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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (358443)	2/12/2003 9:14:46 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

And who brought you the system where payroll taxes soak the lower income earners? The democrat party, that's who. Taking the little guy, as usual.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (358443)	2/12/2003 9:17:07 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Very Reaganesque -- lower the income-taxes for everyone and increase the payroll taxes. Since payroll taxes are levied even on the first dollar of earnings, whatever "benefit" the poor get by lowered income-taxes are more than taken away by the increased payroll taxes. And since there is an upper-limit on the earnings for payroll taxes, the rich end up paying lower taxes overall. In the meantime, social security surpluses are included in the general revenues and replaced by worthless IOUs...

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (358443)	2/12/2003 10:39:00 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks for posting the stats. I was being conservative because I was going from memory and did not want to look foolish if I was off by a bit. But I have a problem with: "The problem with this, as we all know is that it doesn't include the most egregious of all taxes, payroll taxes, which inappropriately soak the poor and middle class" Why are they "egregious", and how do they "soak" people iyo? Most payroll taxes are SS, which is matched by the employer and which the individual gets back in retirement. The purpose of this is to ensure that the less thrifty will have something when their working years are gone, and is put in place for their protection. Is it your belief that the wealthy and the employer should put money aside and the poor get this benefit for free? What do the libs hope to teach by redistributing the wealth like that? I just don't get it. Note the wealthy pay more into these than the poor becuase you pay into SS with your 1st $90,000 (approximate), and I think you now pay medicaid for ALL income. Obviously if you make $1,000,000 a year you pay less in SS as a percentage, but you still add more into the the system so it works for others. The liberal position on taxes seems very greedy to me. If you eliminate payroll taxes for lower income that means that many people would pay nothing at all in taxes. Do you suggest that they get no benefit in retirement, or is it strictly a forced income distribution that you desire?