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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (354135)	2/5/2003 3:38:21 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

This shortfall of revenue is mostly due to the massive tax cuts in the higher brackets and not from reduced income of the wealthier earners. The tax burden has fallen on the wage slaves who are paying into FICA more than those who have stocks An outright lie. The Bush tax cut has increased the tax burden on upper income taxpayers....

To: TigerPaw who wrote (354135)	2/5/2003 3:39:54 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

RE: Message 18539795 Perentage wise, it's not even close to a record deficit. BTW, did you forget we had an unusual day on 9/11/01. Caused us some extra expenses!

To: TigerPaw who wrote (354135)	2/5/2003 3:42:16 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Unless FICA is reduced....impacting SMALL BUSINESS DIRECTLY IN THEIR POCKETS....the deficits will MOUNT and the economy will continue to be on the backs of lower income peoples while the RICH ARE REWARDED FOR NOTHING CC

To: TigerPaw who wrote (354135)	2/5/2003 3:47:08 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I didn't notice that FICA rates went up. Since when?? Perhaps you have your tax terminology confused. I wouldn't be surprised given your general level of confusion. Where's the equity in someone who earns more in having to pay out a greater percentage of that income than the next guy? He/she would already be paying more tax if the rates were the same. What's the moral justification for punishing acheivers, and rewarding those who have little or no net positive impact to the economy??? ~SB~