Why would it be a subsidy if one group pays less tax than another? I think you need to check the definition of the word. Some people make less than others. In your world some people would wind up spending more on tax than on housing. Which is ok, you ay, because they get it back. To which I reply, only if we trust the the feds to be competent, and neither you nor I finds that likely. So I think you are inconsistent.
As for your friend -- you are saying if he works he owes more? Ya? He winds up with more too or hasn't he noticed? I suspect he might have more incentive under my system though, because he won't be financing Bill Gate's Social security check. If not well, no proposal is a cure for stupidity, you know. Your second point is mistaken though, as corporate welfare is currently not spread evenly across the business spectrum. It tends to flow primarily to campaign contributors. If those corporations lose their tax break and have to increase the price of their goods, then people will buy those goods if they are worh buying and won't if they are not. Which is as it should be. Am I really arguing this point with somoene who claims to be a fiscal conservative? :) If you really want a copy of my schedule I'll be happy to provide it. I recommend we don't go there though -- it would only give you nightmares. Meanwhile I need to go deal with real life and hopefully I can do that without you claiming that I'm dodging the issue because I need to get groceries and edit some stuff. On 2/6/08, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dana wrote: > > hmm. What subsidies are you talking about? I don't seem to find the > > word anywhere in my proposal except in reference to doing away with > > bogus tax deductions. > > When you have one group pay less tax then another, one group is > subsidizing the other. That's the definition of the word subsidy. > ....and you avoided answering the actual question. > > "If their subsidies went up (as you suggest) and the taxes above that > line also went up, I know they would NEVER work. Do you think this would > encourage more of that behavior? If not - why not?" > > > If you think that doing away with bogus tax > > deductions for corporations will cause the price of goods to increase, > > this is mildly good, imho. The cost of goods should be paid by the > > people who buy them not by the taxpayers. And this will cause an > > increase in the cost of certain goods only, versus the increase under > > your propoal, which will be across the board. > > > > Increasing the price of goods to support a tax - sounds familiar. It > will only impact people who buy those goods - sounds familiar. > > Will cause an increase in the cost of certain goods only? I don't get > that. All businesses will have to increase their prices even if they > aren't over the AMT line because they buy good too. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:253484 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
