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: Dan3 who wrote (125443)	10/6/2000 12:51:29 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1570334

Pretty big discussion of the tax issue in the paper this morning. Where did you get your 10 / 90 figure? This morning's NYT did a QA of the candidates' various arguments. One point made was that the wealthiest 1% in the county pay 18% of the taxes I think that is 18% of taxes not 18% of federal income taxes. Also even if the tax cut does disproportiatly help the rich (and I don't think it does) that doesn't make it unfair. Most tax increases (includeing Clinton's) effected the rich more as well. If they get hit more when taxes go up why is it unfair when they benfit more when taxes go down. A lot of the rich do shelter there taxes with loopholes. My answer to that would be cut the rates and cut the loopholes. But no canidate left is pushing a flat tax... Tim

To: Dan3 who wrote (125443)	10/6/2000 12:54:46 AM
From: david_langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570334

Dan, One point made was that the wealthiest 1% in the county pay 18% of the taxes The NYT and VP Gore should get their facts straight. First of all wealth isn't taxed by the Feds until one dies, only income. Second the 1% of highest income taxpayers accounting for 17.4% of all income paid 33.4% of all income taxes in 1997 (latest available Treasury statistics on income). Citizens for Tax Justice, a leftist organization, charges that the top 1% of earners would get only 42.6% of the tax reduction not 49%. Dave

To: Dan3 who wrote (125443)	10/6/2000 1:26:20 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 1570334

Dan, One point made was that the wealthiest 1% in the county pay 18% of the taxes, but would get 49% of the reductions under Bush's plan. I don't know what the 18% is a based on (it's probably a wrong figure). But just for comparison, when Clinton increased taxes, the highest income taxpayers were hit with 100% of that tax increase, so they would still be a lot worse off if they only get 49% of the tax cut, and people who did not have their income taxes increased by Clinton would get a tax cut under the Bush plan. Another thing to consider is that our top marginal income tax rate went from 28% to 39.6%, 41% increase in the top marginal rate. The tax cut will reduce the highest marginal tax rate only by 16% from 39.6 to 33%. Joe