-=> On 03-06-98  15:20, Walter Luffman did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning advert. for 23% sales tax <=-
 
 RC> Also, let me point out that the sales tax is also punitive
 RC> to retirees and those others living off savings. After
 RC> paying the Federal government 28-36% income tax on those
 RC> saved dollars, you now find that Uncle Sugar wants another
 RC> 23% of each saved dollar as you spend it.
 WL> Again, I suppose some lawmaker could be persuaded to sponsor
 WL> legislation to give a break to people in special
 WL> circumstances, with special "tax-break" or "tax-exempt"
 WL> cards issued by the gummint.  But that would defeat the
 WL> entire idea of a "simple" tax system to replace what we
 WL> have now.  If there's a way to implement a change in the
 WL> tax system that keeps it simple _and_ keeps it workable
 WL> and fair for all, I'd like to see it; personally, I
 WL> can't envision it.
It's a matter of first deciding the principles for
formulating tax policy. No matter how general in nature, a
tax policy affects behaviour. The question is whether the
policy is designed to influence behaviour or whether the
influence is an unintended effect. 
Personally, I oppose taxation for the purpose of
manipulating behaviour.
Generalities aside, taxes should not impoverish citizens.
IOW, no tax on income < 110% of the poverty level.
Secondly, the tax rate should be a single rate for all
incomes. Progressive tax rates are socialist in nature.
Thirdly, exemptions should be limited to those activities
in which the state has a legitimate interest. Example:
since the state has a real interest in child-rearing,
insofar as it is done well, exemptions for marital status
and for children are probably legitimate. 
Other exemptions, such as for education, will be more
controversial.
... Big brother is watching, listening, reading, taxing, and taking notes.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------