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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (108207)	1/26/2012 10:44:54 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Well, we need to raise taxes. I know the GOP doesn't like to hear that, but cutting spending only is not going to work. We need to BOTH raise taxes and cut spending. The logical place to raise taxes is on the wealthy in this country. Look, Romney made $20M last year, mostly from passive income. If his ROI was 5%, then he probably has $400M in investments. He paid about $2.8M in taxes on that passive income. Do you really think Romney will suffer much if he was instead required to pay $6M in taxes? Basically, his annual income will be reduced from $17.2M to $14M. I don't think earning $14M after taxes instead of $17M is going to be that much of a hardship. However, if we forced all people who earn more than $1M a year in income to pay 30%, then it would raise a tremendous amount of tax revenue to help close the deficit. If we also cut back on spending, we could achieve a balanced budget and we'd close the rich poor gap a bit. You know, I'm not that enthused with Obama recently, but I'm all for progressive taxation. It's a must have. If the 99% feel that this country only works for the 1%, then the American Dream dies. This would help restore some balance to this country, which has become so skewed in favor of the wealthy. By the way, I earned much much less than Romney, but my effective tax rate is 20% vs his 14%. Why is that fair?