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 : Sound Off - Speak Your Mind -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HairBall who wrote (61)	11/7/2000 12:48:32 PM
From: No Mo Mo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 595

LG- Whether you call it "luxury/necessity" or whatever, it results in "taxable/non-taxable", and a line has to be drawn and someone has to do it. Tell me Ford won't lobby to have its Taurus pushed into the "necessity" category. How about this: I'm the kind of guy who would rather buy a table saw with a 4 horsepower motor rather than a 2 and 1/2 HP. The up front cost may be more but I know from experience that the 4 HP is a better value because it'll last longer. Again, who decides and how? -Darin

To: HairBall who wrote (61)	11/7/2000 1:08:12 PM
From: eichler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 595

Greetings LG, I agree one million percent. For years, I have felt the only fair way to tax would be a consumption tax on non-essential items (food, etc.). The way things stand today, the middle class who can ill afford losing 1/4 to 1/2 of their income due to income taxes bear the brunt of providing spending revenue for their government. As it is, they struggle to pay the rent and costs of living. The wealthy can afford batteries of accountants and lawyers (tax-deductable) to diminish their tax liability. The poor make no money so they pay little or nothing. The logic is clear; those who can afford to pay taxes will pay as they spend. Those who can't afford it have little to spend. I do not believe people will stop spending money to avoid taxes. Think of how much money can be saved abolishing the archaic and abominable IRS. There is infrastructure in place already to collect sales tax revenues so there would be little cost and big savings to make the change. Of course, I'm afraid this is all a pipe-dream as those who benefit the most from our present system hold the cards to keep things the way they are. Our political system perpetuates this monstrosity by offering the public their choice of two bad possibilities (neither very different -two sides of the same coin - still adds up the same). Politicians spend most of their daze soliciting contributions from corporate and lobbyist entities. The middle class gets $crewed coming and going. They pay, but don't get to play. Don't get me completely wrong, I love this country. I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else in the world than here. But is that a reason that it couldn't be much better? Among other things, it is shameful a country of our status and resources doesn't even offer free health care. Why is education such a low priority. Lip service is what these issues and others get. Once they got your vote it's $crew U and Business As Usual. Nice to see in print that there are others out there too rooting for the underdog. Not that it matters much. Regards, Eichler I wouldn't mind it as much if they spent wisely and not make it so obvious that income taxes are just a way to distribute the wealth from the people who need it to the people who don't. But that's a whole other bone of contention!