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 (708292)	4/10/2013 5:35:57 PM
From: SilentZ	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573841

>There's no evidence that taxes are effective in redistributing wealth. Really, none. Except for the last 80 years! >Look at the states with the most progressive tax code, and you'll see states with the greatest gap between rich and poor. 1. State taxes don't have nearly the size bite that federal taxes do. 2. Those places are the most desirable places to live, and wealth clusters there. And the fact is, that the top 10 are a mix. It doesn't tell you much at all. >The incomes of the rich are notoriously unstable. They'll make $30M one year, and zero the next. Sure, individual ones are, but on the whole, they're going up, and everyone else's are flat at best. Besides, you're just making an argument for a higher capital gains tax, which I'm certainly in favor of. >That's how, among other hypocritical liberals, Arianna Huffington got away with paying zero income taxes for a few years. Playing by the rules is not being hypocritical. > Yet you see revenues for Social Security and Medicare staying relatively constant. Right. Because the population grows and the employment situation is moderately improving. >If you get past your whole "Oh we need to help the poor by taxing the rich" bleeding heart, you'll see that this tax policy makes the most sense in terms of funding government services. EVERYONE pays their fair share, and tax revenues are more resilient to the ups-n-downs of the marketplace. History just doesn't bear that out. And people making very little just can't afford to pay more. >Of course, all you care about is ideology, which is why your gut reaction is to paint me as a friend of corporations and the rich. I don't think I said that. But the policies you espouse do favor the rich, even if you don't realize it. I don't know your motivation and I don't think I said I did. >And you know what? I really don't give a f--k, because feelings have little to do with rationality. I'm using facts. Yes, those facts lead to feelings. So what? The fact is, that income inequality in this country was lowest during an extended period when taxes were higher and companies were more regulated. Those aren't the only factors for that, but they're significant. Or can you show me that those two things did not coincide? -Z