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 (543408)	2/20/2004 5:40:26 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<It is one of our MANY taxes>> Thank you! <<But you get it back.>> Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The first generation to receive SS paid little or nothing into the system. It's a transfer of wealth from one generation to the next. Those first retirees who never paid into the system collected from workers who were promised that in turn when they retired the next generation of workers would pay for their retirement. Also SS pays disability and death benefits. So no matter how much you say it, the government doesn't hold your money and then give it back to you. <<One of the posters said 43%. Does that work for you?>> If 43% of the nation's income is generating only 36% of the income tax, that would be a regressive tax. Do you think that's fair? That means the middle class are paying more taxes percentage wise than the amount of income they derive. <<And the ones that you seem to want to get a free ride aren't helped by the villfication of the wealthy and successful Americans.>> I haven't vilified anyone. I just think taxes should be paid in proportion to wealth. Yet for some reason i disgust you. Maybe you have a problem that you are projecting on to others? <<Most curious on how you would calculate "wealth" though if you care to explain.>> We read about people's net worth all the time. The IRS keeps such data. That's how we know and can talk about wealth distribution. Even if a flat wealth tax weren't feasible i'd expect whatever system we had to end up taxing people in approximate proportion to their wealth. The top 20% own 84% of the wealth whereas the bottom 40% own less than 1% of the nation's wealth. <<"If Socialism doesn't work, why have Bush and the Republicans just added a prescription drug benefit to LBJ's Medicare?" To get demo votes.>> And yet you're going to vote for him and i won't. What do you think that means? Steve Dietrich