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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (3212)	10/19/2001 1:34:59 PM
From: Ahda	Respond to of 24758

In my opinion this is an intelligent thought as clearly no one is exempt.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (3212)	10/19/2001 3:39:50 PM
From: JayPC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

What % would the federal GST be? It's 7% in Canada. In August the GST revenue was 1.9Billion, personal income tax revenue was 5.8 Billion. You would need a GST of 28% to replace the lost income tax (all other things being equal). fin.gc.ca Regards Jay

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (3212)	10/19/2001 8:07:11 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

So as part of this flat tax, you'd revoke all the various excise taxes? What about 'use fees' that have increased in number and popularity of late? Oregon repeatedly rejects a sales tax. One of the arguments against it is the cost of collection and administration. My personal take is that it is regressive, though Washington exempts food, so it's really not that regressive, IMO.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (3212)	10/19/2001 11:32:17 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

a national retail sales tax would, IMO, be a better choice as it would eliminate the IRS and all the tax preparation and documentation costs, as well as expand the tax base by decimating the underground economy. It would only alter the IRS. It would create a new bureaucracy much like the IRS to administer the tax. There are many problems in such administration like eminent domain. States have the right to levy a sales tax. If there is a federal tax on sales, there is a friction between the two entities. No doubt a million schemes are available to manage this friction, but that defeats part of the purpose. Then there is the consideration that such a tax punishes artificially spending and consumption. We've spent 100 years punishing one side, saving and investment, so why alleviate one for the other? What qualifies as a sale liable for federal tax? You can't all say all sales. You'd have to say, final sales. How can that be differentiated?