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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (84286)	11/5/2004 7:32:12 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

>>You know they will let them "borrow" the bucks<< Yup, I'm afraid so. Plus the down-and-out types will want to withdraw whatever they can get and drink it. Then they'll be broke and looking for charity. Right now some of these folks get put into a kind of housing/support program where their monthly SS check is signed over. That would get disrupted if they've burned the money. Congress needs to think this thru. >>I can see a flat tax starting at a fairly high base<< I'd love to see some kind of tax simplification. My fear is that Congress would then spend the next 30 years clogging it up again. >>Tort reform is a done deal<< Easy to do and badly needed. I get real tired of hearing about these joker lawsuits.

To: LindyBill who wrote (84286)	11/5/2004 8:41:51 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 793800

<<<I can see a flat tax starting at a fairly high base. A value added or sales tax approach won't work. But not yet. I think we will end up giving the present system a "haircut.">> We will have colonies on Mars and be mining the asteroids before Federal Tax laws are explained in way the public can understand them. They are designed not for fairness but to control and direct the use of a persons money. Some laws designed to encourage having offspring, sending kids to school, investments in homes, transportation, insurance,or medical care. To encourage or discourage stock investments, dividend treatments, sell tax free bonds. I just find it difficult to picture 500 lawyers in Congress agreeing on a simple system that will put thousands of their kin out of work. But miracles have happened. Sig

To: LindyBill who wrote (84286)	11/5/2004 10:13:51 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

I learned something yesterday. Doing a bankruptcy for a Legal Aid client, her income is $4000, but at the creditor's meeting she says she got a tax refund of $4000 this year for 2003. I was dumbfounded. The trustee asks how much her husband makes - $18,000. I'm like, "how do you get a tax refund of $4000?" She and the trustee turn to me and say in unison, "earned income." Later she tells me that's the only time she can buy anything, is when she gets her tax refund.

To: LindyBill who wrote (84286)	11/6/2004 7:41:42 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793800

I'll tell you why my first choice would be A VAT TAX. A LOT of $$$ are hidden from the govt. by various ways. This would END THAT. I suspect so much ADDITIONAL revenue would come out of the woodwork that we would be AMAZED. That being said, I would prefer a flat tax over our current MAZE of tax laws. The poor can be protected by starting it at 20k or so and just cause its flat doesnt mean we couldnt have say 15% from 20-50k and 20% from 50-100k and 25% on all over 100k. I bet if we had that and NO EXEMPTIONS AT ALL most people would pay nor more and many less then they pay right now in taxes. I NEVER think ANYONE should pay more then 25% no matter HOW MUCH they earn. jdn