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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alex MG who wrote (4033)	12/31/2016 12:07:37 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By rxbond Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362996

imo people with morals would say it IS a moral principle That's a pretty silly idea. Note I'm not talking about the idea of supporting poor people in general, or of giving out welfare benefits, but rather the specific current level set by law. If someone gets $10,000 in current benefits, would having given them $9800 instead be immoral? (I'm not even talking about a reduction here where someone would have to adjust to it but rather that level being what they initially received). The law might change for this person to receive $11,000 in the future (in current dollars), would that mean looking back the current law level was a severe violation of moral principle? The idea just doesn't make any sense. huge welfare tax cuts No such thing, except for refundable tax credits that bring net tax liability (or at least net income tax liability) to below zero. Being able to keep more of your own money, isn't making you the beneficiary of a welfare program. Also both now and after any plausible tax cut the rich pay/will pay a larger percentage of their income in to federal taxes (note this is all federal taxes, not just income tax, although of course it also applies if your just considering income taxes).