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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (262855)	4/27/2008 2:27:18 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The threat of tariffs may help in getting other countries to not impose them on our goods That's about the only way they do any good. And the threats don't always work, sometimes tariffs or threats of tariffs causes other countries to institute or increase tariffs or other trade barriers. You say you dislike transfers. Why should childless couples or single people be taxed to provide education for other people's children? Whether the education is run by the state or by a private institution its more providing a service than a transfer payment. And its one of the more reasonable services, at least out of the services that go beyond the absolutely essential nature of a state (controlling and defending territory, keeping the peace, and such). In any case I'm not necessarily categorically opposed to any transfer payments for any purposes under any circumstances, I just think they should require a lot of justification, and generally should happen at a much lower level. FedEx and UPS deliver to specific addresses when they have packages to pick up or deliver. They do not show up at every address six days a week. The post office also only delivers something when they have something to deliver. Do FedEx and UPS want to get into the 41 cent delivery business? I'm not sure, I do think at least one of them has mildly pushed for it. In any case even if they don't want to, why should they be forbidden to do it? You should be happy that SS sends checks to the wealthy because it is not an entitlement program, it is a mandatory insurance program. Being the later doesn't make it not the former. In any case its not about what labels can be applied to it. The labels are not as important as what it does. What it does is take money involuntarily from some people, and gives it to others, just like any other transfer program. No, for the umpteenth time, simply making SS a fair tax and taxing all income and not just up to the first $100K or so would make it solvent as far as the eye can see. Not really. And "solvent" doesn't mean reasonably affordable. That huge of tax increase would be unreasonable and harmful. My point, as above, is that you dislike transfers but property taxes going to public education is a transfer. No its a service paid for by the government. Why is that acceptable to you when other transfers are not? Because its something different. Again what actually happens is more important not the label you choose to apply to it. Labels can be convenient shortcuts, so you don't have to right a paragraph every time you want to describe something but the issue is the thing not the label.