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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2190)	10/18/2003 12:40:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

" And since the rich pay most of the taxes around here, overall tax receipts fell dramatically in 2001 -- and are estimated in the federal budgeting process to keep on falling in 2002 and 2003 -- hence the forecasted deficits. The chart tells the story -- tax receipts are falling while GDP has continued to rise. In fact, since the top in 2000, individual tax receipts have fallen by over 23% -- and there sure hasn't been any 23% tax cut in effect since 2000. And Social Security tax receipts continue to rise, indicating that it's not a matter of overall unemployment." Individual tax receipts most likely are down because revenues for small business owners and self employed individuals are down. I know......I'm one of them. Most would never be put in the category I call rich. In the context of mentioning the fact that the income of the rich fell which was the biggest reason for the budget shortfall. You said - " No, and its not a matter of GDP. That's just one metric. Besides, there's the matter of Bush and the GOP spending like there's no tomorrow. And Iraq is a prime recipient." I replied - "True but its the biggest one." Is that what you meant.......the biggest one or not the biggest one? If its the former, it doesn't make sense. In other words that the reduction in taxes paid by wealthy people due to their reduction in income was the biggest reason for the deficit. Is it due to the reduction in income or is it due to the tax cuts? And is it really the wealthy or is it a combo of the wealthy, small businessowners, self employed, etc? Then you said "No, it isn't. Nearly a third of the deficit next year is due to Bush's spending in Iraq." The second sentence. "Nearly a third of the deficit next year is due to Bush's spending in Iraq", is in a sense true, but its also misleading. The first sentence "No, it isn't" is just flat out false. Also the 2nd sentence is irrelevant to the 1st but is presented as an argument for the first. The point is that Bush's spending in Iraq coupled with his tax cuts.....both of which were initiated by him.......are responsible for a good portion of next year's deficit. I don't hate them.....not at all......but I've known enough of them to know how they think. You think they think in one particular way??? We've disagreed over this issue before.......most of the wealthy in this country inherit their wealth. They tend to act as if its nobless oblige....that they are entitled; to whit, the Hilton daughters, the Bush daughters, some of the Kennedy spawn, etc. I'd rather that their money be spent on food for the starving than on another plane, SUV or ski weekend at Vail. The sad part is your need to defend these people! They hardly need to be defended. ted

To: TimF who wrote (2190)	10/19/2003 12:52:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

<font color=green>Maybe we need AA for short people...........<font color=black> ***************************************************** heraldsun.news.com.au When taller equals fatter pay packet Douglas Hanks 20oct03 FEELING shortchanged on salary? It could be because you're short. Offering a new and much more literal measuring stick for the corporate glass ceiling, a University of Florida study says tall people earn better pay than short people. Each inch, the report said, adds $783 a year to someone's income. The study, released this week, concluded height matters more in determining income than gender. Tall people beat short people on job evaluations and even fare better on seemingly objective measures, like sales performance. Researchers say the advantages probably come from an inclination to respect tall people and to view them as successful. Apparently, people look up to people they have to look up to. "It's kind of an implicit bias people have," said Timothy Judge, the six-foot-tall (183cm) University of Florida business professor who wrote the study with a six-foot two-inch colleague at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Mr Judge likes to quantify the role human nature plays in the business world, often confirming conventional wisdom. He once published a paper that concluded smart people make the best workers and criticized firms for not conducting IQ tests when screening applicants. He began exploring height's impact on salaries after seeing a news report on a police officer who said she was denied raises for being short. Mr Judge wondered if she had a point. He joined Chapel Hill professor Daniel Cable in analysing four large surveys in the United States and Britain that tracked thousands of people for a number of years and recorded myriad details from their lives. In previous research, Mr Judge found tall and short people were equals when it came to intelligence and self-esteem, leaving height as the main culprit in salary gaps. The average height for men in the US is 175cm; for women, just over 160cm. Mr Judge found height helped most with jobs requiring social interaction, like sales, but short people also earned less in solitary careers like computer programming. Apparently experience doesn't help, either. Short people in their 40s had the same disadvantage as short people in their 20s. Part of the unequal treatment may be instinctive. Mr Judge said the earliest humans probably viewed height as an advantage when it came to survival. But those advantages, he said, had no place in the modern world. "I don't think you'll ever find a job description that says an applicant has got to be tall," Mr Judge said. "The fact that it's weighed in an employment situation is kind of troubling." The Miami Herald.