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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4372)	1/29/2003 5:16:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 25898

This is utter nonsense. The rich do not pay the most taxes. Your first sentence is true if it is meant to refer to the second sentence. The rich pay the majority of total taxes even including social security taxes. The actual proposed cut is in incomes taxes where the rich pay a lot more then the non-rich. Not just more as an absolute amount (which would itself be enough to support the true statement that the rich pay the most taxes) but also a higher percentage. If you want to change the social security taxes as well feel free to post your plan. But even if you include social security taxes the rich pay more then the non rich both as a percentage and even more so as an absolute amount. Tim

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4372)	1/29/2003 6:42:59 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Thank you for that... It's clear that the bogus statistic of the rich paying more taxes is never compared with how much more of the nation's wealth the rich are rewarded as income. And if that is further compared as a percentage of discretionary income, it's off the charts. I'm against raising taxes, but when lowering them there should be an eye towards what boosts the economy, as well as what is fair to those who make this economy run. BTW, re: making a dividend exclusion on personal recipients, rather than the more sensible corp deduction on dividends, the designated Heritage lackey "expert" made a quick propaganda response yesterday - he said "I'm not sure, but I'd guess it's due to the difficulty of making corps keep track of who's dividends are taxable and who's aren't. It would be a nightmare for co's to keep track of that". A transparently bogus answer. It's always the recipient's responsibility to declare revenues, whether taxable or not, etc., and never the company's, who would simply issue dividends, and deduct them from profits like any other expense. The thing about it was the smiley, toothy way in which this blatant lie was fabricated on the spot, and how accepted it was by the rest of the panel (which included the redoubtable Mr. Perle, warning us of the necessity of the automated US-sponsored Nintendo megadeaths, in various places around the world).