Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (66713)	12/15/1999 6:13:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"A completely government monopolistic system (like the one we have today) eventually will resist change and create bureaucratic instruments of hierarchical relationships which will destroy the relationship between the system and the customer. That's what has happened in far too many places today. " Would you care to explain what this means?

To: greenspirit who wrote (66713)	12/15/1999 10:04:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

We obviously are in complete disagreement here- I don't see the point of an item by item rebuttal anymore. Suffice it to say I disagree with just about everything you said.

To: greenspirit who wrote (66713)	12/15/1999 1:07:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, I totally agree with you about the fairness of the tax code - it needs to be cleaned up and simplified. However just to clarify the issue with capping tax rates over time.... First, it is age discrimination, because there is no way the young can get the same "deal". But more importantly, it is inconsistent with the pervading view that benefits must be increased over time. It seems to me you have to make a choice... if you are going to cap somebody's tax rates to 2%/year then their social security payments should also be capped at 2%/year. Or, if we index this stuff to rampant inflation (when it happens) then taxes need to increase too. One or the other... As a side-point, I have heard sentiment fairly consistently from people without kids (mostly elderly)... my parent's retirement community for example, and people here even... that they don't want to pay for schools, because they "don't have kids"... or "people with kids should pay more for schools", etc. What they fail to realize is that the same attitude could be tossed back at them and they wouldn't like it one bit... why should I pay for some elderly person's dental plan when I don't have one myself, etc.? So really, I don't see how anyone can justify the taxation and entitlement positions that the elderly take... its inconsistent all over the place, resulting in whatever generates more money for THEM, period. And when the aarp and other groups are asked to defend their positions, they fall back on some tired picture of an old woman eating cat food, which is truly irrelevant.