Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lachman@parc.xerox.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology
Message-ID: <1991Aug7.094520.332@parc.xerox.com>
Sender: news@parc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox
References: <1991Jul30.201557.32438@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Aug2.071725.11789@parc.xerox.com> <COVIN.91Aug2161638@despair.cs.uchicago.edu> <1991Aug2.170829.32524@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Jul24.140607.32251@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <11911@castle.ed.ac.uk> <CHRISTIR.91Aug3221258@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 09:45:20 GMT

Lots of dissent!  (Hit 'n' if not interested in sales tax.)

In article <COVIN.91Aug2161638@despair.cs.uchicago.edu> covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu (David Covin) writes:
>You can
>only spend so much money on the basic necessities of life-- food, shelter,
>clothing, etc.  But you have to spend for those *first*-- if you have
>very little money, that's probably all you spend your money on.  So if
>a tax is levied on those commodities, it cuts into your ability to buy
>things that you absolutely *need*.  It threatens your ability to live.
>David Covin                           covin@despair.uchicago.edu

In article <1991Aug2.170829.32524@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> mauler@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>... it is just that everyone spends basically the
>same on food and shelter (including clothes in shelter and water in food). 
>The amount left over for LUXURIES is less for the poor person than for the rich
>person when its all over, because of the sales tax which they both paid the
>exact same amount of....  With a sales tax, the poor guy has to live in
>substandard housing, eat generics, and wear secondhand stuff.
>...
>You're beginning to sound like the stereotype of a Scientology personality
>test, in which whatever I answer I'm still "sick."
>Leo

Wanna buy an E-meter?  Heh heh...  OK, I'll stop.

In article <CHRISTIR.91Aug3221258@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>one problem with killing the income tax in favor of sales tax.  large
>items.  or more specifically large necessary items.  houses, cars,
>etc....
>if you don't tax the large items then you have the previously
>mentioned problems of tax dodging.
>
>it seems like this system, if it taxed all items, would reduce the
>poor man to renting all his life.  not a desirable effect in my
>opinon.
>c.

OK, here's an easy solution.  Have a 3-tiered sales tax.  "Basic necessities"
have a 0% tax rate, and includes items like groceries, clothing (excluding
excessively expensive items), and shelter (excluding houses that are not
your primary residence), maybe other stuff.  The truly poor should not have
to pay any tax.  If people on welfare don't, then the working poor certainly
shouldn't.

"Usual consumer goods" that are not basic essentials for life could have
a medium tax rate, e.g., cars, consumer electronics, appliances, furniture,
and most of everything not yet mentioned that they sell in the mall.

The "high tax" category could include luxury items such as yachts, fur coats,
and Ferraris, "sin" items like alcohol and cigarettes, and anything else the
government wants to discourage, e.g., gasoline.

Just ideas!  I don't have the answers.  The point is that there is a way
that this could work.  If you want, you can play with the variables to
shift whatever amount of the tax burden you want to the rich or the poor.
Have at it!

I don't know about this "tax dodging" mentioned above.  I suppose one
good thing about the current system (income tax) is that it works -- the
taxes due actually get collected in the vast majority of cases.  I don't
know how we could make sure every Mom and Pop donut shop pays their due.

OK, now who has the answers?  Any Scientologists?  Out with it!

Hans Lachman
lachman@arisia.xerox.com