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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (155498)	1/23/2006 9:53:37 AM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 793750

I was thinking out loud presenting how I look at the situation. I think we all know what the pieces of the puzzle are, we just need to get serious and get on the table everyone's ideas and do something. I don't think anything should be viewed as controversial. Except maybe the people who want me to ride a bicycle to work, live in a cave, and eat the grass in my front yard. I do remember the "luxury" tax that flopped. Maybe in the cities, hydrogen can be rolled out first, reducing pollution, and there would be enough demand to support the infrastructure. But then again, does the govt subsidize it or do we let it sink or swim on it's own? Add a tax to gasoline to pay Exxon to make a profit selling hydrogen?

To: slacker711 who wrote (155498)	1/23/2006 10:04:07 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 793750

This is a VERY long process though. I cant imagine that it will have much effect in less than a decade Yes, it is, especially with the current regulatory requirements BUT when the Middle East sees we are SERIOUS about weaning ourselves from oil you will see a major change in their ATTITUDE much earlier. And even on the longest trip the first step is where you begin. jdn

To: slacker711 who wrote (155498)	1/24/2006 12:00:16 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793750

Yes, Bush I AND the Democrat controlled House and Senate passed the Luxury Tax.. Here's an interesting article about Socialism, and the effects of it from Costa Rica... Luxury tax might not be the best quick fix By Jay Brodell editor of A.M. Costa Rica amcostarica.com Among the proposals in the hopper for more income for Costa Rica is the luxury tax. The idea sounds great: Tax all those Mercedes automobiles. The owners can afford it. Mexico bought into that theory. As of Jan. 1 that country taxes sports cars, jewelry and ‘luxury activities,’ like golf and SCUBA diving. The concept fits well with socialistic political thought. Cornell economics Professor Robert H Frank wrote "Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Success" and gained quite a bit of praise. His idea basically is that even by spending great sums of money people cannot buy happiness. So the world would be better off if the state took the extra money and used it for progressive social investments. Analysis on the news The views expressed in his 1999 book have been eclipsed by the massive decline in the U.S. stock market. Costa Rica has brought forth the idea of a luxury tax as well as higher taxes on all the usual suspects, including alcohol, gasoline and tobacco. The country is in desperate need of more funds because it is spending 30 percent more than it takes in each year and finances the deficit with long-term debt. Members of the Asemblea Nacional would be well advised to dwell on the unintended consequences of tax policy. A case in point is the luxury tax that former President George Bush ("No New taxes!") and the Democratically controlled U.S. Congress put into law in November 1990. The Republican president and congressional leaders put taxes on boats, aircraft, jewelry and luxury cars. They figured that the new taxes would raise $31 million in 1991 alone. Instead, the National Center for Policy Analysis, a think tank, estimated that tax only raised about half that amount, some $16.6 million. That’s because people were miffed and stopped buying luxury goods because of the 10 percent tax. The tax also cost 7,600 jobs in the boat-manufacturing industry, 1,470 jobs in the aircraft industry and 330 jobs in the jewelry business, said the center. The unemployment benefits alone cost the government $24.2 million, some $7.6 million more than the tax brought in. Sales of yachts in the $100,000-plus range nose-dived 70 percent. Such temporary and emergency taxes also almost never go away. The U.S. National Taxpayer’s Union notes the 3 percent telephone excise tax on long-distance calls, enacted to raise money for the Spanish American War in 1898. The tax continues to raise about $5 billion each year for the U.S. general fund. The U.S. Congress saw the error of its ways and repealed the luxury tax in August 1993 after a number of boat builders had declared bankruptcy. The tax still is the poster child of misguided policy, and it does not take much study to realize there was a certain ideology implicit in the idea: tax the rich. Instead it was the middle class that was hurt. There are no shortage of similar ideological tax policies. Vegetarians want to tax red meat (www.taxmeat.com). Cigarettes and alcohol are sitting ducks. When and if Costa Rica increases taxes on these products, the cheers that will be heard will be those of the bootleggers and the cigarette smugglers. A journalistic study three years ago documented the smuggling of untaxed cigarettes to Latin America by means of the same trade routes drug smugglers use to ship cocaine north. Canada had its own battle with smugglers when cigarettes from the United States were being shipped in wholesale quantities into that country where a much higher tax existed.

To: slacker711 who wrote (155498)	1/24/2006 7:50:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793750

but as JDN originally postulated, can you imagine how different US foreign policy might be if we didnt have to worry about energy dependence? I don't see how any of your tax idea or regulatory changes would lead us to not have to worry about accessing foreign energy sources. I think our options with Iran would look quite different. How so? The military situation would be the same. The overall international political situation would be the same or similar. The only change is that the US might be in position to boycott Iranian oil, but if we were not importing any of it anyway than that wouldn't matter. It also wouldn't matter if the rest of the world didn't join us in the boycott. Tim