actually we are not taxed as hevily here as in most of
europe. i do not know how much the corp. taxadds to
the price of goods and services. that is a bill
introduced every year, but, gets little notice that
would do away with our federal taxes altogether and
replace it with some version of a federal sales tax.
it would be a staight 23% on anything that you bought.
supposedly that would be a break even as far as
federal tax is concerned. there would be some kind of
rebate to protect the poor. i am not sure how it would
work, but, it would at least be easier that the
present system of trying to figure out what is owed.
it seems that our tax system gets more complicated
every year. one thing is sure, no government can work
without taxes. takes money to do all the things that
people want government to do. it appears that everyone
wants less taxes with a few exceptions, but, no one
wants less services.
--- Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Thursday 01 May 2003 4:44 pm, you wrote:
> > What gets me is how the feds expected the local
> governments to implement
> > security measures and pay for it when local
> budgets are strained to the
> > max.  *shakes head*
> >
> > I'm apalled by stories I hear from friends who are
> disabled and living on
> > SS or other fixed income.  They do without
> much-needed meds, adaptive
> > equipment, aides, etc. because they can't afford
> them and the local
> > services are fraying at the edges.  A local
> non-profit  pharmacy that
> > issues free scripts to the poor is in the danger
> of closing down because of
> > the lack of funding and a downward trend in
> donations.  There have been a
> > lot of layoffs in the local area and so people are
> hurting, badly.  However
> > much I loathed Clinton's personal messes, I think
> we were better off under
> > the Dems than the Republicans, as far as ADA
> rights and the economy is
> > concerned.
> >
> > Kat
> >
>
> There's the nub. If you are concerned with
> re-distributing wealth from those
> who can afford it to those who can't (which is what
> the schemes you mention
> above entail), it means living under a higher burden
> of taxation than you
> currently enjoy.
>
> As a Welshman living in the UK I must admit I don't
> understand why there is a
> difference between attitudes to State and Federal
> taxation. In the UK (at my
> pay level) I pay about 42.5% in Direct Taxation,
> 17.5% in Indirect Tax (on
> most Goods & Services), and Local Tax is paid based
> on my house value. In
> addition there is hefty "Excise Duty" on 'luxuries'
> - petrol, booze & fags -
> various sundry taxes & "Licence Fees":-
>
>         Road Tax Licence
>         TV Licence (paid in full to the BBC)
>         Betting Tax
>
> As you can see most taxation is levied at national
> level, part of this is paid
> back to Local Authorities based on population
> demographics.
>
> The UK is by no means highly taxed (compared to
> other N Europe countries) and
> personally I am more in favour of moving the ratio
> towards Direct taxation
> rather than Indirect, and paying higher taxes -
> although I'm unfortunately in
> the minority.
>
> What's the tax levels like in the US.
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com