Path: utzoo!dciem!client2!kevin
From: kevin@client2.DRETOR.UUCP (Socrates)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: TAX REVOLT NOW!!
Message-ID: <2384@client2.DRETOR.UUCP>
Date: 11 Aug 89 18:08:38 GMT
References: 
Reply-To: kevin@client2.dciem.dnd.ca (Socrates)
Distribution: can
Organization: NTT SYSTEMS INC.
Lines: 26

In article  kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes:
>
>How about looking for tax shelters?  That's a more direct solution.
>No amount of bitching is going to change the government's greed.
>
Agreed, at least in principle, but I think "direct solution" is the wrong
wording.  How about "direct contribution to the problem"?  As the
government sees their tax money get smaller from more people using tax
shelters, they decide that they have to regain this money somehow and find
YAT (yet another tax) to slap us with. Then we find a different shelter,
until the government decides they need more money, ..etc.. ad infinitum.

I'm not all that familiar with tax theory.  Can somebody out there give me
some good solid reasons why a household income tax would not work?

That is, have income tax be a percentage of:
     ( net_household_income - dependant_deductions )  period, full stop.
where income == money_in (actual or paper) - money_out (actual or paper).

Sure would make filling out the tax forms easier :-).

-- 
--- Kevin Picott   NTT Systems, Inc., Toronto, Ontario
    "There can be no offense where none is taken" - Japanese Proverb

    kevin@zorac.dciem.dnd.ca, or on some sites kevin@zorac.ARPA