Great article by Stephen King (hat tip Felix Salmon/Ben Walsh). Excerpt:
“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.”
Like me, King wants his tax bill to go up.
16 thoughts on “Stephen King Weighs In”
The fairness criterion is pretty obvious: If you control x percent of the wealth, you should pay x percent of the taxes.
Equally obvious is that income has nothing to do with it. Why do we not tax wealth directly?
Mr. Kwak, in saying ‘raise my taxes’ basically what you’re saying is, ‘my financial situation is so comfortable that I could totally afford to pay more taxes’.
That’s nice, message received, and congratulations on the clever backhanded method of showing off your wealth/status/comfort you, like so many others, have hit upon.
The same is not true of some of us though.
I’m not convinced the “drool of adoration” dripping from their collective chins in simply drool. I suspect more complexity, based on what suck ups these GOP “leaders” are in real life.
“Equally obvious is that income has nothing to do with it. Why do we not tax wealth directly?”
Ditto – though I’m surprised to hear this from Nemo. If we go back to the Founding Fathers, tax revenues came either from land (the primary form of wealth) or trade (the rising merchant class). Not income. There were limited taxes on consumption, particularly imported consumption goods (e.g. tea). There was a lot of virtue to the system, though we NEVER hear conservatives yearning for the good ole days of wealth taxes.
One wonders, if a man belongs to a church since before 1969, and that same church did not allow blacks into its priesthood until 1979. For what reasons did the Mormons finally change their racist stance against blacks?? From Wiki: “The problem of determining priesthood eligibility in Brazil was thought to be nearly impossible due to the mixing of races in that country. When the temple was announced, church leaders realized the difficulty of restricting persons with black Afri.can descent from attending the temple in Brazil.”
Source: Mark L. Grover, “The Mormon Priesthood Revelation and the São Paulo Brazil Temple”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23:39–53 (Spring 1990).
Well, when the clubhouse has a hard time raising revenues (i.e. finding sources of revenue), membership requirements can be “adjusted”. Just ask the Cath.olic Church…..
So how inclusive would a Romney Presidency be?? One might start to get a taste/hint here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/01/national/w135208D66.DTL&tsp=1
So how are these things usually done?? Let me explain this to your average feminine male Republican who is just too dumb to add 2+2. The “problem child” slash “ugly facial birthmark” is brought into the campaign office and told “Well, we’re in a jam here, Richie baby. And, you know, ‘we’re all adults here’. You’re making us look bad with the base. Well…you know how it is…and you know we love you…. we love you sooooooo much Richie but…. but…. but, well you see how it is. Give us your resignation in the next couple of days and we’ll follow up with a press release stating how we’re just in ‘a total state of depression’ over YOUR decision to leave, and everybody ‘lives happily ever after’. Ok Richie???”
Is this what Mitt Romney is talking about when he discusses “creative destruction”?? I guess in Romney’s mind, Richard Grenell being shoved out of the campaign means Romney just “created” his first job as President???
Well, one could also make the case that “if you pay x percent of the taxes, you should have x percent of the vote”. That too is arguably consistent with the Founders’ principles :-)
But seriously, wealth tax. If only I could vote for things like that.
Although I agree with the policy position King is supporting, I don’t think cussing everyone out is a very good article. That is not going to convince anyone of anything, its just raging.
It looks as though we are headed away from a tax on wealth due to the fairly recent doing away with the estate tax, which absolutely boggled my mind.
I would not be for a regularly implemented wealth tax, however. It penalizes savers and rewards non-savers.
If we really went back to the Founding Fathers, you would find they were looking for a limited goverment. No Social Security, No Medicare, No government schools. Gee whiz, I think a 10% income tax would do if we didn’t have these monsters mucking up the works. Then people would learn to save money (if they wanted to retire), take care of themselves physically, or buy true insurance, and pay for schooling only when their kids are actually in school, not in purpetuity.–Just a thought.
The Founding Fathers (getting sick of that designation for them, as I would imagine they would be, themselves, by now) left very little room for misinterpretation of their motives in the Declaration of Independence. Read it and let me know what part in the DOI indicates *limited government*, especially in the modern definition of the word which is basically Nihilism with a twist…
And then, in general, they (FFs) made stuff up like everyone else is doing these days in regards to SELF-governing (AKA *government* pre-Matrix) based on two traps they were determined not to fall into – the most important one to them at the time was to NOT have a state *religion* and the other one was to limit the power of the monarch because after centuries of nobles in-breeding, it was possible to get a true lineage lunatic making decisions for people who were better off without monarchial edicts – edicts that limited the ability of able-in-mind-body-and-spirit peoples to provide a less miserable life for themselves through honest work (took a very wrong turn with dragging slaves along, though, but that’s another alternate universe speculation – where USA could have been without slavery).
In any case, with the DOI, they were still CIVILIZED by laying out their case for rebellion against the tyranny of King and Church based on Just War traditions. Things just got intolerable because the abstractions of political power in Europe – how to extract more and more wealth from the colonists – were merely delusional to the conditions on the ground, so to speak, over on this side of the pond.
So if you want to look for inspiration to the FFs – get it right. They weren’t a bunch of monarchists looking to suck up to the court by inventing a delightfully mechanistic *ism* that kept unearned wealth flowing to the King’s coffers…
USA’s shining moment happened for the brief second on the cosmic time continuum when slavery was not the smartest plan for *capitalism*….
Ah yes, we are disturbed when some ancient persons return like a magician to judge others. Perhaps you have already bumped into a ghost of a FF, you should hope not to cross paths with who ever it was that designed the modern alphabet, i had quite a bout with them a short time ago.
But I don’t think the original FF’s had the traits your statement makes of them, it probably was more of a modern day toothlees version of the FF’s that began the problems you speak of. And here is the evidence of it too.
Oh Annie, how cute. Sick of the FF. After all, they risked their lives to create this country. That’s almost like those poor schmucks that enlist in the armed forces to keep us in the manner we have grown accustomed to. You are correct in that they were not monarchists, but when we have a group of elected officials that choose to take what someone earns at the point of a gun, in order to give it to someone or something they feel is more worthy, what is the difference?
Simon, once again Mr. Kwak appears to be subtracting value rather than adding value in this blog. (P.S. Enjoyed your comments on C-SPAN.)
@filbt and Crash – you are both semi-illiterate PREDATORY RELIGIOUS STALKERS – I wrote, “The Founding Fathers (getting sick of that designation for them, as I would imagine they would be, themselves, by now) left very little room for misinterpretation of their motives in the Declaration of Independence.”
But thanks for proving my point – rich people can be real idiots who don’t deserve to tell anyone NORMAL what to do, think or say.
Welcome to USA.
Guns vs butter….
Planetaryhq website? Seriously? So okay, here’s how Jesus of Nazareth ripped into the Pharisees:
(1908.2) 175:1.18 “Woe upon you, scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites! for you are scrupulous to cleanse the outside of the cup and the platter, but within there remains the filth of extortion, excesses, and deception. You are spiritually blind. Do you not recognize how much better it would be first to cleanse the inside of the cup, and then that which spills over would of itself cleanse the outside? You wicked reprobates! you make the outward performances of your religion to conform with the letter of your interpretation of Moses’ law while your souls are steeped in iniquity and filled with murder.
(1908.3) 175:1.19 “Woe upon all of you who reject truth and spurn mercy! Many of you are like whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful but within are full of dead men’s bones and all sorts of uncleanness. Even so do you who knowingly reject the counsel of God appear outwardly to men as holy and righteous, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and iniquity.
(1908.4) 175:1.20 “Woe upon you, false guides of a nation! Over yonder have you built a monument to the martyred prophets of old, while you plot to destroy Him of whom they spoke. You garnish the tombs of the righteous and flatter yourselves that, had you lived in the days of your fathers, you would not have killed the prophets; and then in the face of such self-righteous thinking you make ready to slay him of whom the prophets spoke, the Son of Man. Inasmuch as you do these things, are you witness to yourselves that you are the wicked sons of them who slew the prophets. Go on, then, and fill up the cup of your condemnation to the full!
(1908.5) 175:1.21 “Woe upon you, children of evil! John did truly call you the offspring of vipers, and I ask how can you escape the judgment that John pronounced upon you?
(1908.6) 175:1.22 “But even now I offer you in my Father’s name mercy and forgiveness; even now I proffer the loving hand of eternal fellowship. My Father has sent you the wise men and the prophets; some you have persecuted and others you have killed. Then appeared John proclaiming the coming of the Son of Man, and him you destroyed after many had believed his teaching. And now you make ready to shed more innocent blood. Do you not comprehend that a terrible day of reckoning will come when the Judge of all the earth shall require of this people an accounting for the way they have rejected, persecuted, and destroyed these messengers of heaven? Do you not understand that you must account for all of this righteous blood, from the first prophet killed down to the times of Zechariah, who was slain between the sanctuary and the altar? And if you go on in your evil ways, this accounting may be required of this very generation.
(1908.7) 175:1.23 “O Jerusalem and the children of Abraham, you who have stoned the prophets and killed the teachers that were sent to you, even now would I gather your children together as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you will not!
Adventure boy don’t do no religion, it has no end.
Why don’t the crazy liberals who want to pay more taxes do just that? Who’s stopping you? Do you need the IRS address? I believe that horrible, failure we call the US Post Office will try to deliver your money check. I would insure it as, well… ya know, like many many other government institutions, they are… shall we say.. incompetent. Perhaps your EXTRA money can go to the Post Office… god knows they need more money.
Comments are closed.