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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (303909)	10/3/2006 10:56:27 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573849

First, you should drop the "perverse" adjective... it makes you sound less than realistic. "Unhealthy" might be better. Is the benefit from tax deductions for charitable contributions "perverse"? Finding one apparently non perverse inventive isn't much of an argument against my point. I didn't say all incentives were perverse. Also "perverse incentive" doesn't mean "sick and perverted" but rather an incentive that has the opposite effect on what was intended. "Unhealthy" would not be that exact of synonym. The free market is important... but is it everything in our society? I never said it was or should be everything. I just pointed out how in many (not all) cases when we move away from it the effects are not good. It's pretty funny that this argument started out with me saying that every tax has a winner and a loser. You disagreed, and you still haven't pointed out one that doesn't. My statement was that some taxes are less interventionist than others. Every tax has a loser (the person who pays it) and a winner (at least the government, possibly people who compete against others who have to pay taxes), but that fact isn't very relevant to my point.