3 ms·
I think that this is probably a logical extension of the underlying logic. Sales taxes are inherently harder on people with less money than people with more mo
by jmcqk6 9y ago
I think that this is probably a logical extension of the underlying logic.
Sales taxes are inherently harder on people with less money than people with more money. That's demonstrable just based on simple math.
Any argument for sales taxes over income taxes that doesn't recognize that fundamental mathematical truth is not being intellectually honest (or doesn't know the topic very well).
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoThe problem is that no one is naive enough to believe they'll somehow lower any existing taxes (either sales or property) with the introduction of an income tax. They'll keep them all, and try and introduce some new program that helps a specific demographic. From what I see, this usually ends up with money moving between pockets with a bureaucracy taking its cut along the way. I try not to be overly political, but I can't stand the idea of a strong, central planning government. Let's see a balanced, itemized budget. Even in the article they're just spitballing ideas with what they could do it an extra $140m.
- Simon_says 9y agoIt doesn't seem like it logically follows to me. The government having more money is often a good thing, but it has to be weighed against the damage government programs can do and the costs to the people of higher taxation. It's debatable, and people like the woman in the article want to short-circuit the debate by calling the other side the devil.