An absolute must-read on taxes (by Stephen King)


A lot of things drive me crazy (people making a left turn on 16th and Bryant at 5 p.m., backing up traffic for an entire block; people who get to park in the midde of the street on Sunday because the cops don't ticket churchgoers; politicians who say "I'll take a look at that" as a way to duck a question, dog owners who leave piles of shit in the middle of the sidewalk... don't get me started). But one of the worst, on top of my list, is the claim that wealthy people who think the rich don't pay enough taxes should just write the government a check.

George W. Bush loved that one. Every time taxes on the rich came up, he'd say: "If you think your taxes are too low, the IRS takes checks and money orders." You can pay online, too.

So what's wrong with that argument? Why doesn't Warren Buffett just pay the taxes he thinks he ought to, and stop complaining? Because taxes don't work that way, that's why. And one of the best essays on this critical point just appeared on the Daily Beast. The author of this gem, called "tax me, for F@%&'s sake" is an author, Steven King, who is also part of the 1 percent, a man whose knack for telling horror stories has made him very wealthy. And he has harsh words for just about everyone who tries to get away with suggesting that high taxes ought to be voluntary:

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.


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. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

He skewers the idea that giving the rich more money creates jobs ("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.") He explains why the GOP tries so hard to defend tax cuts ("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 shit. 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.") And he warns that life might not be so pretty for the uber-rich if this trend continues:

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.

Think about it.

Yes, think about it: A society that gets more and more economically unequal is a society that won't be stable for long.




Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

I agree with you completely on this one. You are preaching to the chior.

Posted by Troll the XIV on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 2:02 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

Oh yeah - they're all going home now that our economy is in the shitter. Time to find a new group of people to demonize!

Posted by Troll II on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

and do provide masses of help to the poor. And I'd be willing to bet they do so with more efficiency and less bureaucracy than the government does.

The US has always had a long tradition of giving away their wealth, and "giving back" to society. The problem if you insert the government into that, is that much of the money gets diverted into pork, pet projects and corruption.

And, by the way, there is a line on the 1040 where you can elect to pay more. It really is that easy, and the IRS apparently collects millions that way.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2012 @ 3:26 am

Tomorrow, Tim will get Kim Kardashian's take on taxes. And on Wednesday, some random homeless guy's thoughts on the matter, because Tim recognizes authority whenever it jibes with his opinion. But I can't wait for his new corporate daddy to stand over his shoulder and tell him what to type.

Posted by Chromefields on May. 01, 2012 @ 9:02 am

Complexity = Corruption

This is why I'm a big fan of scrapping our tax code completely. Throw out ALL tax credits, exemptions and deductions. Just make it one flat tax that you can do on a post card. A percentage (i.e., flat rate) is innately fair and scaleable (10% of $1B > 10% of $1M > 10% of $100k > 10% of $10k). That would also thwart the millions of taxes evaded by the super rich via their many tax loophole exploits (like shifting monies to the Cayman Islands, etc.) that they can employ with their teams of tax lawyers and accountants. I believe a flat tax rate with no other rules makes it much harder for anyone to abuse the system either for credits or deductions, etc. Of course this would put many tax lawyers and tax accountants out of a job but less of these types of jobs is a good thing for something that should be easy to do. Its not a very productive profession for the U.S. in the relation to global competition.

Or better yet, scrap income taxes altogether (or make them a very low flat rate). And employ a national sales tax and/or consider a VAT (i.e., Value Added Tax - VAT). If you spend, you pay taxes. If you save money, you pay less taxes. Simple. Complexity is easy to achieve. Simplicity not so.

"Simplicity is often the voice of God."
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is income taxes."
-- Albert Einstein

Posted by JD on May. 05, 2012 @ 10:17 am

both simplifying the tax code and reducing overall rates. He succeeded but sadly since then Clinton, Obama and both Bushes have reversed some of that progress.

And don't forget that US corporate tax rates are the highest in the west as well. So I like Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan even though the rest of his candidacy was poor. And it's significant that most GOP hopefuls have adopted some form of the "simpler taxes" message.

Too bad the Dem's and liberals are in love with complex tax codes. Obama cannot resist the "targeted" tax change, preferably "temporary", every one of which complicates the tax code while seeking to bribe people inot odd behavior and engendering class warfare.

A simple, flat tax that encourages saving and discourages conspicuous consumption has to be the way to go. The founding fathers banned the idea of an income tax and it took a constitutional amendment AND WW1 to change that. Time to go back to their original wisdom.

Posted by Anonymous on May. 05, 2012 @ 10:47 am

More bizarre and skewed "reality" from Anonymous. Reagan presided over the largest tax increase in U.S. history when Social Security withholding taxes on workers' labor transactions went from 13 percent to 15 percent.

The money was squandered on giveaways to military contractors, corporations, and the rich.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 05, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.