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