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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (68029)	1/23/2003 2:06:52 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Answer: Introduced in 1993. It was only 28% as recently as the 80's. In between the 31 and 33 percent brackets were created." Ok. The point we were arguing is that The current Republican Administration cares only for the wealthy and not the middle class or poor. So the brackets for the wealthy were LOWERED in in the 80's And got RAISED in the 90's Which Administration was doing the lowering and the raising? "*When the new tax brackets (36 and 39.6), these horrible wealthy people were hit with 3 to 6.6% increases when middle class folks held the line."* The wealthiest Americans in the top brackets get professional help to give them specific advice to lower their adjusted gross income by understanding and using the IRCode. THe middle class and lower bracket Americans have neither this level of advice or support. Some administrations understand this dynamic and try to help restore some balance. The past Corporate scandals at Enron reveal how the big banks created "tax-advantaged-structured-finance" to characterize loans as expenses. These constructions (may) follow the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit. THe big banks thought it was such a good idea the MARKETED and sold this interpretation to other high rollers. Citibank and JPMChase took a big hit for this. Unfortunately they just considered it a cost of doing business because the penalty was peanuts compared to the money they made on the gig. Rascal@ sometimestaxpolicyissocialpolicy.com