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: ztect who wrote (362)	8/16/2000 8:31:53 PM
From: kvkkc1	Respond to of 666

You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. You believe that tax dollars enable the capital investments to drive the economy while I believe that the entrepeneurs are responsible for job creation. Most of them do not receive Gov't handouts like those you have pointed out. Yes, some patronage jobs are handed out as "favors" to the poor who are unable to find a decent paying job elsewhere. It's another form of wealth distribution. The people who make it in this world are those who invest their time, money and sweat to making business work. The more the Gov't taxes them, the less willing they will be to bust their butts, leading to an eventual downturn in the economy. I know liberals hate to admit trickle down economics work, but that is what our current prosperity resulted from. Remember, it's trickle, not a flood.knc

To: ztect who wrote (362)	8/16/2000 9:01:18 PM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

<The businesses that benefit, also benefit the employees working for those businesses from cooks, hotel managers, valets, and many others in the hospitality industry for just one example: Philadelphia, where the Republican Convention was held.> Government doesn't build hotels, businesses make investments if they have any money left after paying corporate income taxes and various other taxes the Gov't imposes. They also are forced to comply with over-regulation that further drives their costs up. <Philadelphia built a convention center with State, local Federal subsidies ie.(taxes). This in turn led to the building of more hotels, many of which were converted outdated office bldgs....These hotels also received subsidies and low interest loans from Federal, State and local sources. Only through having more hotel rooms was the city able to attract the Republican Convention even though the convention was held at the First Union Center.> Your true liberal colors come out here as you seem to believe it is okay for Philly to use taxes to build a convention center, but further down you attack GWB without even knowing whether he received funding for the Ranger's baseball stadium, which was built before he became a part owner. The baseball team, which receives no tax benefits, a true entrepreneurship, creates a heck of a lot more job opportunities than any convention center. <The convention, tourism and hospitality industries instigated by this mix of Federal, State and local dollars replaced a lot of industrial jobs lost to third world countries.> Let's hear it for your poor overpaid union brothers. Unions outlived their usefulness when their leaders sold out to the Democrats rather than concentrating on fairness for their members. <Conventioners, tourists and Rebuplican delegates patronize businesses...yes, but also these businesses employ workers. These workers live downtown closer to their jobs which increases the demand for rental properties, which increases the rents of property onwers like me (so I've benefitted directly). The conversion of old obsolete office buildings into hotels, tightened the office space market which helped to tighten rental space which also increased demand. All the new tourist and convention businesses required professional lawyers and architects during planning and construction workers during building. I'm a designer so again I benefitted.> Again, why are most cities privatizing services? Because most Gov't agencies are inefficient and reward time on the job rather than performance. 99% of the benefits you mentioned come from private business rather than public. If conventions are a lucrative business, you can bet a corporation will take up the slack. <These construction workers and professionals and employees paid rent or bought/renovated homes thus home depot and electricians/plumbers also benefitted> This is quite a stretch that a small contribution from the city supports all of Philly. <All of this was largely instigated by public spending. This is only a small part of the "ripple effect". In general, dollars spent by cops, teachers, and others whose salaries are paid for by tax dollars provide revenues to businesses that EMPLOY people from grocery stores to hardware stores to home builders.> As I stated in my earlier post, that is trickle down economics. <Now how else are you benefitted by the government? Just one example. Well the home builder has to build in accordance with standards to ensure you have a safely built home. Regulations we all benefit from, but some go too far, while others don't go far enough. Companies that were left alone to police themselves were the reason why we have regulations. You do like clean water don't you?> You liberals love to use scare tactics. I for one don't think that corporations are out there trying to pollute the water like Democrats try to convince the uninformed that the Republicans are doing. As for the regulations, our economy loses billions of dollars complying with needless regulations brought on by scare-mongering democrats and the ACLU. Do you also believe that the guns and cigarettes kill people by themselves? No, it takes a human to cause the action. You're arguments follow typical liberal patterns and are very tiresome because they have been proven to be false again and again. <As for arenas, depending how they are financed and where they are built does and doesn't have a beneficial economic impact upon communities. Urban locations have helped towards the revitalization of many inner cities. But unfortunately the biggest beneficiaries of many sports facilities built with tax dollars have been the owners of the teams, who make out like bandits, since the value added to the teams through the new stadiums help increase the selling price of those teams and the capital gains received by these selling team owners......like....Dubya....for example.> As stated earlier, your true colors show right thru on this one. <What was Dubya's investment? What was his payout? What amount of the stadium was built with tax payers dollars? Nothing like taxing the poor to give to the rich...> Jealous?

To: ztect who wrote (362)	8/17/2000 7:54:59 AM
From: briskit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 666

"taxing the poor to give to the rich" - that is the win by caracature political argument the dems are giving lateley that makes me sick of politics. I didn't listen to a lot of the GOP convention. I have listened to much of the DEMs. Frankly it makes me sick. I want the bumper sticker that says "If the gods had wanted us to vote, they would have given us candidates." The bottom half of taxpayers pay 4% of income taxes and you can say we tax the poor to give to the rich. It's no wonder the level of acrimony in political life is at ludicrous levels. People (like you) are ludicrous when advancing arguments about how thieving and hateful conservatives are.