<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>My $.02 cents worth…. plus tax (except where prohibited):<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think some of the taxation points raised on V2020 of late are a little undeveloped and way oversimplified. (I don’t think I needed to point that out). The grocery tax has always been considered a regressive tax (it burdens lower income more heavily than wealthier people) because food represents a higher percentage of their income spent on necessary spending. So, that’s not very fair from a viewpoint of percentage of income. But how does one set these standards? A modicum of a sense of fairness and the political process of course. And the points about rich people not benefitting from tax for education misses other points. Even if you have ZERO kids in school, or never had kids, it is a good thing to support public education because—among other things—you help prevent the otherwise uneducated and (therefore most likely) unemployed people from dropping by your house to burglarize your belongings. That taxation then is a benefit after all—however difficult to measure. And I still have to pay my gas taxes, which go into road construction, even on roads I may never travel over at any time in my life. That’s fair. I might need to go down that road… I’m paying for potential. It’s an insurance policy; I pay for insurance even if my house never burns down. A flat tax on retail consumption alone wouldn’t be fair, at least not on the argument that the rich people would end up paying their fair share because they spend “more” than lower income people. Duh. And Donovan does point out that the fault in the system is that it assumes everyone benefits equally, which is probably not accurate. I bet some smart folks have gone over that concept in depth, but just in terms of simple practicality, because of the staggering complexity of achieving such a goal you’ll never have a system that benefits everyone equally in terms of dollars or services received. But then, we should keep in mind that these systems are meant to benefit the community at large, as a resource, not serve the needs of each individual. Does it not seem proper that someone should have to pay taxes to pay for libraries and city parks, even though you happen to be illiterate and an agoraphobic? And, so big deal if I happen to get food stamps and the rich folks don’t? Some rich lady still might still end up needing those food stamps when her stock holdings tank or her banks go under or she falls for a really, really attractive email-based Nigerian con game.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So, I hereby propose a uniform tax system based on number of breaths taken per year. People who jog, pant a lot, or are heavy smokers will be taxed more based on consumption, and people with consumption won’t pay a cent. Fair is fair.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Bob Dickow, troublemaker<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>-------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>“….</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Really? Where is this data? (And I don’t mean a HuffPost blog post… I would be wanting to read some real raw data…) The wealthiest of Americans don’t qualify for welfare, yet they are taxed for it…. the wealthiest of Americans are more likely to opt for private schooling, but still must pay the taxes for public schools. (To an extreme degree, the HIGHER the income level you go the LESS likely you are to have more (or any) children… but yet the taxes are there... )… but I don’t want to digress too far…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Admittedly, I should have been a little more clear in where my opinions lie: I am in strong favor of a FLAT % TAX based upon RETAIL CONSUMPTION. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Jay</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>”</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>--------------------------------</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Donovan Arnold wrote: </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#1F497D'>“</span><span style='color:black'>The fundamental problem with the flat tax theory is that it assumes everyone benefits equally from the government. </span><span style='color:#1F497D'>“</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>