~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Bill Stewart wrote:
...Ownership of land and easily traced tangibles, like houses and cars, still works, but isn't a big enough source of revenue for current government appetites...
I think Bill needs to re-examine this statement. If the ONLY source of taxes was realty, the only limit to the amount it can be taxes is the asset base of the country's population. Taxes on land can be arbitrarily high just as long as the land owner can pass his costs on to tenants and customers. If my rent went up five times and everything I bought increased in price ten fold but I paid no direct taxes, would I be any worse (or better) off? The purpose of taxes is to fund government. As long as everyone thinks the suffering is pretty much evenly spread, there are few complaints--at least until it becomes impossible to live on what's left. Please understand, I not for ANY taxes. As I said to someone in private e-mail, if it were up to me, I'd fund the last days of the government with a going-out-of-business sale. It would help people make the transition and would dispose of "public" assets in a more or less orderly fashion. (How much am I bid for this lovely half acre lot in beautiful Yosemite park?) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~