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 (111720)	2/24/2008 2:33:16 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Again its a specific special interest program, not a general subsidy for the wealthy. ----- ironic that the politicians don't follow the same policy in the poor areas....only the richer areas.

To: TimF who wrote (111720)	2/24/2008 2:42:23 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Over the course of lifetime, I've gone to dinner with a wide variety of friends that had an even wider range of incomes and net worth. When the check comes it always gets resolved in one of 3 ways (in order of most likely). 1. The check gets split equally among all despite the different individual costs of the dinner and drinks. 2. The check gets split more or less equally, but some people throw in a few extra dollars because they know they ate and drank more expensive meals and they don't want others to subsidize them. 3. Someone picks up the whole tab "VOLUNTARILY". I've never seen a situation where each person was billed according to their net worth or income or where some of the poorer members of the dinner party took money from the richer ones to pay for their dinner. No one ever insists that it would be fair if the people that make more or have more pay more. If it happens, it's "voluntary"! The tab for running the government is public information. The cost of running the government per person would be very easy to calculate. Pretty much anyone that is paying more than the average cost per person is subsidizing everyone else. It's that simple. It's so obvious that rich people are paying more than their share of the costs of government services you really have to be dumber than rock to think otherwise. If you pay a higher absolute level of taxes, you are paying for more things. Tax rates have nothing to do with who is subsidizing whom. What this debate is really about whether those that can't afford to pay their fair share for what they want from government have a right to confiscate wealth from those that can in order to get it. It's that simple.