Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

...
Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....

Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.

You KNOW I meant "federal income taxes".

Those are not the only federal taxes folks pay.

In many cases tax cuts at the Federal level merely shift the tax burden
from progressive income taxes to more regressive state and local taxes,
as the state and local governments compensate for the reduction in
federal funding. A portion of the overall tax burden is shifted from the
rich to the middle and lower classes.

Do you have any stats on that? In states I've lived in the state
taxes aren't more regressive (or they're non-existent).

Sales taxes are thought to be regressive. I'm not sure about that -
they seem pretty fair to me. But they certainly are not progressive.
One might say that since they are not as progressive, they are more
regressive, but that's just pedantic word-play, and we don't want
that, now do we?

But your argument is setting up a hopeless Catch-22. Cut taxes and
you're hurting the poor because they get taxed even more at the local
level? I don't buy that for a second

If local property, sales and excise taxes are raised, then yes, indeed
you're passing the burden down the economic ladder.

the more local the collection
and disbursement of public funds remains, the more effective and
efficient it is.

A claim without a shred of proof. Local corruption can be widespread,
but federal-level corruption is much more isolated and rare.

I don't really want the federal government taking over more and more
of the responsibility and control that should lie with the state and
local governments. It's just not an efficient way to do things, IMHO.

Efficient and equitable might not be the same thing. It would be much
more efficient to have a national sales tax on everything. And that
certainly would be equitable - maybe. But the places with the
highests costs would be paying more (if the sales tax were a
percentage) and the places with lowest costs would pay less. Which
might not be equitable. In addition, it would stimulate conservation,
which wouldn't be good in a consumer-based economy.

But I take from your comment above that you are opposed to No Child
Left Behind?
--
Jonesy