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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5201)	9/24/1998 4:25:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

That's part of the reason a sales tax and/or an excise tax should be considered in creating a low gross income tax of approximately 5 to 10%. It would create a fairer trade with those countries. Some European countries have a 33% VAT. The other reason is the 15-20% of the economy that has undocumented and untaxed income.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5201)	9/24/1998 4:30:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<< do you happen to know offhand what would be the % for a consumption tax if we were to replace the income tax with a consumption tax.>> Actually, your estimate was about right. When the Presidential candidates were facing off about this in the last election, the guess was around 23%, with an exception for food. There was some discussion regarding housing, but I believe it was not excluded when they were using the 23% number. That would also only be for the federal tax. State and local taxes would be extra. Part of the reason I like this approach, is that the amount will shock people, even though it's no different from what they are currently paying. Maybe then we'll see smaller, more efficient government, and less of the expensive types of government intervention that our Congress is so famous for.