My House Message Board - Msg: 18094958

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : My House

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (2470)	10/9/2002 9:37:30 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 7689

"Which "orignal statement"" "Similarly any claim you make supporting the idea of high taxes would not logically have to extend to 100% taxes, what does lead logically to 100% taxes is the fact that you have said that it is wrong for most of any tax cut to go to the rich while it is not wrong for most of tax increases to go to the very rich. As taxes go up and down if most of the tax cut doesn't go to the rich then eventually taxes would approach 100" Just because "most" of the tax cuts do not go to the rich does not mean that the rich are not benefitting from tax cuts; nor does it mean that their overall burden is increasing. 49.99 percent of the rich could be getting tax cuts and the 50% whom are not are not necessarily paying higher taxes. The group which you refer to as "rich" is not homogeneous, and might indeed have most of their total wealth represented by those whom are getting the tax cuts. As well, the make-up of the groups will be in continuous flux so that those not getting tax cuts one year may well get them in another. As well, poor people become rich people and rich people become poor people. So poor people may be catapulted into the ranks of the rich and vice versa. The rationale of your position apparently stems from this statemenmt you made: "you have said that it is wrong for most of any tax cut to go to the rich" By your logic, if MOST of any tax cuts DID go to the rich, then eventually they would approach zero % taxation. So why is it "wrong' to believe that that would be "wrong"?? Why do you turn the honest expression that it would be "wrong" for "MOST" of any tax cut to go the rich into a red herring that it will lead to 100% taxation?? There certainly is no call for making a statement that this will make their burden approach 100%. Tax increases are limited by natural economic factors and by common sense. Any comments made to express a preference for the rich paying their share quite obviously assume that certain premises of commonsense are understood, and that it is not necessary to call attention to the obvious. 100% taxation is slave labour, and only slaves would work under such a scheme. It is hard to credit that such statements as the rich paying 100% in taxes are honest concerns rather than simply loose rhetoric. In any case, I fear you are losing the substance of the dscussion by extrapolating into the ludicous. At a certain level of taxation there would be no more rich people.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next