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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (69840)	6/29/2008 4:38:22 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The introduction of consumption taxes was quite annoying because first they taxed my income. After I had acquired sufficient stash that my income requirement shrank to not much, they shifted to spending taxes, which meant anything I bought was taxed! Get me coming and then get me going. <consumption taxes are far less damaging to a society than penalisation of productive effort > The main thing is to tax use of and harm to the commons, such as the air, resources, water, spectrum, public spaces [roads, hospitals, airports, water reticulation]. Cutting spending is better than increasing such taxes to cover the absurdly high costs of government. Yes, there is enough gold to use it as money, at about $10,000 an ounce, but that would set off a ridiculous gold-digging economy, like Easter Islanders digging moais to fill in time until they depleted the resources and society collapsed. Gold digging is an unnecessary, useless and wasteful activity. But if gold is used as money, of course it becomes a very useful thing to do - much better than inventing cyberspace, anti-cancer drugs etc. The distraction of capital and effort to gold digging would be a great waste. It's not as though we are short of other useful things to do. Mqurice