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 : Who Really Pays Taxes? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.horn who wrote (19)	8/13/2000 11:47:44 AM
From: Patrick Slevin	Respond to of 666

I was always intrigued by a platform in the Muskie Campaign which was referred to as the Sunset Provision (or Law, not certain exactly). With the demise of Muskie it's never come up since to my knowledge, but then having the pulse of the workings of government isn't a forte of mine. This Sunset Provision was to stipulate that every office in government had to justify it's existence over a period of time. A cycle, let us say, of perhaps every ten years for example. Let us say that at the early part of this century there was an issue with bad tea coming into the country and so there is a budget for a tea tester office who randomly samples imported tea. Now logically a budget for such an office in 1920 may make more sense than a budget for such an office in 2001. But who marshals such expenditures? It may take a concerted effort to reduce and streamline a minor line item. With a Sunset Provision, the Tea Tester Bureau would have to justify it's own existence periodically. Clinton's logic sends the message that it is easier to police us than it is for the government to police itself. The Washington Post article brought up earlier had a line that jumped off the page at me. "With good planning, a couple can actually pass to the next generation about $5 million in business assets or $8 million in farm assets" The key phrase there to me was "With good planning". I could not imagine how a farm could survive without good fiscal planning. We aren't living in an age where we ring up Jenny to see if Timmy was found by Lassie yet. This is a time where farmers are buying expensive gear to maintain their farms, 6 figure Caterpillers and John Deeres. This is serious business. A few mistakes and some poor harvest and that IPO with the catchy NASD symbol FARM Merrill was piecing together for you may never see the light of day. "With good planning". With all due respect to Mr. Davenport, the Law Professor who made that remark, it is one thing to talk about it and quite another to pull it off. The perspective is far more multi-faceted than the point of view of the law. These people are planners perforce, that is how they survive. Turn it around, now, and I question if the government truly plans well. For example, how many of us really expect Social Security to be there for us in the year 2020 for example? Maybe it shall be, but as far back as the early 1980s it was certainly questionable. The only people I recall speaking with that were certain it would be were earning money when Social Security was created. One of the reasons we have IRA accounts, I believe, is because of the disbelief that SS would be there. That had to be one of the issues considered when legislation was under consideration concerning IRA accounts. Well, did not intend to write a book, see you later....