To: wizard1961
Horrid. We don’t want a ‘progressive’ scale, we want (and for Justice’s sake, need) a flat applies-equally-to-everyone tax.
2 posted on
02/20/2010 8:50:39 AM PST by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: OneWingedShark
“We dont want a progressive scale, “
I want to be sure you realize the “progressive” part applies to giving bigger corporations a bigger reason to hire people in the US.
It does not target “the rich” but instead gives fortune 500 companies incentive to hire in the US. Thanks
5 posted on
02/20/2010 9:09:54 AM PST by
wizard1961
(Teaper says: For 2010, let Sarah be Sarah)
To: OneWingedShark
I read somewhere that if you want less of something, tax it, and more of something, subsidize it. What if we were to give a single mother of one child a set amount, more than enough for 3 children, but if she got pregnant again, then take 1/3 away. Each subsequent pregnancy results in a cut in benefits. I wonder what would happen.
Similarly, what if we taxed higher incomes at a lower rate than lower incomes. Would that drive people to make more money, I wonder. I just propose these as experiments for one state to be a test to see what would happen.
10 posted on
02/20/2010 10:04:51 AM PST by
sportutegrl
(VETO PROOF MAJORITY IN 2010)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson