Just heard this on the 11 PM news that he was at a Florida rally.

SARASOTA, Fla. — Horror novel writer Stephen King is no fan of Florida Gov. Rick Scott.
Speaking at a rally Tuesday in Sarasota against state budget cuts, King bashed Scott’s leadership. King criticized Scott’s rejection of federal dollars for a high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando
"Maybe my next horror novel will star Rick Scott," King told the 200 people at the rally
King also said that while he is wealthy and paying 28 percent tax, he said that someone in his tax bracket should be paying 50 percent.
King is a part-time resident of Casey Key, which is in Sarasota County.
___
http://news.bostonherald.co...home&position=recent

Makes you think don’t it.

Steve


------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 03-15-2011).]

Hey... If he wants to pay more taxes, I say let him!

And since he's got so much disposable income, I won't be buying any of his books for a while.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-14-2011).]

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

Warren Buffett and other billionaires have been saying the same thing. Voluntarily giving to charity as Stephen King and others are doing seems like a better idea than giving the government more in taxes. The problem with Warren Buffett's idea of course is that only 40 of the estimated 400 billionaires in the U.S. have signed his pledge.

The rich will eventually be taxed more because "that's where the money is" (the reason Willie Sutton gave for why he robbed banks).

of course they should
the more you have, the more you need the g'ment to secure what you have

We don't tax wealth or riches.

We tax income.

This should have been marked politics, since it's an obvious seed for that type of "discussion".

Shame, shame, 84fiero123, you should have known better. It would be great if you edited your first post and marked it correctly.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: This should have been marked politics, since it's an obvious seed for that type of "discussion". Shame, shame, 84fiero123, you should have known better. It would be great if you edited your first post and marked it correctly.

There you happy? Now I will never see this thread again because I have politics blocked.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Just heard this on the 11 PM news that he was at a Florida rally. SARASOTA, Fla. — Horror novel writer Stephen King is no fan of Florida Gov. Rick Scott. Speaking at a rally Tuesday in Sarasota against state budget cuts, King bashed Scott’s leadership. King criticized Scott’s rejection of federal dollars for a high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando "Maybe my next horror novel will star Rick Scott," King told the 200 people at the rally King also said that while he is wealthy and paying 28 percent tax, he said that someone in his tax bracket should be paying 50 percent. King is a part-time resident of Casey Key, which is in Sarasota County. ___ http://news.bostonherald.co...home&position=recent Makes you think don’t it. Steve

I don't see how that's right.

The tax brackets at that level are as follows:

82,000-171,000 = 28%
171,000-373,000 = 32%
373,000-ABOVE = 35%

I gave up arguing politics for Lent, so I'm merely stating information in a non-biased manner.

I'm quite sure he's making more than 373,000 a year.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

King makes, by what I can find between 40 and 80 million a year.

He and his wife have multiple charity donations that amount to the extra 22% he thinks he should pay in taxes. Listen to the video I posted and he explains that.

Can I ask what the difference between 40 million and 20 million?

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: King makes, by what I can find between 40 and 80 million a year. He and his wife have multiple charity donations that amount to the extra 22% he thinks he should pay in taxes. Listen to the video I posted and he explains that. Can I ask what the difference between 40 million and 20 million? Steve

King unwittingly shows what would happen to charities if we increase taxes. The more the government does and the more it taxes, the less people give and volunteer for charities. So if King was taxed that extra 22% that he believes that he should be taxed, then the charities that he is donating to would lose the millions of dollars that he gives. He would be hurting organizations that he supports in order to give his money at gun point to faceless uncaring beaurocrats in DC. The money will then be used for something else the he might not agree with but that he has no control over.

4 days ago.
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/083450.html

Thing is people that are only making a few hundred thousand a year. He isn’t saying increase those taxes. Just those making millions a year. Just how many millions do you need to live very well?

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Thing is people that are only making a few hundred thousand a year. He isn’t saying increase those taxes. Just those making millions a year. Just how many millions do you need to live very well? Steve

The Alternative Minimum Tax was originally suppose to only apply to the "rich". It was to ensure that they pay something in taxes. Guess what? It hits people making just a few hundred thousand a year.

Also, this is not a question about how much does a person need. Ask that question is going down the road of totalitarianism. I have three cars so should I be taxed more since "how many cars does a person need?" I have three computers so "how many computers does a person need?" and on and on and on. Such a question is unamerican and is frankly nobody's business how much of anything a person needs. When people start asking those types of questions then the next step is exerting control and confiscating property through taxes.

What most people don't realize it that all these Millionaires and Billionaires are only so on paper. Their foretunes aren't in liquid assets that can easily be broken up or distributed. The FDIC won't even insure any individual deposits over $250,000. Many "rich" people have their money tied up in stocks, bonds, trusts, real estate, etc. Very little of it is liquid.
Many "rich" people donate a lot of money to charities and other good causes. This is done out of kindness not because of some government mandate. Many rich people want to do good for others because the have been able to their positions in life and would like to share their good fortune with others. I remember being taught to share when I was in Kindergarden and have carried the lesson with me throughout my life. I'm sure many other's have too.
Unfortunately we also have some who never learned to share and will greedily take anything you give them and still ask for more. We have those who abuse social programs by taking benefits they shouldn't be receiving in the first place. If too many abuse the sytem it becomes unsustainable, and we certainly have a lot of abuse going on. Raising the taxes will not solve the abuse problem. People need to learn to be more self responsible and to be productive citizens.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Thing is people that are only making a few hundred thousand a year. He isn’t saying increase those taxes. Just those making millions a year. Just how many millions do you need to live very well? Steve

Good point. As you posted earlier, he even gives enough to charity so that his actual take home pay is about what it would be if he were taxed at 50%.
So, do you think millionaires like him should have their taxes raised? The beauty of it would be that if we hike his taxes up to 50% where he says it should be - that effectively wipes out all of his charity donations.

But the government will make much better use of the money, I'm sure.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Good point. As you posted earlier, he even gives enough to charity so that his actual take home pay is about what it would be if he were taxed at 50%. So, do you think millionaires like him should have their taxes raised? The beauty of it would be that if we hike his taxes up to 50% where he says it should be - that effectively wipes out all of his charity donations. But the government will make much better use of the money, I'm sure.

Well said.

...just out of curosity, are donations to charities tax deductable in the US? They are here in Canada, so the more you give to charities, the less tax you pay...

Charitable contributions are tax deductable but you don't get 100% of what you give deducted from what you owe to the government. You also better have receipts to prove what you actually gave in case you are audited.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand some of these uber rich people feeling that they are not being taxed an appropriate amount in relation to their incomes. Most of who I've seen saying this are people of modest upbringing so probably see the little effect it would have on their riches and how it seems(to them) unfair that they have so much while others have so little.

Depends on ones definition of rich and what their personal feelings are IMO. It's not like there isn't currently a progressive tax system and as a recent graph has shown the top percentage of "rich" peoples earnings have steadily increased while the lower and middle classes have remained flat.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-15-2011).]

5 Sneaky Ways the Super Rich Avoid Taxes

quote Some of the richest people in the country pay the least, relatively speaking, in taxes. How is this possible? Answer: Through the clever manipulation of the U.S. tax code’s loopholes. And it works: as income rises, effective tax rates rise as well, but only up to a point. IRS data shows that the effective income tax rate flattens out at just over 24 percent for those making over a million dollars. As income exceeds $1.5 million, the rate begins to decline; those with incomes above $10 million pay an average income tax rate of around 19 percent. So, how do they do it?

Tax-Exempt Bonds
Capital Gains
Gift-Giving
Charitable Donations
Vacation Homes and Yachts

Here's one example:

quote Capital Gains Capital gains (or losses) are simply the difference between the purchase and selling price of an asset or investment.Capital gains exist, or are realized, when the asset is sold for more than the investor paid for it. Short-term gains on assets held for less than a year, are taxed at the regular rate for income, but long-term gains are currently taxed at only 15 percent. This is the part that mostly benefits the super-rich, because the top 400 earners in the U.S., who on average grossed $345 million in 2007, earned two-thirds of their income in long-term gains. When you average the 35 percent tax these individuals in the very highest bracket paid on their salaries and other earnings with the much smaller percentage they pay on capital gains, the effective tax on their entire income turns out to be around 16.6%. This is only slightly more income tax than the 15 percent rate paid by single people earning $35k a year, and is a smaller percentage than the taxes paid by a married couple with a combined income of $100,000 per year.

quote Originally posted by newf: Not sure why it's so hard to understand some of these uber rich people feeling that they are not being taxed an appropriate amount in relation to their incomes. Most of who I've seen saying this are people of modest upbringing so probably see the little effect it would have on their riches and how it seems(to them) unfair that they have so much while others have so little. Depends on ones definition of rich and what their personal feelings are IMO. It's not like there isn't currently a progressive tax system and as a recent graph has shown the top percentage of "rich" peoples earnings have steadily increased while the lower and middle classes have remained flat.

Hey, they're free to think they should be taxed at 100% for all I care. What I don't understand is why they don't volunteer to pay more money if they truly think they should? Like you said, it would have little effect on their riches, so why wouldn't they give more willingly rather than complain about not being forced to give more? They would presumably be happy if forced to pay more and by their own admission want to pay more, yet they don't until forced.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Hey, they're free to think they should be taxed at 100% for all I care. What I don't understand is why they don't volunteer to pay more money if they truly think they should? Like you said, it would have little effect on their riches, so why wouldn't they give more willingly rather than complain about not being forced to give more? They would presumably be happy if forced to pay more and by their own admission want to pay more, yet they don't until forced.

I'm certainly not saying they do but are you sure they don't?

Should they not be able to have an opinion like anyone else no matter what they actually pay?

quote Originally posted by spark1: 5 Sneaky Ways the Super Rich Avoid Taxes Tax-Exempt Bonds Capital Gains Gift-Giving Charitable Donations Vacation Homes and Yachts

Well, that's easy to fix.

No more tax-exempt bonds. (good luck next time your government needs to raise money for schools, etc.)
No more capital gains tax - all capital gains are taxed as income. Too bad your retirement investments get taxed the same way. Work longer. Save more. Pay more tax.
No more gift giving. Get your own and stop expecting someone else to buy it for you.
No more charitable donations. Suck it up, UNICEF, you've been a tax shelter for the rich for too long.
Vacation Homes and Yachts - that's taken care of by getting rid of capital gains. Can't claim it as a home either. That should help spur recovery in the construction industries.

Problems solved.

"Steven King says..."

Isn't his forte in fiction?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Find me a credible source of someone complaining about low taxes paying in more than the minimum legally allowed. Everyone can have an opinion. I find it the height of hypocrisy to complain about the injustices of something when you have within your power the ability to immediately fix that injustice at least as far as yourself is concerned, and yet you do nothing. It's like a fireman standing outside your house with the fire hose turned off watching your house burn down and complaining that the fire department should do a better job.

I doubt those records would be public but if they give support to politicians who may change the taxation percentages to what they deem more fair wouldn't that be less hypocritical?

In any case I don't see it as hypocritical to claim that people at a certain level of income can afford to be taxed more and then not volunteering moneys.

Would it be hypocritical to get comped tickets to something but not pay even though you enjoyed yourself?

What about when a company offers disounted prices for new signees? Should they volunteer to pay back the disounted price even if they don't particularly agree with that practice?

I don't find it hypocritical either--I find it cowardly, sensationalist, and insincere.
There is nothing but a bit of ink in his pen to stop him from paying any % in taxes he feels he should be paying.
What he's really saying, is "Hey, the rich don't pay enough, and I'm rich, but you're gonna have to force me to do it by changing the tax law--I ain't got the gonads to do it on my on."

Not impressed.

That would be like me saying I don't think SS should remain in effect, then turn around in 2012 and sign up to draw it myself.

Current tax laws are written to encourage payers to act in certain ways which the government (us) thinks is desirable. This creates winners and losers.

Yes, municipalities can get money at a lower rate by offering tax free bonds but who instead pays the taxes not collected? Investment income is somehow different than wages and is taxed at a lower rate but who then pays more? Donating to charity seems like a worthy idea but forming your own charitable foundation and reaping benefits from it is questionable. Not too many lower or middle class families can gift each of their children $13K a year to lower their own taxable income so they pay the taxes for the ones who are able to do that.

And the five cited tax avoidances only scratch the surface of the tax laws designed by hundreds of special interests. It’s like the derivative scandal in the housing market, no one can understand the tax code. There is enough ambiguity for all kinds of mischief.

The first step is for the lawmakers to pass a law requiring the budget to be balanced (or operate at a surplus but never in a deficit) and a certain portion of each and every budget to be designated to debt repayment. Index the budget to GDP. The FY 2011 budget (from here) shows a total budget outlay of 3.834 TRILLION dollars. This includes a budget deficit of 1.267 TRILLION dollars. The government only collected 2.567 TRILLION dollars in revenues. The GDP is about 14 trillion dollars and the debt is 10.5 trillion dollars, about to become 11.8 after this fiscal year.

If they index the budget to about 15% of GDP, they would have to decrease government spending by a little more than half (bye bye entitlement spending). In my plan, 25% of the approximately 2 trillion dollar budget would be earmarked for debt repayment. That means the debt would decrease by about half a trillion dollars every year. At this rate it would take 21 years to pay off the debt (not counting interest, so probably closer to 40 years). But as of right now, there is NO PLAN to repay the debt.

Government spending needs to be reduced significantly, and taxes need to be lowered. With lower taxes, productivity and therefore revenues will increase and allow the government to repay the debt faster.

IRS data shows that the effective income tax rate flattens out at just over 24 percent for those making over a million dollars. As income exceeds $1.5 million, the rate begins to decline; those with incomes above $10 million pay an average income tax rate of around 19 percent.

That means a person making 1 million dollars per year would pay $240,000 per year in income tax.

A person making 1.5 million dollars per year would "only" be paying $285,000 per year.

Can you see HOW UNFAIR that is???? He ONLY had to pay FORTY FIVE THOUSAND dollars more than a guy making a million a year. Can you BELIEVE that. What ever happened to (alert to focus attention to the favorite words of the left. Here they come: ) PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE????


You guys focus on tax RATES because the numbers are relatively small. 25 is a small number. 19 is a small number. $285,000 PER YEAR is NOT a small number.

Oh, but see, they should pay their FAIR share. Well, what no one has EVER answered me is this:

The guy that makes 1.5 million per year--GIVE ME THE NUMBER of DOLLARS that he/she WOULD pay so that you would FINALLY say, ok, he/she has paid enough. That is fair.
I already know the answer. There never WILL be an answer. Because NO number is high enough for people like you that would say that. You can tell by the attitude. So the guy wants to keep more of HIS money from the government. But you guys don't LOOK at the money as HIS money. You think the government has a RIGHT to it. THAT is why you say things like, "5 SNEAKY ways the super rich avoid taxes." Yeah, very SNEAKY to do COMPLETELY LEGAL things following the rules that the GOVERNMENT set up, in order to try to keep more of your money and to try to keep from being OVER taxed. Because, well, paying the government $250,000 PER YEAR just ISN'T your "fair share". It has to be $285,000. And even THAT is getting a "tax BREAK, because you REALLY should be paying 25% of your income, and that would be 375,000 per year.


What you also never say is that this has NOTHING to do with "paying their fair share". Because it wouldn't matter WHAT number the rich paid in taxes. The government would STILL spend it ALL, AND exceed that amount and drive us into debt.


But, please, carry on with the class envy against those that make more than you, and keep trying to use the power of the government to redistribute some of their income to you, especially since you are now emboldened by the knowledge that Stephen King is right with you.

The ONLY problem with following Stephen King is that he doesn't believe in the rich paying their fair share, because he ONLY thinks they should be paying 50 percent. When REALLY, you KNOW they should be paying...

well, I don't KNOW how much they SHOULD be paying to pay "their fair share" because you guys never SAY. BUT, I DO know it is MORE than 50%.