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: tejek who wrote (287620)	5/26/2006 2:00:38 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573433

Its very simple.......they are paying for the good life. Its a privilege to live here and get rich, not a guarantee or a God or Tim given right. Citizens have a legal right to live here, it isn't a granted privilege. Property rights are just as much natural human rights as the right to free speech. But even if they where not, that doesn't mean the government has a right to the property. They may have the power to take it, but they have no natural right to it, and the legal right is just something they give themselves. However, my position was not made in isolation but rather it was based on a very basic premise. We do not have enough revenue coming in to pay our bills. As a consequence, our debt is climbing very quickly... That is considering it in isolation. You are looking at one tax cut, and one potential increase, and deciding the increase is good. You original point was not "we should increase taxes now", but that tax cuts that benefit the wealthy are bad. You made a general point that would apply to all tax cuts ever, and are defending it with claims about one specific temporary situation. If your real point is and always was "we should raise taxes at this time" then you should have said that, rather then saying something else, while acting like you didn't say something else. Even for the specific current situation - re "we do not have enough revenue coming in" We don't have a revenue problem, we have a problem with too much spending see Message 22470737 factcheck.org reason.com "But you don't just get one change in the tax rate. You have taxes go up and down over the years. You want the rich to never recieve more benefit from any change than anyone else, but at the same time you want them to have to pay the majority of any increase. If you have an increase followed by a decrease, followed by an increase, followed by a decrease in tax rates over the years, and you don't allow the wealthy to benefit from the cuts at any point, then you have a situation with continual increases in taxes for the rich." Gobbley gook. What I am proposing is not nearly that complex. What you are proposing (a tax increase) isn't necessarily very complex. But following the logic of the argument you made for it leads to what I described. "The US economy is far from as close as you can get." I said......as close as a country can get. "Its far from as close as a country can get." In theory it could get closer but in practice it would be impossible without causing considerable suffering for some peopl No it could go a lot father without any great degree of suffering. That's something Americans have not been willing to do since the 1930s depression. The depression, at least the length of it, had a lot more to do with negative government action than it did with any supposed lack of government regulation and intervention. I am not. I am calling for them to pay the tax rate that existed before Bush's foolish tax cuts. "That might be what you want, but it was not what you are calling for. If you want to say the rich should pay the same rate as they paid under Clinton it would be much easier to just say that rather than attack the idea of the rich benefiting more from tax cuts than anyone else." This is silly. I've given up trying understand how you come to the conclusions you do. You objected to the rich "gaining the most" from tax cuts. Since they pay the most taxes they will always gain the most unless there are not tax cuts, or the tax cuts don't include the rich, or at least they are heavily tilted against the rich. Now you defend the idea that taxes should return to the levels they where under Clinton. That's very different than objecting to the idea that the rich should benefit most from any tax cut.