Stephen King on higher taxes for the wealthy

No, no they should not.

The imprisonment etc. was a litlle bit extreme. But seriously though they should use their money like Bill Gates does, give a shit ton of money to those that need it the most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_(practice)#Practice
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009253657_charity23.html

With no taxes, there is great probabilty that corporations have more competition against them (and thus, they will not be so powerfull). The only way coporations rule is in a statist government (influenced and supported by them) who creates higher taxes to screw the little ones and spends those taxes on bail-outs for the corporations, in idiotic wars and in the ponzy scheme called social security. That is the kind of government who exists in the USA and in other Western countries. Saying that my ideology is only for the corporations is a great misconception.

Yes, it makes the poor more poorer, in their mentality. Because insteqd of they trying to work hard and innovating for themselfs, they just wait for the state to give them money. That kind of mentality turns people into zombies.

Then what? It does not proove that social security is better then charity.

Why did your post get steadily worse grammar as it went on?

Do you really think life would be better for people if we got rid of taxes and social security. So where are you going to get money to run the goddamn government? You might as well just be an anarchist, that would work better.

With a strong state and high taxes you can have free education, free healthcare, good infrastructure, state funded projects and a state that helps others trough economic donations.
Without social security we would lose so many things you could as well start anarchy. Also most countries do not spend nearly as much money on military as on helping society.
At least this is the reality I live in. A reality where I get great benifits and indirectly help others trough giving taxes to a government.

Christ, I thought society had moved on from

We had that opinion in Victorian England, until we realised it wasn't really true, in, erm.. about 1908.

In all seriousness, I do believe that there is a point where the state looks after people too much, but it is waaay past what we're talking about here.

DId

That is pretty hiperbolic of you.

Benefits which make a commodist instead of a more efficient worker. Did you ever looked at what they did in Chile? It worked out preety well, in privatizing social securty.

Not only that, how can you be sure that some of those taxes are taken by corrupt politicans? Do you also like that your taxes are used to pay non-sense wars or luxuries of politicians (a very common problem here in Portugal), that state pays (from your taxes)?

Not particularly, our first liberal reforms were introduced then.

Because both the public and experts have access to see what money gained and used in Sweden.
You can argue if politician (public officials) want they can make money disappear out of the system. That is fixed by having different places handling the money with banks and experts calculating exactly how much and where the money goes etc.
The public (and especially the press) knows where the money goes and how much so if someone tries to take more than there share they will be exposed and fired.
Also i'm very sure that money doesn't go to nonsensical wars because Swedish military is basically non-existent. The most of the soldiers are home and the ones outside are working and getting paid by the UN.
We mostly get money from wars by selling and developing weapons something Sweden is good at.

Well I was speaking about the US. Sorry, I ignored the fact you were Swedish.