Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!

[Freeper]

babylonsister
 
Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2012, 07:40 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fpolitics+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics%29

Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!
Apr 30, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

The iconic writer scolds the superrich (including himself—and Mitt Romney) for not giving back, and warns of a Kingsian apocalyptic scenario if inequality is not addressed in America.


snip//

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since 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. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. 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. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

What charitable 1-percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “Okay, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

snip//

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-f--king-American, is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Gov. Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year, during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebeneezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.

Think about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002626849

I just love it when these rich liberals beg to be taxed more. If he was serious he would have his accountant write a check and send it to the treasury.

liberalmike27
34. Kudos to King

Fairness is not achieved by what percentage of one tax they cut, but more accurately measured by what remains after paying all taxes. It's striking to add up the tax burden of someone who makes 20,000 to $40,000 a year. Nine percent sales tax, about a ten percent gas tax depending on where you are, utility taxes, federal taxes, 15% on every cent of your income paid by you and your employer as part of your salary in payroll taxes. We're all paying 30 plus percent when you add every type of taxes up, and those taxes are nearly inconsequential, or not paid at all (SS FICA) when you get paid by gambling in the stock market.

We need some democrats that will reframe the argument in this way. We also need to connect globalization to the tremendous loss of taxes we've incurred--imagine 25-30 million jobs, still working in the U.S., all paying federal, state, city, county, sales, gas, property, toll, fees, cigarette, and alcohol taxes. Imagine the multiplier effect of all those jobs, in creating more jobs.

We'd have near zero unemployment, and another trillion or more in taxes we were collecting. In a way, this is just another problem created by the rich we can lay at their feet, just more justification for them paying more. The only problem is paying three of four more percent is entirely inadequate. It's going to have to be a much larger number now.

What happens when the rich run out of money to hand over to the government? Will the middle class be told they need to start paying their fair share too?
 

joanbarnes
13. I LOVE our rich liberals!

Yeah I'm sure you do, they are just like you they want other people to pay more, meanwhile they have every opportunity to lead by example and put their money where their big mouths are and not one has. Hell Buffet is suing the IRS over taxes that he owes yet he says he wants to pay more.

[Airwolf]

Its all so easy. Write a check if your all butthurt over not paying enough, You and that other jackoff Warren Buffet can pay all you want to ,no one is stoppong you.

[JohnnyReb]

so did the late Steve Jobs

I saw on the TV news the other night that APPLE made over 30 billion in profit...

...but they only paid 3 billion in taxes or about 9.8%.

TV news also showed how GE didn't pay any taxes....who wrote most of those tax loophole laws anyway.......uh....rich democrats?

[Duke Nukum]

More proof that one doesn't have to be intelligent to get rich.

[TVDOC]

More proof that one doesn't have to be intelligent to get rich.

Also a significant reason why I stopped buying his crappy books several years ago......he used to be a decent writer.......

Alas, no more......

doc

[Kyle Ricky]

I think Steven King should stick to writing books. I like him better that way.

[A7X_foREVer]

I also used to enjoy his books not so much anymore

[BEG]

I bet a bunch of fat assed liberals will be masterbating to the thought of Stephen King tonight.

[Kyle Ricky]

I also used to enjoy his books not so much anymore

He is one of my favorite authors. I love his books and movies. I just hate when authors, musicians, actors, comedians, etc start to tout their political views. It won't keep me from reading his books or watching his movies, but I do wish he would just shut the **** up.

[dandi]

What charitable 1-percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts.

Perhaps not 100%. But the bottom line remains - if all those sick and poor really mean that much to you, why aren't you donating that extra money you think you should be taxed to charities that cover some of those things? Just because you can't assume complete responsibility doesn't mean that money couldn't go a long way to accomplishing some of those goals. Why are you waiting to be forced to do it? If those people's situations are so dire, why are you waiting for a government program that may or may not materialize?

Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “Okay, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

How does raising taxes accomplish either of those goals, and if it does, how do we know the money would be allocated for that purpose? And I've been paying my ****ing taxes, dude, every year of my adult life. And every year I see them pissed away in the bloated and inefficient bureaucracy that federal government has become. I don't mind paying a fair tax rate, but someone has to be a good steward of it, not just stick their hands out, saying, "more, more, more".

[USA4ME]

United American citizenry

I am most definately not interested in the type of united America citizenry the political left wants the country to become.  I am, however, always in favor of having the type of united America Citizenry for which the Constitution was written.

The political left needs to hear this and hear it loud and clear:  The type of America they claim they want can't sustain itself economically and will eventually turn into a left-wing dictatorship like the USSR.  There are many of us who would see to it the whole thing falls apart before that happens.  From the ashes we can build anew.  Your solution will place us all in chains.

.

[A7X_foREVer]

He is one of my favorite authors. I love his books and movies. I just hate when authors, musicians, actors, comedians, etc start to tout their political views. It won't keep me from reading his books or watching his movies, but I do wish he would just shut the **** up.

Agreed

[Mike220]

Good news Stevie! I've got an address where you can go ahead and send money to your hearts content.

How about just doing it, rather than waiting for the Feds to force you to? Typical liberal... Anyways, here's the address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

[NHSparky]

Seriously, I wish I had the time to pick apart this blathering he calls an article.

Fisking this would be child's play, but I'm busy tonight.  And Stevie, nobody says you can't give more.  But when fully half of America has either no or a negative tax burden, and look to your own state of Maine as to where "tax the rich" rhetoric leads, it's not that the rich aren't taxed enough, but that 1--we spend too much on people who pay nothing into the system, 2--have a "wish list" that simply can't be fulfilled.  It's like a child's Christmas list--it's cute, but nowhere near realistic.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Good news Stevie! I've got an address where you can go ahead and send money to your hearts content.

How about just doing it, rather than waiting for the Feds to force you to? Typical liberal... Anyways, here's the address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Maybe we ought to call our congresscritters and urge them to write and pass the Tax Stephen King For F*ck's Sake Act of 2012.

[Doubleplusungood]

Hey Stephen King: cut a check to the IRS for whatever amount you want, and shut the **** up about raising taxes for everyone else for ****'s sake!

[ADsOutburst]

Perhaps not 100%. But the bottom line remains - if all those sick and poor really mean that much to you, why aren't you donating that extra money you think you should be taxed to charities that cover some of those things? Just because you can't assume complete responsibility doesn't mean that money couldn't go a long way to accomplishing some of those goals. Why are you waiting to be forced to do it? If those people's situations are so dire, why are you waiting for a government program that may or may not materialize?

Thank you! If the issues King addressed were important enough to him, he would just pay more. Maybe if he put his money where his mouth is, others would follow. His (in)actions, not his canned exhortations, prove what is important to him.

[Doubleplusungood]

This also ties in with one of my "bits" as they call them in radio. I have started a new book of the month catalog, and it features the newest claimants for the record of the "world's shortest book".

So far I have two:

Left Wing Eugenics Advocates Who Lead By Example And Kill Themselves

Left Wing Tax Raise Advocates Who Lead By Example And Donate Extra Money To The IRS

Will Mr. King be the first to be listed in my second book? Somehow I seriously doubt that.

[movie buff]

Also a significant reason why I stopped buying his crappy books several years ago......he used to be a decent writer.......

Alas, no more......

doc

True. I too am a former King fan.
King jumped the shark in like the early- mid 90's, and his stuff has gotten worse and worse since then (Ironically, as he became more and more outspoken in his liberalism).
His stuff now has an easy- to- identify formula (So much so that Internet personality "The Nostalgia Critic" came up with a Stephen King Drinking Game):
1. Takes place either in Maine, or in another dimension (i.e. the Dark Tower series).
2. Features an ultra- stereotypical psychotic, Bible- thumping religious fanatic character who spouts Scripture while either killing or at least mistreating innocent people, before inevitably being killed himself/herself (And yet King remains mystified as to why Christians aren't generally big fans of his books; Why, you'd almost think they didn't like having their beliefs routinely mocked and stereotyped in King's works, and openly insulted in King's personal words and articles).
3. On the subject, features other villains with absolutely no depth or personality whatsoever, or even much of a threatening sense. The days of Randall Flagg, Pennywise the Clown, 'Apt Pupil''s Mr. Dussander, 'Salem's Lot''s Mr. Barlow (One of my all- time favorite literary villains), and even Christine are long gone. Even just the generic "School Bully" characters in those older books (i.e. Henry Bowers in 'It,' Buddy Repperton in 'Christine') were generally more menacing than the main villains in King's newer books.
4. Features at least one major character who is a writer of some sort (Kind of interesting the first few times he did it, but it's gotten old very quickly).
5. Features "heroes" who are generally hard to give a crap about due to how bland and uninteresting their personalities usually are (Compare this to some of his past works, which featured well- developed and likable protagonists like Dennis and Leigh from 'Christine,' the Losers' Club from 'It,' and the four boys from his novella 'The Body' aka 'Stand by Me').
6. Features plots that are for the most part incredibly boring. Even just his 'Dark Tower' comic book miniseries he did a few years ago literally put me to sleep.
7. Leads up to climaxes that are generally more silly than scary.
Then, of course, his political rants like this one turn me off to him even faster than the shoddy writing quality he has demonstrated over the last 15- 20 years.

[Karin]

You're right, MB.  It always bugged me how many writers living in Maine were featured in the stories.  It's like a bouncy tale, where they can't move past the grocery checkout line.   

I got Under the Dome for Christmas, and tried to give it a whirl, but quit after 1/3 through.  I looked up the ending on the net, and man was that stupid.  Glad I didn't waste my time. 

I didn't read that rant up there, after he mentioned lighting ones privates on fire.  This is supposed to be shocking I guess. 

[TVDOC]

You're right, MB.  It always bugged me how many writers living in Maine were featured in the stories.  It's like a bouncy tale, where they can't move past the grocery checkout line.   

I got Under the Dome for Christmas, and tried to give it a whirl, but quit after 1/3 through.  I looked up the ending on the net, and man was that stupid.  Glad I didn't waste my time. 

I didn't read that rant up there, after he mentioned lighting ones privates on fire.  This is supposed to be shocking I guess. 

Patricia Cornwell (Scarpetta series) and a few others have gone the same route.......their early works were good, until they became infused with political rhetoric, makes me somewhat more convinced that chronic leftism is a mental disorder instead of a political ideology.......

A few notable authors have escaped this syndrome (ro some extent) examples are Tom Clancy, and Clive Cussler.......Clancy's first works were real stemwinders, and after he made his money.......he quit writing, and bought a football team.......good for him.  He's back at it again (with co-writers) and these latest books are not bad, but not quite up to par with his early stuff.  Cussler has expanded his horizions (also with co-writers) but has generally maintained the same level of work product.



doc

[GOBUCKS]

Clancy and King have both stopped writing and just sell their names to a succession of novels turned out by a stable of "co-author" hacks.

Clancy's first half-dozen or so were among the best thrillers I've ever read.

The last few books with Clancy's name (not even including the "Op Center" abortions), were horrendous.

I would read maybe a hundred pages and feel insulted that such poorly-written crap could be marketed.

The only things that resemble Clancy are the names of continuing characters.

I don't really believe Stephen King ever wrote more than half his stuff.

He was turning out a thousand-page book every couple of months or so, while appearing on every TV show that would have him.

He had such a consistent formula, all he had to do was outline the new book, fill in a few scenes, and turn it over to the stable.

The only other guy I've read whose formula was as unchanging and predictable was James Michener.

But Michener, like the original Clancy, was hugely entertaining and educational.

[Karin]

I know we're off-topic, but I was just reminded of a mystery/thriller book I read (Cornwell reminded me).  The author was a woman.  In real life, I imagine she could drive you nuts; all her dialogue was talkin talkin talkin about emotions and feelings, rainbows, unicorns and relationships.  At one point, she's in a house with some dude, the dude sees by surveillance that the FBI is closing in the property; he's got to get the hell out of there.  He grabs his pre-packed stuff, and she's whining at him:  "Where are you going??  Stay here and talk to me!!!!"   
    I think I closed the book and left it at that point. 

[oldcrow]

Why is it these liberal tards need the government to tax them more, they can donate as much money as they want to the US federal Gov't. I think they are being disingenuous, but hey that's nothing new.

Gifts to the US Government

Well I see I was beat to the punch...that's what I get for not reading the full thread . Haha

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Why is it these liberal tards need the government to tax them more, they can donate as much money as they want to the US federal Gov't. I think they are being disingenuous, but hey that's nothing new.

Gifts to the US Government

Well I see I was beat to the punch...that's what I get for not reading the full thread . Haha

What charitable 1-percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “Okay, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.”

Apparently, money that's taken in the form of taxes has a magical property that money given in the form of a "gift" does not.