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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (38866)	8/23/2005 1:35:02 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

1894 ? but it was repealed the following year.... Anyone who thinks it was better in the old days should consider the 1890s. Tax debates in that pivotal era were bitter and unpleasant. Opponents of the nascent federal income tax -- enacted by Congress in 1894 but overturned the following year by a hostile Supreme Court -- indulged their rhetorical fancies. "In a republic like ours," declared Sen. John Sherman, "where all men are equal, this attempt to array the rich against the poor or the poor against the rich is socialism, communism, devilism." how about stupidism... -g besides.... the real issue is not the existence of taxes... i am willing to accept certain government functions, and even further, so long the $$$ is well managed and the execution of tasks are done properly... i would pay it w/o problem but waht really happens today ? i mean government wants to be (or rather forces its way) into most anything... and then there is the issue of $$$ management in terms of the management of it in itself and also in the so called pork barrel programs that are insane... there is not enough money in the WORLD to apease politicians... if they get MORE... then they will WANT EVEN MORE next time around [because they probably mis-spent-it-all].... my point is.... why is it that people accept as default that one must pay 'a fair share' when it is plain to see that they are robbing us all blind.... who gives a flying f*k if anyone in particular gets richer? the real question should be what are the functions government ought to pay for, how sensible the tasks and $$$ are allocated and so on.... if anyone in particular is smart enough to become super wealthy such act i itself is NO JUSTIFICATION for the pathetic cry.... "tax the rich" the questions: FOR WHAT REASON and HOW IS THE CURRENT $$$ BEING MANAGED are far more important.... anyway... it is senseless to argue this as quite frankly unless the scumbag politicians become 'illuminati' and hopefully honest... [which will never happen]... what's the point... a dream i know i will never see in my lifetime... so all of the above is rubbish as it will never happen... so back to using loopholes... -lmao [if you ask me... put a national lottery and a sales tax (say 10%) with such combo you will get enough revenue to pay for most services common sense would dictate... then again... politicians have no common sense, so what's the point] done with the soap box b.s