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: No Mo Mo who wrote (79)	11/7/2000 2:43:14 PM
From: HairBall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 595

No Mo Mo: I was trying to say, you nor I can complete the list on SI. Sure with a consumption tax there will likely be some wrong assignments. However, for the most part it would be much more fair than the current system. If you think you are being over taxed, one could work at avoiding spending money on taxable items. Heck, it might even promote conservation. I have yet to live in an area without state and or local sales taxes. Most have assignments in place that work fairly well already. It would not be a stretch to assign Federal Taxes similarly. Regards, LG

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (79)	11/7/2000 5:11:45 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 595

You see...on the surface, I believe we need to be very careful with sales taxes because I subscribe to the interpretation that they are inherently regressive i.e., The lower a person's income the greater the portion their income goes to buying necessities. Good point. Just as the wealthier members of society have those banks of lawyers and accountants to bend the interpretation and categorization of luxury vs. necessity. I think we'd end up with the same Swiss cheese of loopholes that ultimately benefit the "benders" and "interpreters" of tax code. Excellent analysis Darin. You think like a criminal.