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: Peter Dierks who wrote (702499)	9/19/2005 6:13:17 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You are lying. I have NEVER 'stated that'. And, in principle, although it is mathematically impossible in any system with MORE THEN ONE TAX, or more then one level of jurisdiction that levels taxes, to avoid the fact that dollars are siphoned through more then one tax sieve... in principle I believe that FLATTER TAX SYSTEMS (thus: lower levels of tax accessment) are highly desirable. That explains my strong support for a FLAT TAX SYSTEM. Re: "When a dollar is earned by a corporation you want to tax the income there." Only because corporations ARE 'individuals' under US law... and have been for nye-on a century now. Thus, a flat tax on income should apply equally to them, as well as to any other individual. "When a portion of the remainder is distributed to the stockholder you want to tax it again." Again, I believe that ALL INCOME (from ALL SOURCES) should be subject to a flat tax on income... and the DEDUCTION properly belongs to the corporation that is PAYING OUT the dividends. (This was recommended to Bush by his economics advisors, but he WIMPED OUT because of the expense of giving corporations this tax deduction.) "When the stockholder dies, you want to use her/his lack of respiration as an excuse to tax the income a third time." No. The change in ownership of the asset is what defines 'income'... so this would meet the definition for 'income'. As to WHY I support a 'reasonable' estate tax, on VERY LARGE ESTATES ONLY, as opposed to higher taxes on the middle classes: In my opinion, the demonstrable good of preventing the emergence of an ever more plutocratic society (often near-synonymous in history with degeneracy, and with lower levels of national strength and lower levels of innovation, and national freedoms) are far better arguments for maintaining a reasonable level of taxation on the inheritance of very LARGE levels of accumulated wealth... as opposed to the greater harm and the lesser good that would be visited upon society by higher levels of taxation upon income or upon consumption... or upon the working, productive, middle classes of America... which has long been one of the shining lights of our society. and the backbone of our Democracy. In short, if we assume that government must have some resources to function... then more good and less harm is accomplished with a carefully designed tax on very large estates then with equivalent higher taxes on the remaining 99%+ of society.