SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (200256)9/4/2004 5:13:24 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1574350
 
He doesn't have to. If it doesn't show the US as the highest taxed, then it is obviously wrong...

The entire argument is flawed; the Left is chronically talking about how the little guys are overtaxed and the big guys are undertaxed. Now, we have this convoluted position that the United States is undertaxed. Yet, we all know that you could confiscate all the earnings of the wealty few who are undertaxed, and still not cover our expenditures.

And we're undertaxed.

The argument is contradictory (illogical) on its face.


Stop with your backtracking, leftie accusations and your long winded explanations. Provide a link validating this statement and the numbers that follow it:

"Assuming, arguendo, that you do want to make the argument based on individual tax rates, try these":

siliconinvestor.com

We're waiting on you!



To: i-node who wrote (200256)9/4/2004 5:14:57 PM
From: combjelly  Respond to of 1574350
 
"And we're undertaxed."

Never said that. Just that the US has a lower tax burden per person than many of the other industrialized countries. Now the US also has a lower level of social services offered also. The two are probably related...



To: i-node who wrote (200256)9/4/2004 6:49:23 PM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574350
 
>Yet, we all know that you could confiscate all the earnings of the wealty few who are undertaxed, and still not cover our expenditures.

Weren't we running surpluses three-four years ago? Doesn't that, by definition, mean that we were covering our expenditures?

-Z