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

To: i-node who wrote (200270)	9/4/2004 7:30:44 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574491

>Forget, it wasn't important. But who, exactly, are you wanting to increase taxes on? Whomever we have to. But, I don't think it's as much as you'd think, especially if we raise the age of eligibility for Social Security to 70. But, if 2% of our population makes $200,000+ (which I believe is the correct figure), and we're not taxing anything over $85K for Social Security, then there's PLENTY of opportunity there to fill the gaps. -Z

To: i-node who wrote (200270)	9/4/2004 7:36:36 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574491

re: Think about it. You guys want the wealthy to pay more, but in reality, you can't affect the budget in any substantial way by increasing rates on the wealthy. But cutting taxes on the wealthy, as Bush did, improves the budget? If you look at the polls, the middle class is consistently willing to pay higher taxes to balance the budget. They are more sensible than our politicians; they understand that in the long run the country and it's citizens will be more wealthy without debt. John