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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (14099)	5/10/2001 9:04:37 PM
From: Chris J. Horne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

re: "do you agree that if a group of people own about 60% of the stuff that it isn't unreasonable they should pay about 60% of the taxes?" The people who own 10% of the stuff pay 60% of the taxes. I think this is as it should be. However, when it comes time to reduce the taxes, those that pay the most should get the biggest reduction. Those that pay no taxes should not get a handout as part of the tax reduction. The benefit of tax reduction should be proportional to the amount of tax paid.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (14099)	5/11/2001 10:14:41 AM
From: Follies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

do you agree that if a group of people own about 60% of the stuff that it isn't unreasonable they should pay about 60% of the taxes? You are raising an interesting question. Is society better served if taxation is a percentage of assets and not a percentage of income as it is currently? Real Estate is currently taxed this way, however here in California, the amount is locked in at time of purchase. As prices rise (because of government induced inflation) property tax bills would rise. I am sure there are many retirees who would lose their houses because as their income goes down their asset (home) is rising requiring more taxes every year, but never mind that. How many small businesses, the back bone of our economy, would be able to get started and grow when each year a percent of the business would be confiscated regardless of whether the business grew or not. Venture Capitalists would be chomping at the bit, NOT! I see nothing fair or beneficial in taxing assets.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (14099)	5/11/2001 10:52:13 AM
From: Follies	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

I forgot fat cat farmers with 5 million dollars farms who have a couple of drought years and no income, of course they should have to cough up part of that farm each year. What do you think would happen to the savings rate if your savings were taxed every year? Gee I just got a bonus from work, should I blow it all in Vegas and not pay any taxes on it or should I save it and pay taxes on it every year? Therein lies the fallacy of liberalism and class envy. It doesn't work, it sounds good like a ponzi scheme, but when you examine the full consequences, it just doesn't work.