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: Bill Shepherd who wrote (14080)	5/10/2001 1:59:41 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

>>Skeeter: RE: The John vs. Mary income discussion...third, all else being equal, mary uses more services. the potential for workers comp is over double. she uses more roads. : >>In California, Workers Compensation is not funded with general tax money, it is paid by the employer and/or employee.<< it is still a tax that comes out of wages. however, it is not "technically " a state tax or a fed'l tax and the marginal rates don't change (they may go to 0% after a certain income limit - not sure). the marginal tax rate question doesn't appear to be an issue here, though, so i see your point. >>Likewise, roads are built with gasoline taxes and/or automobile registration fees.<< are you sure no income tax ever goes toward funding roads? none? if not then you are correct and i came up with a bad analogy. >>In both examples, the notion that "Mary" should pay a higher tax rate because she "consumes" more services is FALSE. She is paying for her higher consumption through her gas taxes, car taxes, or workers' compensation taxes already!<< Also, you mentioned that at least our tax system is "equal" because everyone plays under the same rules for the same circumstances. If so, how do you explain the so-called marriage penalty? Two incomes, two people living together. If the two are married, they pay more taxes than if they are not. How is that equal?? the system is fair in the sense that it covers everyone (except congress' ss exclusion!). that doesn't mean that it can't be punitive to some groups. in this case it is punative. the thought process is that married couples can afford more due to lower expenses (ie, one rent compared to two rents). however, the "logic" gets tossed when everyone started moving in together. i'm not saying the current system is ideal. i am saying that the wealthy are pretty far down on my list when it comes to where i'm going to dole out my concern. >>No, my friend, there is nothing fair about the US tax system. IMHO, it has been created under the precept of class-envy and special interests; and there is nothing fair about that!<< i can't defend how politicians work. they are typically hacks who will whore out anything if the circumstances are right. having said that, i do not see how a graduated tax system that everyone is beholden to is necessarily based on class envy and special interests. it seems reasonable to me that the poor folks (the vast majority of whom were born into poor circumstances) should pay a lower % in tax than the wealthy. the difference is between feeding a kid and another "0" in a bank account. i vote for feeding the kid. most would if it was their kid that wasn't getting fed. so would i. it isn't my kid, though. even so, my ethics do not change with my situation. at least i try to avoid situational ethics. if the poor have it so good then you can get all those benefits, too! ;-) thanks for the thoughts and corrections. i think we agree on a lot. govt is out of control. the game has become how to get a govt subsidy instead of how to create real value and it shouldn't be like this. i agree the current tax system has its absurd points. however, on a general principle basis, i believe a reasonable graduated tax system is fair. by allowing the less fortunate (mostly due to picking their parents wrong) to get some financial breathing room they get more opportunity to improve their circumstances and eventually pay a higher tax rate (and, i'm sure, b*tch about it when they do! ;-). they also become invested in society and less likely to commit crime. this, imho, is good for society. the bottom line is that we have relied on a bubble stock and debt market in order to pay as we go. those markets are sure to crack and leave us in dire straights. even if they don't crack, we still have big challenges. i don't see the solution as letting the rich hoard even more wealth and reducing what litle amount the poor have. after all, the money has to come from somewhere and bush surely isn't going to reduce govt. too many fat cats to subsidize. i'm all for a system where everyone pays less. however, neither party has the cajones to cut back govt to reasonable levels.