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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Smith who wrote (140940)	7/16/2010 9:18:55 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542829

<<<I refer to the rich as the undefined rich because there is a strong reluctance to define where rich starts - is it $1 billion or is it $100K? >>> Obama has stated very clearly that he does not want to raise taxes for people making under $250,000 a year. Of course by necessity he may have to but the goal is to balance the budget with progressively higher taxes for people making over $250,000. The concept of balancing the budget is clear. Taxes have to be collected to pay for expenses. There are only two sides to this equation. collection, revenue, taxes is on the one side and expenses are on the other side. Bill Clinton had it just about right. He had a budget surplus. Bush got it wrong altering the mix. On the revenue side he cut taxes that will amount to more than $5 trillion. On the expense side he started two wars that was not budgeted or paid for. You gan cherry pick all you want on the expense side and obfuscate reality - and no doubt you will but you will never be able alter the fundamental truth. Just like managing any budget whether personal, business, or government you are never going to succeed by cost cutting alone. You (not to get personal, its generic you) can make flowery speeches and hide the truth and no one can stop you.

To: Paul Smith who wrote (140940)	7/16/2010 12:40:15 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542829

I, too, don't like using terms like "rich" when speaking about policy. As long as it remains undefined, it's meaningless. You can say our tax system is progressive because so many people pay no income taxes, but then you're only looking at one end of the system. But I think you need to look at both ends. What's happening at the upper end is not progressive. I'm inclined to support the idea of a flat tax, anyway, though I would expect the rates to roll off at the bottom end. First 40k nothing, above that 15%. Or whatever. But along with that you'd have to get rid of most deductions. And I do not for the life of me see why income from dividends and interest is taxed at a lower rate than income from labor is.