|
|
 | | Re: Tax relief?
|
| (...) Well, you could always exempt earnings below a subsistence level income -- that's one solution still easily understood and uncomplicated. Another, probably better, solution would be a federal sales tax on non-perishables/luxury type items. But (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Tax relief?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes: <snip> (...) The real problem with a flat tax is that lower income lose out the most. To a person making $20,000 a year, 10% means a lot more than it would to a person making $200,000 a year. I (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Tax relief?
|
| (...) No I checked the latest bill pretty thoroughly, and all brackets recieve relief, actually if the original plan for marriage penalty relief was still in force I would pay almost no federal income tax at all. (...) Exactly, which is why I want (...) (21 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Tax relief?
|
| (...) "Some"? Might want to check those facts, Costello. (...) The extravagantly wealthy have access to loopholes and other measures that negate their taxes. See previous postings in this forum by yours truly. (...) Totally agree. (...) No, revenue (...) (21 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| (...) I find arguing about these distinctions in a thread about the way fiction as reality is being foisted upon us by the current administration increasingly laughable. Where are the WMD? When precisely are we pulling out of Iraq? Why were the (...) (21 years ago, 18-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
