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 (324125)	2/1/2007 2:10:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573377

The problem with your overview is that the wealth is being redistributed back to those of us who are the wealthiest. Its not being given to the wealthiest. Its created by organizations owned by the wealthiest. If the wealthiest own stock, they own that fraction of the company. That fraction of the wealth is theirs, its not being given to them. If they the income is from bonds then they lent the money out, and get the contracted rate of interest. If they are employees of the company they are receiving compensation for their services. And then your president comes long and gives them back even more of their wealth. As you point out, its their wealth. It isn't being given to them by Bush. The government under Bush has been taking it away from them, it just hasn't been taking away as much, measured by the income tax rates (in actual dollar amounts its taking more). The rich in this country are getting nearly a free ride. They pay the majority of tax revenue, they are hardly getting a free ride. "Wealthy individuals create their own companies, or invest in companies, or lend out capital to companies (buying bonds, or depositing money that gets lent out)." Some do, others don't. For those that do, are you suggesting that they should get nearly a full return for their money? I'm suggesting only that it is indeed their money, and the fact that they are wealthy, or that some of them might be obnoxious or disliked, isn't justification to take it away from them. Of course, its a good reason......why should we try and preserve her wealth just because she was born into a rich family? You shouldn't take her wealth because its her wealth. Its the same reason why I shouldn't take your money or property, because its yours. And again your rhetoric focuses on Paris, but the actions you support are hardly limited to her or people like her. You support higher tax rates and increased regulation that will effect millions of people, not just Paris Hilton. 1 - The middle class is getting wealthier, We've been through this.....they are gaining but not nearly as fast as the wealthy are. So you admit their gaining. In other words other people aren't getting wealthier at their expense. They are benefiting not being harmed. The vast majority of stock shares are owned by the upper middle and upper classes as well as corporations. Which doesn't mean the rest of the middle class doesn't own shares and benefit from them. You seem to have a problem with the idea that people who aren't investing, or who are investing small amounts, don't get the same return as people who invest large amounts. Your problem doesn't make sense to me. Also non-stockholders benefit from this investment as the economy as a whole benefits. 2 - If you define wealthy as upper middle class on up, then they pay the majority of the tax income. The top 10%, and perhaps even the top 5% pay the majority of income taxes. 1999 data - * The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes. * The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes. Please tell me why I should care? Because it shows that your statement "The vast majority of those transfers are on the back of the middle class who also are not participating in the eating of the wealth pie." is wrong. Its wrong for two reasons. 1 - Its not true that the vast majority of the transfers are on the back of the middle class and 2 - Its not true that the middle class is "not participating in the eating of the wealth pie". No its simple truth. If you take from the wealthy then your screwing them out of something. You can argue that its justified, you can argue that it makes things better for the country as a whole, but it still doesn't change the fact that your "screwing" them. Its the price they pay for getting rich in the US. Its the price imposed on them, and a price you apparently want to greatly increase. And in fact it won't make things better for the country as a whole. Higher taxes on and regulation of the wealthy helps keep the "pie" you want to divide from growing as fast as it otherwise would, and if taken to an extreme will shrink the pie. We are no where near that possibility. So please, no worries. No where near shrinking it? Probably. At least we certainly aren't on the cusp of that point. Nowhere near slowing down its growth? Not at all. We are not just near slowing down growth through taxes and regulations, we are well past that point. You can argue about how large the slowdown is, but even the current tax rates, tax code complexity, and regulatory burden, clearly slow down growth to a certain extent.