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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (29531)	2/14/2004 10:51:04 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793931

"There was no need for tax cuts at the high end. Instead, he should have addressed the two key problems in America today: the lack of national health care, and tort reform, in conjunction with introducing a national value added tax to pay for the war and national health care. " There are many ways to skin a cat and i dont doubt your alternative may be another valid way to accomplish our shared goals. But your way would never pass, and the bush tax cuts did. As far as the rates go, they are back where bill bradley put them back in 1986. Rate reductions at high levels, dividend relief, end of marriage penalty, were big deals for the economy and although some may laugh, things do trickle down. Having said that, i would be for a surtax which would largely affect high end earners to pay for the wars/homeland defense. For instance a 10% surtax on taxes paid. The rich guy who has 100k in taxes gets a $10k bill. The poor guy who pays $1000 has $100. That tax on the wealthy would give impetus to moving to a saner fiscal policy as well. mike