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.

Politics : Politics as Usual -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Valley Girl who wrote (1)	3/30/2000 11:32:00 AM
From: PMS Witch	Respond to of 8

The flaw in our society lies not with the system, but within ourselves. Voting to spend another's wealth has little merit beyond the illusion of getting something for nothing, an idea dismissed by most thinking adults. I doubt many would hesitate to offer support to those who are unable to help themselves. A low or no tax level, established to alleviate an unsupportable tax burden falling on those with incomes already inadequate, rightfully comprises part of any fair taxation strategy. The question remains: If some pay less, who pays more? Currently, the burden of supporting those who cannot or should not pay falls on the relatively few high earners. My point is that if society as a whole wants to free certain people from paying, (as it should) then society as a whole should foot the bill. Simply put: Decisions have costs. When a majority of voters decide, a majority of voters should pay. Cheers, PW. P.S. A few years ago, I saw the results of a poll (in Canada) where a random sample of people were asked what fraction of their income the wealthy should pay in taxes. Most felt 40% was appropriate. They were surprised to discover that the highest marginal rate was 54%, and that it was reached at C$60,000. (U$40,000)

To: Valley Girl who wrote (1)	3/31/2000 2:03:00 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8

I think a lot of the dispute over taxes stems from a disagreement whether utility theory has a place in taxation. A dollar means more to someone who has fewer of them. To a liberal, that implies that if everybody is to bear equivalent "pain" from taxes, the dollars of the rich need to be discounted +/-. Thus the idea of progressive taxation arose. Conservatives (if they're reasonable enough to admit to the need for taxation at all, and I think most but not all would) might argue against this on two planes. First, they might dispute the underlying premise. To me, that's rather greedy. It isn't appropriate to kick those who are down on their luck -- much better to help them recover. Second, they might argue against the particulars (e.g. the maximum rate is too high or the schedule is too progressive). To me, questions like that are why we have a democratic process. Quite frankly, although I sometimes tend to take the extreme liberal position when confronted with extreme conservatism, I think the "one true way" is probably somewhere in the middle. I hate to see my taxes wasted as much as the next guy, and I struggle like heck this time of year to try to make sure I'm not paying more than the legally required amount. But when it comes time to write the check, I try to do it cheerfully; this country has been good to me, and somebody's got to pay for it. I think it was a good idea to start this thread, but I doubt it will see much use. There are some folks out there who I would describe as rabid in their desire to insert politics (and religion) into every thread they visit. JMHO, of course.