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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2494)	10/14/2000 8:56:15 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

The money will have to come from regular taxes. Anyone want to pay 60% federal income taxes in a few decades? That's what I'm thinking... Now maybe it would be different is the surplus was invested in government secured housing loans... Or in bringing down the cost of student loans... Or have it invested in relatively secure corporate debt instruments (diversifies, of course, to lower risk as well as preventing corporate subsidization) But for the government to hold its own debt strikes me as slightly oxymoronic. It strikes me that the government should give ALL the surplus back to the taxpayers in order that they can save it, grow it, and be in a position later on to contribute the taxes necessary to pay for those SS liabilities. I would appreciate some other opinions on this so I can insure my logic isn't faulty.

To: TimF who wrote (2494)	10/14/2000 9:27:58 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Tim, where have you been? My dear wife pays 55% on her first 75,000 every year (39.6% income taxes and 15% "payroll" taxes, she pays both part since she is "independent"), so 60% is already here if you add any local state taxes (we live in NH and will have none of that "state income tax thingies"). (G). With various sales taxes, gee, I am sure many pay in the 65% range. By the way, I calculated that an "across the board" income tax cut of 10% will bring her a 7.3% relief. Guess what, people like Bill Gate (and myself, since most of my income has maximum tax rate of 20%, like Gate, and on that income, we pay no "payroll taxes"), will truly get 10% tax cut. I think we can make it a little "fairer". By the way, Congress and Mr. Clinton have decided that for investors in "small companies" the tax rate will actually be only 10% (if the investment is held for more than 5 years). I personally say "thank you", but I am not sure that it is fair to the rest of the tax payers. I think there are a lot of places to go for more money (if really needed) instead of the 60% you advocate. (VBG). Zeev