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 (565321)	4/15/2004 10:23:33 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Which would you rather be, in the top 1% and pay 38%, or in the bottom 40% and pay 0.2%.. I'd take the top 1%, how about you?

To: Srexley who wrote (565321)	4/16/2004 3:05:15 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<What's funny is that you advocate it, even though you have no idea.>> I think Switzerland has some kind of wealth tax, and property tax is a wealth tax. On the other hand you want a flat 10% income tax and you have no idea whether it could raise the kind of money Bush and the Republicans want to spend. Do you think it's funny you advocate it even though you have no idea if it would work? And besides, i've said many times, it doesn't have to be a wealth tax, it's just a metric to see if people are paying their so called fair share. <<Can't you see the dis-incentive for this plan?>> Every tax is a disincentive. Our income taxes are a disincentive to earn income. Property taxes are a disincentive to own property. Sales taxes are a disincentive to buy things. A wealth tax would be a disincentive to hoard wealth. Why do you think taxing income is a less harmful disincentive than taxing wealth would be? Remember if we had a flat wealth tax, there would be no income tax, none. Steve Dietrich