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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (9682)	9/26/2006 10:47:55 AM
From: Arran Yuan	Respond to of 219578

The key is to reduce the propensity to consume in the US. Could not argue against that although it is against the USA's capitalistic system. IMHO, the imbalance equation has its other side - producing except for services, entertaining products, highly toxic daily chemical products including medicine (or more appropriate drugs), and, of course, heavy arms. So it is about how to balance the imbalance at what kind of pace. Hefty taxation is just one option. Such a taxation in tariff protection form may not be a good approach (TIC, de facto reserve currency status, etc.)

To: KyrosL who wrote (9682)	9/26/2006 11:34:13 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219578

Consumption taxes tend to be HIGHLY regressive. My plan is to let Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Google founders) pay taxes instead of me ;-) Last year they each paid about 1.2 Billion in Federal income tax and about 200 million in California state taxes. California, which has a wide spread in income distribution, and lots of seriously rich people, regressive taxes don't make much sense. It would be hard to maintain infrastructure and a high level of government service by taxing which depends heavily on poor people.