Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (14072)	5/10/2001 12:12:41 PM
From: nasdaqian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

nas, under some circumstances, you are correct. if everything over $100k was taxed 100% then those not affected by the cut (under $100k) would see their purchasing power go up. waaaaaaaaaaaay up. Why? Does that "extra" money just disappear when the gov. takes it? I would argue that ultimately that action would be more inflationary than not. Government doesn't produce anything. It redistributes it (we can argue about the places it sends it) and takes a big cut for itself. That money would be distributed with no corresponding creation of goods resulting in more money chasing less goods. Certainly, individuals and businesses can employ that money more productively. can i assume we agree that many people other than welfare recipients are the beneficiaries of govt subsidies? i noticed you didn't debate this point even though it was most of the note. So? I would argue that the gov. is involved in way too many subsidies. It's spending money in ways it deems more appropriate than we might. I'm not interested in bashing welfare. As a way of life it is not a good thing. Many folks expect to get something for no effort at the expense of someone else. As they grow in number they continue to vote for pol's who effectively buy their votes. It's a vicious cycle.