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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack of All Trades who wrote (9019)	2/18/2003 4:14:22 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 306849

jack, when someone makes $10k a year, how much of that can be "controlled?" not much. ya gotta eat. ya gotta drive to the part time job. ya gotta spend. something to live. i'm not against a sales tax per se. but i do think its benefits need to be weighed against some things it doesn't do so well. that's where other taxes can come in and help out. btw, we would both AGREE that govt needs to stop lining their self interest pockets and wasting so much money supporting the good ole boy network with MASSIVE spending packages. that's the place to start. when we achieve balanced spending (never will happen, greed and selfishness is too strong), then the rich ought to pay more than those less well off, imho. i don't mind contributing to necessary expenditures more than someone who didn't have the advantages i had (be they genetic, environment, good fortune, choosing parents correctly to inherit wealth, whatever). makes sense to me. those with better fortune contribute more. in many ways, the more one makes, the more VALUABLE the roads become. or the street lights. or the military. after all, the rich would lose an awful lot w/o those services. the poor would lose less. i will cede there is a balance, though. the rich shouldn't be raped and pillaged. however, given they won't go on talk radio or on conservative tv and tell us what percent of wealth they actually own, i have a feeling it is b/c their "woe is me" routine really is a facade. is it unreasonable that a group that owns 50% of the stuff pay 50% of the taxes? i don't think so - even if that group happens to be small. i don't know how much they actually own, but that's b/c THEY WON'T TELL US! they won't tell us B/C THEY DON'T WANT US TO KNOW!