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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (702753)	3/5/2013 9:18:10 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572953

Don't you see how, in trying to reduce the gap between rich and poor, you end up exacerbating it? How so? We managed to do that in the aftermath of the Great Depression. It has a name, the Great Compression. Seems that if you have a real, progressive tax structure that tends to moderate the income inequality.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (702753)	3/9/2013 4:19:54 PM
From: SilentZ	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572953

>Then don't tell me you just want to go after the billionaires and not after the doctors making $175K/year. There's a difference between wanting to tax someone and believing they shouldn't make a certain amount of money. I don't have a problem with that doctor making $175K. But I wouldn't have a problem raising that doctor's taxes by a few hundred bucks (I'd have to pay it too) to pay for the things this country needs. I do kinda have a problem with people making tens of millions or more in a year. But if they're going to make that much, they should be taxed accordingly. Don't conflate the two thoughts. They're not the same. >The truth is that your political beliefs will eliminate the upper middle-class of this nation, because they will be the ones who get squeezed out. By paying an extra few hundred or a couple thousand more dollars a year? That isn't what happened when taxes actually were higher. They're still extremely low, historically. >And the rich will continue to get richer. >Don't you see how, in trying to reduce the gap between rich and poor, you end up exacerbating it? So your solution is to take things away from the poor so that the rich can have more money that they might decide to give to the poor. Right? -Z