Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: A Taxing Question
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
Feb 1, 2012, 4:34:17 PM2/1/12
to
Derald wrote:
> In my state, the lion's share of local ad valorem taxes goes to the
> public school system ("public school" does not mean the same in US as
> in UK), although, I am not at all sure of what percentage they now
> actually cover. A local politico (my "representative" in the the
> state's bicameral legislature) sent around a survey/questionnaire
> with the following:
>>
>> Would you favor a revenue-neutral proposal that eliminated all
>> property taxes in >exchange for an increase of 8 cents in the sales
>> tax, but still maintaining tax exemptions >for food and medicine?
>
> There presently exists a uniform statewide sales tax (6%, I think)
> with an additonal 1% "local option" which may be imposed by local
> jurisdictions for certain prescribed uses. In the county in which I
> reside, the total rate is 7%. Food and prescriptions are not taxed.
> No personal income tax. I know that sales or consumption taxes are
> denigrated as "regressive" but it seems to be a more even
> distribution of the tax burden of supporting schools (for example)
> than now exists. I think most would agree that those paying real
> estate taxes, not to mention the associated non-negotiable "fees"
> associated with real estate ownership, subsidize some measure of
> public services not paid for with other resources. It seems to me
> that, aside from deliberately limiting ones income and/or never
> owning or collecting real estate, controlling ones consumption is the
> most direct way for every citizen to control his tax burden. In an
> age when child-bearing is 100% voluntary, the old "gotta feed the
> family" argument no longer is valid. The basis for the "additional
> 8%" value is unknown but I'd presume the actual percentage would be
> the minimum necessary to replace the ad valorem taxes. Of course, as
> long as politicos stay in office by spending other people's money,
> then the sky's the limit.
> At any rate, response choices are: Yes; no; unsure.
> What say you?
That thats the way most modern first and second world countrys now pay
for their public schools, with that sort of a tax rather than property taxes.
> In my state, the lion's share of local ad valorem taxes goes to the
> public school system ("public school" does not mean the same in US as
> in UK), although, I am not at all sure of what percentage they now
> actually cover. A local politico (my "representative" in the the
> state's bicameral legislature) sent around a survey/questionnaire
> with the following:
>>
>> Would you favor a revenue-neutral proposal that eliminated all
>> property taxes in >exchange for an increase of 8 cents in the sales
>> tax, but still maintaining tax exemptions >for food and medicine?
>
> There presently exists a uniform statewide sales tax (6%, I think)
> with an additonal 1% "local option" which may be imposed by local
> jurisdictions for certain prescribed uses. In the county in which I
> reside, the total rate is 7%. Food and prescriptions are not taxed.
> No personal income tax. I know that sales or consumption taxes are
> denigrated as "regressive" but it seems to be a more even
> distribution of the tax burden of supporting schools (for example)
> than now exists. I think most would agree that those paying real
> estate taxes, not to mention the associated non-negotiable "fees"
> associated with real estate ownership, subsidize some measure of
> public services not paid for with other resources. It seems to me
> that, aside from deliberately limiting ones income and/or never
> owning or collecting real estate, controlling ones consumption is the
> most direct way for every citizen to control his tax burden. In an
> age when child-bearing is 100% voluntary, the old "gotta feed the
> family" argument no longer is valid. The basis for the "additional
> 8%" value is unknown but I'd presume the actual percentage would be
> the minimum necessary to replace the ad valorem taxes. Of course, as
> long as politicos stay in office by spending other people's money,
> then the sky's the limit.
> At any rate, response choices are: Yes; no; unsure.
> What say you?
That thats the way most modern first and second world countrys now pay
for their public schools, with that sort of a tax rather than property taxes.
0 new messages