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.
Politics : Ask Michael Burke
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (111636)2/22/2008 11:49:47 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 132070
 
the uber rich's percentage ownership in america is greater than their percentage of tax burden.

Whether or not that is true, its irrelevant to the point. The net flow of money is from the rich to the government, not the other way around. So the government isn't "soaking the rich in cash."

Also the higher tax rates that many (including both Democratic presidential candidates) call for are not only on the "uber rich".

>>An absurdly over the top way to describe budget deficits and debt at current levels. If that's slavery the income tax itself is even a better example of slavery.<<

the difference is the uber rich are receiving benefits for the dollars while our grandchildren will get the bill.

The majority of federal benefits go to people who aren't "uber rich", or even just rich.


>>Politicians and government officials are human as well. So are voters.<<

agree. government sucks, too. but it does keep us somewhat organized and it keep the genghis khan's of the world from invading and physically enslaving us.

"Genghis Khan's version of the world" to the extent it means anything, is a vision of authoritarian government. Its quite different than a libertarian vision, or even an American conservative vision.

"lower my taxes, increase my payola and screw whoever gets railroaded."

that sums up the average tax payer's approach to government

To the extent that this is true (and there certainly is at least some truth to it) that's hardly an argument for big government. Its an argument that the voters give politicians screwed up incentives, which means more government is likely to be worse not better.
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