| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
<snip>
> > > Now that it looks like it is finally going to pass, Democrats will claim
> > > that it only benefits the rich, and that is partially true, but since the
> > > rich pay the majority of the taxes, I don’t see how it could be otherwise.
> >
> > The extravagantly wealthy have access to loopholes and other measures that
> > negate their taxes. See previous postings in this forum by yours truly.
>
> Exactly, which is why I want to see the system changed so that it is so
> simple, fancy accounting would have no place in escaping taxation. I
> personally lean more toward the flat tax system, but would be open to other
> simmilar options.
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 don't know what a viable alternative might
be though.
-Orion
<snip>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 19-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
