A Republican trade deficit solution?
Refer to: Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article
and to
https://taxfoundation.org/house-gop-s-destination-based-cash-flow-tax-explained/
#1. 20% corporate tax rate I suppose is negotiable?
#2. Single year duration of depreciation for anything and everything? that’s pushing it too much.
#3. No tax on foreign earnings? ? It wouldn’t destroy our economy.
#4. complete nonsense. No tax consideration for debt service expenses would extremely drive up prices for products from utilities, Railroads, and I suppose many other important industries.
#5. Border adjusted; absolutely YES!!!
///////////////////////////////////////////////
I suppose Congressman Ryan and other more intelligent Republicans meant to entice populists such as myself with a proposal that would reduce the disadvantages of USA wage scales globally competing with lower wage purchasing power nations. They drafted a method that eliminates what I consider to be Wikipedia’s Import-Certificate proposal’s weakest point; it requires federal value assessment of goods passing through USA’s borders and that’s reason for me to believe that Import-Certificates are not CERTAINLY superior to the Border-adjusted tax proposal Ryan and his colleges are promoting.
Entire net costs due to both the Import-Certificate and the Border-adjustment proposals are passed onto USA purchasers of imports.
Within the Import-Certificate proposal:
(1) There’s federal costs for assessing approximate values of shipments passing through USA borders. But among those costs are funding for additional attention and eyes upon our borders that augment our security but are attributed to the budget for border security.
(2) Any other costs passed on to USA purchasers of Imported goods are market determined and they additionally serve as price subsidies for USA’s exports at no additional cost to anyone else.
(3) The policy is only applicable to globally traded goods; it cannot be applied to service products.
Within the Border-Adjusted proposal: (1) There’s no need to assess approximate values of shipments passing through USA borders. (2) USA exported goods enjoy no price subsidy. (3) the proposal’s applicable to USA’s imported goods and service products.
I’m supposing the nonsensical proposal to disallow reducing enterprises’ taxable incomes due to their debt servicing expenses will not survive.
The Wikipedia described Import Certificates proposal would CERTAINLY almost or entirely eliminate USA’s trade deficit of goods while not reducing but rather increasing USA’s GDP and jobs more than otherwise; (I do mean certainly). I’m aware of no other proposal that might approach this extent of trade deficit reduction. It’s doubtful that the border-adjusted proposal could match the extent of desirable net consequences we can reasonably expect from enacting an Import-Certificate policy.
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to: Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article
and to
https://taxfoundation.org/house-gop-s-destination-based-cash-flow-tax-explained/
#1. 20% corporate tax rate I suppose is negotiable?
#2. Single year duration of depreciation for anything and everything? that’s pushing it too much.
#3. No tax on foreign earnings? ? It wouldn’t destroy our economy.
#4. complete nonsense. No tax consideration for debt service expenses would extremely drive up prices for products from utilities, Railroads, and I suppose many other important industries.
#5. Border adjusted; absolutely YES!!!
///////////////////////////////////////////////
I suppose Congressman Ryan and other more intelligent Republicans meant to entice populists such as myself with a proposal that would reduce the disadvantages of USA wage scales globally competing with lower wage purchasing power nations. They drafted a method that eliminates what I consider to be Wikipedia’s Import-Certificate proposal’s weakest point; it requires federal value assessment of goods passing through USA’s borders and that’s reason for me to believe that Import-Certificates are not CERTAINLY superior to the Border-adjusted tax proposal Ryan and his colleges are promoting.
Entire net costs due to both the Import-Certificate and the Border-adjustment proposals are passed onto USA purchasers of imports.
Within the Import-Certificate proposal:
(1) There’s federal costs for assessing approximate values of shipments passing through USA borders. But among those costs are funding for additional attention and eyes upon our borders that augment our security but are attributed to the budget for border security.
(2) Any other costs passed on to USA purchasers of Imported goods are market determined and they additionally serve as price subsidies for USA’s exports at no additional cost to anyone else.
(3) The policy is only applicable to globally traded goods; it cannot be applied to service products.
Within the Border-Adjusted proposal: (1) There’s no need to assess approximate values of shipments passing through USA borders. (2) USA exported goods enjoy no price subsidy. (3) the proposal’s applicable to USA’s imported goods and service products.
I’m supposing the nonsensical proposal to disallow reducing enterprises’ taxable incomes due to their debt servicing expenses will not survive.
The Wikipedia described Import Certificates proposal would CERTAINLY almost or entirely eliminate USA’s trade deficit of goods while not reducing but rather increasing USA’s GDP and jobs more than otherwise; (I do mean certainly). I’m aware of no other proposal that might approach this extent of trade deficit reduction. It’s doubtful that the border-adjusted proposal could match the extent of desirable net consequences we can reasonably expect from enacting an Import-Certificate policy.
Respectfully, Supposn