I think similar high-tax regimes were tried in
some European countries, it made business
stagnate/uncompetitive due to lower profitability.
An old defunct solution based on capitalism.
Eva
>
> If the objective is to transfer income from the haves to the have nots, I
> don't understand why it can't be done through the tax system. Any parent
> without an income could be given a basic credit, hence a "refund", of
> $15,000, plus a diminishing amount for each kid (on grounds that each
> successive kid is less expensive). This credit would be reduced steeply as
> income (it would probably have to be family income) rose and would then
> become negative, though remaining progressive, at a certain income level.
> All other aspects of the tax system would continue as they now are.
>
> The main point is that what would be paid out of this extra tax to the poor
> would be recovered from the rich. For example, if the expenditure bill was
> $10 billion, that much would have to be recovered from incomes above the
> cut-off level.
>
> Selecting certain types of government expenditures for payment by "premiums"
> has me baffled as well. What is the difference between a "premium" and a
> tax? Besides the things you picked, there are other important public
> concerns - e.g. the environment, research and development, justice, internal
> security. And you should never think that Aboriginal people would give up
> their constitutionally entrenched programming for something that they would
> see as just another form of welfare.
>
> Ed Weick
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
