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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (67550)	11/23/2002 4:21:54 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Subsidizing crack whores?

To: Lane3 who wrote (67550)	11/23/2002 5:07:56 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

That's an idea. We should start, though, by not rewarding people for having kids. The child exemption is counter-intuitive. Families with children use more, not fewer, community resources. So they should, by any form of logic, pay more, not less, in taxes. This idea of paying less the more kids you have is a direct result of the income tax. You can't do that with sales taxes or other kinds of taxes -- those are much fairer if you consider fairness to be some attempt to match one's cost to society and one's contributions to society. No system is perfect, of course, except the system that has no taxes at all but just user fees. But it would be hard to figure out how to assess user fees for, say, defense, so that wouldn't work too well. But the present system of saying the more resources you use the less you should pay for them is, IMO, a terrible system. Not that I wasn't appreciative of paying fewer taxes when our kids were young. I didn't refuse the exemptions, I assure you. But even then I thought it was a dumb system.