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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (219483)	1/17/2002 5:38:38 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

rich4eagle, The government of the United States was NOT predicated on taxes. Income taxes did not come into existence until the early 1900s. The country had been doing fine up until that time, because people took care of themselves, and didn't need, nor want, welfare. They were quite capable of handling their own welfare. Social Security was not passed until the late 1930s, or early 1940s. So for you to say that a nation must have taxes to exist, is absolutely false. Taxes only become necessary when a significant portion of the population becomes a burden, and as long as it is necessary to maintain the armed forces necessary to protect the citizens of the nation. Unfortunately, that has become a constant "must". Those that need welfare to exist would not be a must if they would get off their butts and avail themselves of, what was once, the best educational system on Earth. Crack destroys the human brain. Legalization would solve nothing, and only cause more death and destruction on the streets of America. Yes, I am biased against Socialism, because it takes away from the individual, and centers only on the prevailing government. What the other countries do has no bearing, nor are the even close to working well. If they worked at all, their citizens would not be flooding this country to find any sort of prosperity. If you cut the money needed to maintain a strong defense, your social programs will be paid in yuans, rials, or some other foreign currency, and you will have to speak the language of your conquerors to get any of it. All of your arguments lean toward taking away from the rich, and giving to the poor that are too lazy to earn it on their own. Based on that, any room for effective, or temperate, communication between you and I will soon cease.

To: rich4eagle who wrote (219483)	1/17/2002 5:38:46 PM
From: Jagfan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Welfare for the rich via tax cuts? Who do you think pays taxes????? WHO PAYS WHAT TAXES … THE LATEST The latest numbers are out … these for 1999 … on just what segment of our population pays what share of our income tax burden. As columnist Bruce Bartlett puts it, this is excellent anti-class envy material. Over the years there has been a steady progression in the shift of the responsibility for the payment of federal income taxes to high-achievers. As I have told you countless times, this is all according to the plan. The plan to shift the entire responsibility for the payment of federal income taxes to a minority of the taxpayers. This, of course, leaves the class-warfare party, the Democratic Party, free to soak the rich minority, who pay all the taxes, for the benefit of the lower and middle income majority, which pays virtually none of the income taxes. A sure vote-buying formula. OK .. here’s the latest from Bruce Bartlett’s column (linked below): For some historical reference Bartlett points out that in 1975 the top 1 percent of income earners in this country paid about 18.7 percent of all federal income taxes. Keep that figure in mind. Now .. the figures for 1999. The top 1 percent of income earners now pay 36.2 of all federal income taxes. For those of you who attended government schools, that’s over one-third. This is double their share of the tax burden from 1975. If you have any brains at all you will want to know just what share of total income this top 1 percent earned. After all, if they’re earning 36.2 percent of the income then they should be paying 36.2 percent of the income taxes. That would only be fair, wouldn’t it? Well, the fact is that this evil top 1 percent of income earners only earned 19.5 percent of the income in 1999. As Bartlett points out, their share of the income taxes exceeds their share of the income by almost 17 percent. Now for some other income-earning segments. If you’re in the 5 percent of income earners your share of the income taxes paid went from 36.6 to 55.5 percent from 1975 to 1999. The top 10 percent saw their share increase from 48.7 percent to 66.5 percent. If you’re in the top 25 percent you’re now paying 83.5 percent of the income taxes. In 1975 you paid 72 percent. How about the top half? Your share is now at 96 percent. The bottom half pays 4 percent. Guessing game. Of all the segments I mentioned above, which segment saw their share of the total income taxes paid actually go down in the last 25 years? You’re right. Only one segment. The bottom 50 percent. Another question. Which segment listed above has an income share that exceeds their share of the income taxes paid? Again, only one. The bottom 50 percent. When these figures first came out in 1975 liberal Democrats in congress denied them. They refused to believe the figures could be correct. They demanded that the Congressional Research Service develop the correct figures. After their own study was done, they found the figures were true. These figures never fail to amaze those who actually see them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in this country don’t listen to talk radio and don’t study Treasury publications. So, since these figures certainly aren’t going to be featured on ABC News or Entertainment Tonight --- most people will never know. Bottom line? The evil, hated rich most certainly are paying “their fare share” of the taxes and are richly deserving of a tax cut. Just try to say it ain’t so. boortz.com