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: Alighieri who wrote (390281)	6/10/2008 5:36:10 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577593

You make my point in your sentence. Why are we giving these folks a tax break? Why? So they will let crumbs fall off the table for the average joe for whom a shelter is a foreign notion. He pays 7.5% SS on 100% of his earnings, , 2.5% medicare on 100% of his earnings, his employer matches that probably reducing his earnings potential, and then he pays all the other taxes that are levied on him...consumption taxes on most of what he buys, etc...when you add it up, his burden is pretty severe. Income redistribution you call it. He also gets a refundable EITC -- which allows him to get a refund of up to $3,700 in taxes BEYOND what he paid in. SS is massively underfunded as it now stands. You would have him not pay into this system? If you don't tax people, there is no money to pay for roads, bridges, Medicaid (which provides health insurance for those who cannot afford it), Medicare (which provides health insurance for everyone over 65), Welfare and food stamps, etc. Make up your mind. You either want to provide these services for the poor or you don't. If you do, then you have to tax people to get the money.

To: Alighieri who wrote (390281)	6/10/2008 5:51:15 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1577593

Rich people like Buffet won collect a dime of SS even though they put in monies to it

To: Alighieri who wrote (390281)	6/10/2008 6:56:21 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577593

Al, > My point is that you can't do any of this if make 30K a year. You are describing people who have choices. I took issue with your statement below: > The mid wage earners get hit with payroll taxes and are less likely to do any tax management Who do you think are the "mid-wage earners"? Those making 30-50K a year? Many of them also have home mortgages, you know. Of course with the real estate boom, you've just locked out the next generation of wage earners making 30-50K a year. Most people have choices. Those that don't aren't taxed anyway except for alcohol and cigarettes. (Why should they be smoking and drinking in the first place?) > You make my point in your sentence. Let me ask again: Think increasing the top rate back to 39% is going to make Buffet pay his "fair share"? The answer will demonstrate the folly of skewing an already skewed tax code more. Tenchusatsu