Novelist Stephen King recently added his voice to the chorus of superrich clamoring to be taxed more. He knows his critics will call for him to “Cut a check and shut up,” but King says he’s not going to be keep quiet. He believes he and other uberwealthy citizens have a moral imperative to pay more.

Clive Cook has a solution that should satisfy both sides of the issue. As Cook says, “it’s childishly simple once you recognize that two separate questions are involved.”

Would IRS donations by Warren Buffett and Stephen King make the tax code fairer? No.

Would IRS donations by Warren Buffett and Stephen King help to remedy the inequity they say the tax code causes? Yes.

In other words, Warren Buffett and Stephen King should write generous checks to the IRS and not shut up, but keep demanding the fairer system they say they want.

Here’s a parallel. Suppose I’m thinking of becoming a vegetarian. I think eating animals is immoral. I think there should be a law against it. But at the moment it’s legal, and my giving up meat wouldn’t really make much difference. So I intend to remain a carnivore until justice prevails and everybody is forbidden to eat meat.

It seems to me that this position is ethically unsatisfactory. My turning vegetarian would not be a pointless gesture. It would bear witness to my ethical convictions and might make others follow my example. And whereas my giving up meat really wouldn’t have much quantitative impact, Buffett’s tens of billions and King’s hundreds of millions are fiscally non-negligible. It’s a start. And anyway, continuing to enjoy the benefits of the tax system’s gross unfairness is just plain wrong, isn’t it?

So keep talking, by all means–but send in the checks as well.

I wouldn’t have a problem with King preaching about raising taxes on the rich if he was willing to voluntarily do what he himself claims he’s morally obligated to do. But I don’t suspect he’ll take up Cook’s solution because King isn’t really interested in “tax fairness” at all. His refusal to “cut a check” shows that what he really wants is for the government to have more power—power to force others to do what he doesn’t want to voluntarily do himself.

But if we are going to force them to do their “patriotic” duty (King’s words) why stop at forcing them to pay more taxes? Why not have mandatory military conscription for the uberrich (or their children)? Since the wealthy have been given so much, shouldn’t they be the first to serve their country? Where does the demand for forcing people to do their duty end?

King may be the master of the horror novel, but his call for increasing government power is the scariest thing he’s ever written.

 

  • Roger McKinney

    Or they could give to charity, as Bill Gates did. 

  • http://twitter.com/TobinElliott Tobin Elliott

    Obviously you haven’t read the full article.  King donates four million dollars to charities every year.  He’s calling for tax fairness, because, yes, he does have more disposable income, and why are those that make so much less having to bear the burden?

    He does what he can.  Now, you can come down on either side of the overall question of taxation…does it do what it’s supposed to, or is it an incredible waste of money.  That’s fine.  But what King’s saying is, if you have to tax, tax those who can afford it.

    In the meantime, he IS putting his money where his mouth is.  Personally, I think  he’s smarter to donate the damn money than to throw it to a gov’t that bails out mismanaged companies, but that’s just my opinion.

    Just like the taxation issue is King’s.

    • Roger McKinney

       The question is why does King think it’s right to force others to obey his ethics? It’s fine for him to think the rich don’t pay enough in taxes. Everyone today is free to make up any kind of ethic that suits them. But he shouldn’t try to use the power of the state to force everyone to submit to his personal opinions. The way to handle person opinions is to act on them yourself and try to persuade others to act on them.

      But to advocate for the state to tax the rich at the level King wants turns him into a tyrant who wants to steal other people’s money to salve his conscience.

      And of course it doesn’t matter to him that taxing the rich punishes the poor by reducing the number of good paying jobs created in the future.

  • http://newjohn.wordpress.com/ New John

    @twitter-19912488:disqus  If King thinks giving to charities is sufficient for his ethical standards, why isn’t he encouraging everyone to give to charities?  If he wants to encourage everyone to give to charities of their choice, that’s a great idea. And it would be consistent.

    You are incorrect that he does what he “can” do: he does what he *wants* to do.  Like most rational people, he PICKS which charities get his money.

    The contradiction comes when he tells everyone else that “the gov’t should take it” but then refuses to do so himself.

    “Personally, I think  he’s smarter to donate the damn money than to throw
    it to a gov’t that bails out mismanaged companies, but that’s just my
    opinion.”

    If only his desire was that everyone should give more to charity, he’d be on to something.  As it is, he just wants the gov’t to enforce his idea of fairness.