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 (571412)	5/3/2004 8:21:19 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<A flat tax to me means that everybody pays the same rate. If I say that to Stevey, he calls me a liar. I suspect you will too. If it is truly flat, and EVERYBODY who makes income pays THE SAME RATE, the American public would not go for it because it would hurt the poor and help the rich. I would agree with the American public.>> You're a liar all right. Look what you said in this post: Message 19832124 If it is eliminate FICA and charge 10% on INCOME across the board, I would support you in a heartbeat. Do you consider lying to be okay? You have no credibility left. Steve Dietrich

To: Srexley who wrote (571412)	5/3/2004 8:26:30 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: A flat tax to me means that everybody pays the same rate. If I say that to Stevey, he calls me a liar. I suspect you will too. >>> Nope. That's what I mean too: all income --- from whatever source --- gets taxed at the exact same rate. If it is truly flat, and EVERYBODY who makes income pays THE SAME RATE, the American public would not go for it because it would hurt the poor and help the rich. >>> I disagree. I, for one, believe they would support it... because it (and: elimination of nearly all loopholes) would restore fairness and equity to the system of funding government. I would agree with the American public. >>> So, you finally come out from hiding: you would not support it, while I gladly would. Sorry if that is offensive to you. >>> What are you talking about? Now if you want to put a SPECIFIC flat tax plan on the board for all to analyze I will comment on it. But you need to state any exemptions (oops, its not flat anymore), >>> I support an exception for a family home, and a charitable deduction. Period. (I'm somewhat flexible on the details for that... just so long as the flat tax is accomplished, and other loopholes are eliminated.) and you need to say WHAT THE RATE IS. >>> The lower the better! Say, we start with the present funding needs of the government, eliminate the loopholes, and set the initial rate at whatever is required to raise the necessary funds (minus all the loopholes - the rate will be far lower then the average rate now). >>> Preferably, we could set it at even a little lower still, because we would expect far greater overall economic growth (& thus: tax revenue) as a result of two factors: 1) the near total elimination of the tax compliance costs (hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy... individuals and corporations... for each year right now), and 2) the higher productivity and growth we would naturally expect from removing all the artificial economic decisions made solely to capture special tax advantages. With the economy making decisions for only economic interests, not for narrow or counter-productive tax benefit, the efficiency and productivity of the economy would be much greater. Otherwise you will continue to look like a dolt, and I will continue to point it out. >>> If there are any 'dolts' here, I'd argue that it's you arguing for an FDR-style 'Liberal' 'progressive' tax code... along with attendant massively expensive and complicated and corrupting 'special interest tax items' (aka, 'loopholes').