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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (2239)	10/6/2002 1:49:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

No Poet my statements where for low taxes, that doesn't mean no taxes. Similarly any claim you make supporting the idea of high taxes would not logically have to extend to 100% taxes, what does lead logically to 100% taxes is the fact that you have said that it is wrong for most of any tax cut to go to the rich while it is not wrong for most of tax increases to go to the very rich. As taxes go up and down if most of the tax cut doesn't go to the rich then eventually taxes would approach 100%. Thats why I asked if you would feel this way whatever the economic conditions or tax rate. You indicated that you would still feel this way. I didn't even think you would support 100% tax rates before you said you do not. But if you do not support 100% tax rates (and presumably not near 100% tax rates) then you have to support most of at least some tax cuts going to the rich. You might only feel this way if the top federal tax rate is over 50% or maybe over 70%, but at some point the rich have to get a solid benefit from tax cuts if they are to avoid passing all their income over to the government. Tim