| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky writes:
> 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.
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 don't kid yourself that 10% is even close to what they would demand,
think of a higher rate.
My problem with the system is being taxed as much as a socialist country but
not getting the same level of quality programs as do many socialistic
countries. My main concern is value for the money (it's always my concern
-- always, always, always -- it's the heart of all of history). If we
aren't going to get socialized medicine and such I'd just as soon pay a LOT
less in local, state, and federal taxes. So, give us what we pay for; or
stop pretending and stop collecting so much for what is never going to
happen anyway.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
