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 (9079)	11/17/1998 8:48:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

jbe - re: Taxes. The Brookings' study is monumentally biased toward retention of the status quo. The most blatant part is their run-up of the supposed required rate to accommodate avoidance issues, etc., where they seek to make everyone think it would have to be a rate of over 60%, which they then claim will cause everyone to find ways around it. There are a large number of technical issues that require debate about a consumption tax, but making it as onerous as possible seems to be the goal of the Brookings' "study." My position still is that if absolute fairness is the goal, then a consumption-based tax is the only possible, let alone viable, answer. Any other system takes the person(s) being taxed into consideration, and thus, voids impartiality and fairness. If a system can be crafted around the premise of not recognizing the individual being taxed, it would be vastly more fair. However, given that it would wrest so much power from the political machines, I don't see much hope for it. Mr. K.

To: jbe who wrote (9079)	11/17/1998 10:13:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>There appears to be little sound motivation for heaping >huge tax cuts on precisely the groups whose income and wealth have >benefitted the most from recent events, and raising burdens >significantly on others. It makes it sound as if the process of improving one's economic position is a passive process. The only way to fairly tax people is to have a sales tax to replace part of a lower, flat income tax. Most of the people who receive cash income cheat on their taxes and on receiving government benefits.

To: jbe who wrote (9079)	11/17/1998 12:14:00 PM
From: pezz	Respond to of 13994

A couple of things that this study fails to address jbe.I have a friend who is offered overtime [sat.] by his company on occasion. Time and a half, but he refuses. Why I ask? Because he explains the government [state and federal ] will take half,I would rather go fishing.Tough to argue with this says I.The point is I believe a sales tax would have all of us working our butts off.Think about it each of us would have a fixed tax bill [more or less]for our basic cost of living.Once we were to meet this expense the rest is ours ,big incentive here. I also have a beef about the progressive nature of the current tax structure.The main complaint against the sales tax is that the poor will pay more percent wise than the very rich. Unfair says you.Well since we are talking fair here lets take a look see. A single person makes a million. A family of four makes fifty thousand. We know who pays the most taxes .Question, who uses the most government goods and services? Is one person paying anothers bills a fair definition of fairness? This progressive nature of our tax system is of course necessary in order to pay the bills. The smaller income can not afford to pay their fair share of the tax bill. None the the less the idea that any reduction of the tax burden on the most successful members of society is unfair is subject to review IMO. One beef I do have with the flat taxers and the sales tax people is the way they seem to always claim that every body will pay less. Makes no sense, somebody must pay.More looking into this subject at least for me is necessary. pez