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: Road Walker who wrote (283296)	4/7/2006 1:03:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573130

Apparently you point is that you think the rich should pay higher taxes. That isn't really strongly related to the idea that the rich should not benefit more from tax cuts than everyone else. In fact if the rich had higher tax rates, then the degree that they would benefit from any future across the board tax cut would increase. re: If increases hits cost the rich more than the poor or middle class than cuts should help the rich more. Either that or you have a choice between 1 - Taxes almost never changing, or 2 - Taxes for the rich staying on a continually increasing trend until eventually they reach 100% or you decide that its ok for tax cuts to help out the rich more than everyone else. That's crap, a straw man. Its the logical consequence of insisting that that the rich benefiting more from a tax cut is always wrong. Ted's initial post which started this seemed to imply that he felt that way. When I challenged that idea you defended it. Taxes on the rich are decreasing. The percentage of tax income paid by the rich has been increasing. Marginal rates are lower than they where before Reagan, but they are higher than they where during Reagan's term and not much lower than they where under Clinton. Also there has been a strong trend to remove the poor from the tax roles. Quite a few of them pay no net income tax, either having no income tax liability, or getting it back in EITC. Taxes %'s have decreased dramatically for the rich in the last 30 years. No they have not. the rich make their money from the labor of the middle and lower class. Many of the near rich and slightly rich make their money from their own labor. These are also the people who typically pay the highest effective tax rates. The super rich pay for the labor of those who make them wealthy, either directly, or through investment which provides capital to people who generate the wealth, (or if they just inherited it the people they inherited it from generated their wealth this way). You want to tax the poor past subsistence Not at all. The poor often pay no net income tax. If they do pay income tax they don't pay a lot. I am not supporting any tax increase for the poor. The point that I am making isn't "tax the poor more", or even "tax the rich less". Its that tax rates go up and down, when they go up they hit the rich harder in terms of how much extra dollars they pay, so when they go down they should help the rich more in the same terms. Anything else causes every cycle to result in a tax increase for the wealthy and likely even for the upper middle class. Tim