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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (143690)	10/28/2008 12:56:13 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 173976

If your going to reply to my posts you should bother reading them, esp. when they are very short like that last one. "Look at payroll taxes", sure it should be done, and has been done. My statements have been with payroll taxes, and you keep ignoring that coming back with "look at payroll taxes" or "add in payroll taxes", when it has been done. And the net result after that is the poor pay very little (many of the poor don't work, and the others don't get very large paychecks, if they did they would not be poor), compared to the rich. Income taxes are larger than payroll taxes in terms of how much revenue the government gets from them. Also the majority of payroll taxes comes from the top 50% with much less coming from the bottom 50%. Considering ALL tax revenue, gives the result of the wealthy paying more than the poor. Considering all government spending gives the result of more money being transferred to the poor than the wealthy. Given those facts the "reverse robin hood charge" is completely and obviously bogus. You might try to argue "sure there is a net transfer from the wealthy to the poor, but it should be bigger". Well that goes in to areas beyond facts, that's a matter of philosophical and ideological ideas, so it can't be refuted simply and perhaps not at all. And though I disagree with it I am not, have not been, and probably will not argue against it as part of this conversation, at least not in such a way that allows for confusion between "not robin hood enough" (in your opinion or the opinion of others here, not mine), and "reverse robin hood", and not while your challenging me to consider points (including payroll taxes) in replies to multiple posts that where all about those points.