Dave wrote:
Several fallacies in that single sentence.

Only from your extremely convolured & prejudiced viewpoint.

... When you impose a tax on
something it's taking money away from somebody.

And when you restructure a tax that already exists?
That is what I am suggesting.


Calling it a "slight restructuring an existing policy" doesn't make it
something other than a tax.


Calling it "taking away from somebody" is ignoring several
basic facts.



Second, I'm not at all persuaded that politicians are better at deciding
what a productive use for a business's money is than the managers of that
business.

In general, I'm not either.

.... In general, under our economic system we have such decisions made
by the businesses themselves. And when we don't, the unintended consequences
are likely as not to be bad ones rather than good ones.


And the consequences (intended or otherwise) of the way
things currently work.... Billions of dollars spent on
advertising, to convince people to buy stuff that's bad for
them, for the sake of increased profits.

Note the difference between "increased profits" and
increased wealth, increased standard of living, etc etc.


For example, how do you feel about the completely
unporductive use of gazillions of dollars spent on lobbying?
That also increases profits to the detriment of citizens
interests.



Did you see
any words of mine proposing that gov't employees do good
deeds?


What are you proposing the govmint employees do with the money?

The same thing they are already doing, whether it's good or
bad is not a judgement imposed by this position.

Question: Why are *you* seeking to insert this judgement
into a totally unrelated logical suggestion?

In other words, you are once again putting up straw men,
misquoting... in other words, ad-hominem attack instead of
logic.

DSK