View Single Post
Unread 11 Nov 2005, 21:37   #39
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: So if you had to choose...

Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolis
hey after googling, it turns out davis also supports a 'flat foreign policy'
I have no idea what this post is meant to mean. A flat-rate tax just means that theres one tax rate. Obviously there are different ways of implementing a flat-rate tax (eg involving exemptions), just like there are lots of different ways of implementing a progressive tax. There is one particular method of flat tax (no exemptions) which I happen to like, and beyond this, I think that flat taxes are in general preferable to progressive ones. This doesnt mean that I like every flat-rate tax, just like I people who generally prefer progressive taxes dont have to like every single progressive tax (for instance, "1% tax rate on the lowest 5% of the population, 90% on everyone else" would be a form of progressive taxation).

I dont care enough about the full details of Cameron's proposal to bother researching them, since I know that it isnt going to be very radical since otherwise he wouldnt be elected> However I can induce from the fact he is a Conservative that it probably isnt going to result in an increase in the tax burden paid by the wealthy so I'm probably going to prefer it to the present model (although not by much since again, it isnt going to be radical).

This isnt difficult.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote