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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (241904)	3/25/2002 7:12:10 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 769670

people that complain about higher prices for consumers because of tariffs seem to gloss over the argument that since a tariff is a tax, income taxes should be lowered to compensate. i do not support significant tariffs on top of the income tax. i support efforts to abolish the income tax! we have the removal of tariffs as a source of revenues to the federal government to thank for the oppressive income tax of today. raise tariffs, eliminate income taxes. more money in people's pockets to afford the higher costs for things like lumber and steel.

To: Ish who wrote (241904)	3/25/2002 7:13:53 PM
From: joseph krinsky	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Let's start over. people said that the tariffs would cost the homeowner an extra 1500. If that's the case, then it means nothing. 1500 over thirty years is a minor amount. Saying that there shouldn't be tariffs because they raise the cost of housing and prevents people from owning is an argument that doesn't work, because it can be shown mathmatically that it doesn't work. Interest rates are one thing, principle is another. You used 7& vs 10% in your example, and that's not correct. The correct way is to use 100,000 vs 101,500 and then use whatever rate you want, but you have to use the same rate for both. If you use different rates, then you can contruct your argument any way you want. Why not use 3% vs 23%?