DKII on 05 January 2008
Well I don't think the objection should be the actual number. 23% and 28% are in the same ballpark, and short of decreasing expenditure they're not going to put into place a system that increases losses due to less revenue, so it's not really a point that should be being argued at this point, there's a lot other things potentially wrong with this system that do deserve valid criticism, whether or not it is as proposed "revenue neutral" isn't really relevant since obviously any final version that might actually get put into place would ensure that it is.
Of course politicians are always lowering taxes without lowering expenses anyway, heh.
