HeyBub wrote:

KLS wrote:

Of course, those people always like the most regressive taxes as they
don't care about the actual impact of the taxes on real people,
looking only at the numbers to make sure they're "fair."


If we want a "fair" tax, regressive taxes are the way to go. Poor people use
more services.

No, they don't. Take police protection. Poor people have less property
to protect. QED.

It's only fair.

Well, what if a poor person doesn't HAVE the money to pay their "fair" tax?

They can give blood platelets. At, say, $300 credit per unit, once per
month, they could have their annual per capita tax of $3000 paid for in less
than a year. Sorta like withholding.

But what about the mother of 4, each child under the age of six! It would be
cruel to extract a unit of platelets from an infant!

Absolutely!

But the mother is responsible, so what to do? She could contribute a kidney.
At a price of $65,000 she could pay the taxes for her entire brood for five
years. After five years, she could donate a cornea. Same deal. After another
five years, her offspring would be entering the breeding market and the
process could start anew.

No, in the words of Ronald Reagan, those who think there are no easy
solutions just haven't tried hard enough.



I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, may you fall on hard times.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .