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 (324253)	2/2/2007 6:56:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573435

The wealthy are not just benefiting from the stocks they own.....they are also consuming the profits in the form of bonuses and other financial instruments. Other financial instruments are related to investments. If the wealthy own bonds that means they lent money, and can reasonably expect a return. If its corporate bonds that money gets invested by the company and helps produce more wealth. If its government bonds the government uses the money for its various activities. If those activities are beneficial then the money is useful. If they aren't then you should complain about the government wasting money not about the rich bond holders getting interest. Even options and futures play a useful role, and in any case don't make up a very large part of most of the income of the majority of people that could reasonably be described as wealthy. As for bonuses they are part of compensation for services. If the compensation is to high that's an issue for the board and the shareholders. They are the ones giving the compensation. If they overpay for the work done, it isn't a fundamental injustice for society as a whole any more than if I overpay for a TV or a new car. The majority of the wealthy in this country didn't earn their wealth, they inherited it. That isn't true. They have one of the lowest tax rates in the world under Bush. He's given his rich friends a free ride "One of the lowest tax rates" doesn't equal "a free ride" or even close to it. It just means they aren't having their wealth confiscated to the same extent as some other countries do. 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. Answer the question....why should we be preserving her wealth? Depends on what you mean by preserving it. If you mean "not stealing it" its because stealing is wrong. If you mean freely insuring it against any risk, then we shouldn't do it, but we don't. What do you get out of it? Directly from Paris Hilton's wealth? Probably nothing. From wealth not being generally confiscated from wealthy people? I get to live in a more just society, and I get to enjoy greater economic growth and opportunity than I would if confiscatory tax rates where applied across the board. Multiple times I've point out that this isn't about Paris Hilton (even if she has rights to her property as well), but since you love to focus in on her so much let me point out that raising taxes isn't going to do much about her wealth. Sure you might lower her new income slightly but she is already wealthy, and doesn't need a ton of new income to stay wealthy. Raise the income tax and you screw the near wealthy and the slightly wealthy, who are generating wealth more than living on old wealth. Paris Hilton won't even notice. Tim, I posted to you the statistics that show the lower classes have also gained income since 1977. That's not news and its never been my argument. The argument has been that the rich are gaining income at the expense of the poor. If they are getting wealthier then there isn't any "at the expense of involved". "At the expense of" implies not only a loss (not just slower growth) but also a loss that was caused by the wealthy or by their gaining of wealth. 1999 data - * The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes. * The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes. Those statistics are outdated since Bush's tax cuts. They pay a larger share now than they did then. You are not screwing them......its the cost of doing business in a country where the politics are orderly, the monetary unit is relatively stable, there are rarely major upheavals, the quality of life is decent, etc. 1 - "Its the cost of doing business" doesn't imply "you are not screwing them". 2 - You don't need higher taxes, or even our current level of taxes to have a stable decent country. You could do so with lower taxes than what we have today. If I was advocating a top tax rate of near zero, than maybe you argument would have some relevance, but since I'm only arguing against tax increases it doesn't.