Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SoothingDave
Yeah, whatever dude. I'm just explaining the logic to ya. It's not all about animosity toward the rich.

Ummm, yes it is. It is tax-free for some 10-year old brat to buy a pair of $120 Uggs, but if some lady wants to spend $300 on a pair of Prada shoes it is taxable. That is class welfare at it worst. Either tax clothing or don't tax it. Don't make it a rich vs. poor BS. The poor already get to earn all their money tax free, while the rich are hit with a 40% income tax. It is more social engineering hate the rich BS.

14 posted on 03/30/2006 8:07:21 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Always Right
It is tax-free for some 10-year old brat to buy a pair of $120 Uggs, but if some lady wants to spend $300 on a pair of Prada shoes it is taxable.

From the article:

Under the change New York will drop its portion of the state sales tax -- 4 percent -- on clothing and shoe purchases under $110.

So your statement is false. It's still irrelevant. We can argue about the threshold number, but I don't think that's the key here.

The fact of the matter is that necessities should never be subject to a sales tax. Period. It's immoral. NYS is apparently abiding by this notion on a temporary basis. It should be a permanent thing.

Non-necessities of various kinds may be subject to taxation, as the peoples' representatives see fit.

SD

17 posted on 03/30/2006 10:14:29 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson