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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (14365)	12/4/2004 12:50:01 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I have thought about this proposal quite a bit and I think it is the best solution. Allow me to clarify. Firstly taxation should be based on usage. If you use a service you should pay for it. I am reluctant to allow any taxation exempts (some would be justified under careful consideration) but the key is to pay for what you use. If for example the American Oil industry is "rewarded" for restoring the Kuwaitie monarchy, then it is the industry who should foot the bill for the war (a big chunk of it anyway)...back to the issue of how the system would work. As you have pointed out, not taxing corporations will encourage little withdraw of funds from them. Presumably, the corporation will either invest the money which will create more jobs and better advancement of technology, or will pay it off in which case it will be taxed from the receipients, or will save it in a bank which will be loaned to other businesses who invest it growth and technology. Anyway you look at it, the money will eventually change hands then it will get taxed, even if it means the person has to clear his account at death. Also, you cannot pay for your wedding or food by indifinate debt (and even if you did, via your credit card, the interest on unpaid credit card after a few years will be unbearable). The bottom line is that eventually a real (as oppose to legal) entity will end up using the money and then that person will have to pay the taxes for what he is using. We will probably have to guard against some loop holes like my "company" buying my house from the previous tennent's "company" or transfer of funds to foreign banks who would not abide by these rules (these transaction would be legal but taxed according to law). ST

To: cosmicforce who wrote (14365)	12/4/2004 5:26:50 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

As a libertarian, I am deeply concerned with assuring the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of the people. The nature of power is such that it aims to control others and deny them the freedom to gain more power. Therefore typical libertarian positions by leaving everyone's hands free have the flaw of not protecting the freedoms of the general public against the very powerful. As Eric Hoffer observed, "Every device employed to bolster individual freedom must have as its chief purpose the impairment of the absoluteness of power. The indications are that such an impairment is brought about not by strengthening the individual and pitting him against the possessors of power, but by distributing and diversifying power and pitting one category or unit of power against the other. Where power is one, the defeated individual, however strong and resourceful, can have no refuge and no recourse." I am neither anti-wealth nor anti-corporate-growth (in its economic sense). I simply believe in the one-man-one-vote process regardless of wealth or social status of the man. Allowing corporations to influence the political process goes against this basic principle. The implementation of no-corporate-tax system requires careful consideration to assure its goals. So long as the political process remains true to all constituents, I see nothing wrong with implementing what the public approves of.