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: Joe NYC who wrote (246900)	8/21/2005 10:30:00 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572171

>I said no such thing. Nothing about purposes served for any of the existing taxes So today's taxation is perfect? >You on the other hand believe in paying more taxes, more than you are legally oblicated to. No, I never said that. I said that we should be legally obligated to pay more taxes. >To this I said fine, go ahead. You can do it voluntarily. Today. Send the check to the US Treasury. Or you have a choice to give your additional money directly to your favorite purpose directly. What part of "the system won't work if not everyone participates" don't you understand? >Suddenly, when push comes to shove, you don't want to pay additional taxes unless you are compell to. Fine with me as well. That makes 2 of us. At lest we know that your "advocating" is just BS, bluff. I still don't understand how you figure. If I don't believe that a system can work if not everyone participates, then I'm not going to waste my money. Quick analogy: If I have a large object to move, but it's too big for me to move by myself, should I push it and push it and push it by myself, expending my energy, or should I recruit help? >The rest of your post is to incoherent for me to respond to. It was a bullet-pointed post. Very simple. "Conservative logic" is an oxymoron. -Z