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 (473)	8/19/2000 3:23:20 PM
From: ztect	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

Regarding the "Surplus" Message 14241808

To: ztect who wrote (473)	8/22/2000 9:09:33 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 666

The higher income can achieve greater capital gains and therefore again make the disparity in "wealth" more rather than less acute. Bottomline, then is that the 80's income taxes didn't trickle down but increased the disparities. Bush's proposed cuts would do more of the same. I think you misunderstand the idea of "trickle down". It is "trickle" down, not flood down. The middle class and the poor would not be expected to catch up to the rich, but rather to do better then they would have done had high tax rates stayed in effect. Of course any argument stating that this did or did not happen depends on an opinion about what would have happened which can not be proven. Income and wealth disparity was not the issue, income and wealth were. The idea was to have "a rising tide that lifts all boats". Some would be lifted a lot more then others, but if your income doubles this year while I only get a 20% raise I will not complain about it being unfair. Tim