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: TimF who wrote (2519)	10/11/2002 11:18:06 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

"Both would make sense as they pay most of the taxes." LOL! It is more accurate to say rather that they get most of the wealth. Also the percentage of State and local taxes they pay is much lower than the working poor who pay the highest. In Washington the dirt poor pay a 435% higher ratio for local and State taxes compared to the top 1% of income earners. I am not going to read every post which might have traded between you and Poet on taxation. I took your own characterization of the discussion as accurate, and I quoted those words to you and commented on them as they seemed most reasonably to be interpreted. I am sorry if I interpreted them incorrectly. It seems to me you have three sensible choices as to how you view Poet's comments and juxtapose them. You can really believe that Poet thinks the rich ought ALWAYS to pay a greater share of increases while ALWAYS taking a lesser benefit from tax cuts; and you may believe, 1). That this expresses a liberal hyperbole which may lead to the absurdity of the rich paying 100% of taxes. This is an absurdity because society is ruled by power and power accrues to those who control resources. And power has always demanded tribute from others--even to the time of the first priest. 2). You may believe she considers as a more likely eventuality, one which has precedence in past societies: that the rich will end up paying 100% of 2/3 of 5/8 of nothing (or "approaching" nothing if you prefer) as a result of a preponderance of absolute tax decreases over increases, or some singular societal shifting of value or need. This is at least less absurd than the proposal you have harped on because many societies have indeed been tax free; 3). Or you may believe that there was an assumed qualifier expressing something similar to this: "I believe that these should be the case so long as the working poor continue to suffer disproportionately to the rich and are sacrificed to most of their actual labour for the public weal; and to the point where normal parameters of commonsense, reason, and self interest meet to form a society which is motivated by concepts of common decency and a recogniton of interdependency" Considering that she DID, in fact, say the following...there are some cogent clues as to what is intended: "I do not support a 100% tax rate on anyone and there is no logical progression toward that. I could just as easily say that, following your logic, I could deduce that you support no taxes" Certain sentiments seem eminently sensible if one wishes to keep the gap between rich and poor at a level which will not prompt revolution and civil strife. Most people with money would understand this principle. The tax rates are set and redrawn to stay within certain parameters but always with the intention to allow loop holes to those in the know for 3 or 4 years after which they are redrawn for the same reasons. But it is important for those who are ruled to believe they are making headway from time to time. Nothing worse than an angry man holding a shovel... "I wouldn't have problem with very low tax rates for the wealthy but only if everyone's tax rates where very low" Surely, do away with roads and schools and libraries and military behemoths going off to well financed wars. Encourage the unskilled and the untrained to turn to crime as a means of survival. Turn society into a battleground between the haves and the have-nots. This has all been tried. And it didn't work under communism either... "I don't think someone has to be in enormous pain from high taxes to make tax cuts a good idea." Who said anything about enormous pain? What kind of any kind of financial pain do people making millions or billions of dollars a year endure? So what is it you think makes tax cuts a good idea? That the rich are running short of money? THAT they have reached a pain threshold? That the roads are in too good a condition or the schools have reached a point beyond mere excellence? Do you think the rich should be required to pay their fare share of state and local taxes? Do you think corporate leviathans like IBM truly deserve tax rebates after earning billions? ctj.org "Probably true. I would like to see it cut but then social security will not have enough money" Why should anyone care about that, Tim?