SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (2821)10/17/2002 10:49:14 AM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 7689
 
"I did read the context. I just think high taxes keep people from getting ahead"

But I was talking about the very poor. Are high taxes holding them back?

"I'm not sure what specifically you are refering to when you talk about extreme exploitation"

I was not speaking specifically, but generally: you know; the exploitation that is countered by minimum wage laws, anti-monopoly laws, mandatory time off...these sorts of things. My mind was on improperly tested food and drugs, unsanitary restaurants, cutting corners in construction, exploitation of labour at the cost of worker safety...these sorts of things.

"I think the working poor do have a decent chance of getting ahead"

I don't know what you mean by a "decent" chance. The most obvious way of "getting ahead" is to improve job skills through education. People barely able to meet subsistence needs have neither the time nor the money for upgrading their credentials without some assistance. The fact that society remains stratified with basically impervious layers strikes me as a prima facie appearance that the working poor do not have a "decent" chance of moving into a higher economic/social bracket of any significance. This is not to say there isn't ANY chance...only that the sucessful exploits of an Horatio are as uncommon as the name.

"If tax rates are high you are seizing a large portion of someone income or wealth"

Well, it is your use of the word "seizing" which perplexes me. The only time property is "seized" is when there is criminal fracture of the social contract created by and for the people. Otherwise, as when public debts are met responsibly and voluntarily (as is the usual case)--"seizing" seems to distort the reality of the matter.

"I would want something that was relativly flat"

How does that keep everyone paying the same "percentage" which appears to be your primary concern? What do you envision by the term "flat tax"?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News