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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (42752)	4/14/2010 5:32:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I, for one, approve IN PRINCIPLE. Which doesn't change the facts that it is a tax increase, and a new law to increase taxes, and something that will affect more than just a few people. And I don't approve. I don't see any good principle to support this increase and I think the practical affect will be negative. Re: "The tobacco tax has already been increased." Like Reagan's folks argued incessantly I don't think the Reagan administration was a powerful force behind higher tobacco taxes. Even if it was it is a tax increase, and a new law to increase taxes, and a tax that mostly affects people making well below $250k. I lean against the idea of sin taxes. I don't want government deciding to penalize X, and reward Y, with different parts of the tax code. Make the tax systems as simple, low, and non-interventionist as reasonably possible. And there are other new or higher taxes created by recent laws (signed by Obama) in the list, not just those two.