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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (155320)	11/27/2002 11:20:11 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1579276

Right now, a person making under the minimum for a family 4 pays zero in income taxes That's only half of it. Not only do they pay zero income taxes, they get a TAX REFUND as a result of the Earned Income Credit. Furthermore, a good number of these people receive FREE healthcare (my family's costs me a good $1,500 a month). And they may well receive some form of compensation in the form of food stamps and other giveaways. I'm not saying I begrudge these people one thing (although, the EIC provisions are, in my experience, one of the most abused provisions in all the tax code -- much more so than the deduction for Intangigle Drilling & Development Costs, for example), but let's be clear -- when we say they pay "zero" taxes, in many instances we really mean they receive a tax refund in excess of what they paid in.

To: hmaly who wrote (155320)	11/27/2002 4:22:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579276

Ted Re...Of course, the rich would say that this system is unfair. Its unbelievable to me.....you want people making 20k a year to pay the same proportion of taxes as the guy making 250k per year while simultaneously paying all their own expenses including health insurance. That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. No one, even the most ardent republican suggested that a person making 20k should pay as much as a person making 200 k. Right now, a person making under the minimum for a family 4 pays zero in income taxes. So of course, any tax cut would give a rich person a far bigger percentage. The dems problem is that most people realise this, and so far have refused to fall for that line. Secondly, it is apparent the dems want to keep the taxes high on the rich so the dems can afford to re-instate welfare programs for the poor; the very same programs Bill cut, and actually weren't missed. Also, if the dems wanted another welfare program, why not just pass a bill to re-instate some programs for the poor,and pass a bill to raise taxes to pay for it. The dems had a majority in the senate. If the dems were so sincere, and so sure it is the right thing to do; Why the misrepresentation? Because a majority of people agreed with cutting back on welfare, even a lot of the previous recepients would agree they were better off. The dems had no chance in hell of passing another welfare program and the taxes to pay for it. Another misrepresentation was Daschle's insistence that making the tax cut permanent was another new tax cut, and wasn't just a continuation of the old tax cut. Technically he might have been right, but it sounded like it was a continuation, and everybody assumed he was lying again. Has it ever dawned on the conservative brain that this is not some insidious plot on the part of the DEMs to tax the rich to death. After all, many of the right on this thread have pointed out endlessly that many DEMs are rich. The simple truth is that someone making 20k doesn't have the excess money to pay taxes. And it is a simple truth that the right massages and manipulates in their heads until the people making 20k turn into these devious, parasitic trash that are out to screw the system, and the Dems serve as their pimps. Well, let me tell you......its more of the right wing's BS spin designed to help them get over the guilt of cheating on their taxes and to justify their 24/7 whining and complaining. Well, go for it but don't be surprised when our homeless population increases dramatically. Come to think of it wasn't that one of Reagan's more ridiculous solutions to our problems........he cut off aid to institutions and hospitals. The result was the release of thousands of patients, increasing our crime rate and doubling our homeless population almost over nite. Another major representation. The simple fact is that the ACLU, that famous bastion of liberalism, forced the release of thousands of people by filing suit against those institutions for holding people against their will. The supreme court agreed with the ACLU because the laws in place gave a person the right to deny treatment; and a lot of the mentally deficient did not agree to be institutionalized. Once again, the dems controlled the house and senate at that time, and could easily have passed a law making it legal to institutionalize people against their will. As usual, the dems didn't have the panache to do so, and would rather throw rocks, than actually do what was right. Is that what Reagan said? Do you believe everything they tell you? ted