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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (129157)	3/5/2001 1:44:57 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Joe, You didn't answer Paul's question why you thing the tax relief should follow Marxist idea of "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" Charity is an idea deeply rooted in Christianity and many other religions. "To he whom much is given, much also is expected." Scumbria

To: Joe NYC who wrote (129157)	3/5/2001 1:57:58 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

If your follow through with this logic, the tax cut to the wealthy doesn't really matter, since they are not paying any taxes anyway Good point! EP

To: Joe NYC who wrote (129157)	3/5/2001 2:22:18 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 186894

Jozef,<<<Two things. 1. You may be part of this 1%, because this 1% is not based on wealth, but on income levels. Income tax is there to prevent people who are not wealthy from becoming wealthy. The people who are already wealthy derive most of their income from sources (capital gains, interest, rents, royalties) not W2 wages.>>> I am not out to promote class warfare. If I am in this exclusive club, I would like to pay my fair share (hopefully there is no need to pay more than current levels) to maintain the level of national security and current form of government so that future generations can also enjoy these benefits. I would not encourage poorer people to fight for me to increase my wealth because of some stupid slogan they learned in economics 101 or at some political rally. Right now we have a progressive tax system whereby those in the higher income levels pay a higher proportion of their income to pay for our form of government. Unless and until this system is overhauled and replaced by a better system, that is well thought out, we can now only tinker with the current structure. In this environment, we don't really have to worry about the welfare of those in the top 1% income levels. If we must worry, than there are other inequities that could move up on our list of priorities to worry about. <<<2. You didn't answer Paul's question why you thing the tax relief should follow Marxist idea of "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability">>> I am against passionately following any type of slogans. Especially slogans that pit one group of people against another. The world is filled with people shouting incendiary slogans causing groups people to hate other groups of people for stupid idealogical reasons. At this point in our history (in the United States), we do not need impassioned calls for major changes to our system. We need continuously to tweak our systems - make it better and fairer. We have a mechanism to make major changes to our system, eg, making constitutional amendments. Those issues need to be vetted and discussed and was designed not to be easily changed. Mary