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: Srexley who wrote (542771)	2/19/2004 3:27:34 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769669

Srexely, I don't believe economics or math are your strong points. Let me try to make this simple. We don't tax PER-PERSON, we tax PER DOLLAR EARNED. If you don't believe in progressive taxation, you should at least believe that we should each pay a flat rate share of EACH DOLLAR WE EARN. When you ask how much the top 1% should fairly pay, the answer is that they should at least pay their proportionate share. That means that if they earn 43% of the dollars earned in this country, they should pay 43% of the taxes for the country. If, by some chance, you believe that greatest among us should bear some of the tax burden for the least among us, then those can afford to pay should carry some of the taxes of those that go to bed hungry. In that event the top 1%, and the rest of us that can afford it, should pay slightly more than their percentage of earnings. The way it works right now, the middle class is paying a share of taxes for those who cannot afford it, AND ALSO PAYING A SHARE OF THE TAXES OF THOSE WHO ARE WEALTHY BEYOND BELIEF. That's why some our wealthiest citizens have derided the latest tax cuts as fundamentally unfair to working people. Got it? As far as your claim that I "lied" when I said that; "It was purely and simply a restructuring to reward and perpetuate the wealth of the few at the cost of the middle class," do a little thinking. You can't point to the nominal rates on the "new" tax tables to reveal the truth. The nominal rates have gone down. There is, however, another variable which you are forgetting; the national deficit. When the national deficit goes up, your share of that debt increases in proportion TO YOUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF TAXES. Your proportionate share of taxes WENT UP, because the share of the poor went down more than yours did, and BECAUSE THE SHARE OF THE RICH WENT DOWN MORE THAN YOURS DID. Can you understand that the REAL COST OF GOVERNMENT, to you, is the amount you pay and the amount of the deficit that is your share? By that accounting you had a dramatic tax increase and the middle class' share of that increase was disproportionately large. In other words, as a result of the tax "cut," you will, over the next years, be required to pay MORE than you would have paid if taxes had remained unchanged. The poor will be required to pay less and, AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, the RICH WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY LESS. It's good of you to worry so much about those that make over $200,000 a year though. It shows great compassion and the kind of humanity that fueled the Catholic Church and most of our most successful politicians. But then, friend of the Cheney's of the world, I ask myself; "Why do they laugh at people like you when your back is turned?"