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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (117296)	5/31/2005 1:52:38 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793719

We are in agreement....It's just the politicans who I believe are off kilter...As I "asserted" before, we can't get a straight answer out of any of them. The Democrats have said for many years, that the "rich" should pay more. That is precisely why I have wanted to know what the Dems (and Repubs as well) define as "rich"..... Go back on the Motley Fools link I posted and you will see what groups making more than $79,000 (in 1997) are paying what percentage of the Fed Income Tax.....(in 1997, people making more than $79,000 paid nearly 70% of the total US Fed Income Tax...) My personal definition of those who could pay more, are the wealthy folks who continually talk about being anti-tax cuts for the wealthy, and who are pro-the Death Tax...Buffett, Gates Sr, Kennedy, Kerry, many in Hollywood who are so vocal, etc....If their income is greater than $500,000 from ALL sources, then yes, they should pay more. If their income is over $2,000,000 from ALL sources, they should pay a LOT more. Of course, eventually, there will be no new companies started, and not as much charity money to toss around.....