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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (209428)	10/30/2004 7:26:22 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574683

Amy, If raising taxes generates a good economy with an improved stock market, that'll make people a lot happier. Historically this has never been the case. Buffett isn't "pro-taxes," as you suggest, but more for a rearranging of the current tax code structure. Hence his opposition to Prop. 13, but he forgot that this is what keeps most of the California's middle class from getting screwed over by real estate speculation. LOL. Wait. Just ten years ago, CA got screwed over big time when its housing bubble burst. Trust me, when I tell you Prop. 13 is no protection. Don't worry yet. There are still ways to hide money in trusts. Think about that. "Taxing the rich" has almost always ended up screwing everyone else, and the rich remain rich. There is a message in there for you. Too bad you're not listening very hard. ;~) ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (209428)	11/1/2004 1:41:50 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574683

Tenchusatsu, RE: "Historically this has never been the case." You could be very correct - I haven't looked into it. On a different note, I do know that a balance between teh Parties has historically proven to be the best for our deficit - because they restrain each other's spending. It's dangerous to have a majority Congress be of the same Party as the President. It's a prelude to big spending. But what I believe is a balanced budget, regardless of how painful it is to the economy in the short-term. I'm in it for the long-term, not the short-term. I bet you didn't know that during Carter's period, he created the best financial debt to GDP ratio in I believe 50 years. That period a lot of pain for people - but back then, people took their pain, they didn't push it out into the future to the next generation. I like that style better. A balanced budget is very important, to avoid rising inflation or devaluation of the dollar. The Feds are already warning the dollar will have a "small" adjustment downward due to the deficit and foreign countries less than happy with our debt (they are 28% of our buyers per this article): Message 20706026 "NY Fed Says Slower Central Bank Buying of U.S. Assets Would Hit Dollar, Interest Rates" RE: "Think about that. "Taxing the rich" has almost always ended up screwing everyone else, and the rich remain rich." If your point is that Congress abuses bracket creep, I would agree with you. i.e. AMT was designed to target rich people hiding money various investment instruments and "entities", but it wacks the middle class and Congress conveniently looks the other way while they collect a guaranteed $100,000/year annual pension without paying a cent of their taxes towards social security. I kid you not. Regards, Amy J