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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (90286)	10/16/2008 10:32:58 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541777

We're debating uses of tax dollars. Joe's gonna take a walk. My point is that Joe doesn't have a business without an economy that supports it (which to some rather large extent depends on government activity), without the infrastructure that makes it possible (roads, schools, health care, etc.) Somewhere in there the Joe's of the world have to support the general common wealth for non altruistic reasons. For their own, very narrowly conceived, self interest. Are there tradeoffs? No doubt. But at bottom, if Joe wants to make a living, he has to contribute to the general common wealth. If the term "redistribution" bothers you, look at all of those activities above. Each is moving moving money from Joe's pocket to other pockets. But the outcome, to some extent, is to keep Joe with a pocket. And something in it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (90286)	10/16/2008 10:59:56 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541777

Crippling his business is making it harder for him to and his peers to support employees who can then pay him and his peers for goods and services. I don't see how paying more taxes cripples his business or makes it harder for him to take on more employees. Taxes on a business are paid out of profits, not turnover. Employee costs are earlier. If Joe really wants, he can take on enough employees and pay them enough that he doesn't pay any taxes at all (a rather odd stance for a businessman, since it implies no profits, but you never know). The only taxes AFAIK that would work otherwise are payroll or employee-related taxes which I assume include healthcare. Certainly if these get too high businesses become very unwilling to take on new staff, France being a classic example in Europe: but Obama has already said in context that he plans not to increase these taxes so I don't see where the issue is? Other than that, you're arguing about tax levels and where the tax burden ought to reside, which are charged value judgements... even I won't try too many answers on that just now.