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: TigerPaw who wrote (283371)	4/7/2006 1:58:38 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1573413

no the 2nd amendment does that

To: TigerPaw who wrote (283371)	4/7/2006 3:43:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573413

Tigerpaw, my argument is not about relative tax rates. If we assume that the wealthy should pay higher tax rates than they do now it doesn't change my point. If we doubled the top tax rate over night or we halved it the point would still hold. Of course I don't assume that the wealthy generally don't pay enough in taxes, but that is another separate issue. But since its an issue that you seem to want to talk about I'm game. There is nothing wrong with paying taxes in proportion to the benefits one has received. The wealthy receive a lot The wealthy create a lot of wealth or inherit it from those who did. OK some may get a lot of it as some sort of special benefit from the government, but the best way to tackle that is to take away the special benefit. Also the wealthy do pay a larger share of their income as taxes already so it would seem they are at least "paying taxes in proportion to the benefits one has received". Tim