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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (13904)	9/24/2003 3:53:51 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

For most of the twentieth century, the principal federal tax on individuals in the United States was on income, whether it is earned from labor (wages and salaries) or capital (interest, dividends, and capital gains). But a growing number of economists and politicians have concluded that the United States should replace the income tax—partially or entirely—with a tax on consumption. econlib.org

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (13904)	9/24/2003 4:16:59 PM
From: PerryA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

i'm straightforward in my view. the top 5% of the folks pay about 70% of the taxes. the steve forbes and hannitys of the world point this out ad nauseum. what they don't tell you is that the same 5% owns about 70% of america's stuff! That sounds plausible, but I'd be interested in some hard statistics if you have them. And so why not instead tax the "stuff" and not the income? If one of the principle functions of government in a free society is to define and enforce (i.e., protect) property rights, then why not pay for this service in proportion to one's property? Regards, PerryA