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 (111703)	2/24/2008 1:40:39 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

What world do you live in Tim? I know I pay 35% up to 45% in State and federal taxes every year. There is no way a billionaire is paying that high a tax rate.

To: TimF who wrote (111703)	2/24/2008 3:27:49 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

>>They pay a more than equal share based on their income. We don't have wealth taxes in the US.<< actually, we do. property tax is a wealth tax. sales tax is also at least partially a wealth tax. i do agree that income tax is the major supplier of cash to the federal government, though. i disagree they pay and equal share based on income. if they did, we wouldn't have such high deficits. >>Actually they probably pay a more than equal share of income tax based on "their share of wealth" because many people pay no net income taxes.<< they don't. there is a reason that argument is never made by the uber rich owned news stations - b/c it would be a blatant lie. instead, they say something like, "5% of the people pay x% of the taxes and that isn't right..." where x is much greater than 5% but less than the % of wealth owned in america - yet they never mention the latter truth. that would put their misleading statement into context, but they don't want that, they want to mislead. you are proof as to why. there is a reason we have $9 TRILLION in debt - we don't pay as we go. so, the uber rich aren't paying so we build up enormous amounts of debt so our grandkids can... 1. eventually stop outspending their means. 2. pay the interest on the already accumulated debt. 3. pay down the debt. that's an incredibly shtty thing to do, no? it is actually even worse... this will end in a depression and a war when it becomes clear we will never be able to pay off this level of debt and everyone takes their money and runs. it might be a while, but it is coming. >>Nonsense. If you create wealth and then have more of it, you aren't being subsidized.<< nonsense. i know that is the talking point that has been spoon fed to you and i know biases are as difficult to break as habits, but try and think outside of what you have been spoon fed. try buying 90% of a business and then paying only 80% of the expenses to run said business. you'd end up in court - and lose - so fast your head would spin. >>Even if you pay very little in taxes (which isn't the case for the vast majority of wealthy people in the US) that isn't receiving a subsidy from the government, unless the government sends you money.<< i already said use whatever word makes you feel good. i'm saying that other people are paying for their share of the government - which is absolutely, 100% true. just like if you forced your 10% business partner to pay 20% of the expenses... that's shady and wrong. you'd be enraged if someone tried to do this to you and you actually realized what they where doing. >>You can argue that its "not paying your fair share" (whatever "your fair share" is supposed to mean),<< i defined it. you own 10% of america, paying at least 10% of the tax burden should be a minimum requirement. i know that isn't how it is now, in part b/c the uber rich have bought off politicians in an effort to shirk their fiscal responsibility on to those less wealthy... like you. you just haven't figured it out yet. ;-) oh, and our grandkids to the tune of $9 trillion and future financial slavery and, more than likely, all out war to eventually resolve this situation. >>but your still paying the government not the other way around.<< agreed. >>Of course people, including rich people, do receive actual subsidies from the government, but not paying an amount in taxes equal to the same percentage of the total tax payments, as your percentage of the nation's wealth, income, or other economic stat or measurement is not receiving a subsidy.<< it means someone else is subsidizing their portion of the government, as explained earlier through the business example. >>Their may be no likely real world plan to make the US highly fiscally responsible. Extra spending even combined with extra taxes, isn't fiscally responsible (even if the deficit shrinks, with the extra tax)<< so, you support passing on our debts to future generations as being more fiscally responsible than actually paying for our expenditures?* you aren't alone, but that doesn't make it any less shady or any less wrong. oh, and since you didn't answer, the middle class was given a few dollars in tax cuts so the uber rich could bank $100s of thousands in tax cuts. the politicos touted this as a tax cut for the middle class and the middle class was too stupid to do the math and realize that their couple bucks was eaten up by higher inflation... it isn't tax dollars, it is purchasing power that is important. the uber rich got significantly more purchasing power b/c some netted many millions in tax relief. the middle class likely lost purchasing power - EVEN AFTER THE "TAX CUTS".