How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms.

Why do you feel Apple, for instance, can deduct foreign labor expense?

 

[anotherlife]

How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Products imported from lesser wage nations, more than otherwise drags upon the importing nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Within USA’s market places, many types of goods that were previously produced in the USA are now rarely or never available due to the availability of similar and less expensive goods imported from lower wage nations.

USA enterprises’ production volumes of those goods have been severely reduced or effectively eliminated. Those enterprises’ technological expertise, production lines and specialized labor cannot be applied to “nearly” similar products, because in most such cases, production costs for anything similar, would for the same reasons be similarly unmarketable.

Among some such USA enterprises, there were those that also produced other products that they could continue to competitively market. But even among these sub-segments of USA goods producers, due to their lesser aggregate sales of products they made, many of those enterprises couldn’t continue as USA producer of goods.

The effects of annual trade deficits due to lesser priced imports cascade through to production supporting enterprises.

Producers of products usually require some goods or services from other enterprises. The reduced production of USA goods reduces the sales volumes of these USA production supporting enterprises. To the extent those production supporting enterprises were dependent upon customers detrimentally impacted by lesser cost imports, those enterprises in turn were similarly impacted.

Although USA purchasers immediately benefitted from lesser priced goods imported from lower wage nations, USA’s gross domestic product and numbers of jobs were reduced more than otherwise. The benefits of lesser priced imports do not fully compensate for USA’s lesser GDP and numbers of jobs effects upon our aggregate wage earning families. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, (as does other nations’ annual trade deficits), drags upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

The reduction of the GDP is more than offset by the banking products sold from the US to the entire world in dollars.

 

[anotherlife]

Edward Baiamonte, trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. They are particularly net detrimental to employees and their families.

You advocate USA continue acquiescing to lower wage nations’ products price advantages over our products in markets within our borders, in order not to upset other nations. I disagree with your priorities.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven and would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. Your mention of war is due to your lack of logic and your paranoiac delusions.

///////////////////////////////////

After USA’s Revolutionary War, we became among, (if not the most) liberal nation then existing.
As time passed, more nations have turned as we, (previously British colonies did), to be lesser autocratic or oligarchism.

Other nations’ titular heads may also be addressed as presidents or as monarchs, or prime-ministers; their legislative chambers may be described by titles other than “congress”; but the trend is for nations governments transforming to be bound to the limits of written constitutions; their leadership determined by democratic elections; (i.e. the historic trend of these last centuries has been for national governments evolving to be more liberal).

More liberal governments’ policy determining leaders are more generally selected by their citizens’ votes; they’re generally democratic republics (regardless of the government’s titular head’s title). Another characteristic of more liberal governments has been their citizens’ expectations and legal entitlements of rights.
[These rights are in a general manner referred to within the preamble of the United States Constitution, and more specifically within all levels of USA’s laws and regulations.]

The historic trend has also been for all the nation’s citizens and to some lesser extent to all others within the nation to be entitled to some explicitly stated considerations for their safety, education, health, and wellbeing.

Historic trends, (social behaviors, societies do not generally progress consistently with no interruptions or setbacks that are to a significant extent due to wealth’s' greater influence within governments. They're "on the wrong side of history”.
Now that I’m retired and have some time to respond to such posts; this post’s a public service.


I wish you well, Supposn

trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise

Bullshit.
No matter how many times you repeat your drivel.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven

Market driven would mean shrinking, not increasing government interference.

Then the US producers will disappear even faster.

In the case of no government, every producer moves out in one day, then pump back all their earnings into US banks from where it is immediately leveraged as foreign lending.

 

[anotherlife]

How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Products imported from lesser wage nations, more than otherwise drags upon the importing nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Within USA’s market places, many types of goods that were previously produced in the USA are now rarely or never available due to the availability of similar and less expensive goods imported from lower wage nations.

USA enterprises’ production volumes of those goods have been severely reduced or effectively eliminated. Those enterprises’ technological expertise, production lines and specialized labor cannot be applied to “nearly” similar products, because in most such cases, production costs for anything similar, would for the same reasons be similarly unmarketable.

Among some such USA enterprises, there were those that also produced other products that they could continue to competitively market. But even among these sub-segments of USA goods producers, due to their lesser aggregate sales of products they made, many of those enterprises couldn’t continue as USA producer of goods.

The effects of annual trade deficits due to lesser priced imports cascade through to production supporting enterprises.

Producers of products usually require some goods or services from other enterprises. The reduced production of USA goods reduces the sales volumes of these USA production supporting enterprises. To the extent those production supporting enterprises were dependent upon customers detrimentally impacted by lesser cost imports, those enterprises in turn were similarly impacted.

Although USA purchasers immediately benefitted from lesser priced goods imported from lower wage nations, USA’s gross domestic product and numbers of jobs were reduced more than otherwise. The benefits of lesser priced imports do not fully compensate for USA’s lesser GDP and numbers of jobs effects upon our aggregate wage earning families. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, (as does other nations’ annual trade deficits), drags upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.

No it can't be managed by taxes. They always move to the tax haven countries, then even their profits will not come back to the US but to the benefit of a tax haven country. A mostly unemployed nation is not a good customer or market anyways.

 

[Supposn]

The reduction of the GDP is more than offset by the banking products sold from the US to the entire world in dollars.

AnotherLife, if USA firms international banking services to other nation’s entities offset the remainder of goods and services that compose the USA’s entire balance of global trade, we would not have then suffered consistent annual trade deficits in excess of a half century. Obviously, that’s not the case.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Edward Baiamonte, trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. They are particularly net detrimental to employees and their families.

You advocate USA continue acquiescing to lower wage nations’ products price advantages over our products in markets within our borders, in order not to upset other nations. I disagree with your priorities.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven and would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. Your mention of war is due to your lack of logic and your paranoiac delusions.

///////////////////////////////////

After USA’s Revolutionary War, we became among, (if not the most) liberal nation then existing.
As time passed, more nations have turned as we, (previously British colonies did), to be lesser autocratic or oligarchism.

Other nations’ titular heads may also be addressed as presidents or as monarchs, or prime-ministers; their legislative chambers may be described by titles other than “congress”; but the trend is for nations governments transforming to be bound to the limits of written constitutions; their leadership determined by democratic elections; (i.e. the historic trend of these last centuries has been for national governments evolving to be more liberal).

More liberal governments’ policy determining leaders are more generally selected by their citizens’ votes; they’re generally democratic republics (regardless of the government’s titular head’s title). Another characteristic of more liberal governments has been their citizens’ expectations and legal entitlements of rights.
[These rights are in a general manner referred to within the preamble of the United States Constitution, and more specifically within all levels of USA’s laws and regulations.]

The historic trend has also been for all the nation’s citizens and to some lesser extent to all others within the nation to be entitled to some explicitly stated considerations for their safety, education, health, and wellbeing.

Historic trends, (social behaviors, societies do not generally progress consistently with no interruptions or setbacks that are to a significant extent due to wealth’s' greater influence within governments. They're "on the wrong side of history”.
Now that I’m retired and have some time to respond to such posts; this post’s a public service.


I wish you well, Supposn

trade deficits are always drag upon their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise

Bullshit.
No matter how many times you repeat your drivel.

The trade policy I advocate is substantially market driven

Market driven would mean shrinking, not increasing government interference.

Then the US producers will disappear even faster.

In the case of no government, every producer moves out in one day, then pump back all their earnings into US banks from where it is immediately leveraged as foreign lending.

Why would less government interference cause producers to disappear faster?

 

[Supposn]

Liberal moron can retire to spam talking points 1000 times
but can't answer questions once.

Edward Baiamonte, asked and answered.
You repeatingly ask and I generally repeat a similar answer to your similar question. You cannot take the truth or deal with a logical answer.

I wish you well and hope you become well, Supposn

Transcript of
America Needs Smart Trade Not Free Trade!
20Sep2016

Edward Baiamonte, the international trade policy as described by Wikipedia’s “Import certificate” article, is not “pure” free trade but it certainly is competitive trade.

How would USA adopting the Import Certificate policy protect AND cripple a USA industry? Which industry? How would Import Certificates cause a depression?
You haven’t been able to logically explain your foolish notions that depressions are caused by tariffs or that they were responsible for World War Two; how did they do that?
You cannot seem to logically explain the “hows and whys” of anything you post.

Respectfully, Supposn

////////////////////////////////////////
Transcript of
How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.
2:23 pm, 9May2017 response to Edward Baiamonte:

Liberal moron can retire to spam talking points 1000 times
but can't answer questions once.

Edward Baiamonte, asked and answered.
You repeatingly ask and I generally repeat a similar answer to your similar question. You cannot take the truth or deal with a logical answer.

I wish you well and hope you become well, Supposn
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Excerpted from thread
We Need Factories for Making Products and Not for Making Jobs
12:29 AM, 5May2017 response to Edward Baiamonte:

Edward Baiamonte, ... Now can you explain why you so much despise USA enterprises as to prefer that imports from foreign lower wage nations should consequentially drag upon our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs?
Despite your illogical political positions, I do wish you well.
Supposn
//////////////

Transcript from thread
Are Countries With Trade Surpluses Economically Stronger?
12:30 am, 5May2017 post:

EdwardBaiamonte, if foreign nations were spending their U.S. dollars for our goods, USA wouldn’t have chronic annual trade deficits.
When foreign entities purchase portions of our existing enterprises or grant loans to USA, they receive commitment of our entities future profits or those entities serving their debts to the foreign loaners. I do not believe (as others do), that this itself is of economic detriment to our nation; but certainly, annual trade deficits themselves are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

But you ignore this.
I wish you well, Supposn

Edward Baiamonte’s response:
Ignore this what is this?? I agree that trade deficits are bad and the way to correct them is to make our goods more competitive Not to protect and cripple our industries and lead the world in trade wars as you
would prefer
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

[Supposn]

Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.

Daniel Palos, Paul Ryan and other Republicans are proposing our corporate income tax regulations should cease allowing reductions of taxable incomes due to importing products into the USA; (i.e. they’re proposing a “destination based tax” policy. This would certainly reduce our annual trade deficits. but I have doubts as to its enforceability.

The IRS could ignore enterprises’ payments to USA entities that include payments for foreign goods and services; this would be depending upon the U.S. entities receiving those payments are required to declare those income revenues as corporate incomes; that’s feasible.

What about payments to non-USA entities; entities that are not even USA entities that are subsidiaries of foreign enterprises and thus are not under federal jurisdiction and IRS oversight?

How do you identify and reject tax deductions for any direct or indirect expenditures going overseas for the purchase of foreign goods and services?
If the IRS cannot identify and parse such payments from all other payments to foreign entities, how can the IRS effectively enforce the denial of tax deductions for the purchases of foreign goods and services? Additionally, USA financial institutions could be employed to transfer those payments without identifying their purposes.
I support the concept of destination based taxing but as it was described, but I doubt if it's resonably enforceable.

Respectfully, Supposn

seems more like a "shell game with statism", to me. Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Daniel Palos, as I explained, I have doubts of detination based taxing in the manner proposed would be enforceable. If the IRS cannot enforce them, the proposal’s of no worth.

Expatriate enterprises legally move their headquarters beyond federal jurisdiction. They may, and I suppose usually do keep a USA subsidiary corporation here or have some arrangement with a USA associated enterprise. As ToddsterPatrio’s 1:10 PM post implied, they do so to legally reduce their federal tax exposures; additionally, they may also illegally reduce their taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, the international trade policy as described by Wikipedia’s “Import certificate” article, is not “pure” free trade but it certainly is competitive trade.

why is competitive trade better than free trade??

 

[danielpalos]

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms.

Why do you feel Apple, for instance, can deduct foreign labor expense?

It is a labor cost.

 

[danielpalos]

How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Products imported from lesser wage nations, more than otherwise drags upon the importing nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs.

Within USA’s market places, many types of goods that were previously produced in the USA are now rarely or never available due to the availability of similar and less expensive goods imported from lower wage nations.

USA enterprises’ production volumes of those goods have been severely reduced or effectively eliminated. Those enterprises’ technological expertise, production lines and specialized labor cannot be applied to “nearly” similar products, because in most such cases, production costs for anything similar, would for the same reasons be similarly unmarketable.

Among some such USA enterprises, there were those that also produced other products that they could continue to competitively market. But even among these sub-segments of USA goods producers, due to their lesser aggregate sales of products they made, many of those enterprises couldn’t continue as USA producer of goods.

The effects of annual trade deficits due to lesser priced imports cascade through to production supporting enterprises.

Producers of products usually require some goods or services from other enterprises. The reduced production of USA goods reduces the sales volumes of these USA production supporting enterprises. To the extent those production supporting enterprises were dependent upon customers detrimentally impacted by lesser cost imports, those enterprises in turn were similarly impacted.

Although USA purchasers immediately benefitted from lesser priced goods imported from lower wage nations, USA’s gross domestic product and numbers of jobs were reduced more than otherwise. The benefits of lesser priced imports do not fully compensate for USA’s lesser GDP and numbers of jobs effects upon our aggregate wage earning families. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, (as does other nations’ annual trade deficits), drags upon their nations’ GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.

No it can't be managed by taxes. They always move to the tax haven countries, then even their profits will not come back to the US but to the benefit of a tax haven country. A mostly unemployed nation is not a good customer or market anyways.

I am not sure why you believe that. Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

Our trade deficit can be addressed through a tax regime; Congress likes to micromanage our tax codes.

Daniel Palos, Paul Ryan and other Republicans are proposing our corporate income tax regulations should cease allowing reductions of taxable incomes due to importing products into the USA; (i.e. they’re proposing a “destination based tax” policy. This would certainly reduce our annual trade deficits. but I have doubts as to its enforceability.

The IRS could ignore enterprises’ payments to USA entities that include payments for foreign goods and services; this would be depending upon the U.S. entities receiving those payments are required to declare those income revenues as corporate incomes; that’s feasible.

What about payments to non-USA entities; entities that are not even USA entities that are subsidiaries of foreign enterprises and thus are not under federal jurisdiction and IRS oversight?

How do you identify and reject tax deductions for any direct or indirect expenditures going overseas for the purchase of foreign goods and services?
If the IRS cannot identify and parse such payments from all other payments to foreign entities, how can the IRS effectively enforce the denial of tax deductions for the purchases of foreign goods and services? Additionally, USA financial institutions could be employed to transfer those payments without identifying their purposes.
I support the concept of destination based taxing but as it was described, but I doubt if it's resonably enforceable.

Respectfully, Supposn

seems more like a "shell game with statism", to me. Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Daniel Palos, as I explained, I have doubts of detination based taxing in the manner proposed would be enforceable. If the IRS cannot enforce them, the proposal’s of no worth.

Expatriate enterprises legally move their headquarters beyond federal jurisdiction. They may, and I suppose usually do keep a USA subsidiary corporation here or have some arrangement with a USA associated enterprise. As ToddsterPatrio’s 1:10 PM post implied, they do so to legally reduce their federal tax exposures; additionally, they may also illegally reduce their taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why wouldn't the IRS know, which expatriate Firms of US corporations should no longer be eligible for a tax preference for the cost of foreign labor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms.

Why do you feel Apple, for instance, can deduct foreign labor expense?

It is a labor cost.

It's not a labor cost here.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms.

Why do you feel Apple, for instance, can deduct foreign labor expense?

It is a labor cost.

It's not a labor cost here.

are you claiming the cost of labor is not eligible for a tax preference?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms.

Why do you feel Apple, for instance, can deduct foreign labor expense?

It is a labor cost.

It's not a labor cost here.

are you claiming the cost of labor is not eligible for a tax preference?

Let's run some numbers...theoretically.
Apple takes $290 worth of parts......uses $10 of Chinese labor to make a phone.
They export that phone from China. Sell it for $600 here.

What are they paying taxes on in the US?

 

[Supposn]

, the international trade policy as described by Wikipedia’s “Import certificate” article, is not “pure” free trade but it certainly is competitive trade.

why is competitive trade better than free trade??

Edward Baiamonte, I sit, because I prefer sitting to standing corrected; the international trade policy as described by Wikipedia’s “Import certificate” article, is not “pure” free trade but it's certainly (within the USA) pure competitive enterprise.
It is less than pure free trade because to a limited extent it reduces the products of foreign lower priced labor goods' price advantages over USA products and it would be beneficial any USA goods producing enterprise, (including USA subsiduaries of foreign enerpeises) that compete or aspire to compete with foreign goods anywhere in the world.

Due to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits’ drag upon our GDPs and numbers of jobs, USA’s adoption of that transferable certificates policy would certainly be (more than otherwise) of net economic and social benefit to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms.

Why do you feel Apple, for instance, can deduct foreign labor expense?

It is a labor cost.

It's not a labor cost here.

are you claiming the cost of labor is not eligible for a tax preference?

DanielPalos & ToddsterPatriot, that’s the purpose of the “destination based tax” concept. Currently enterprises’ expenditures for acquiring and importing goods into the USA or benefitting from foreign services are entitled to reduce their enterprises’ incomes subject federal corporate taxes.

DBT would no longer reduce taxable income in consideration for such expenses.
I’m a proponent of the concepts purpose but I doubt if the IRS could effectively enforce it at reasonable enforcement expenses.
If they cannot do that, the proposed destination based tax method is of no worth.

There are many legitimate reasons for USA enterprises to transfer wealth to entities beyond our borders. I question the feasability (at reasonable enforcement costs) for parsing out compensations to foreign entities for the foreign goods or performed services provided.

Those expenditures can be mingled with expenditures for royalties, uses of patents, loans to foreigners, debt service of loans made by foreign lenders, ... etc. ... etc.
Wealth leaving the USA is usually through both USA and foreign financial enterprises but they can be made by couriers.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms. US expatriate Firms should only get a tax break for US labor.

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms.

Why do you feel Apple, for instance, can deduct foreign labor expense?

It is a labor cost.

It's not a labor cost here.

are you claiming the cost of labor is not eligible for a tax preference?

Let's run some numbers...theoretically.
Apple takes $290 worth of parts......uses $10 of Chinese labor to make a phone.
They export that phone from China. Sell it for $600 here.

What are they paying taxes on in the US?

The Apple expatriate subsidiary would not get any tax break for the cost of foreign labor, that is all. Tax breaks are only for US labor by US firms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not simply end the deduction for the cost of foreign labor by expatriate firms.

Why do you feel Apple, for instance, can deduct foreign labor expense?

It is a labor cost.

It's not a labor cost here.

are you claiming the cost of labor is not eligible for a tax preference?

Let's run some numbers...theoretically.
Apple takes $290 worth of parts......uses $10 of Chinese labor to make a phone.
They export that phone from China. Sell it for $600 here.

What are they paying taxes on in the US?

The Apple expatriate subsidiary would not get any tax break for the cost of foreign labor, that is all. Tax breaks are only for US labor by US firms.

Show me the US tax break you feel they currently receive.

 

[Supposn]

The Apple expatriate subsidiary would not get any tax break for the cost of foreign labor, that is all. Tax breaks are only for US labor by US firms.

Danielpalos, you continue to disregard the word “unenforceable”. Regardless of how laudable its purpose, if a government regulation is effectively unenforceable, it to some extent reduces the reputations and effectiveness of the government’s legal efforts to enforce those and often other laws and regulations.

Prohibition reduced the reputation and to some extent the effectiveness of our federal and many of our other USA governments. This is in addition to promoting more general corruption and organized crime’s increased enrichment and power.

If an enacted “destination based tax” is unenforceable, its enactment will be contra-productive; reducing rather than promoting our nation’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn