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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (62365)	11/9/2002 12:39:42 AM
From: ehasfjord	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Disagree; Steve Forbes has for years maintained that a flat tax, of say 21% would work out for both the gov. and the taxpayer. 21% has the same effect on both the rich and the working poor. It sure does make tax filings 100% easier. It works out to "what did you make? and send 21% to me". I, for one, go through some real hoops around tax time. Another plus, is that this method would eliminate the G.D. Alternative (Really not alternative) minimum tax. The AMT has got to be eliminated! Add into this the double tax on dividends, etc.... Re: Value added taxes: This would tax undisclosed income from "illegal" sources. Those that were dealing drugs, and bought "something" still would be paying a certain amount, (call it a tax), that the Gov. would never realize at present. Bad thing about VAT, is that it would hit the working poor more than the rich. Good thing about it, is that it would hit the rich every time they made a purchase. Take Care out there!