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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (543479)	2/21/2004 12:27:31 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"You won't own up to it or discuss it." I've discussed it in detail. Why won't you lay out what your tax plan is instead of going from Fed Income tax, to FICA, to tax on wealth to a flat tax. Why do you mix these 4 things up to convelute your argument? Why not say why you think it is fair to raise the taxes on the lowest earners, which a 10% flat tax would do? I AGREE with you that a 10% flat tax is fine (you said 2 posts back "Let's say our total income for 1 year was $100 and we had a flat tax of 10%"). Then it won't be regressive or progressive. But that is not what you want, I have a feeling. "maybe you're being dishonest" There is no question that you are being dishonest (or are really stupid). Otherwise you would say what your tax plan is, and you would acknowledge that our Federal Income tax system is progressive. You must lie to make your silly argument, so it is not surprising. To prove that you are not, you must show me that ZERO percent (lowest bracket) is higher than 35% (highest bracket). Get back to me when you can do that. "I think a person's total federal tax bill should be proportionate to the percent of the nation's wealth they own." Explain how that would be done (like I previously asked), and then explain how it would be a flat tax, which you previously stated you wanted. A true flat tax would do that, but you eliminate your complaint that the low income guys are over taxed. Funny how the circmstances in your arguments change based on the point you are trying to make (poorly, I might add). "Americans who own 84% of the wealth need to come up with 84% of that $2.4 trillion, the next 20% who own 11% of the wealth should be liable for 11% of the budget, and so on down the line" And how is "wealth" measured again? Funny how you leave such important factors out. You interchange income with wealth as if it doesn't matter. Two posts ago you said "I'm talking about income taxes here". I have a feeling that you are smart enough to know the difference between the two (although I am not sure). You are either dumb or dishonest about it. What happens when someone makes $100,000 a year, but blows it at all the track? He has no "wealth" and gets rewarded for his idiocy by paying NO taxes? You are a dishonest fool trying to trick dumb people with your babbling.