Isn't I-695 Just another tax break for the Rich?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

I-695 seams unfair for poor people who may have been paying only $30 under the old system. Wouldn't a lower percentage been a better solution for all? (Except the Rich)

-- John Buchanan (jvbuchanan@spyrnet.com), December 20, 1999

Answers

Do we really have to go over this again? I-695 is not a tax break for the rich. It's equality is it's truest form. Regardless of income, race, education, creed, IQ, etc... you pay a flat $30 for tabs.

So what if somebody can afford to buy an expensive car? With that price comes the 8+% sales tax. Should we also have a sliding scale sales tax based on annual income? Unfortunately, in a capatalistic society, there will be rich people, not so rich people, not so poor people and poor people. No matter how you slice up the tax pie, somebody is going to receive a greater benefit than the next. If the "poor" were paying $30 before I695, then they were not harmed in any way. But please don't call I695 a tax break for the rich!

-- just a guy (torijosh@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.


Naw-

Locke's proposed property tax cuts are a tax break for the rich. I'm in favor of that, too. Because both rich and poor will benefit if we can constrain wasteful government growth.

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other." Oscar Ameringer

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.


I have the solution: Walk into her office at 10 minutes before quitting time. Bring thirty dollars plus all those little annoying side taxes for your car. Just to show her how much you liked paying a kings ransom every year for your tabs, bring the tab fee into the office all in pennies. Have her count out the tab fee by herself. It should take about an hour and a half. Think of the satisfaction!

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 20, 1999.

Hmmm........ Why dont you ask my ex-wife...... the state considers her "poor"......... she gets low-income housing.... daycare subsidies.... child support.... etc.... and drives and 2000 Honda Civic.... loaded.... (i see how my daughter benefits from the spoiler on her car)... and all on a part time job..... hey, the MVET is the one tax she did have to pay! So.... according to the "state" we HAVE helped out the poor!! Any other questions???

-- Allan E. (ae_me@yahoo.com), December 21, 1999.

I know several woman who have done this same type of thing. Have multiple children, make sure each child has a different father. Live in a nice subsidized apartment, (pool, sauna, gym) and get medical insurance, food stamps and child care that "dads" must pay half of, in addition to support (read CASH) They get to quit work when they become pregnant again, because of "complications" For some strange reason, their birth control always fails.

Welfare reform my ***. What's really needed is safe, reliable birth control for men, who might be more responsible with it's use.

Go ahead, slam me for my post. Abstinence is not realistic, and neither is relying on the honesty of some women.

Men get ******* and women get all the rights. You social engineers care to comment?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.



The huge tax breal for the rich has always been before 695 car tabs were based on value BUT aircraft registration was (and is ) a flat rate based on TYP aircraft. For example any helocopter is a paltry $75.00 any multiengine jet $125.00. GOD IT IS SO UNFAIR

AND US IDIOTS LET THE LEGISLATOR SCREW US!!! MY DAUGHTER HAS A DAMN FORD ESCORT AND IT COST HER ALMOST $300.00 TO REGISTER IT WEYERHAUSER COULD REGISTER 4 CHOPPERS FOR THAT. AND DON'T TELL ME THEY DON'T USE THE ROADS, AS OBVIOUSLY VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS PAY FOR MORE THAN ROADS. PLUS THE STATE HAS A DEPT OF AERONAUTICS THAT GETS MONEY FROM CARS. DAMN IT'S INFURIATING

-- ROY (NANNOOOK@AOL.COM), December 22, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ