Stephen King on Higher Taxes for the Rich

[bleeding heart]

A pretty decent demolition of the usual "don't tax the rich" arguments; and while he's speaking specifically of the US, his arguments extrapolate quite naturally.

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 Im 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 Applebees 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 shit for you guys, because Im not tired of talking about it. Ive known rich people, and why not, since Im 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. Its 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 doesnt go far enough.

What charitable 1 percenters cant do is assume responsibilityAmericas 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 cant 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, Ill 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.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

Edited May 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

A pretty decent demolition of the usual "don't tax the rich" arguments; and while he's speaking specifically of the US, his arguments extrapolate quite naturally.

...but did he cut the extra check to the US Treasury (it doesn't go to the IRS...King should know this).

Nope.

[Guest Manny]

What Stephen King suggests, is fiction. In order to do it citizenry need a mechanism to organize their efforts, to make effective use of their efforts and set important priorities. Something like a government. What a "novel" idea...

Edited May 3, 2012 by Manny

[huh]

Who gets to decide who is rich and who decides how much tax is enough and then what it gets spent on. You would think the people who have money, those people who somehow earned it (yes i know, earned is relative) would be allowed to have input on how much is enough and what it is spent on. I fully support taxation, I don't believe that a middle class person is 'rich', but for a guy living on the street, they are relatively 'rich', so does the person with no money, or those on welfare, or those working at Mcdonalds get to decide who is rich and how much of that persons money they deserve? Insane as it is, some people think so, but then those people are basically communists whether they know it, believe it, or admit to it or not, and the poor are just a soap box for them to stand on.

[dre]

Who gets to decide who is rich and who decides how much tax is enough and then what it gets spent on. You would think the people who have money, those people who somehow earned it (yes i know, earned is relative) would be allowed to have input on how much is enough and what it is spent on. I fully support taxation, I don't believe that a middle class person is 'rich', but for a guy living on the street, they are relatively 'rich', so does the person with no money, or those on welfare, or those working at Mcdonalds get to decide who is rich and how much of that persons money they deserve? Insane as it is, some people think so, but then those people are basically communists whether they know it, believe it, or admit to it or not, and the poor are just a soap box for them to stand on.

What?

The answers to all those questions are self evident.

[Argus]

I'm in the top tax bracket in Canada. That means I pay about 38% of my income in federal and provincial income taxes. When you add in municipal taxes, HST, gas taxes, etc., I'm certainly paying over 50%. But I am far from rich. I simply am not capable of taking advantage of many of the tax breaks and structural policies which allow those who are truly rich to forgo paying much of their actual income in taxes. I do resent this, but I also resent those who have less money contributing, in essence, nothing, while enjoying all the rights, privileges and prerogatives of being a citizen of this country. I think everyone should be contributing something, instead of it all getting dumped on the middle class. Yes, the rich could and should be paying more. But so could the poor. And let's face it, 1/3rd of the country is not poor. They're simply poorer than a set median. If you're driving a car, have cablevision, high speed internet, and the ability to take vacations, you ought to be paying income tax.

[cybercoma]

Is this legitimately King? This quote is great:

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.

[bleeding heart]

Is this legitimately King? This quote is great:

Yeah, it's him.

[msj]

I'm in the top tax bracket in Canada. That means I pay about 38% of my income in federal and provincial income taxes.

Are you from Alberta? Alberta has a marginal tax rate of about 39%, iirc.

By being in the top tax bracket does not mean that all of your income is being taxes at that rate.

Your income up to that point (about $132,000 or so for the top federal bracket) is taxed at 15%, 22%, 26% and then 29% federally. Provincial rates and brackets vary.

Now, if you are saying that your average, or effective, tax rate is 38% then, assuming a top marginal tax rate of 44% (more like BC or even ON prior to their recent changes), your taxable income is ~ $405,000.

If this is the case then I wonder if you are truly counting your income properly.

At that level of income you would have lots of disposable income to invest for capital gains.

Any capital gains are reported on your tax return at 50% of the gain - so instead of paying tax at 39% in AB or 44% in BC/ON you would really be paying at ~20% ish.

Of course, that's for realized capital gains - unrealized capital gains are tax deferred.

Then there are dividends - eligible dividends are taxed at ~18% in AB, 25% in BC and 29% in ON. So, are you presuming to be paying the corporate taxes too?

Then there are the taxes that you don't pay or are deferred because you use TFSA's and RRSP's.

Throw in other tax schemes you likely could be using (perhaps a CCPC with a family trust) and if you are paying 38% income tax, on average, then, well, I suppose I would feel sorry for you except that this means that you are paying about $150,000+ in income taxes per year on taxable income of $400,000+.

I doubt too many people are going to feel sorry for you when the median income is around $68-72,000 in gross earnings and that median person (to the extent that he/she exists) would pay about $15,000 in income taxes (about a 21% effective rate).

Edited May 12, 2012 by msj