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: TimF who wrote (580601)	8/11/2010 10:38:17 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Respond to of 1573005

How were the rich affected by the tax cuts they received in 96 that are slated to end this year?

To: TimF who wrote (580601)	8/13/2010 5:18:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573005

Even when those tax cuts were only supposed to be temporary Raising them is still an increase. and affords the rich the lowest tax rates in 50 years The top tax rate is not the lowest in 50 years, not even close. Overall the rates are the lowest in 50 years. I will neve understand why you care about the rich so much. I care about justice and reasonableness and positive practical effects. The tax increase is unjust, unreasonable, and will have a negative effect not just on the wealthy but on the economy as a whole. There is no justice when the rich get away with murder. Seizing more and more of their income is wrong. You don't have to care much about some individual to point out when a proposed unjust action. Some of them are great people, some of them are asses, but even asses shouldn't have to give more and more of their money to the government. It is not wrong. They need to pay their fair share. They live in one of the most stable countries in the world. That's, in part, how they have been able to amass so much money. There is a price for that stability.