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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nandu who wrote (14068)	5/10/2001 11:18:28 AM
From: Bill Shepherd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Nandu: Re: In my opinion, a higher income/more wealthy individual gets more protection from the government, and protecting its people is the primary function of government. Can you further explain how this "protection" manifests itself? Specifically, can you give some examples of the the greater protections afforded wealthier people versus less-wealthy people? I've always thought that one of the principles of our country was "equal protection". I am willing, however, to attempt to grasp new ideas.... Regards, Bill Shepherd

To: Nandu who wrote (14068)	5/10/2001 11:21:34 AM
From: nasdaqian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

You are wrong to call taxes "stealing". Government is how a civilized society organizes itself. How do you suggest the government should fund itself? Print more money? The US gov. was constituted with very limited roles. Naturally, it has greatly expanded its role as bureaucracies always do. To that extent it is stealing IMO. That taxes or tax rebates should have something to do with rewarding people for what they do is a "commie liberal concept", isn't it? Your logic is reversed. The argument against progressive taxation isn't that it rewards effort but that it penalizes it. Truly perverse. That's the "commie liberal concept". I would think it should at least be neutral by not penalizing or rewarding it. In my opinion, a higher income/more wealthy individual gets more protection from the government, and protecting its people is the primary function of government. Therefore, I don't find anything wrong with the idea of the rich paying more. So that's why we're taxed. To gain unequal protection under the law. I certainly support that idea, so please tax me more so that I may secure your protection. I think that's Sicilian law. I also don't understand this notion that death taxes are wrong while income taxes are wrong. Is there some divine edict or law of nature which says that income is taxable, but wealth is not? Wealth needs as much, or more, protection as income. Pay up. So, death should be a taxable event. Even though this "wealthy" person is already progressively taxed while living. Whose protection is this dead person paying for now? Government taxes wealth in order to protect it. And there is a tooth fairy and an Easter bunny.