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 (390521)	6/11/2008 4:08:21 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577900

Warren Buffet, your favorite target, is probably not paying close to 40% of his income, and that's because most of his earnings come from investments and his other taxes are dwarfed by his wealth. The bottom line is you think a man who makes a lot of money ought to pay a confiscatory tax rates. Those of us who understand the issues think those peoples' money is what provides jobs, and therefore, their wealth ought not be confiscated. When Carter was in office, the maximum tax rate for federal income taxes was 90% (if you elected MFS status). Look what it got us. When Reagan cut taxes, the unemployment rate came down. Now you can argue with the facts, but there is plenty of evidence that confiscatory tax rates adversely affect the economy. This is why we have IRC Section 179, the reason we had (starting under Kennedy, and for some 26 years) IRC Section 238 (relating to the Investment Tax Credit), the Jobs Credit to encourage employment of the poor, the concept of accelerated depreciation, which is entirely a tax-motivated provision, and at least 100 other tax treatments that are specifically directed at economic stimulus (including, I might add, the recent rebate program which was spearheaded not by the president, but by the liberals in Congress). So, at least SOME people believe that lowering taxes is a legitimate means of improving the economy.

To: Alighieri who wrote (390521)	6/11/2008 4:46:38 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1577900

Al, > I am not a tax engineer, but I can imagine ways that lead to higher taxes for the rich. The problem with raising taxes on the rich is that the unintended consequences end up RESTRICTING class mobility. You point to Buffet not paying 40% of his income in taxes, which is why I asked you for ways to get at his income. The only solution you put forth would lead to said unintended consequences. And for what? To pay down the deficit? Raising taxes going into a recession will guarantee that tax revenues will fall even faster than you can increase revenues. How about wealth redistribution schemes? Talk about getting more and more people dependent on the government instead of self-reliant and contributing more than they take in. Now if you think in the long run a sound fiscal policy will strengthen the dollar, curb inflation, and set a firm foundation for long-term economic growth, I would agree. But you can do that without raising taxes. In the end, you say you're not a "tax engineer," but so what? I'm not one either. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what the unintended consequences are. Just an open mind. Tenchusatsu