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: neolib who wrote (91383)	10/22/2008 2:23:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541627

Why do you say that, other than the obvious issue of inefficiency in going round the loop? Well there is the inherent inefficiency in going around the loop, then there is the additional dead weight loss of having to prepare taxes and having to change what you do in order to minimize taxes, then there is also the time value of money concerns, if you send $100 today and get it back in 6 months, you've taken a loss on the round trip. As it is, far too many of the voters think the government is free and a source of income as well. Let them pay reasonable tax rates as well so they understand the governments bite out of their income, than make it clear that the assistance coming back to them is really welfare and it was taken from other people's pockets. That's a decent argument but I'm not sure how well it works in reality. For one thing even if you do start having the poor pay taxes, there would be a political incentive to start "lessening the burden on the poor", and eventually "lessen the burden on the middle class". Also if you take just a little from them and give back much more, and if there isn't any direct or obvious connection between what you give, and what you initially take, then I'm not sure that you really convey the feeling that supporting more spending costs money.