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: Brumar89 who wrote (379512)	4/21/2008 12:42:15 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575775

You are right and wrong. Taxes are all bad in your terms, but some taxation is always necessary, so its how you do it that matters most. You might theoretically be able to cut discretionary spending to zero, but our military and our entitelments call out for taxation to pay for it and of course you cant really cut nds to zero.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (379512)	4/21/2008 3:09:01 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575775

"That's how the income tax started." Apples and pineapples Brumar. Haven't you ever read a history book? Estate taxes have been around, off and on, since the founding of the Republic. This particular one was passed in 1916. It isn't like they are new and expanding. If anything, the rates and the people it affects has been reduced since it peaked in the 1930s. The Walton heirs are trying to play this like it is a concern of everyday Americans. It isn't. They want to sit back and freeload off of Sam's business sense. Which is fine, but I don't see why we have to rewrite the tax code to accommodate them.