Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:14:11 -0400
In article <gbqmd21opj56nrnpj27omaal698mqhfkmi@xxxxxxx>,
jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 22:59:48 -0400, krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <gi7ld2dk8c6vvm9paqa1kvqjgvp6d68lo3@xxxxxxx>,
jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 22:26:45 -0400, krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <aktkd29k5intp2l40pda091dv0gjm8f6bc@xxxxxxx>,
jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:23:52 GMT, "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie"
<eatmyshorts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:41:58 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 16:36:45 +0100, John Woodgate
In message <44d9abfb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dated Wed, 9 Aug 2006, David
Brown <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
When a giant corporation makes more profit, most of it goes to a few
immensely rich people.
And what do they do with it? They SPEND it, pay taxes with it, and in
many cases, give it away, like BG.
Much more important: they invest it.
Yeah - in lobbyists, bribes, and so on. >:-[
No, that's still spending. No economy can spend its way to prosperity.
That's the problem with giving tax breaks to lower or middle-class
people: they just spend it. Tax breaks to corporations and rich people
result in some spending but a lot of investment too, and they are much
better at selecting socially-beneficial investments than government
is.
Corporations should not be taxed at all. All that does is kill jobs.
Exactly, though hardly the whole story. Corporations are owned by
people and people buy what they make. Don't tax twice (or three,
four...). Taxes simply get moved to the cost of the product;
people pay.
But the Chinese companies that we compete with don't pay much in the
way of taxes and have a very low cost of worker's benefits. So the
scale is tilted away from domestic manufacturing. If the products were
taxed (via a sales tax) instead the (domestic only!) manufacturers
profits, things would be better balanced; consumers would in the end
pay the same, but domestic jobs would be saved.
No "but" about it. That's one of the advantages of a VAT. People
pay all taxes anyway and a VAT can be forgiven on exports (a sneaky
tariff). ...not that I trust congress to screw with the tax
system.
VAT is doubly clever in that it hides the taxes from the buyers.
Sure, but it has other nice attributes over a "sales tax", which is
similar. Frankly, I'd rather have a flat income tax; businesses
exempt.
--
Keith
.
- References:
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: David Brown
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: John Woodgate
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: krw
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- From: krw
- Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- Prev by Date: Re: Switch mode regulators - PWM, VFM, etc.
- Next by Date: Re: New Book of Rules
- Previous by thread: Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- Next by thread: Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|