Bzzt. What if a gov't "slightly restructured an existing policy" to
eliminate a tax? No, don't tell me. The answer is invade Iraq. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:03:14 -0500, DSK said:

How is slightly restucturing an already existing policy, to
discourage corporations from spending their shareholders
money in non-productive ways, "taking it away"?

Several fallacies in that single sentence. When you impose a tax on
something it's taking money away from somebody. Otherwise it isn't a tax.
Calling it a "slight restructuring an existing policy" doesn't make it
something other than a tax.

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, 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.

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? Bad deeds?
Keep the money in the form of higher salaries? Give it to people the
politicians think will vote for them?