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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2123)	3/11/1999 7:30:00 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

<<I don't think anyone ever said taxes are evil in principle... Income taxes are, but I don't think anyone would be outraged by consumption >> Amen, MeDroogies! Moreover, consumption is a matter of individual choice and one can lower his taxes by not consuming as much if one wishes. And it require no invasion of privacy when you pay an excise tax! But what can one do to reduce the onus of progressive income taxation? It punishes those who succeed economically and subsidizes those who don't. It is also somewhat arbitrary and subjective in defining "Gross Income". Section 61 of IRC defines Gross Income in circular terms "Gross income is income for any source whatsoever." Deductions, however, are only permitted to the extent that they are specifically defined in the IRC!! The progressive income tax is a monument to the politics of class envy. It is about Marxism, not Capitalism. The Social Security system and the progressive income tax are twin pillars of the Welfare state. That's why the "Old Deal" Democrats squawk so loudly when debate centers on either of these sacred artifacts. It is simply axiomatic to these folks that these two programs are "good" per se. Daniel PS. Is your screen name MeDroogies an allusion to Oliver Twist's Fagin?