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 (327060)	2/22/2007 2:09:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573851

It leaves off the fact because its mostly irrelevant. Spending is spending. Taxing is taxing. A dedicated tax could be set up for any government program, and could be set up in such a way that it generates a surplus, despite the government as a whole being in deficit. The surplus wouldn't be very meaningful. I doubt you or Ted would stop complaining about too much being spent on defense if we lowered personal and corporate income tax rates in such a way as to lose the amount of money spent on defense, and then instituted a defense tax that matched or even slightly exceeded the amount we spent on defense. The "defense surplus" would be almost totally meaningless.