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: Alighieri who wrote (688493)	12/16/2012 12:47:13 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574349

What that article -- and by extension, you -- have done is to grossly manipulate the facts to obtain a desired outcome. It is certainly possible to define "tax burden" in such a way as to produce misleading analyses, by including taxes that have nothing to do with income -- e.g., cigarette, gasoline, sales and other taxes. But if you want to seriously discuss which taxes are most a burden to the poor there is no doubt it is the 7.65% payroll tax (and worse, for the poor self-employed, the 15.3% SE tax). This tax is flat; neither regressive nor progressive. The problem, of course, is that the cost of the programs has run so far out of control that the tax doesn't begin to cover the cost. And now, you and other liberals, are looking for someone else to pay the bill. And this is why the left has tried to recharacterize "taxes" over the last several years. Your programs are broke -- flat broke -- and there is no way the debts of SS and Medicare can be paid. And now you're looking for scapegoats. There aren't many wealthy, so they're the target. There is a fundamental problem with this approach, however -- the wealthy, like it or not, are responsible for financing the productivity in this country. If you suck up all their money to put into Medicare & SS, there will be no opportunity for economic growth. That is where we're headed. If you confiscate the Walton's immense wealth, you can pay for these programs for a few months. Then what? If you confiscate Gates, Buffett's, and other billionaires' wealth, you might get through eight or ten months. It is the nut you just haven't cracked. What happens when the wealthy run out of money? Of course, the wealthy will pack their shit and get out before that happens. You would. I would. We have an awful conundrum as a result of failed liberal social programs. And there is no solution.