Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Stephen King on taxing the wealthy
Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&?s Sake!
Apr 30, 2012 4:45 AM EDTThe 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.
Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain?t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey?s governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey?s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett?s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn?t fair. ?He should just write a check and shut up,? Christie responded, with his typical verve. ?I?m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he?s got the ability to write a check?go ahead and write it.?
Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, ?How come I?m not paying 50?? The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee?s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.
Cut a check and shut up, they said.
If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.
Tired of hearing about it, they said.
Tough *** 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 tools 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, ?OK, 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.
And hey, why don?t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don?t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children?s children. And what they do give away is?like the monies my wife and I donate?totally at their own discretion. That?s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don?t tell us how to use our money; we?ll tell you.
The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they?re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here?s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won?t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won?t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won?t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won?t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell?them li?l crackers ain?t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. ** ?em if they can?t take a joke.
Here?s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot?as I have, from time to time?and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don?t think so, since I?m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.
At the risk of repeating myself, here?s what rich folks do when they get richer: they invest. A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations. Don?t think so? Check the tag on that T-shirt or gimme cap you?re wearing. If it says MADE IN AMERICA, I?ll ? well, I won?t say I?ll eat your shorts, because some of that stuff is made here, but not much of it. And what does get made here doesn?t get made by America?s small cadre of pluted bloatocrats; it?s made, for the most part, in barely-gittin?-by factories in the Deep South, where the only unions people believe in are those solemnized at the altar of the local church (as long as they?re from different sexes, that is).
The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich?they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up?are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don?t ask me why; I don?t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog ***. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can?t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber ? which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I?ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I?m only ?baby rich? compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.
In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God?s sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope?s balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!
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-***-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 Governor 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 Ebenezer 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.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
I am the 99%.
Re: Stephen King on taxing the wealthy
This is heartening. It's only with the rich speaking out that what the rest of us say will mean anything and not just be dismissed as starting class warfare.
Sorry, having trouble changing the font.
I really want him to write this book.
I didn't read the entire thing, way too long. If I were a millionaire I'd rather donate to libraries or organizations where I see the money being used. When you are taxed more you have no say in where the money goes and it gets abused.
Luckily, as a millionaire, you have the ability to influence politicians much more than others. Also, many of those "organizations" are things like opera houses and things that they enjoy and are a hobby and while that may be gratifying, it's not beneficial to the larger society.
No one gets to decide where their tax dollars go. It's part of living in society. You think I'm happy that we're all paying for us to stay in Afghanistan through 2024? No, but just because of that, it doesn't mean that tax dollars go towards other things that we all use/need - roads, education, the CDC, the SEC, Social Security, debt repayment, etc.
Good point. Although I think it should be an "as well as" not "instead of." They aren't mutually exclusive.
People don't want to admit it, but we will need more money if we "solved" those problems. We are in a deep, deep hole.
Stephen King is great. Very down to Earth and a real member of his community.
I love this.
Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.
*sigh* printed, it would probably be a page.
Here's his word on that:
I am the 99%.
I didn't read this article. But I respect Stephen King as a self made man.
People who inherit wealth and then act likegiantassholesfortheworldtosee (hello Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian) should be taxed at 98%.
Some articles are just long. This one was somewhat long, but good enough to justify spending the time to read it. I love what he said and wish that more people could see what he sees.
Please tell me what charity I can donate to which will fix the sidewalks in LA. Because right now, they are on an 80 year schedule. Yes, the piece of sidewalk outside my office building is scheduled to be replaced at some point within the next EIGHTY years.
40/112
I don't think his comment was meant to say he didn't care if someone had cancer. He was saying that someone getting stage 1 cancer is not news. But Warren Buffet getting stage 1 cancer is "Oh My God! A rich person is ill".
That wasn't the point of his comment. His point was - stage 1 prostate cancer is very cureable. If it was one of your loved ones, it wouldn't make the news. But because it's superrich and famous WARREN BUFFETT, this very early stage, cureable cancer made the news.
Another point, that he didn't make... this was detected at Stage 1. Warren Buffett can afford top-notch medical care, which is why it was detected so early. Most Americans, it would not have been.
ETA: For patients with a life expectancy of less than 10 years, they don't even treat stage 1. If life expectancy is more than 10 years, they treat with radiation. Guess which rich 81 year old is getting radiation treratments?
Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.