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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Krowbar who wrote (48121)	8/1/1999 12:47:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Respond to of 108807

I agree, but at least it's a start in the right direction.

To: Krowbar who wrote (48121)	8/1/1999 12:47:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I agree, but at least it's a start in the right direction.

To: Krowbar who wrote (48121)	8/1/1999 12:53:00 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

This was Canada's approach - to exempt food from the GST ... but not restaurant food or food meant to eaten on the run. So you get the ridiculous situation where five doughnuts cost more than six doughnuts, because half a dozen is the cut-off line between a food and a luxury item, it's not taxable, five are. Overall, i agree - it is better to tax consumption than to tax income. But - no country of which i am aware has eliminated or even significantly reduced its income taxes on instituting a value-added tax. And most countries have a VAT/IVA/GST - Canada, México, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, most European countries. If you run a business, and i was when the GST came in in Canada, let me tell you - it's a horror show. Every business is forced to be an unpaid tax collector for the government ... I was known to mutter the word 'slavery' from time to time.

To: Krowbar who wrote (48121)	8/1/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

No exemptions for food and used clothing. NONE! There will be legions of lawyers and lobbyists redefining food and used duds (if 20+ percent of upholstery in Buicks is determined to be made from recycled fabric, yada, yada, yada). The poor need to know the road they drive on, past the fire department, etc. must be paid for. This is a MAJOR flaw in all public assistance programs. Beneficiaries have no clue re. the fact that free stuff ain't "free". I would demand that the first check every year include a demand that $100 be taken to the tax office and given back (just a little reminder to recipient). Otherwise no further checks of any kind, for any reason. Good pts. about Canadian GST. After all the BS that goes into collecting and accounting, the offshore consumer gets rebate. Stupid.

To: Krowbar who wrote (48121)	8/1/1999 10:30:00 AM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Del, << Churches and other currently tax exempt organizations should not be exempt. They have been getting a subsidy long enough.>> The reason they are not taxed is because the power to tax is also recognized as the power to destroy. Tax exempt status is not a subsidy. It would be the government interfering with the 1st amendment to tax churches. It would be government interfering in the establishment of religion. Making it harder for churches to survive is unconstitutional. Freedom of religion along with freedom of speech are the premiere rights, first on the list. And they are both intertwined. There cannot be one without the other, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. You are always giving in to your hate,Del, and continuing your journey to the dark side. ggg. The Emperor awaits you!! (tongue in cheek) SR