Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 12, 5:20 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:43:04 +0000, Econotron wrote:
> > "The Trucker" <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:pan.2008.05.12.18.05.01.552935@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:08:03 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:
>
> >>> On May 12, 12:04 pm, "Econotron" <njmfi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> "Stray Dog" <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>>>>news:c91f1a5e-c04b-457d-b9a2-6217633f4ef4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>> > Dollar collapse....would be wonderful. Millions of jobs would
come
> >>>> > back to the USA. Both prices and wages would go up, so there
would be
> >>>> > a net positive effect.
>
> >>>> > Already, ex****ts are up and tourism -- to the USA -- is up. Next
boom
> >>>> > will be foreigners with money coming to buy houses (maybe for
> >>>> > themselves).
>
> >>>> > Dollar collapse...bring it on.
>
> >>>> If that happens, you may have a job, but will wish that you
didn't.:-)
> >>>> e.
>
> >>> Right now how about you naming any place, any country, any land that
> >>> doe not want any jobs? All these 3rd world countries have
manipulated
> >>> their currencies for maximum ex****t and minimum im****t.
>
> >>> All the stories I read about localities, cities, towns in the USA
show
> >>> that the  local authorities bend over backwards to offer subsidies,
> >>> tax breaks, favors, ..everything you can think of...if a foreign
> >>> company or even a US company will build a plant in their area. 
Can't
> >>> remember where I read it but one town in SE USA even offered
subsidies
> >>> of some $200,000 to a foreign company for every job they put into
> >>> their local area and if they would promise to keep the job filled
for
> >>> at least five years. Basically, the value of that "enticement"
> >>> essentially totally pays for most of their employees. And, the story
> >>> is that these companies go all over the USA and get all the
localities
> >>> to bid against each other for the best deal, then take the best
deal,
> >>> and they have the localities "by the balls" and this is what our
> >>> economy has come to.
>
> >>> Its not funny.
>
> >>> Fine, i appreciate your emoticon, otherwise, above.
>
> >>> Here is mine:    :-|
>
> >> If the tax burden in the USA was ****fted to land values then this
****
> >> would cease.
>
> > This I can entirely agree with. If the tax burden is ****fted from the
> > producers to consumers, it will give boost to the US' waning
industrial
> > strength and all the productive activities in general.
>
> A tax on land is not a consumption tax.  But that does not mean that I
> think a consumption tax is not superior to a flat income tax.

What I'd like to do is ask, politely, you guys to explain, in some
detail, why you prefer the kind of taxations that you seem to be
preferring, and I'll stay on the sidelines and maybe "learn" something
about what is "superior" (and I'm not trying to be snotty about this,
I just wanna know).

My off-the-top-of-my-head notion would be to soak the rich, but I
think they are already squirreling away as much as possible to
offshore tax havens, tax dodges, etc. My next notion would be to
_lower_ the taxes on the poor. But, I'll entertain any reasonable,
rational strategy you guys might come up with. Just remember the old
saw: "the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry."

>
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend