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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (95245)	4/17/2001 2:52:25 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

cb, re: millions spent on beaches as welfare for the rich. you could use the same voter approved argument for every thing the govt does - local, state or federal. it doesn't make it right, though. or good. re: flat tax. the tax game is not to lower everyone's taxes. rather, it is to lower one's own taxes more than everyone else's in order to secure increased personal purchasing power. the flat tax was designed by the very rich in order to reduce their tax liability more than everyone else's (we save $10 million and you'll save $250). using the "simplicity" argument is a red herring as a simple graduated tax is still quite simple. the first thing we need to do, imho, is to cut spending and pay down the debt. the interest expense is MASSIVE and quite REAL. however, people receiving the $$$ don't want uncle sugar to stop the gravy train and we elect people who continue the practice - so, therefore, we must like it, right? ;-) the point is that lowering taxes equally for everyone doesn't do much as demand increases and prices rise resulting in little more purchase power. the real game is to lower one's own taxes much more than everyone else's so that one's purchasing power goes up much more than everyone elses - hence you know who bush is catering to. he'll give some folks $100 savings and other $20 million or more. who gets increased purchasing power? also, the argument is made that the top 5% of folks pay 80% of the taxes (plus or minus). considering they own 95% of the stuff (which they never mention when making this argument - wonder why? ;-) that doesn't seem too unfair to me. 1. if i were destitute then i'd want to pay little in taxes. 2. if i were middle class then i'd want to pay more so the destitute could pay less (one never knows where one ends up!) 3. if i were making millions then i'd want to pay more so 1 and 2 could have some relief. btw, i'm trying hard to get into #3, but have quite a ways to go... i want to practice what i preach. ;-) my value system does not change with the amount of money i make (i fight relative values b/c i believe they are intellectually dishonest). all that being said, i want the govt to spend responsibly - a dream which will never happen b/;c it is counter to the mass selfishness that is the reality.