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 (322646)	1/24/2007 8:13:34 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574267

Please pardon my jumping into the middle of this. I tend to react when I see notions/concepts and the words that represent them losing differentiation. I think that concepts and words matter. In all this discussion of taking from A and giving to B, I suggest that maybe the taking and the giving are not two sides of the same coin. I don't see the taking as necessarily redistribution as you both seem to. You don't get redistribution until you give it to someone else to compensate for disparities in wealth. If you take tax money and use it for, say, the common defense or infrastructure, then there's no redistribution even though you take more from one than from another. Graduated tax rates aren't inherently redistributionist. It's the welfare programs that introduce redistribution. Ergo rejiggering the tax rates by changing the progressivity or favoring one category of taxpayers over another isn't necessarily redistributionist. I've introduced yet another element. Perhaps one that's also too nit-picky for you... <g> Karen