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.

Non-Tech : Who Really Pays Taxes? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (278)	8/15/2000 4:55:52 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 666

I know that is the argument but I am not buying it. We have more money than workers in this country. We have WAY more money than talented technical workers. Lowering taxes on investment to "encourage" it is social engineering - just what conservatives say they don't like. Treat all income the same with a flat tax, investment income or no, and make investors pay into social security just like workers. Thats a truly flat tax, I would support that.

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (278)	8/15/2000 5:11:05 PM
From: ztect	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 666

Options that vest after 3yrs are considered deferred income, and if I'm not mistaken are taxed at a lower marginal rate of 20%. That's part of the reason why many people take options as deferred income in lieu on salary which would be taxed at a higher rate. Now considering SS , can some one please explain Dubya's system to me, since SS is not a "savings system". Money a 26 year pays doesn't go into a piggy bank, it immediately is transferred to a Social Security recepient over 65. The big concern with the graying of the population is that there may ultimately more people drawing out then paying in. The ultimate solution is to gradually raise the retirement age, especially since when SS was formulated, life expectancy was a lot lot shorter so pay out times were shorter and the number of recepients less. No politician has the guts to due this with a population that votes plus is well organized. (young people don't vote). Other privatization schemes separate the SS fund from the general fund and put the total over runs into safe investment vehicles. These aren't personal savings accounts, such personal savings accounts seem in theory to contradict how the system works and imply plus reinforce that the SS fund is a saving fund rather than a pay as you go fund.. Since LBJ the SS funds and the general funds have been kind of blurred anyway. Tax surpluses from the SS funds have and are used to pay for general programs, and then the general accounts issue IOU's which are held in lieu of the surpluses. The raising of SS tax in the 80's shifted the burden off of income taxes to fund the general funds, since there wasn't the fire wall many presume that there is betw. these two means of taxation. If there is privatization, the fire wall should be re-established, with surpluses invested in safe higher returning instruments. Again what and how this has anything to do with private savings accounts...is something that maybe a Dubya fan can explain to me. z