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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (9002)	11/15/1998 5:06:00 PM
From: pezz	Respond to of 13994

<<a much larger proportion of their small income would go for taxes>> This of course would have to be accounted for. Perhaps zero taxes on essentials. I believe this could be worker out. pez

To: jbe who wrote (9002)	11/16/1998 2:13:00 AM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Every flat tax proposal I've seen only taxes income above a certain amount, say, $25,000 annually. The "poor", therefore, will pay no taxes at all under a flat tax proposal. halfscot

To: jbe who wrote (9002)	11/16/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 13994

Much of the tax currently is levied on differences in wages that are attributable to where one lives in the country. People living in urban areas and on the coasts pay higher federal taxes than those living in rural areas and in the interior of the country. Much of those urban areas also have higher local tax rates. It would be more equitable to have lower and flatter federal tax rates, and eliminate adjustments that are biased by locality, such as property tax and mortage interest. The local governments would be free to adjust the taxes to meet their needs. But then, the federal government would continue to lose more power ---- their main weapons in the past 20 years has been withholding highway funds, welfare funds, medicare/medicaid funds, and education funds.