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.

Non-Tech : Let's end the national debt. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (6)	7/25/1999 7:56:00 PM
From: Berney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 109

Zeev, Taxation is simply redistribution through theft. The last statistics on the issue that I saw were that 20% of the people pay 80% of the taxes. If there were a surplus, which there is not, the taxes should be returned to those that paid it. I'm unmoved by the argument that this is unfair. Berney

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (6)	7/25/1999 8:17:00 PM
From: HairBall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 109

Zeev Hed: I think the current tax system is not only a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth, but is also a tool to manipulate or at least influence individuals to spend what money individuals have left after paying for their taxes and paying for necessities, to be invested or saved in a manner the government would prefer. The current tax system is a disgrace. A consumption tax is the only fair way. I stand by my previous post. Just because someone makes more money than someone else does not make his or her fair share more, period. Government would have us believe that just because you have managed a better financial position in life that you should not only pay more tax than someone with a lessor income, but because you have more, you should even pay a larger percent on that larger amount. That is just few steps down the ladder from socialism my friend. It really is a redistribution of wealth. I stand by my analogy in my previous post to you. No one and I mean no one would accept those pricing terms for goods and services when dealing in every day business transactions because of a disparity of wealth. But, for some obscene reason liberals seem to think it makes since when it comes to paying ones fair share for government. I never will get it, never! <ng> Regards, LG

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (6)	7/26/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 109

Zeev, Your condemnation of a flat or consumption tax conveniently ignores the fact that Forbe's flat tax plan gives a family of four an exemption for the first $34,000 of income (not sure this is the exact number but it is close) and every consumption tax proposal I have heard excludes food, medicine and medical care, some exclude rent, some give refunds to low income earners. Under both the hypothetical $20,000 earner would have little or NO TAX LIABILITY!!! Also, we could tax those making over $200,000 a year at a rate of 100% and it would have little effect on what Joe Sixpack pays because there just aren't that many high earners out there. Taxation should NOT be either a fiscal or monetary tool. It should ONLY be a way to equitably fund the NECESSARY services of government. Just getting rid of the unnecessary, mostly unconstitutional, programs at the federal level would give us a tax cut that would make current "wild-eyed GOP" proposals look positively stingy. Of course that guy on TV selling a book about how to get grants for all sorts of stuff would have to find something else to do.