quote:I don't. The way the candidate comes out on issues one has formed an opinion on is probably the best guide anyone who does not know the politician personally has on that person's judgment.
I think the reasons they give for their conclusions about political issues are a much better indicator of good or bad judgement than the conclusions themselves.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Government subsidized auto insurance? What for?
I tend to agree with mandated insurance. I've heard of too many cases of people getting totally screwed over by uninsured drivers. Even crappily insured drivers can do the same.
The best solution I've heard proposed for the uninsured driver problem is that liability insurance should be paid for with a user fee paid when you buy gasoline. That way everyone who had gasoline in their cars would have liability coverage, there would be no escaping it. All other attempts to force people to have liability insurance fail. Insurance is so expensive for high risk drivers that there is an enormous incentive for them to cheat the system and plenty of ways for them to do it. Forcing people to buy their insurance at a fix rate per gallon of gasoline would guarantee that every driver on the road had liability insurance.
People would still have to buy collision and comprehensive coverage on their own if they desired it, but there would be no way for them to escape having liability coverage.
As a side advantage, this would make the expensive of insurance proportional to how much you drive. If you have a vehicle you only drive a few times a year, you would pay very little for insurance. Those people who drive a huge number of miles, would pay more.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The best solution I've heard proposed for the uninsured driver problem is that liability insurance should be paid for with a user fee paid when you buy gasoline.
What, you're going to force me to buy auto liability insurance to run my weedeater?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Less governmental interference, more governmental assistance
And I want to be able to eat more fattening foods yet lose weight.
Its certainly not that mutually exclusive.
I want government subsidized auto insurance so that there is more regulation. When the government requires you to have insurance they are basically giving auto insurance companies alot of elbow room for screwing people. Does the government require people to have health insurance? No they do not, and many people still use emergency rooms and then just don't pay the bill. The problem is almost at epidemic proportions in California where trauma centers are closing left and right because illegal immigrants use them.
Right now my parents pay my insurance because I could never afford it on my own right now, I have been in two fender benders in the 9 years I have been driving, and two speeding tickets. I am not amazing, but I am certainly not a bad driver.
The government can provide services for its citizenry without dictating what they MUST do within that system. Yes to making health care available to everyone, no to saying I must immunize my daughters against cervical cancer.
I took a semester of school at BYU and the price of health insurance was included in the tuition. At first I was annoyed but $90 for 3 months of coverage is REALLY nice TBH.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The best solution I've heard proposed for the uninsured driver problem is that liability insurance should be paid for with a user fee paid when you buy gasoline.
What, you're going to force me to buy auto liability insurance to run my weedeater?
Buy an electric one. It's easier to use, and cheaper to run.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I go to college while working as a delivery driver, and I put anywhere from 60-90 miles on my car during work alone (whatever, I know some people drive more than that every day, but in the summer when I work full-time, I drive a ton, and gas is expensive enough as it is). I've never been in an accident and have a degree from a driving school (not that either of those really matter in the eyes of an insurance company), being 21, unmarried and all that other crap, my insurance cost is pretty high.
I wonder which method would be cheaper for me. In my mind, anything that's going to hit the poor or the working class seems bad; we have it hard enough as it is.
I think your idea is novel and fair from a perspective that the people who drive more are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, but if it does hurt the poor or cut into my ability to make ends meet on an already tight budget, I will be decidedly against it.
Let's not forget that some people simply can't afford a car that gets good gas mileage. For example, I have a '92 Dodge Caravan (things durable as all hell) and gets about 22 mpg going 60 on the freeway. Sure, your plan might promote the use of hybrids, but not everyone has that kind of luxury. There is no way I can afford another car, and it is unlikely I will be able to any time soon. And I know there are lot of other people out there, especially in the lower income bracket, that have one maybe two old automobiles that get poor gas mileage, so your plan will hit them extra hard.
Ah yes, issues (no particular order):
1. Equal marriage rights. 2. Decreasing deficit spending (breaking the Iron Triangle might be a good place to start). 3. Pork Barrel Spending/ Earmarks (I'm glad to see there's an effort being made in congress to address this problem, and I hope it helps). 4. Education (as this directly impacts my life now and the career I may be going into, plus the lives of my potential children). 5. Pro Stem cell research.
Like many others, I do not know what to do about the war on terror. I have come to accept it as something we will be dealing with for a long time to come, and I hope we have the patience and will to do the right thing, whatever that happens to be. Stay or leave, I'm not sure. How to stay or leave? not sure.
quote:The best solution I've heard proposed for the uninsured driver problem is that liability insurance should be paid for with a user fee paid when you buy gasoline.
What, you're going to force me to buy auto liability insurance to run my weedeater?
If Rabbit is talking about the proposal I read about a few years back (which I cannot find because I don't recall what the proposal was called or whose it was), there was a suggestion for dealing with gas usage for mowers, etc. IIRC, the idea was to have you keep the receipts and claim the difference back come tax time.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why in the world would a married, 28 year old man who drives a compact sedan want to pay the same premium for auto insurance as a 16 year old kid with an old Camero Z28?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Rabbit is talking about the proposal I read about a few years back (which I cannot find because I don't recall what the proposal was called or whose it was), there was a suggestion for dealing with gas usage for mowers, etc. IIRC, the idea was to have you keep the receipts and claim the difference back come tax time.
That's a pretty clever way of taxing people while pretending you're not, since most people won't bother to keep and file those receipts.
posted
Let me just say that I think it makes a lot of sense to tack on extra costs onto the price of gasoline. The amount of commercial gasoline that goes into such things as weedeaters and chainsaws dwindles into insignificance in comparison to that used for automobiles.
I thing that more of the taxes that go to maintaining roadways, highways, and interstates should come directly from gasoline taxes.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the surface, a gas tax (or "user fee for driving") to pay for liability insurance doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. We already use just such a user fee to pay for the roads (in theory anyway) and it lives up to the purpose of government, protecting us from force and fraud (even if it's accidental force)
Those who skip out on paying for their liability insurance already would be forced to pay. That includes illegals, kids who don't know better, adults who don't know better, people who know better but don't care, and even people driving on a suspended license. There would be no more tickets for driving without insurance cuz, you'd have it. There would be no more Uninsured Motorist insurance, because everyone who buys gas would be insured. And if you're too poor to carry Uninsured Motorist Insurance, you'd never again have to worry about getting hit by someone who doesn't have insurance and can't or won't pay.
I really hate the idea that we have to have liability insurance by law but I think we're stuck with it. One's car is just too expensive (and that's assuming no injuries!) to let someone smash it up and get away without fixing it.
I DO have some concerns, though.
It's yet another government program. And the government sucks at pretty much anything it does. I'm afraid it will be full of fraud and waste even more so than our current corrupt and bloated auto insurance system is. Further it violates the "Phone book" rule of government. That is, if you can find someone in the phone book who does it, the government shouldn't be involved.
Also, it's yet another hidden fee. The more you spread out and hide taxes and fees the easier it is to raise them and the easier it is to nickle and dime people to death. Take Witholding for example. People tend to proudly proclaim "I got $500 back this year!" instead of "Holy *#%@! I paid $30K in taxes this year! And Social Security on top of that!"
Pix
PS: How much gas does your weedwhacker REALLY use??
(edit: I took a long time typing this because of work interruptions. MPH beat me to a couple of points)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone answer my question? It's probably so obvious that I'm not seeing it, but it appears to me as though under the gas tax/insurance system suggested, the only thing that affects how much you pay is how much gas you use. This seems as silly as mandating national health care and rolling the taxes into your groceries.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that makes sense. If you use more gas, you're generally driving move, which means there's a greater chance that you'll get involved in an accident.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Why in the world would a married, 28 year old man who drives a compact sedan want to pay the same premium for auto insurance as a 16 year old kid with an old Camero Z28?
Why would he want to, or why should he? Most likely he would not want to. And in point of fact he wouldn't -- the compact is probably far more fuel-efficient than the old Camaro. Quite likely his driving habits are more fuel-efficient as well.
As someone who studied for the actuarial tests, I hear your point. However, the simple fact is that one of the most important questions insurance companies take into account now when calculating your rate for liability insurance is the number of miles you drive per year. This proposal simply makes it the only thing -- but just for liability insurance. You would still get a different rate than our theoretical teenager on the remaining types of car insurance (should you choose to buy them).
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Let me just say that I think it makes a lot of sense to tack on extra costs onto the price of gasoline. The amount of commercial gasoline that goes into such things as weedeaters and chainsaws dwindles into insignificance in comparison to that used for automobiles.
Precisely, and I neglected to make this point earlier, in my hurry to get out the door.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
It would hit the poor rather hard, but it sounds extremely logical and reasonable on the surface.
Since the poor are currently required to carry liability insurance if they drive, I don't see why it would hit them hard. Unless poor people are currently paying less than average for liability insurance (and I sincerely doubt that is the case) or the poor use more gas than average, they ought to come out about even.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
It would hit the poor rather hard, but it sounds extremely logical and reasonable on the surface.
Since the poor are currently required to carry liability insurance if they drive, I don't see why it would hit them hard. Unless poor people are currently paying less than average for liability insurance (and I sincerely doubt that is the case) or the poor use more gas than average, they ought to come out about even.
Do all states currently require liability insurance for drivers?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that I'm in favor of that I don't recall seeing mentioned in this thread is election reform. Right before the midterm elections, there was a ton of controversy about flaws in the voting system, especially the closed source and seemingly insecure voting machines. Unfortunately, this seems to have very much died down since then.
The problem is, this is the time that we need to be making those changes. We can't just bring up these issues a month or so before an election and expect anything to be done about it. Any sort of real change has to take place during this gap between elections, and it would be a shame if we waited until the next election to start caring again.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have one issue, but my big ones are:
*Equal marriage rights *Easier immigration, along the lines of recent Argentine reforms *A total abolition of Capital punishment *An end to tariffs *A more equitable policy for the Middle East
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
It would hit the poor rather hard, but it sounds extremely logical and reasonable on the surface.
Since the poor are currently required to carry liability insurance if they drive, I don't see why it would hit them hard. Unless poor people are currently paying less than average for liability insurance (and I sincerely doubt that is the case) or the poor use more gas than average, they ought to come out about even.
Do all states currently require liability insurance for drivers?
Good question. I thought that was something that the federal government had forced on all states by threatening to withhold federal highway funds. I did a search and couldn't find any states that don't require liability insurance but also couldn't find any definitive answer to the question.
I sort of figured that liability insurance attached as a user fee to gasoline prices should be handled by states rather than the feds anyway. This would work fine in the western states which are all large enough that few people buy their gas in a neighboring state. It could be much more problematic in some of the smaller east coast where people commonly commute across state lines. I suspect that there would have to be some sort of reciprocity agreement in those states which would work out fine if the user fee was set at nearly the same value in neighboring states.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My statement about hitting the poor, was that if this was instituted nationwide, especially in states that have no mandated liability insurnace, then it would be a sudden, new, jolt to the budgets of the poor.
In Michigan it's the LAW that you have to have coverage. You can get a ticket for not presenting it whenever you're pulled over. You can have the crappiest coverage in the world, but you have to have something. It wouldn't be so bad here. As a new cost to other states, I think it would come as a dramatic shock to the poor.
But, I don't know what states do and don't have coverage mandated. I'm positive that it isn't federally mandated, nor do I think it should be. That's a state issue, and I hate it when the Fed blackmails the states into doing things they don't have the legal right to do.
I wonder how many people really cross state lines THAT much. I live maybe 25 minutes north of the state line from Ohio. If, (arbitrarily I say this), a new liability gas tax were to be an extra 40 cents on top of what we spend now, that'd be 4 dollars extra for me to fill my tank, and 8 for my parents each, whose cars have bigger tanks. Driving the 25 minutes down and back would almost be worth it for their cars, but not for mine. I don't know how it works in the eastern states, I imagine their governments would work to create a single liability rate so none of them could cheat the others.
What really sucks is out of state visitors. I'd think this would harm tourism. Why should visitors from Ohio or anywhere else have to pay into Michigan's liability fund? The only way I could think of to solve that would be to make it so people have to swipe their driver's license through the card reader thing, and if you're from out of state, you get the out of state rate. But that sounds complicated. I know I'd think twice before visiting a state with a major gas price bump, if I could avoid it I would.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Abortion I personally do not believe in abortion. I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to. My mom nearly aborted me and I am glad she didn't. My wife had an abortion before we met. I do not hold it against her, but I know she still hurts emotionally from that.
2. Gay Marriage I am a straight, married guy. This also does not pertain to me. I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion. A "unioned" couple should get many of the same benifits as a "married" couple (insurance coverage, next of kin rights, etc.).
3. Stem-Cell Research I don't like the idea of taking aborted babies stem cells. But I am a healthy person with four healthy kids and a healthy spouse. I do not need (at least yet) the possible benifits of stem cell research. A good friend of mine has Osteogenisis Imperfecta (brittle bone disease). There could be huge benifits for him. How can I tell him "no, you may not use science to better your life". My concern is, if it is allowed, there will undoubtedly be people who "farm" fetuses. That is scary to me.
4. Large Government I HATE taxes, but we have to have them. I have a sister who received government assistance. I hate how the system is designed to keep people repressed. When she received a $0.25 raise, her benifits went down $100/month. She was actually worse off after the raise. How do you fix that?
5. Immegration (Legal and Illegal) Allow everyone who wants to come her, come. The only catch... do it legally. I am not an American Indian, therefore, I am an immagrant too. I have a better life here than I would of in Ireland, Switzerland, Germany (I'm a mut). I do not want anyone here illegally. Everyone else has to follow the rules. Why should we allow someones first act in our country be an illegal act. No amnesty either.
6. War in Iraq However we got there, we are there. The troops deserve our support and we cannot show the enemy we are so divided. This really makes me mad.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
brojack: regarding, your number four, economists tend to like approaches where every increase in income decreases benefits by somewhere in the range of 25 to 50 percent.
As for your number six, you might consider two things: one, most of our terrorist enemies hate us in general, and view us all in much the same way. Why should they care if we're debating issues? Two, most of the people who aren't directly our enemies, but are potential enemies, have problems with us precisely because they view us as much the same (godless, greedy, consumerist, et cetera); wouldn't emphasizing how we are not all of the same mind undermine their conception of us? On the first sentence, I agree. We have a responsibility to the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country to a reasonable state before departing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Marriage" as a religious institution shouldn't be legislatd, I believe. Giving all of the secular LEGAL benefits to a couple of any gender should be equal, and I think that's what brojack is saying. He's not telling anyone they can't have all the benefits of marriage.
So far as naming, I wouldn't even have a problem calling it marriage, so long as the state doesn't try (I don't see how they could) to make priests, pastors, etc perform ceremonies for same sex couples.
To too many people the word marriage is religious, and I can't say I blame them given the history of the institution.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "Marriage" as a religious institution shouldn't be legislatd, I believe. Giving all of the secular LEGAL benefits to a couple of any gender should be equal, and I think that's what brojack is saying. He's not telling anyone they can't have all the benefits of marriage.
Ah, see, that makes sense to me, and I agree. I'm totally for gay marriage, but I am completely against any federal intervention in religious marriage matters, including forcing churches to perform ceremonies or things of that nature if they do not wish to.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If "marriage" is a religious term (and I agree that it could be) then the government shouldn't be marrying people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: brojack: regarding, your number four, economists tend to like approaches where every increase in income decreases benefits by somewhere in the range of 25 to 50 percent.
As for your number six, you might consider two things: one, most of our terrorist enemies hate us in general, and view us all in much the same way. Why should they care if we're debating issues? Two, most of the people who aren't directly our enemies, but are potential enemies, have problems with us precisely because they view us as much the same (godless, greedy, consumerist, et cetera); wouldn't emphasizing how we are not all of the same mind undermine their conception of us? On the first sentence, I agree. We have a responsibility to the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country to a reasonable state before departing.
It is frustrating for her to work hard (really for the first time in her life) and end up with less than she had before. I tend to agree. The system does not seem to be setup to get people off of assistance.
Iraq: I don't know what the right answer is. I just hate that our troops and enemies see and hear so much negativity coming from the US. My brother-in-law is in the military and I hate to think of what he is going to go through when he is deployed next year. Then to hear news from back home about how the country is so divided on what he is doing. This troubles me.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions.
I think it is the old school part of me that just will not let go. I hate the phrase "seperate-but-equal" (because it never is), but yes I have no issue with gay couples having a legal union that gives them every right that my wife and I have. I think it's because I had such an ultra-conservative upbringing that I can't let go and call it a marriage.
Anyway, that's my thought.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the country is very divided on when to end the war, but that the whole of the country supports the troops, wants them to have adequate funding so they can remain protected, and also wants them to return home safely. But I agree that it must be very difficult for morale to know that half the country is against having them there in Iraq.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
jh, I think that most of the country does support the troops (I think we learned our lesson from Vietnam), but the news sounds so negative. Also, I don't think the Democrats are showing much support. *wince* here comes the storm.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If "marriage" is a religious term (and I agree that it could be) then the government shouldn't be marrying people.
Agreed. I think there should be a single secular entity, call it whatever you want, that everyone should be able to partake in, and if people choose to take the next step and have a religious ceremony and union, then they may do so.
The legal benefits of marriage weren't conferred by the bible (or whichever religious tome you choose), they are all given by the state, thus it seems ridiculous to protect them from same sex couple on religious grounds.
That would be equal for all in the eyes of the law.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think strong crypto that can be privately owned is pretty important. I don't think it's the most important thing, but it's in my top ten, for sure.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions.
I think it is the old school part of me that just will not let go. I hate the phrase "seperate-but-equal" (because it never is), but yes I have no issue with gay couples having a legal union that gives them every right that my wife and I have. I think it's because I had such an ultra-conservative upbringing that I can't let go and call it a marriage.
Anyway, that's my thought.
That's what I thought you meant, but I was curious to hear you say it.
The truth is, while I am in favor of gay marriage, I think this is a reasonable compromise. If what conservatives are hung up on is semantics, then maybe this "civil union" bit would work. The trouble is that conservatives are definitely not looking for a compromise as long as they can pass constitutional amendments like the one in kansas that did not just ban gay marriage, it banned all civil unions.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions.
I think it is the old school part of me that just will not let go. I hate the phrase "seperate-but-equal" (because it never is), but yes I have no issue with gay couples having a legal union that gives them every right that my wife and I have. I think it's because I had such an ultra-conservative upbringing that I can't let go and call it a marriage.
Anyway, that's my thought.
That's what I thought you meant, but I was curious to hear you say it.
The truth is, while I am in favor of gay marriage, I think this is a reasonable compromise. If what conservatives are hung up on is semantics, then maybe this "civil union" bit would work. The trouble is that conservatives are definitely not looking for a compromise as long as they can pass constitutional amendments like the one in kansas that did not just ban gay marriage, it banned all civil unions.
Yeah, I have a problem with that. My parents, and church, believe homosexuality is an illness and all homosexuals are pedophiles, etc. (I'm sure you have heard it all before). I just chose not to believe that way. That is one thing that bothers me most about organized religion. People just believe the person that is behind the pulpit. I prefer to listen, research, then formulate my own opinion.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: 5. Tax equality -- I want to see the rich pay their fair share
I'm curious, who do you think pays taxes in the U.S. now?
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 30-35% of the total income taxes each year.
The top 5% of taxpayers pay about 50% of the total income taxes each year.
The top 50% of taxpayers pay about 95% of the total income taxes each year.
The bottom 50% of tax payers pay the remaining 5%. Many taxpayers in the bottom 50% pay no taxes at all; some "pay" negative taxes, getting a refund even though they pay no income tax.
Trust fund taxes are also paid on a progressive basis. Property taxes are paid mostly by those in the higher income brackets (because they are more likely to own taxable property, and their property is likely to be worth more).
The only truly regressive tax in the U.S. are the sales taxes imposed in most states. You could make an argument that things like the federal gasoline tax or "sin" taxes are also regressive in effect. Are you saying that you want to repeal sales taxes and the gasoline tax?
Posts: 5 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only truly regressive tax in the U.S. are the sales taxes imposed in most states.
Not true. The payroll taxes for social security and medicare are regressive - especially social security, which is only assessed on the first 90k or so of wages. They're not assessed at all on many other forms of income, most of which go dispoportionately to those earning more.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
"
