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.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (3131)	5/26/2015 8:48:10 PM
From: robert b furman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26780

Hi steve, That is a very narrow perception of the consumption tax. Say I'm a plumber and I work 40 hours and side job in the evening or a mechanic at a dealership and does tune ups in his garage at night. Or a drug dealer who pays no one but drives a cadillac. They all buy food and gas and fix there home or gop out to eat. If yuou tax the broadest base at the same rate - you have a fair atx that impacts the cheaters of the income tax. THEN you can decide to save or consume. If you make more income by working harder on the side - you save. - but still pay a fair share of your consumption. Every one should have some skin in the game. The underground economy that the government misses is huge and the tax could be much smaller than most anticipate. Bob

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (3131)	5/26/2015 8:58:09 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 26780

Ideally, it is probably best to have what we have in CA which is having three major tax revenue sources. THey are taxing income, spending and breathing (property tax since you have to breath someplace unless you are homeless then someone else pays for it). But, when you look at taking 13.30% at the top bracket for income tax, then take 9 or 10% for whatever they buy with the money... then if they buy an average $1M SF Home, you get another $12,000 a year, give or take... it starts to add up to serious restraints on growth unless you believe we get great value for this money. I don't... I paid via taxes to educate a neighbor's three kids through college and they all moved out of state so my return on that investment is zero... while my neighbor got to deduct the cost of those kids on his Fed and state taxes.... so... anyway... just grumbling. If I live to 100+, delay taking Social Security until I'm 70 and spend my cash before then to live well.... I'll do well enough. Maybe the obesity epidemic where many people now do not live as long as their parents did is all a government plot to save on Social Security.