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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (43040)	3/4/2001 6:33:19 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

PMFJI, but even though I am a long, long way from qualifying for your 70% tax rate, I see it as fundamentally unjust to have combined federal and state marginal rates in excess of 50% for anyone. Furthermore, it becomes a disincentive for further achievement for anyone in that position. As a practical matter, there are areas of endeavor in which people can make more efficient use of their money than government can, which makes getting too piggy on the tax rates a matter of diminishing returns from a societal point of view. Personally, I would like to see a flat tax with a much higher standard deduction. Even though I am not rich, I would like to be some day, and I don't like the way graduated rate structures make it harder for people to get ahead.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (43040)	3/4/2001 6:35:40 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

2. I would favor a tax plan that replaced the 15% bracket with 0%, the 28% with 15%, etc., and added a new bracket for the top rate. I am fine with increasing the size of the brackets and indexing them to inflation. These help the little guy more than the rich folks, but lowers everyone's taxes. 3. The rich SOB who is President because he is a rich SOB, wants a tax cut that helps rich SOBs more than lower and middle income people. Would the government spend the rich SOBs money more wisely than the rich SOBs themselves? Hell NO! I am of the belief that politicians are more evil than the rich SOBs. Are you familiar with the Rockefeller or Gates Foundations? You might look into them.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (43040)	3/4/2001 6:37:12 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 70976

Thread, After calling people stupid and SOBs in the previous thread, I will give everyone an opportunity to hold me up to ridicule. I will state for the record my new investment plan. If I am wrong, I will suffer the double whammy of not increasing my wealth and having everyone know about it. I will buy equal dollar amounts of: AMAT at 35, 32.5, 30, 27.5, and 25; NVLS at 35, 32.5, 30, 27.5, and 25; KLAC at 30, 27.5, 25, 22.5, and 20; LLTC at 35, 32.5, and 30; MXIM at 35, 32.5, and 30; ALTR at 18, 16.5, 15, 13.5, and 12; XLNX at 34, 31, 28, 25, and 22; I will "round up" CSCO at 18.96 and ASYT at 10.125. The purchases total about 1/2 of my current stock value. Together the current stock and anticipated puchases make up about 8 to 9% of my net asset value and 15% of my liquid asset value. The price targets for AMAT, KLAC, NVLS, and ASYT are based on current book value and the relationships between historical book value and cyclical lows. The price targets for ALTR, XLNX, LLTC, and MXIM are based on current and historical earnings and low prices during the 98 downturn. The price target for CSCO is based on the price to sales ratio and a caveat in Ken Fisher's "Super Stocks" to avoid spending more than 6 times sales for a stock. Feel free to flame me on this plan, but be warned that my use of criticism might increase my potential for gain.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (43040)	3/5/2001 10:58:48 PM
From: Pete Young	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

OT: more taxes I don't believe in rich, and I don't believe in poor. Having said that I believe that the small guy gets taxed to death in the existing setup as many have pointed out. I don't believe that is true of the wealthy. By taxing income, the system keeps ordinary people from becoming comfortable, as many of us have found in recent years. Maybe its time to look at a wealth/property tax that would tax a person if their total assets reached, say, $3 million, and anyone else under that, until they reached that point would pay little or nothing. Work (and investment) would be rewarded, but the dumb mechanics of compound interest (as apart from working) would not. The system would be biased towards creating lots of people with total assets of just under $3 million, which is plenty to have and live on (if that is what you chose to do with it), instead of biased towards keeping the vast majority of people right on the edge of economic disaster (irrespective of income) and a tiny few with ludicrous wealth, which usually is used to create more misery for everyone else. (control of politics, media, financial markets...all to the detriment of other players) Lets not screw around with half measures and call the present situation what it is: designed to keep you penniless. But what else would you expect from the people that control the existing situation...ie; the extremely wealthy?