parroting it in our debates.  What it's basically saying is "This tax raise will do the country good, but it doesn't immediately fix the problem, so let's discard it."  Even if it was a drop in the bucket (several trillion dollars in revenue over the next decade say it isn't), it's still a net gain for our country!  And at this time with our economy, I think we should be getting any source of income we can, whether through taxes, exports, or spending cuts.  Many small boons can add up quickly, and there's no reason this argument should be awarded any merit.

Fallacy #3: "Raising taxes on them will stifle job creation."  No.  Just no.  We lowered taxes on the "job creators," and our economy tanked and took millions of jobs with it.  Companies regularly lay off workers to fatten up their bottom line.  And yet we still believe giving them more money will make them experience a sudden change of heart and recreate the millions of jobs they just destroyed.  The true job creators are the middle class, enterprising individuals looking to start their own business and hire their own workers.  We need to tax corporations/rich more (I'm not talking Socialism here, but a flat 30% baseline would be a great start), while offering tax breaks for small businesses.  At the same time, cut the fat out of our government: no more pork barrel spending, slash wasteful military (do we really need another $1.6 billion bomber?  or a $500 million cruise missile?  or an investment of billions into prototype fighter jets that we simply don't need?), reform social spending to get rid of mooches and welfare royalty, and start investing in infrastructure.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay.. let's sum it up like this..

You have a debt.. a HUGE one.. one we DIDN'T have prior to 9/11. Fun Note: It took tax policies of 8 years of Reagan, 4 of Bush I and 8 of Clinton to work that up. Some of these president's policies made for a few hiccups.. BUT each president largely understood that taxes were part of the formula. Reagan.. the gipper himself.. raised taxes on the highest incomes EIGHT times in the first four years.. along with hammering capital gains. Bush.. remember 'No New Taxes?'.. he bucked down and changed that policy because.. well. he had this HUGE deficit that needed fixing. Clinton.. he was a bit more washy.. but compared to 'Dubya' he was still a taxer.. and wasn't afraid to address the issues.

Simply put.. we have to admit.. Trickle Down.. don't work. From about the 70s on.. the average middle class worker has coasted along at about the cost of living..bouncing around with 4 to 5% (give or take). Meanwhile the execs.. particularly CEOs.. (those picked on upper incomes) have had their pay increase by leaps and bounds.. as much as 500%+ in some graphs (I'm personally thinking more like the 250% to 300% myself).

These 'money makers' have gamed the system so that they can maximize their return. I'm all for tax breaks.. but I want them to make a return to the country.

You know what could do to fix some of our jobs problems? Fix the corporate tax codes. Stop rewarding companies for outsourcing and hiding income overseas. Reward corporate 'reinvestment' in their infrastructure, reinstate the OLD corporate tax rate (something below the 35+% rate for top companies we have now). Kill the current corporate tax breaks.. build breaks that bring jobs BACK to the US,  and encourage these companies to reinvest in the country they've abandoned.

Cause let me tell you.. there ARE ways to make manufacturing work. You got to accept that we've let the corporate lobbies game the system for the last 4 or 5 decades. And fix those. We can reward them for rebuilding the country and taking the long investment view rather than the short time view they do now.

Look at the people who are pushing for lower capital gains, and lower taxes on the high end tax range. You got guys like Ryan.. who is a rich kid from an entitled family.. then you got Gov Romney.. another established money family.. who then went on to MAKE money by looting pillaging and taking the 'short view' on business. Bain is a labyrinth of companies who eat other companies.. slaughter them and sell off the assetts.

We need to change the way American business works. We need to fix the taxes on the upper class (Sorry guys.. you have to at least pay your share..and the past proves that the biggest growth was while you had HIGHER taxes than now).

Let me put it to you like this.. right now the LION share of our domestic debt owned outside the country is by CHINA. Do you honestly think that they have our best interests in mind? They manipulate their currency to keep the Yuan weak against the dollar.. because it ensures they have the hook to get it.

That being said.. they are also scaling up for a confrontation in the next 2 decades. Their navy is building. Their air force is building a strategy and infrastructure to allow for rapid strike capacity, forward strike ability. Not towards us.. towards their neighbors. I will bet.. they will use this NEW military strike capacity as a hammer to leverage a reunification with Taiwan.

China is very pragmatic. They aren't simply buying our debt to ensure they get leverage in our markets.. they WILL use it as a club on us. We have to fix our debt. That will require more than simply fixing the tax code.. we need to retrain our businesses.. but it WILL require higher taxes.

Fun note.. did you know if we raised the cap on the social security tax cap that we could fix the shortfall? (A lot SAFER move than privatizing it..)

[Torch]

Fun note.. did you know if we raised the cap on the social security tax cap that we could fix the shortfall? (A lot SAFER move than privatizing it..)

The FICA tax cap should absolutely be removed. I've advocated this for years. It would be easy to implement, would provide an immediate influx of cash, and for those paying the tax, it is relatively painless in that FICA is already deducted from one's paycheck. The deduction would simply continue instead of disappearing at some point during the year depending upon income.

[Callie Del Noire]

The FICA tax cap should absolutely be removed. I've advocated this for years. It would be easy to implement, would provide an immediate influx of cash, and for those paying the tax, it is relatively painless in that FICA is already deducted from one's paycheck. The deduction would simply continue instead of disappearing at some point during the year depending upon income.

Well if we raise it from 100 grand (or so) a year to 250 grand it would finance social security to at least the 2070s.. assuming we can keep congress from pillaging social security for other things. Or privatizing.

[Serephino]

Sometime last year I was watching the Tonight Show, and Jay Leno was doing his Headlines thing.  One of them wasn't funny.  It was a newspaper page.  At the top it was an article about a company laying off thousands of people.  Further down the page there was an article about how the CEO's of that very same company were getting huge bonuses.  Gee, it isn't hard to figure out what they did with the money they saved by laying off all those people...

Last night on my local news they reported that the average Middle Class family is bringing in less income than they were 10 years ago.  The Middle Class is slowly shrinking, and giant corporations are making huge profits.  This madness just isn't working, and the GOP seems to want to tilt it farther.

[Vekseid]

Actually if every single Will Smith, Warren Buffet, and Stephen Kings of the world got together and set 1-10 million dollars each, you just might be surprised....

This is just a demand by sociopaths for those who aren't sociopaths to disproportionally give up their own political power so they can continue wrecking this nation.

Besides. The money from raising taxes would be a drop in the bucket for getting out of deficit.

This is pretty easy to demonstrate as a lie - the Bush tax cuts and wars, plus his inaction in the mortgage crisis when he was first made aware of it in 2004 - we wouldn't have a deficit now. The chart for this is all over the Internet.

And what little our economy gains in the short term, we'd likely lose several times over in job loss, inflation,

Another bald-faced lie - we won't have inflation in a liquidity trap without job gains. The two concepts are mutually exclusive in the current financial environment.

and all those other natural consequences of tax hikes and people like Mr. King never have to worry about.

Bogeymen promoted by sociopaths and the bigots who think that blacks make up the majority of the poor.

The natural consequences of a more progressive tax system is that money moves faster through channels with lower savings rates, but those with higher savings rates have their cash flow remain the same. Ergo, the economy grows.

Ultimately, 5% of the population is earning 25% of the income and spending 20%, taxes included.

Since local reinvestment is not occurring at this pace, this means that, each year, a portion of this nation's wealth gets transported upwards. It's not a sustainable process - and, one of Warren Buffet's laws that you may laugh at:

"An unsustainable process will stop."

I imagine this will get eventually get resolved peacefully - the conservative lie machine is built on spreading fear, and once people have little left to fear for, it fails. Most famously in the South during the Civil War, where those with 20 or more slaves declared themselves exempt from taxes. The irony of them helping to bring down the country they hoped to build for themselves certainly isn't lost on me.

Still, millions are going to needlessly suffer because sociopaths think they have an understanding of how society works.

But more importantly, if King put hismoney where his mouth is it would give him this little thing called credibility. As it stands now Mr. King, it's easy to run your self-righteous mouth about tax hikes when we all know they won't impact you in the least. Your well-payed lawyers will do what they've always done. Find the loopholes that let you dodge these new taxes.

If you have some evidence of King being a tax-dodger, you are free to present it.

Put up.

You could do with some putting up yourself, by actually studying the issues you claim to profess knowledge on, rather than spewing bullshit you've heard from people with a less than honest agenda

Otherwise?

Shut up.

Listening to your own advice might be good, just saying.

[Question Mark]

While I agree with you on pretty much everything Vekseid, I want to temper the stated opinions a bit.  For one thing, for every conservative that wants to turn America into a corporate-run plutocracy (some would argue it already is), there's a liberal who wants to turn America into big-government socialist state (again, some would argue it already is).  Both side have some good ideas, for example true fiscal conservatives want to lower taxes on everyone, not just the rich, but many mainstream conservatives *coughRyancough* are pushing higher "Stealth" taxes on the middle and lower classes.  The conservatives you mention are people like Ryan and Romney, who obviously favor the rich and the corporations if you do a little digging, and people like Ailes and Murdoch, who use deceit and/or dishonest journalism to push their agendas.  Most conservatives I know IRL have some really good ideas, and some genuine gripes with how the country is being run (like, no budget in 3 years.  lolwut).

As always, the best course is compromise.  Raise taxes on the rich to pre-millenium standards, reform social spending to cut out the waste and pump stimulus into new businesses, get a comprehensive budget, and reduce the deficit through a combination of taxation and spending cuts.  The liberal-conservative division in this country is immense; the presidential election is becoming more of a war and smearfest than a genuine competition.  It's goddamn scary.  It might not turn into a civil war, but either way, the middle class will lose.

[vtboy]

The FICA tax cap should absolutely be removed. I've advocated this for years. It would be easy to implement, would provide an immediate influx of cash, and for those paying the tax, it is relatively painless in that FICA is already deducted from one's paycheck. The deduction would simply continue instead of disappearing at some point during the year depending upon income.

Why not also impose FICA on non-wage income (and, of course, allow non-wage income to count toward social security benefits)? Why shouldn't those whose income consists of dividends, interest, royalties, rents, and the like pay into the system and receive benefits?

[Torch]

Why not also impose FICA on non-wage income (and, of course, allow non-wage income to count toward social security benefits)? Why shouldn't those whose income consists of dividends, interest, royalties, rents, and the like pay into the system and receive benefits?

Why not indeed?

[OldSchoolGamer]

Why not also impose FICA on non-wage income (and, of course, allow non-wage income to count toward social security benefits)? Why shouldn't those whose income consists of dividends, interest, royalties, rents, and the like pay into the system and receive benefits?

We need to decide what Social Security is.

Is it a mandatory savings account?  If it is, then remove the FICA cap, place the entire trust fund off-limits to ANYTHING other than paying benefits, and tie benefit payments to the amount of money paid in and the time the taxpayer has left the money in the system.  Truth be told, I think we've pretty much abandoned that definition of Social Security, and moved to...

Is it a transfer payment system from the young and middle-aged, able-bodied and employed to the elderly and disabled?  (This is pretty much what, IMHO, Social Security has morphed into over the past thirty-odd years.)  If so, there's no reason to even have a special FICA tax.  Abolish it, and roll it into the overall taxation system.  Figure out what changes to marginal tax rates we need (or maybe a national sales tax?) to fund the transfer payments.