Government Spending

Stephen King: Tax Me More or I'll Keep Writing About Rich People Who "Douse Their Dicks in Lighter Fluid" at The Daily Beast!

|

Horror master Stephen King is livid that he isn't being taxed at a rate of 50 percent of total income. He sees no way out of this predicament other than to raise taxes on everyone else he thinks should be paying more.

We caught up with King a year ago (see video below) when he first publicly floated his "Why ain't I paying 50 percent in taxes?" trial balloon. Now he's taken his apoplectic rage to the august pages of The Daily Beast. Snippets:

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.

Now, I'm not rich but I know some rich folks and you know what? King is right! They are constantly dousing their dicks—even the lady rich people!—with lighter fluid to avoid paying higher taxes, though in my admittedly limited experience, they usually sing "The Heat is On" rather than "Disco Inferno." Sons of bitches!

King's rant is as enjoyable as it is overwrought and mistaken and confused. After backhanding the notion that he and other richie-riches should start voluntarily cutting bigger checks to "Uncle Sugar" ("it doesn't go far enough"), he trots out a host of claims and semi-claims such as this vaguely directed at Mitt Romney, Gov. Chris Christie ("…may be fat, but he ain't Santa Claus"), and all of you who make a pile of dough:

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.

Whole bit here.

For starters, King is simply wrong to assert that upward mobility is diminishing. From a Pew Center "Economic Mobility Project" report that came out last year:

We examine trends in U.S. intragenerational income mobility over the past two decades. Specifically, we focus on how the economic positions of 25- to 44-year-olds change over a decade relative to one another, as well as in absolute terms (whether they are doing better or worse at the end of the decade than they were at the start). In addition, we compare intragenerational mobility rates over two periods, 1984 to 1994 and 1994 to 2004.

We find that mobility rates have not changed very much between these two time periods. This finding is somewhat surprising given the changes in the economy in the 1980s and 1990s, such as the ongoing shift from manufacturing to service-sector jobs, rising immigrant populations, and extended periods of growth.

More here and here.

As for whether the rich are paying their fair share in taxes, well, that's a value judgement, isn't it? The rich are not paying 50 percent of every dollar but you don't need to be Jon Lovitz to realize that the rich (however defined) pay far more in taxes than the non-rich in terms of absolute dollars. King is incensed at the idea that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary and seems to be making an argument for a flat tax when he writes, "we all should have to pay our fair share" and that the middle class shouldn't have to shoulder a "disproportionate amount of the tax burden." Here's a chart by Dan Berger, the head of something called Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, which lobbies for higher rates of taxes on the wealthy.

At U.S. News & World Report (whose continued existence shows that the recession has yet to really hit rock bottom), Berger notes that the top 1 percent is roughly equivalent to pulling $1 million a year; he posts this chart as evidence that the rich get away with paying less than their fair share (read his not terribly convincing argument here).

For King, the chart above should lay to rest that the rich are paying less than the non-rich—assuming he agrees that the top 20 percent in terms of income is doing pretty well. He might want it to be more—he wants it to be 50 percent, of course—but he can't seriously argue that the rich are skating away from ponying up around 31 percent of their income on average. Or that 31 percent of $1 million is a larger sum than, say, 25 percent of $50,000.

But King seems even more exercised by the idea that we're in some great period of austerity, especially as it affects the poor and the young and the powerless:

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.

Between 2001 and 2010, spending on Medicaid, the country's health insurance program for the poor, and Medicare, which provides health insurance for the elderly, increased by 76 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. Much of that money is poorly spent, to be sure, but nobody can pretend the country hasn't been shoveling mountains of dollars (and debt) at the old and the poor. Per-pupil spending is at an all-time high, too, and there are more teachers per student than ever before, another sign that more resources are being devoted to education at the K-12 level. Overall federal spending increased by about 60 percent in constant dollars over the last decade, so the question isn't really why aren't we spending (and taxing) more, but what do we have to show for our efforts?

That's a question that King—and many others calling for jacking up tax rates on the rich, or on corporations and other possible sources of new revenue—don't seem particularly interested in asking. Which is a shame, because it might actually lead to some useful conversations rather than ill-informed howling-at-the-moon pieces at The Daily Beast.

NEXT: Reason.tv: Schools Use GPS Uniforms to Track Students! (Nanny of the Month, April 2012)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shut up Mary.

    1. Stephen King is Mary? It all makes sense now.

      1. Everyone is Mary. You don’t read here enough or you would have understood that by now.

        1. Just want to get ahead of the inevitable stupidity that she’ll leave on the thread. Think of it as being…proactive.

        2. I have been rather busy at work and home, thus cutting into my valuable Reason reading and commenting time.

  2. Sigh. Why should anyone (who is already paying) be paying more? Morality and equity aside (yes, it’s inequitable to steal from some to redistribute to others), from a practical standpoint, the evidence is overwhelming that the government wastes the lion’s share of what it spends. Whether it’s through political payoffs, corruption, ineptitude, or other bullshit.

    1. “It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”

      P.J. O’Rourke

      1. and yet, the Kings of the world refuse to realize this malicious truth. Govt could take every nickel earned by everyone and the result would still be more money going out than comes in.

        1. It’s an old truth, and one they’ll never get.

      2. New sig!

        thanx

    2. I had a conversation about this with some asshole the other day.
      He mumbled something about “political sausage” and Republicans.
      Point is, I don’t think these people care what happens to the money. They just want to see The Man taken down a peg.

    3. ^^^That.

      Apparently I’m immoral because I’m not already sufficiently contributing toward foreign war (WOT), domestic war (WOD) and the perpetuation of a parasitic overclass of civil servants and cronies.

      King is deluded about how government actually spends its time and our money. And even if it actually spent its time and money doing nicey-nicey bleeding-heart type of things, that money will still be better spent by someone else.

      1. What King is panicked about is the utter lack of results this stratospheric level of spending is getting us. We’re bailing faster than ever and the ship is still going down.

    4. Not to mention, of course, that if he’s really all that exercised about “not paying his fair share”, he can write the IRS a check for as large of an overage as he likes.

    5. You know, I have to thank Ken Shultz for my latest talking point on this subject. He said something to the effect of “we should be cutting taxes, because it is evident that the Government is never going to be responsible with its allowance, and raising more revenue is just enabling behavior”

  3. It’s disappointing that King indulges in this nonsense, but not surprising. King did name his son Joseph Hillstrom King, after all.

    1. As I was reading the article I was thinking this is an act by king, shilling for president urkel. I was also going to suggest that perhaps king has some socialist leanings, but I didnt know about the hillstrom bit. He is a fucking pinko alright, no suggesting needed.

      1. He’s also an excellent author. You take what you can get.

        1. He’s great at writing page-turning stuff, but he’s churned out his share of utter shit as well.

          1. To be honest, he deserves a Nobel prize better than half the people whose work I’ve read who ever received one. The Stand over the Sound and the Fury any day.

      2. would you have the same reaction to a RW facist, like say ted nugent, advocating a return to the clinton tax rate for the 1% ?

        1. Is Nugent still the designated Goldstein?

          1. Until Further Notice

        2. Nugent is an asshole too. And a whack job to boot.

          1. He’s got the fever

            1. Well, toxoplasmosis can cause neurologic damage.

        3. “clinton tax rate for the 1%”

          How about a tax rate of 1% for everyone. That should pay for all of the government we need.

  4. At U.S. News & World Report (whose continued existence shows that the recession has yet to really hit rock bottom)

    *slow golf clap*

    Bravo sir, bravo.

  5. the question isn’t really why aren’t we spending (and taxing) more, but what do we have to show for our efforts?

    Does not compute. Please insert quarter.

    1. SPEND HARDUR!

  6. I would like to ask him what makes people in government so uniquely qualified to spend money.
    Especially money that isn’t theirs and that they did not earn.

    I also liked the part where he talks about his two radio stations losing money.

    Just goes to show that being a talented author does not make someone a brilliant businessman.

    1. You would be talking to a pinko and would get NOWHERE as with our favorite commie T o n y.

    2. I also liked the part where he talks about his two radio stations losing money.

      I just thank god that at one time he had sufficient talent to support himself without requiring public assistance. Had this not been the case he’d just be another “Maine Cabin Hermit”, drunk 16 out of 24 and still bitching that the rich weren’t paying their “fair share”.

      1. By now he’d be a retired public school teacher, bitching that his pension isn’t big enough.

      2. Does Canada still want Maine back? They can have it, as far as I care.

  7. Horror master Stephen King is livid that he isn’t being taxed at a 50 percent of total income or more. He sees no way out of this predicament other than to raise taxes on everyone else he thinks should be paying more.

    I’ve always asked this question to imbeciles that say rich people should pay 50% or more in taxes:

    “What if a person stops being rich? Should the government jail him or her because of lost revenue?”

    The intellectual contorsion acts that follow that question are things to behold and enjoy.

    1. “What if a person stops being rich?

      Then you will know that they have paid their fair share.

      1. Re: sarcasmic,

        Then you will know that they have paid their fair share.

        Jokes aside, the question remains unanswered. If the productive efforts of a rich person belongs in part to the government, then what happens when the rich person stops being rich, or creates much less wealth than before? What happens if he decides to give away all his money to international charities not located in the US? Does the government have a case to jail him for lost revenue? Because either the productive efforts of a person belong to the government or they don’t. If they don’t, then taxation is nothing more than theft. If they do, then the lazy ex-rich person is bilking the government out of its income. It certainly cannot be both.

        The answer is obvious: taxation is nothing more than theft, but most Statist fucks are not concerned that much with logical consistency until you confront them with the contradictions.

        1. Does the government have a case to jail him for lost revenue?

          Taxation is not about revenue. It’s about fairness and equality. It’s about curing envy. It’s about people who produce nothing of value not feeling bad about themselves when people who do produce value are rewarded for it.

          taxation is nothing more than theft

          Extortion would be more accurate.

          1. Taxation is not about revenue.

            Exactly. They don’t want to uplift the poor. They want to cut down the wealthy.

          2. Bender: Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer extortion. The “X” makes it sound cool.

            1. Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer extortion.

              Believe it or not, words mean things.

              Blackmail is obtaining money under threat of revealing information, while extortion is obtaining money through coercion.

              Taxation is extortion.

              1. LOL – I had this exact conversation with my son after we watched that episode of Futurama.

        2. If a rich person actually lost their ability to produce wealth through incompetence or feigned incompetence, some asshat with a bunch of other asshats with guns would assume it was part of some Atlas Shrugged-esque plot to “destroy” their vaunted system of “equality” and “justice.” Regardless of intent, I think it’s hard to “destroy” something that cannot stand on its own. A house cards will give way to a mild fart.

        3. Indeed, any person–not just those deemed “rich”–who is not earning the maximum possible amount would be a “criminal”. A person who could be a middle-class white-collar worker but instead follows his dreams in spite of the resulting poverty would be stealing from the collective.

        4. They don’t care what happens with the money as long as it’s not in the hands of private individuals.

          1. Bingo.

            If they did care, they would be ranting about ceaseless and unending waste and outright corruption in the federal system.

            Since when did the military go from being the $2000 toilet lid organization to a model of efficiency?

            Why did we bail out the banks that got themselves into a financial mess?

            Why isn’t Chris Dodd in jail?

            How does Blackwater (Xe or whatever?) still get contracts?

            The list goes on and on….

    2. My favorite line of questioning is, ‘why does the Federal government deserve even 1% of anyone’s income?’ Oh, they have an answer, but the feigned virtue they put on as they give that answer is even more darling to watch than seeing a cub scout recite the pledge of the allegiance.

    3. gonna have to remember this…good one

  8. Stephen King is just doing what he does best… writing fiction. So, is it a surprise his words are not the truth?

  9. Horror master Stephen King is livid that he isn’t being taxed at a 50 percent of total income or more.

    We could get rid of about 50% of his body of work (including 50% of the Dark Tower novels) and I would be a pretty happy camper.

    1. I second that.

      Once he stopped being an alcoholic coke-head his output went into decline.

      Which means he had about 8 years of quality work that ended at the start of the second Reagan administration. Everything since Back of the Future came out has been lamer and lamer retreads of the same thing.

  10. Why aren’t “The Rich” paying 50%?

    Um, Stephen, what makes you think they aren’t? I mean YOU might not be but on average “The Rich” pay over 30% in Federal income taxes, throw in state, local, sales, excise, property, payroll, and other miscellanous taxes and they will be up very close to if not over 50%.

    Further the bear the lions share of the burden of erosion in asset value due to inflation which is yet another form of tax as well.

    1. you are merely confusing the left with facts, which is as close to banging your head on the table as it gets. Ever since The O came out with the “fair share” mantra, his dogwashers have glommed onto the fantasy as though it is fact. If genuine skepticism existed, someone would Buffett when he is going to quit bitching about what others pay and actually pay what his company owes.

    2. Your first paragraph makes sense, your second does not. The poor and the young, who have most if not all of their assets in cash, are hurt far more by inflation than those who have invested in other assets, because non-cash assets go up in dollar value with inflation.

      1. No the poor and the young have NO assets, they earn income but have no real savings to speak of.

        While price inflation causes costs to go up by necessity wages always follow (albeit with a time delay). However money saved today in assets is by no means guaranteed to inflate in value along with inflation.

        Take for example bonds.

        I invest $10,000 in bonds with a yield of 4% for 20 years.

        At the end of 20 years my $10,000 has doubled and I have to pay ~$1500 in capital gains taxes leaving me with $18500.

        However if inflation averages 3% per year during that period then in constant value dollars I have only ~$10,165. My investment has barely kept up with inflation and I have paid a defacto tax of more than $8200 due to it.

        1. no, you’re wrong. The rich know how to beat inflation with strategic investments, etc. But even that aside.

          Let’s say there’s 10% inflation. And we have a poor family who is spending 90% of their income on day to day expenses. Versus a rich family that is spending 20% of their income on day to day expenses. Post-inflation, The poor family is now going to spend 99% of their income on day to day, whereas the rich family is going to spend 22%. That is a 90% reduction in {ability to save, invest, and margin for emergencies} for the poor family versus a 2.5% reduction for the rich.

          Of course inflation is not that severe, and wages do catch up to inflation (but very much delayed), which is why it’s taken 50 years to destroy the middle class instead of 10.

          1. imagine a family that starts out spending 95% of their income on day to day expenses. Under the same 10% inflation regime, they will then be spending 104.5% of their income on day to day expenses.

            1. Thanks, Yonemoto. And Rasilio, cash is an asset. wages owed are an asset. And in your bond example, interest is paid regularly throughout those 10 years, so even though you end up paying around $1,500 in CG taxes, you have access to progressively more of that $8,500 gain as the time goes on, and that can be reinvested, probably in something other than bonds that don’t keep up with inflation, since most rich people aren’t that stupid. Buy a factory, buy shares in a gold mine, anything other than cash-based assets like bonds, if you think inflation is going to be close to or over 4%. Again, the rich pay a lot in taxes (so do the poor, frankly), but the only reason someone with a pre-existing asset base should lose out to inflation is abject stupidity.

              1. not to mention the fact that in rasilio’s scenario the rich person still made $1.9% off of the initial investment. Boo hoo.

                now, when inflation exceeds interest (as it does now), the rich in this hypothetical scenario are libable to get screwed. But in reality, the rich are investing in things the poor have no access to, like hedge funds, dark pools, etc. Because the SEC wants to protect the poor from themselves.

          2. No wages always rise to match inflation and not over the course of decades, but mere years.

            Yes if you get a sudden inflationary shock where prices shoot up a large amount in a short time it will REALLY suck for the poor but not harm the rich much at all but fairly quickly wages will have to increase to meet the new cost of living or else workers will simply stop working as there is little to no value in working a job that pays you just enough to starve to death, you are much better off quitting that job and trying something that at least gives you the chance to survive or even prosper. Yes it takes time for this transition to happen as it takes people time to get a handle on just how much they need to survive in an inflationary system and for employers to respond appropriately but the wage increases will come.

            iirc I read somewhere that wages trail inflation by ~2 years on average but I don’t remember where I read that and am not currently inclined to go hunting for it

            1. Do you not understand the problem of compounding?

              If the wages trail inflation by two years, you’re still on a rolling treadmill. You still haven’t caught up, because by the time your wages catch up to the old inflated value, there’s been more inflation.

            2. Ah yes, the old appeal to an authority that may have said something, but I don’t remember which authority or what they said. Jesus Christ, I don’t know if you consider yourself “libertarian” or not, but do the rest of us a favor: In public, just call yourself a Republican. Or a Democrat. Doesn’t matter which, they both favor cronies over actual free markets, R’s are just slightly more upfront about it.

  11. Stephen King: douchebag.

    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.

    I don’t think the word proportion means what he thinks it means. This would seem to imply that he’s for a flat tax, since that would make everyone pay the same proportion. He also doesn’t seem to know the definition of the word recieve.

    For someone who makes his substantial living as a writer, perhaps he should go buy a dictionary, or stick to what he knows best: writing mediocre suspense novels that haven’t really been any good in years, and leave the political bloviating to his buddies at the NYT.

    1. He writes about what scares him, as he explains to his fans.

      Much of the stuff that scares him is what we are all scared of – death in its various forms, not to mention having everyday people and objects turn against you (dogs, cars, children, clowns, librarians, entire towns, etc.). And he was able to persuasively turn his own drinking problem into a horror story.

      But he also wrote about his fears as a writer – fears of plagiarism, deranged fans, and at one point fear of writers’ block, which are more specialized fears which are not necessarily shared by everyone. He can still make these things scare, of course, but it’s a sign he’s losing the common touch as he enters the 1%.

      1. Also, cell phones. eeevill!

  12. I think my favorite King anecdote is the one about how he was so drunk, he has no memory whatsoever of writing Cujo.

    1. What’s his excuse for this piece of fuckwittery?

      1. Brain damage from all the drinking.

  13. The heat is on, on the street.
    Inside your head, on every beat.
    And the beat’s so loud, deep inside.
    The presure’s high, just to stay alive.
    Cause the heat is on.

  14. I remember reading a bunch of anti-censorship literature back in the early 90s that a friend of mine lent me. King figured prominently in them, writing about the evils of censorship.

    He’s yet another “Government control of others is good when I like it, government control is bad when I don’t like it” types.

  15. 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)

    It’s always obnoxious that leftists view Obama as some sort of mocha-skinned Oliver Twist. The man was raised in an upper-middle class household, attended a prestigious private school, and has an Ivy League education. Just because he got all those things after his worthless mother abandoned him doesn’t mean he overcame life in a tarpaper shack.

    1. ^This^

      His grandparents were quite well off. In no way did he live a life of hardship. Absentee parents or no.

    2. The man was raised in an upper-middle class household, attended a prestigious private school…

      What? He couldn’t have! He’s black!

      1. But fortunately his grandparents weren’t niggards.

  16. Confusing country with government has gone a long way toward confounding patriotism with love of the state. Imagine if the central government actually acted within it’s delegated authority or as a responsible fiduciary. I’d voluntarily contribute. It would be constructive if folks like Steven King made an attempt to distinguish between constitutionally defined government and the one we have. Where do we draw the line, Mr. King?

  17. I’ve known rich people human beings, 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.

    FTFY

  18. Outdated cheap shots at the South: check. (but from his novels, you’d think Maine had more rednecks than all the Gulf Coast states put together)

    Invoking long-discredited Marie Antoinette quote: check. (her judicial murder is a horror story in itself)

    Unverified assertions about the grossly-undertaxed status of the rich: check.

    I will try (if the squirrels permit) to quote one passage about why charitable donations by the rich don’t count as helping the general welfare. Well, the squirrels won’t let me quote it, but it’s in there.

    I’ll give him the repayment of war debts and a lot of infrastructure spending, but without the charity of the rich (even if today’s welfare state) education would be worse off and the poor would get even less help.

    1. but from his novels, you’d think Maine had more rednecks than all the Gulf Coast states put together

      That’s because it does. Seriously.

      1. of course, it does. Ditto for a lot of other northern states. In the South, whites and blacks have lived alongside each other for decades. Even an old guy like me had black classmates in first grade. And Wallace was governor. We grew up together, played ball together, and stay in touch years later, unlike the King types whose first encounter with a black was a baggage handler at the hotel.

        1. Maine is the whitest state in the Union I believe.

          1. Um, Utah?

            1. Utah ain’t even in the top 10.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D…..n_by_state

          2. that is what makes the cheap shots easy.

          3. that is what makes the cheap shots easy.

        2. In the South, whites and blacks have lived alongside each other for decades.

          The highest concentrations of black populations are still in the South. That fact makes for a convenient rejoinder when a progressive blurts out the inevitable “Uneducated, uncultured Southerners herpity derpity doo!”

  19. In case it has not been posted in this thread:

    Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called “Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

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

    You read that Kingy? Understand it? Pony up or shut the fuck up you asshole. I make less than 50K a year and I pay 30% in taxes. I’m not alone. The last things we need is an excuse to 1)Think that 50K is “rich” at some point in the future and 2) Raise the bar for the top mother fuckers. When the tide rises, we all drown you fucking hack.

    1. I think maybe you missed this part of his quote:

      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.

      It doesn’t count if you volunteer, you must be FORCED to pay up.

      1. In that case, it’d be more honest/less laaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzy of him if he used his vast “unearned” wealth to hire his own goons to extract money from the populace in order to give it to Unca Fucka…Sugar…Whatever.

  20. Another example of someone who’s already got theirs…

    I wonder if he’d be willing to retroactively pay a 50% tax rate for the last 30 years.

  21. Does anyone else find it interesting/ironic/telling that King refers to the government as Uncle Sugar?

  22. I might pay another couple percent if this asshole et al would voluntarily STFU and never say fair share again.

    Also, I read a little King and thought he sucked. Clive Barker is my writer of choice from King’s genre.

  23. 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.

    It’s not enough that they want to give, it’s that others must be MADE TO PAY. They’re not satisfied anymore with lording over everyone just how much they give to charities (although I notice he still works that in).

    Also, it certainly didn’t take “fair share” very long to enter the national consciousness. Every time I hear it now I want to punch whoever said it in the mouth.

    1. Also, it certainly didn’t take “fair share” very long to enter the national consciousness.

      Everytime someone says it, an angel loses his wings and is flayed.

      1. Hmm, not many people are too concerned with the fate of angels.

        How about, instead, these little guys are given shock treatment.

  24. I miss the days when artists and writers tortured drowned themselves and their personal demons in alcohol and opium rather than yelling at the rest of us.

    1. Yes, as noted, King got clean, got hit by a van, and then started to suck.

  25. I notice he doesn’t suggest lowering taxes on the poor.

    1. The poor are too dumb to spend their own money. The success of Walmart and McDonalds is a testament to this. Therefore, they must work in the salt mines.

      OVER LOUDSPEAKER:

      SEND IN THE FEMA TRUCKS. SECURITY AND JOBS FOR ALL. HAPPINESS AND COMFORT FOR NONE. SO SPOKE THE KING. ALSO, FREE COPIES OF SHITTIER AND SHITTIER NOVELS FOR ALL. DON’T WORRY CITIZEN, YOU CAN JUST USE THEM FOR FIREWOOD IN THE DEAT…BLISS CAMPS. YEAH…BLISS CAMPS… THAT WILL SELL TO THE MORONS IN FLYOVER COUNTRY.

      1. The poor are too dumb to spend their own money.

        So are the rich. They waste their money on things like “investments” and “charity”, when it could be going to something useful like government.

        I mean, who do these rich people think they are with all this voluntarily pooling their money for capitalist ventures or charitable giving?

        How do we know they’re going to get it right?

        Only government can do that.

  26. So if we lower tax rates on the wealthy, will King douse his dick in lighter fluid and dance around singing in protest? Because frankly, that would be hilarious. I’m always up for a good self-immolation protest.

    1. LOL I was thinking along the same lines. Shit, if he and Buffett did it on pay-per-view they could raise the revenues they’re looking for.

  27. he’ll need to show me his tax returns where he doesn’t take a large deduction for his charitable contributions or shut the fuck up fucking asshole

    1. Yeah, Buffet owes millions if not billions in back taxes and he’s fighting it tooth and nail. It truely is amazing the gall these people have.

  28. Exactly spot-on about his willingness to pay more (but only once a law is passed) translates into everyone else being *forced* to pay.

    By that logic, we should all just give up civil rights to fall in line with the the people who dont mind invasive searches to thwart terror/drugs. What a moronic entreatment for more tread in the boot on our neck.

    Plus, he seems to think more taxes = Gulf cleanup and indestructible levees. Nice to see he’s unaware of the current bloated funding to all the Federal agencies that are ALREADY supposed to police these areas: MMS, BLM, US ACoE, etc. That those agencies are well funded but staffed by cronies and idiots doesn’t seem to matter. For the Steven Kings out there, the answer is always ‘More Money’ – and you see how well it’s working for our schools.

  29. Horror master Stephen King is livid that he isn’t being taxed at a rate of 50 percent of total income.

    A much better author than he found herself facing an effective tax rate of 102%, and wrote the allegorical story Pomperipossa in Monismania about it. The story led to the defeat of the government at elections later that year.

  30. Stephen King’s brain, dead at age 64. Truly an American icon.

  31. What I love about this whole “it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden” line of horseshit is that any fucking retard can go to the IRS website and see that it’s a complete falsity.

    Compounded on to that though is the fact that if they got their way and the Bush Obama tax cuts were killed, the majority of that extra revenue would be from middle class people, not the rich.

    1. it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Whether they currently do or not is the question. Of course, the middle class is also beset by the inflation caused by the bailouts that benefited the 1% almost exclusively, and the members of the 1% who didn’t suck up to the right politicians get screwed too. The divide isn’t between middle and upper class, it’s between cronies and honest people. Stephen King, the OWS fools, and the rest of TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE, are just useful idiots.

  32. Jack Flapp seems to know what the deal is over there.

    http://www.Deep-Web.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.