http://www.newsbusters.org/...use-his-taxes-are-to

quote Horror writer Stephen King on Tuesday bashed Ronald Reagan and a number of Republicans at a Wake the State rally in Sarasota, Florida. His main beef with conservatives is they allow him to pay too little in taxes (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): STEPHEN KING: I'm from Maine, but I pay taxes in Florida, too. Let me tell you something: in Maine last November, three candidates ran, the Tea Party guy won by one percent. He's a minority governor. And you know what? The guy's a stone brain. And I thought to myself, "Well, that's alright. I'm a snow bird. I'm gonna go to Florida. Things will be better in Florida." And on the way down here I drove and I heard about this guy in Wisconsin, his name was [Republican Governor Scott] Walker and apparently he wanted to stop collective bargaining. That’s supposed to balance the budget. That’s the magic bullet. So you’ve got [Republican Governor Paul] LePage in Maine, Walker in Wisconsin, you got [Republican Governor Rick] Scott in Florida. It’s Larry, Curly and Moe. That’s what we got right here. Now you might say, "What are you doing up there? Aren’t you rich?" The answer is: thank God, yes. Because I grew up poor. I lived in a family where my mother asked donated commodities from a Republican administration and got turned down. That’s where I came from. And you know what? As a rich person I pay 28 percent tax. What I want to ask you is why am I not paying 50? Why isn’t anybody in my bracket not paying 50? Stop the tape. King in 2010 either didn't make a lot of money or he doesn't know what today's federal income tax brackets are. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 28 percent bracket for married couples began at $137,300 in income and ended at $209,250. Can you imagine the kind of recession we'd have if couples making over $137,300 were taxed at 50 percent? But the ignorance or dishonesty on display didn't end there, for the highest federal bracket is 35 percent for couples making over $373,650, which doesn't include additional "Alternative Minimum Taxes" if they apply. As such, if King and his wife are only in the 28 percent bracket, it's either because he didn't sell a lot of books last year, or his accountant did a great job reducing their income with write-offs and expenses. If the latter, King could certainly instruct his tax advisor to not take any deductions at all thereby paying the maximum amount of tax provided in the law. Of course, therein lies the income tax hypocrisy of most liberals: they advocate higher taxes as they do everything within their power to pay as little as possible. Let's continue: KING: Well you know what? You know what? The Republicans would tell you, from John Boehner to Mitch McConnell to Rick Scott that we can't do that because if we tax guys like me, there won't be any jobs. It's bull. It's total bull. Well, it's not just Republicans that made this claim. King must have been asleep or out of the country when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton stood in front of television cameras in December telling the American people that it would be devastating to the economy to not extend the Bush tax cuts. Ditto when Obama's tax plan passed the Senate 81-19 with only 13 Democrats voting "No," and when it passed the House 277-148 with 139 Democrats voting "Aye." But idiots like King think it's only Republicans that believe higher taxes are bad for the economy. Not surprisingly, that wasn't the last absurd comment the horror author made Tuesday: KING: These people come from the Party of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, who one year put down on his taxes that he gave $10,000 to charity. Well, my wife and I - my wife is here, right there in the Crayola shirt - we try to make up the difference, the shortfall, that 22 percent that we don’t pay, by giving it away. But you know what, I haven’t seen a lot of that going around. Big Hollywood's John Nolte marvelously responded to this nonsense Wednesday: Yes, his elitist, holier-than-thou and arrogantly mistaken belief that a whole lot of people in the most charitable country in the world aren’t as charitable as he is, is off-putting in the extreme. But that he’s able to give that 22% of his income not swallowed up by the blackhole of the government directly to the causes he believes in is a beautiful thing. This is exactly why raising taxes is a terrible idea. Regardless of what people do with their money, whatever they do with it is better for this economy than what the government does with it. [...] Also, King ripping on Reagan giving “only” $10,000 to charity one year is hilarious. Even if it’s true, I’m happy to play that game. Could someone remind Mr. King that in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, Barack Obama gave a TOTAL of just over $10,000 to charity. But please don’t remind King that Vice President Joe Biden’s charitable giving was beyond laughable, I’d hate to see a best-selling author cry. Then there’s this. Newsflash, Stephen King: You wouldn’t be so gosh-darned alone in your awesome philanthropy if someone like Ronald Reagan was president. Second newsflash: Conservatives give more to charity than liberals. So it looks as thought [sic] that loneliness you feel is in your own ideological backyard. That King doesn't know any of this is not at all surprising as he has over the years made numerous public statements devoid of facts or logic. This continually leads us at NewsBusters to recommend he stick to writing fiction - his grasp on reality is tenuous at best.

I say, if he really wants to give the government more of his money I'm all for it. As a matter of fact, anyone that wants to give the government more money should be allowed to give them as much as they want, just leave me out of this.

Why don't all of these nitwits simply give as much of their fortunes as they wish to reduce the public debt? The government will take the money, and there is no need to raise taxes. Let them put their money where their mouth is. Except, of course, they like having lots of money as much as anyone.

yup, time for King to write a check. I wonder what is stopping him?

Actually, anyone can give the government as much money as you want. They will take every penny of it.

Don't believe me? When you do your taxes, at the end of the form where it say how much do you want refunded or how much do you owe, just change the numbers and send in extra money. The IRS will gladly take it.

If Steven King wants to give more money to the government, then he can. No one is stopping him. His complaining about not paying enough taxes is like a fat person at the buffet complaining that no one is stopping them from eating too much.

What he is really saying is he want YOU to give the government more money. This is true for all of the limousine liberals.

Nothing is stopping King or George Soros from writing a big check to uncle Sam. Liberals want others to pay for their life styles.

Come on, people, this is taken WAY out of context. He was actually just discussing the plot of his latest psycho-thriller, specifically the dialogue of the main nut-job in the new book.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I say, if he really wants to give the government more of his money I'm all for it. As a matter of fact, anyone that wants to give the government more money should be allowed to give them as much as they want, just leave me out of this.

He can just write a check. They wont refuse the money.

Looks like some of his taxes he DIDN'T have to pay helped him build a rather nice home in Florida.

[This message has been edited by FrugalFiero (edited 03-12-2011).]

50% of $137,300 is still $68,650. Just slightly over the best I've ever made, before taxes. PLENTY to have a great life with. NOBODY NEEDS more.
Used wisely, $69k / yr, after taxes, will buy you everything you ever needed, and an awful lot more.

Does that house remind anyone else of a giant trailer house?

quote Originally posted by Isolde: 50% of $137,300 is still $68,650. Just slightly over the best I've ever made, before taxes. PLENTY to have a great life with. NOBODY NEEDS more. Used wisely, $69k / yr, after taxes, will buy you everything you ever needed, and an awful lot more.

Of course, very few need more; but everyone should be allowed to earn as much as they can, legally. If someone feels that he is making too much money, he may donate it to the charity of his choice; thereby helping to reduce government spending on social programs.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by williegoat: Does that house remind anyone else of a giant trailer house?

I thought it looked like a motel.

quote Originally posted by williegoat: Does that house remind anyone else of a giant trailer house?

Totally.

quote Originally posted by Isolde: 50% of $137,300 is still $68,650. Just slightly over the best I've ever made, before taxes. PLENTY to have a great life with. NOBODY NEEDS more. Used wisely, $69k / yr, after taxes, will buy you everything you ever needed, and an awful lot more.

So you're saying because two moderately successful people get married, they should loose half their money? It would then be pretty much more cost effective for one of them to quit work. I know a lot of people dont work because they make more on welfare, but that isnt the lifestyle most of us prefer.

Put it this way, how would you like if tomorrow you were in a %50 tax bracket?

$140,000 gross for a hypothetical family of 4 isnt excessive depending on the area you are in, in fact in some cities it would probably be near poverty, though in podunk nowhere it would be millionaire status. The key is, jobs that support that kind of compensation arent found in the middle of nowhere.

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: $140,000 gross for a hypothetical family of 4 isnt excessive depending on the area you are in, in fact in some cities it would probably be near poverty,

now im no economist but i see a problem in that statement...lol. near poverty? how do you figure? only way i can see tat being near poverty is if the average cost of rent in that city was 10k a month...and here in wisconsin you can rent an ESTATE for 12k a month...fully furnished no less.

quote Originally posted by Isolde: 50% of $137,300 is still $68,650. Just slightly over the best I've ever made, before taxes. PLENTY to have a great life with. NOBODY NEEDS more. Used wisely, $69k / yr, after taxes, will buy you everything you ever needed, and an awful lot more.

I realize that I have had a pretty good lifestyle, but I brought home $6000 less a year for a family of 4 and there were plenty of times we would worry where the money was going to come from. That's in Minneapolis, MN and not in California, Chicago, or the East Coast.

quote Originally posted by faaaaq: now im no economist but i see a problem in that statement...lol. near poverty? how do you figure? only way i can see tat being near poverty is if the average cost of rent in that city was 10k a month...and here in wisconsin you can rent an ESTATE for 12k a month...fully furnished no less.

I have lived all over this country, and that is not an exaggeration. Especially if you get to the East and West coasts.

Brad

According to nat'l association of realtors report, the median home price in SF is $656,700. that would stretch $140k for a family of 4 easily.

Just move to Aspen where the cheapest house on the market was $559,000 and that was in a trailer park. Most houses there go for $5 million or more. My taxable income of $24K cannot quite afford the house trailer.

quote Originally posted by faaaaq: now im no economist but i see a problem in that statement...lol. near poverty? how do you figure? only way i can see tat being near poverty is if the average cost of rent in that city was 10k a month...and here in wisconsin you can rent an ESTATE for 12k a month...fully furnished no less.

A Quick Look
February Average Rental Prices in Manhattan

Most Expensive Least Expensive
Studios TriBeCa, $3904 Harlem, $1452
One-bedrooms TriBeCa, $4640 Harlem, $1559
Two-bedrooms TriBeCa, $6640 Harlem, $2080

So if you live in NY, just you and your wife cramped in a 2 bedroom apartment with the kids sharing a room in the shady part of town, $24k a year.
At the current tax rates, thats near 25% of both people's income already, JUST for the rent. (22*1.3/140), to be 'living it up' you're looking at more like %66. Thats all JUST rent, do you know what the overall cost of living is in those areas?
Now you want to all but cut that family's income in half, for no reason other than you THINK they make too much money?

I have friends who live in California and were talking about the rent alone on their trailer was $1200, and it wasnt a particularly nice area either.

Guess what, you cant make that kind of money in podunk WI, or the area of Ohio where I live, so its irrelevant that those people 'could' move somewhere cheaper. Yes, I supposed if you wanted to penalize them for their hardwork and education and success in life, they could move somewhere cheaper and take up a factory job that would keep them out of your insane tax bracket, just so they could make enough to live...

quote As a rich person I pay 28 percent tax. What I want to ask you is why am I not paying 50? Why isn’t anybody in my bracket not paying 50?

What I want to ask Steven farking King is why AREN'T you paying 50%? You obviously think that's what you should be paying, so why aren't you sending in enough extra each year to equal 50%?
Find me one person who thinks taxes are too low for themselves who pays even one dollar more than the minimum allowed by law.

If he doesn't want to send it to the IRS, consider that money forfeit and donate it to charity. Set up a foundation. Do something for other people with the money you say the government should be taking from you. But don't sit there on your rich ass and complain about paying too little tax when all you have to do to fix that problem is write a check.

King should be all right.

Today I bought Under The Dome, Just After sunset, and Full Dark, No Stars.
Just about $50 bucks worth.

Every little bit helps......

------------------
And they said one to another, "Behold, for here comes the dreamer. Come now, let us slay him and we shall see what then will become of his dreams." ~ Genesis 37: 19-20