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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (76186)	4/18/2007 10:57:01 AM
From: John Chen	Respond to of 306849

Elroy,re:"myth of % game". (exaggerated) just to illustrate the meaningless of rich pay XX%. Say, there is $100 in the system. The rich made $99, the other $1. The FED collect $10 back, the rich pay $20(200%), the other $0 (0%). The rich keep $79 after paying 200% of tax. 79% of fund. The other keep $1 and pay no tax. still 1% of the fund.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (76186)	4/18/2007 11:06:36 AM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

>>>Are you sure you're playing with a full deck of cards? <<< Hello Elroy, I am not sure whether you are being facetious (agreeing with me 100%) or flaming me. My point is that somewhere we ought to be able to find agreement upon just what percentage of the population should pay what portion of th taxes. Right now, a very small portion pays a very large percentage. I think that we have to look at basic morals for guidance. Cicero(?) - "Leges sine moribus vanae" - laws w/o morals are vain. Did these wealthy individuals hurt anybody on their way to wealth?? Did they follow all the laws? (I think that the Kennedys got theirs manipulating the stock market and running scotch during Prohibition.) We ought to be able to agree on a percentage of income and be satisfied with it. A point I didn't make is that the wealthy are in all likelihood better money managers than the government. If a wealthy person owns a yacht, he employs people running and maintaining it. Is the yacht any less useless than a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. I would venture to guess that the yacht is much more beneficial to society because it will need painting again next year as opposed to the bridge to nowhere which once constructed....(OK, we could paint that every year to keep make work going). I am a big flat tax believer. I think that was the original intent of the Constitution. I view that as moral. Everyone must give an equal amount of their time to the government/society. If the top tier weren't taxed at high rates would they still require a couple megabucks a year to keep healthy incentives in place??? OK. At 35%, it isn't that effective to cut rates further, but at north of 50%. Uneven wealth distribution vice income distribution??? I would never argue that money does not buy influence. We have laws against that sort of thing. I told my former congressman face to face that I wanted term limits - bribes don't work if the person has no future in the office - isn't doing misdeed for career longevity. Taking money today to influence legislation??? That is a problem. I think that we should have an unequal amount of FBI agents all over congress people watching the source and disposition of every penny. J. Ross Perot (lunatic that he is) has stated publicly that he isn't giving one penny of his fortune to his children. He saw what Joe Kennedy did for Ted.