Dave Long wrote:
> I'm leaving out the house,
Well, of course. Grrr...
> Last I heard, homeownership was
> supposed to be beneficial to tax burden; is
> that not true?
Any tax is burdensome.
> Sorry, that 1% was to show that, in a discussion of
> the relative merits of progressive vs. regressive
> tax systems, I don't (and you shouldn't) care what
> the actual tax rate over all taxpayers may be.
> (ok, 0 or 100% would make it moot, but anything in
> the middle is orthogonal to the entire argument)
Don't understand this reasoning at all, sorry.
> > Tariffs and duties in imported items; additional taxes on gasoline,
> > tobacco, liquour, etc; tolls for roads, parking, etc.; bond
> > elections; etc. etc. These are all taxes, people.
> Tariffs, duties, gasoline, tobacco, liquor, road
> tolls, etc. are all like the sales tax. How much
> can one really incur? Bond elections are either
> paid for out of sales or property taxes in my
> experience, so that'd be double counting.
The point is, tax is tax. And we've got 9 million creative little ways for
various gov't agencies and entities to get to the front of the line to get a
piece of you. If you add them *all* up, our tax burden is too high.
As for double counting, when my property tax goes up because of a bond
election, that changes the numbers.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:44 PDT