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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (587503)	9/25/2010 6:45:22 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577026

Liberals who talk about inequality say its a bad thing to be reduced via taxation. If you think the first example is closest to what we have now, you should like what we have now. Because the first example is best for those with lower incomes: Suppose we could choose between societies in which: 1) the top 1% earned a minium of $1B per year each and the bottom 50% earned $250K per year each or 2) the top 1% earned an average of $1M per year each and the bottom 50% earned %10K per year each. Choice #1 would be much more unequal. $1B / $250K = 4000 $1M / $10K = 100 Whats your choice?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (587503)	9/28/2010 1:12:49 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577026

If your looking for fair, then a flat tax would be more fair. The rich would still be paying a lot more. Also lower taxes would be more fair because people could keep more of their own money. The problem with that is you can't fund our bloated government on a tax rate that the non-rich can afford to pay. So the government goes after the rich, near rich, and those hoping they on their way to being rich (high income, but only recently, modest accumulated wealth) much harder than what would be fair.