SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (14099)5/11/2001 10:14:41 AM
From: Follies  Read Replies (1) of 42834
 
do you agree that if a group of people own about 60% of the stuff that it isn't unreasonable they should pay about 60%
of the taxes?

You are raising an interesting question. Is society better served if taxation is a percentage of assets and not a percentage of income as it is currently? Real Estate is currently taxed this way, however here in California, the amount is locked in at time of purchase. As prices rise (because of government induced inflation) property tax bills would rise. I am sure there are many retirees who would lose their houses because as their income goes down their asset (home) is rising requiring more taxes every year, but never mind that. How many small businesses, the back bone of our economy, would be able to get started and grow when each year a percent of the business would be confiscated regardless of whether the business grew or not. Venture Capitalists would be chomping at the bit, NOT! I see nothing fair or beneficial in taxing assets.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News