Subj : Re: Um...no comment?
To   : Richardw
From : Finnigann
Date : Mon Sep 12 2005 07:16 pm

-=> Richardw wrote to Finnigann <=-

 Ri>   Re: Re: Um...no comment?
 Ri>   By: Finnigann to Richardw on Mon Sep 12 2005 03:22 pm

 > -=> Richardw wrote to Deuce <=-
 >
 >  Ri>   Re: Re: Um...no comment?
 >  Ri>   By: Deuce to Frank Reid on Fri Sep 09 2005 09:00 pm
 >
 >  >   Re: Re: Um...no comment?
 >  >   By: Frank Reid to Frank on Fri Sep 09 2005 20:48:00
 >  >
 >  >  >  >    If it's a subject that ran aground recently then I'll get off it
 >  >  >
 >  >  > Nah, not trying to discourage you from posting on the topic whatsoever
 >  >  > think it's a good (and necessary) thing to redistribute wealth.  Other
 >  >  > uphill "sucking" would very quickly leave a vacuum at the bottom, and
 >  >  > be serfs working on some baron's land!
 >  >
 >  > Bah, tax people when they die.  Just make a flat 95% tax on estates.
 >  >
 >
 >  Ri> You are one twisted individual.
 >
 > What?? I'm not very smart but I can think of ways around that already. Just
 > give your kids everything in a trustfund and allow your self a living expens
 > for the taxman to fight over.

 Ri> You're even more twisted that Duece.  Let's design a tax, then think of
 Ri> ways around it!  What's the matter with a flat 10% income tax?  Or how
 Ri> about a flat 10% sales tax?  Everybody pay the same percentage.


No single tax plan will be fair to everyone. Almost before the ink is dry one
group or another will see inequaties. A flat sales tax is unfair to those that
earn little more than they need to survive. A steped tax pushes the burden
towards the wealthy. If we all made 100,000 + then it wouldn't be such a
question. But that isn't the case.

And it's not sick to take advantage of the laws. It's reprehensible to make the
laws that way in the first place.

.... BBSing is terminal.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
 þ Synchronet þ Bits-N-Bytes BBS    Onehellofa BBS     bnb.dtdns.net

.