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 : The Citizens Manifesto -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (5)	6/11/2005 2:14:20 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 492

- Drawing out class boundaries Not sure that is the intent. What I recognize is that more uniform economic well being tends to build a more robust democracy. You should live in a place that has great extremes in wealth, by which I mean a small fraction of the populace living in luxury, while a significant fraction (of non substance abusers/non mental cases) live in rags, and scavenge for food. Democracy is on the wane in the latter places. Entitlements What constitutes an "Entitlement"? Minimum wages, SS withholdings, health care benefits to non-fulltime or non-salaried employees? One can't legislate wealth, that's obvious, but the point here is to advocate policies, and examine the consequences, rather than become hungup on wording. We can rework the wording as needed to avoid ideological red herrings.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (5)	6/11/2005 2:42:07 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 492

re: And the policies I am against are: - Drawing out class boundaries We are looking for ways to encourage social mobility, and a fairer distribution of wealth. The boundaries are already there, I think most people recognize that. - Entitlements Suggest an alternative to specific entitlements. This thread is solutions based, pragmatic. Just saying you are against entitlements doesn't help. If you have a good, pragmatic idea, it will make it's way to the header and be part of the platform. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (5)	6/14/2005 8:31:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 492

I might not even have as much agreement as you. I want better fiscal discipline, but I'm not sure about a balanced budget amendment as the way to get there. As for energy policy I'm not much for big new policies about how government is going to deal with some areas or industry. I'd rather leave it up to the free market as much as possible. I certainly don't agree with mileage taxes or tax credits, esp. as large as thousands of dollars per vehicle. If there is to be any government effort to reduce gas and oil use I would rather see an increased gasoline tax then a tax and credit system based on the mileage of the car. Someone with a gas guzzler but a short commute might use less gasoline then someone with a econobox who drives all over. Someone with a gas guzzler and an econobox might occasionally drive the guzzler for fun and might commute with the econobox. Higher gas taxes would reinforce this while a big tax penalty for having the guzzler that isn't drive much seems overly harsh and unless it actually causes the owner to get rid of the vehicle it will provide no incentive to reduce gasoline use. If the tax credits and penalties only apply to newly purchased vehicles than there is no inventive to get rid of the guzzler (in fact there is a small incentive to keep it). If they apply to all vehicles it amounts to a confiscatory tax on things like old muscle cars. I wouldn't make reducing gasoline and oil use the priority that this thread seems to make it, but if it was I would instead favor a big increase in gasoline or oil taxes. Tax what you want to reduce (gasoline and/or oil use) directly, not an imperfect proxy for it. Tim