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 (571305)	5/3/2004 7:36:59 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

"How can you keep claiming the bottom would pay more under a flat tax system when you know that's not true?" I don't claim that when the caveat that you have inserted here is included in the plan. In a true flat tax, they would pay more. Because these people have proposed that, does not change the definition of flat. But I will agree that the lower guys should be exempt. How low do they exempt to? Are they all the same? The current level is about the bottom 1/3 pay no fed INCOME tax. I know the pay FICA, so let's not go there. No Income tax is a good enough break imo. Giving them a cost free retirement plan goes too far. I believe for the most part that everybody in a society should contribute. "Do you really support this sort of fiscal irresponsibility we have going on?" I don't have nearly as gloomy picture of our future as you do. I think the debt load on America compared to our GDP is reasonable. I also think we are at war, and they are expensive. Tax cuts help the economy, but temporarily hurt the deficit. Without the cuts, the recession would have lasted longer, and we would still have big deficits. "why not just pay part of your bills every month. Sure your debt will go up" Most Americans have debt, and my educated guess (although I am not an expert) is that most countries carry debt too. Your statement above is kind of silly.