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: RetiredNow who wrote (317059)	12/23/2006 10:25:51 AM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1574422

A thought. Bill Gates got rich before he got married. At what point do we want to redistribute money based upon people's choices? For example, a husband and wife with four children that can't pay the bills. Didn't Japanese families have a "means" test for marriage at one time? A slippery slope indeed.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (317059)	12/23/2006 1:51:14 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574422

With the richest senators being mostly democrats, I can't understand how you think the democrats are going to help sock it to the rich as you have defined it. I know the dems have the polished feel good rhetoric, but it never happens.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (317059)	1/12/2007 6:17:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574422

Well, I actually agree with no death tax for inheritances of up to $2M or so, increasing every year by the inflation rate. That allows a middle to upper middle class family to save all their life and give their kids a chance to go even farther. But more than that and we should adopt a progressive tax that gets steeper as the inheritance gets larger, topping out at 50% or so. We have something vaguely like that now. In theory the rate is progressive, but since you don't have to pay taxes on the amount that falls under the exception I believe that in effect it acts as one rate. That rate is in the mid 40s, but if the law doesn't change it will go back to 55% in 2011. I definitely believe in taxes the super-rich and cutting taxes for the poor and middle class Not much tax cutting left for the poor, unless your calling for negative tax rates. Also I don't think inheritance taxes are a solid way to ensure either a thriving middle class or class mobility. They are not necessary to have either, they aren't sufficient by themselves to give either. The question then is do they greatly contribute to class mobility? I don't think they do. Esp. if the class mobility you are concerned about is moving people up, rather than pulling them back down. Edit - I didn't change what I wrote above, but I should have said "estate taxes" rather then "inheritance taxes". The difference is perhaps more technical than substantive but inheritance taxes are taxes imposed on the money inherited, estate taxes are imposed on the whole estate before it can be inherited.