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: JBTFD who wrote (533323)	1/31/2004 5:11:09 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Just worth noticing. You are as hard- headed as libertarians who think it is practically immoral to be taxed at all, and that it is at best a necessary evil to be treated grudgingly. Only you inappropriately moralize about "equity", as if there were some objective formula for distributing the tax burden, and it was obviously being violated. Of course it makes sense to tax the rich more, but that would occur even under a single- rate plan, since 20% of a million dollars is a lot more than 20% of 50K. It even makes sense to discount for lower income levels, and therefore have different marginal rates, on the thesis that those with lower levels of income need a break, and the shortfall is easily made up with somewhat higher marginal rates. But there is nothing that says that the rich must be subject to a particular marginal rate, and it is arguably immoral to have their aggregate taxes exceed 50%, which would be confiscatory. Only if there is a correct answer to the equity question that is being violated can it be a matter of equity. Anyway, your response shows that you have no reasonable argument for your position, but are merely emotionally committed to it........