"Taxes and regulation kill profits." Don't you think that statement is a drastic over simplification? I agree that there's plenty of out-dated regulation and it needs to be weeded through and streamlined, but I can't accept your blanket statement.

Regulation has all kinds of results, but the results are highly variable from situation to situation and also dependent out the outcomes you look at. A given set of regulations or taxes may create incentives for some forms of activity and discourage others.

Take carbon taxes. They're DESIGNED to make the use of fossil fuels more costly to account for the other hidden costs due to pollution, global warming, etc. resulting from over-dependence on relatively cheap fossil fuels. They're also designed to create incentives to invest and develop new carbon neutral and/or renewable energy sources. If carbon taxes are implemented, they'll probably kill some jobs in the short run and create more jobs in the longer term.

It's a question of who "wins" and who "loses". In my mind if we have carbon taxes the people of the future and those involved in new technologies "win" perhaps at some cost to those of us now living fossil fuel-dependent lives and perhaps significant cost to those heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry or fossil fuel-based energy generation.

It's rarely a lose-lose situation. It's a question of WHO wins and who doesn't…

The question is not whether rich people create jobs. Many do. So do middle class people directly through small businesses and indirectly through buying goods and services. The question is at what level of wealth the disincentive of increased taxes offsets the benefits of increased revenue. That is an economic question, not a political one–but most politicians don't see it that way.

Jon Cavaluzzo LOL… Grey Poupon. LOL I forgot about that!

Oh yeah? What about all the Grey Poupon openers? Did you think of them?…no, NO YA DIDN'T!