Re: Taxes in the digicash world

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~