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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (682339)	5/17/2005 1:43:54 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"If you are committed to using actuarial principals there are only two ways to balance an equation. Either you increase the lesser, or decrease the greater." Of course. And, as I pointed out, there are innumerous ways to achieve either of these. Actually, I just saw the statement. You have not proposed any of the alternatives. Either we owe future generations responsibility or we do not. For example, if we do not oe the future responsibility with their retirement funds we have taxed, then do we owe them responsibility for the environment? We could just pollute the planet to unihabitability at a much lower cost than our current course. It is no more robbing the future than promising retirement funds and then stealing the money for current retirees. "The Death Tax is immoral and must be abolished completely. There is nothing else to say about the death tax." ALL TAXES are 'immoral', by definition. That is a Libertarian philosophy. The reason Death Tax is completely immoral is because the money has already been taxed multiple times. The money was taxed through at least one earnings cycle. To tax the same income twice is immoral.