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: David Lawrence who wrote (314690)	11/5/2002 3:45:02 PM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 769667

Think of it this way. If I keep my last dollar it buys me something I want. If the government takes it in taxes it goes to some political contributor for something that probably does no good for anyone except politicians and their blood-sucking sponsors.

To: David Lawrence who wrote (314690)	11/5/2002 4:14:50 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The transfer of a trillion over the past two years from the hands of small investors into the hands of hedge funds, brokerages, analysts, options traders, CEOs, middle management and various other crooks: is that what you call efficient? The golden parachutes, special retirement packages, options, bonuses and other remuneration to CEOs while the companies were laying off thousands and thousands of workers; the concealment of costs, the fabrication of revenue, going right to the edge of the law without actually exceeding the fair accounting standards: is that what you call effiecient, not to mention ethical--or even, heavens, moral? Gimme a break. Your "free market" has become a mere euphemism for an unfettered, unnacountable Darwinian approach to the conduct of commerce.

To: David Lawrence who wrote (314690)	11/5/2002 4:26:10 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

In a free market, economic compensation is usually commensurate with the economic value of the contribution. Which is why the people who earn more keep more under a progressive rate. Note that is true of flat tax or other schemes, but the point is that fundamental tie between earnings and retained earnings is not broken. It's really quite like the historical models. Lets say that productive people are payed in sheep and goats. There is a point where the earner can't eat anymore sheep and goats nor milk them or anything else. That sort of common sense feedback is broken in a purely cash transaction since there is no real limit to the number of zeros that can be added on the end of a number. The free enterprise market is not always 100% efficient You are still mixing up a varety of ideas like a tarball picks up sand at the beach. There is nothing in a progressive tax that ends the free enterprise system. more efficient than government attempts to redistribute of wealth. There is nothing in a progressive tax system that addresses how the revenues are distributed. That is a question about the role of government and not how that role is financed. This is really a question of checks and balances and of the inevitable revenue requirements of a common country. There are many issues in the government budget process, but they are not directly tied together. TP