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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (111532)	2/22/2008 12:03:37 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>Not taking someone's money by force isn't "soaking them in cash". The net flow is still from the rich to the government. They are soaking the government in cash.<< the uber rich's percentage ownership in america is greater than their percentage of tax burden. >>An absurdly over the top way to describe budget deficits and debt at current levels. If that's slavery the income tax itself is even a better example of slavery.<< the difference is the uber rich are receiving benefits for the dollars while our grandchildren will get the bill. i sincerely hope you can figure out how these situations are in no way analogous and how our grandkid's are getting the total shaft. >>Politicians and government officials are human as well. So are voters.<< agree. government sucks, too. but it does keep us somewhat organized and it keep the genghis khan's of the world from invading and physically enslaving us. for people who live in the real world, we deal with what is, not what we imagine. now, there is something to be said for working with what is and trying to turn it into what we imagine. but that's not what people do. "lower my taxes, increase my payola and screw whoever gets railroaded." that sums up the average tax payer's approach to government, which is why the government lowers taxes, increases spending and doesn't care about who gets railroaded. if we are going to spend "x," we ought to pay for "x." debating whether "x" is legit or not is an entirely different discussion (and no less valid).