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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (6931)	3/21/2004 9:24:57 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

>>> The wealthy pay more in taxes percentage wise, why not have a bigger tax break for them? Remember, it's not the government's money, it belongs to the people who earned it themselves...<<< Sure, if you're wealthy and you get a bigger tax break, you can take that tax savings and place it in tax-protected investment environments, or you can use that money to expand your business by outsourcing into cheaper labor markets--all of which means that the tax savings the wealthy get would be used for them to personally make more money. This doesn't help the economy. And you do agree that America is best when it has a strong economy, don't you? Now the tax break the small folks get from the federal government ends up being no tax break at all, as the now-constrained federal government funds state and city governments less and less; thus, there is more taxation on the state and local level on the small folk. Hence, no gain! Meaningful long-term jobs creation is the only way to pump up the economy, not short-term tax breaks that primarily benefit the rich. It is the person whose holding that job who is going to take the money from that job and spend and spend and spend into the economy, thereby causing a need for more products and services. How do you reconcile the tremendous imbalance as described below: endgame.org

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (6931)	3/21/2004 12:28:25 PM
From: blue red	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Can you back up your explanation? I doubt you can... I've now gotten it from multiple sources, starting with the Washington Post. Kennedy explained it once again on Meet the Press this morning. If you want me to track it down for you, I'd like a quid pro quo. You will correct anyone who again accuses Kerry of "flip-flopping" on the $87 billion, and you will concede outright that Bush distorted the truth in his ad. The wealthy pay more in taxes percentage wise, why not have a bigger tax break for them? Remember, it's not the government's money, it belongs to the people who earned it themselves... Nonsense. It's the government's money. You don't get services free from corporations. When you buy a car, you don't call the money you paid Chrysler "your" money -- it's Chrysler's. The CAR is yours. But you want marvelous benefits like paved streets, medical research, national defense, poor children not eating dog food, homeland security, cops and firemen, safe food and drugs, free from the government. The wealthy pay a higher percentage of taxes -- and get a higher proportion of government benefits, too. Air travel, for example, is overwhelmingly used by the affluent. The rich use it at will, the middle class rations it, and the poor never get in a plane. Air cargo goes to those who can afford the products it carries, the affluent far more than others. All air transportation owes its existence to government-financed airports, air traffic controllers, safety investigative agencies, federal safety regulations, military jets patrolling the skies, federal security personnel at airports, federal marshals on planes....and federal bailouts to airlines, $13 billion recently. All this disproportionately benefits the affluent. I could give you many examples of benefits paid for by everyone but disproportionately used by the wealthy. They just want a free ride on the rest of us. Spoiled babies.