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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (104142)	4/12/2000 2:35:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570826

Ted, We are still not on the same wavelength. I am not arguing about the tax rates, or "fair share". I am concerned about the fact that some people pay no income taxes period. Even if the rate was a symbolic 1%, it would be a plus. Everyone would have a stake in the cost of running the government. Actually during this economic expansion, the numbers of people on welfare has dropped dramatically. in reality they have been pushed off by the states. It's a very positive trend. I think it has more to do with the welfare reform legislation which stopped prohibiting the states from pushing welfare recipients to the job market. It creates a virtuous cycle, where there we have more wealth creation by people who were paid to be idle, which in turn accelerates the economy to provide more jobs for more former welfare recipients, less spending by the states, that lets them to cut taxes which stimulates the economy further. Many of these people are getting taxed for the first time in their lives.....thus tax exemptions are dropping and not increasing.....at least right now. Most of these people don't pay any taxes except FICA, and even that is refunded by EIC. Don't get me wrong, it is good to be an gainfully employed rather than being a ward of the state. But you don't have a stake in the cost of the government until you pay income taxes, and see them deducted from your taxes every week. You were concerned that the wealthy were paying more than their fair share of taxes....my response was that they control more and more of the wealth in this country. My concern about the long term stability has mainly to do with some people not paying any income taxes. Ideally (I know we don't live in the ideal world), the amount you pay should have nothing to do with your ability to pay. If you can't afford to pay $20,000 per year in taxes, make sure the government doesn't spend $20,000 on your behalf. You would see how quickly the government would shrink if everyday Americans had to actually shell out the bucks. It's easy to spend other people's money. Joe

To: tejek who wrote (104142)	4/12/2000 9:01:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 1570826

tejek, OT Malthus was correct, but he did not go far enough. He should have extended his comments to the money supply. Politicians and people are like pigeons. Give pigeons food and they will come in increasing numbers until they absorb the food completely. Cut of the food quickly and they will starve in large part becsue all they have known is eat crap drink etc from a food source. Same with welfare people. Most have forgotten what a real job is and just persist on the dole. The states tightening of the system that kicked some off and cut the funds for the others made them look for other incomes...usually from work. It is working and the roles are falling. Cutting off extra funds for incremental kids for welfare moms soon made these previously ignorant moms quite aware of birth control and generated a number of adoptable kids as well. If you ever read the stories about the decline of Rome where the pols chased the city voters(the only voters) with 'bread and circuses', ie food and free entertainment(lions vs christians for example) you will see that we are properly getting away from excess liberalism with regard to welfare and getting back to a coercive regime that rewards getting a job and punishes refusal to work. By coercive I mean making the work option more attractive than getting welfare. Now politicians are the same as welfare people, they make nothing and just consume and most have never had a real job in their lives....term reform is the answer.....ever see how they froth at the mouth and gather together when it rears it's head? Notice the resemblance to welfare people. We would we well served if political and institutional jobs had a definite term, say 10 years, after which that job vanishes and the employee has to look for another job in another company. Forget the lifers in union jobs who are useless. This would allow companies to weed out dead wood and only re hire those they felt were good enough to help the company. The french have a good idea in this. From what I hear they setup research institutions with a fixed life and then wind them down at the end. The usual uniondeadwood and tenured people are all released. That was the game plan at the start and people who signed on knew, so no inequity. New institutions then select from the people and build a new institution. It was forced on the French because their unions were so strong that jobs could never end. (I hope any French person reading this will correct me if there is an error in the concept). Well, there is little to do waiting for the earnings, so I aplogise for the OT. Bill