On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:14 PM, G Money <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > And I don't know that it would provide much disincentive to purchases, > > as most purchasing by lower-income groups is NOT discretionary, and > > discretionary spending by upper income folks is not going to be > > impacted by taxes, as they don't even seem to be impacted by price. > > > > Boy I don't know about that. I mean, we're talking about making up ONE > THIRD > of federal revenue. That's more than just a few cents extra on every > purchase...i think we're talking significant percentage cost increases on > all items, not just discretionary spending. > > We could make the argument that it all evens out. I mean, if I get to keep > 15% more of my income, then I should have more money to spend on items > which > have become more expensive....but I'm not sure if the psychology of > consumerism works that way. > > And I think it's not necessarily true that upper income folks don't care > about price. Some of the cheapest people I know are rich :) > > Maybe we never do away with it completely but look at where tax brackets started previously, w/ inflation, it could be said you get your first $100,000 tax free ;-) http://reason.com/archives/1999/01/01/constitutional-challenge By 1894, a majority in Congress came to support some form of income taxation. It passed a law which imposed a 2 percent flat tax on corporate net income, and on individual incomes in excess of $4,000 ($76,000 in 1998 dollars). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:336859 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
