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

[danielpalos]

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.

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

 

[danielpalos]

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

Micromanaging our tax codes is a favorite pastime of Congress. It really is that simple.

 

[Supposn]

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

Micromanaging our tax codes is a favorite pastime of Congress. It really is that simple.

Daniel Palos, you’re advocating exactly what some of the Republican leadership are advocating, (i.e. “destination based” taxation).
I FULLY AGREE WITH YOUR GOAL. I doubt if the method that Paul Ryan and some Republicans are proposing is feasibly enforceable.
I question if there’s any method to accomplish “destination based taxation” that is feasibly enforceable and does not further stretch IRS’s efforts to respect liberty and privacy of individuals and their enterprises?

It's really is that simple. You’re disregarding the question of enforceability.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Are you claiming that Apple, or anyone, gets to write off their cost of labor where their products are built and then write off that foreign labor again when they sell the product here?

Your confusion is both wide and deep.

 

[Supposn]

Are you claiming that Apple, or anyone, gets to write off their cost of labor where their products are built and then write off that foreign labor again when they sell the product here?

Your confusion is both wide and deep.

Toddsterpatriot, I’m claiming enterprise currently are entitled to reduction from their federal taxable incomes due to their costs of importing goods or services into the USA; foreign labor is imbedded within those costs.

The “destination based tax” concept was drafted specifically to eliminate that tax reduction.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you claiming that Apple, or anyone, gets to write off their cost of labor where their products are built and then write off that foreign labor again when they sell the product here?

Your confusion is both wide and deep.

Toddsterpatriot, I’m claiming enterprise currently are entitled to reduction from their federal taxable incomes due to their costs of importing goods or services into the USA; foreign labor is imbedded within those costs.

The “destination based tax” concept was drafted specifically to eliminate that tax reduction.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, I’m claiming enterprise currently are entitled to reduction from their federal taxable incomes due to their costs of importing goods or services into the USA; foreign labor is imbedded within those costs.

Businesses deduct their COGS.
Is this something you only recently realized?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Micromanaging our tax codes is a favorite pastime of Congress. It really is that simple.

Daniel Palos, you’re advocating exactly what some of the Republican leadership are advocating, (i.e. “destination based” taxation).
I FULLY AGREE WITH YOUR GOAL. I doubt if the method that Paul Ryan and some Republicans are proposing is feasibly enforceable.
I question if there’s any method to accomplish “destination based taxation” that is feasibly enforceable and does not further stretch IRS’s efforts to respect liberty and privacy of individuals and their enterprises?

It's really is that simple. You’re disregarding the question of enforceability.
Respectfully, Supposn

apples and oranges. I am only advocating for that one change to the tax code; not a "myriad of changes".

 

[anotherlife]

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

I think interest based cash flow income is accounted for the GDP, but not used in trade balances.

 

[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.

Why would less government interference cause producers to disappear faster?

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape. So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

 

[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.

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.

But who guides the hands of congress? Corporations and foreign currencies do.

 

[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?

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape. So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape.

Producers feel less need to move when there is no government red tape.

So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

Please explain further.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But who guides the hands of congress? Corporations and foreign currencies do.

idiotic liberal conspiracy theory. Why so afraid to name your most outstanding example of this??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape. So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

actually if you remove the govt then you get full out competition between corporations because that is the only way to win and survive. When govt is involved business will try to use it to lessen the burdens of competition. Do you understand?

 

[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.

Why would less government interference cause producers to disappear faster?

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape. So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape.

Producers feel less need to move when there is no government red tape.

So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

Please explain further.

Producers must always move as fast as they can, because they compete with each other. Until the whole industry consolidates into a single producer. Then that single producer captures the government. Governments try to slow down this process and try to delay the consolidation. Not much though, because the government is already captured to various degrees.

 

[anotherlife]

But who guides the hands of congress? Corporations and foreign currencies do.

idiotic liberal conspiracy theory. Why so afraid to name your most outstanding example of this??

No. Government is elected upon corporate fundraisers and corporations get business turfs upon fundraising contributions.

 

[anotherlife]

Producers can move faster when there is no government red tape. So removing the government reduces the competitive friction between the corporations.

actually if you remove the govt then you get full out competition between corporations because that is the only way to win and survive. When govt is involved business will try to use it to lessen the burdens of competition. Do you understand?

Either ways, you get full consolidation into one last single player that defines everything. The government slows this down though doesn't stop it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But who guides the hands of congress? Corporations and foreign currencies do.

idiotic liberal conspiracy theory. Why so afraid to name your most outstanding example of this??

No. Government is elected upon corporate fundraisers and corporations get business turfs upon fundraising contributions.

and what is your best example of this idiotic liberal conspiracy theory ????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Either ways, you get full consolidation into one last single player that defines everything. The government slows this down though doesn't stop it.

if you get this why don't we have it?? Instead we have 30 million corporations all fighting to survive by pleasing us more than the competition. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The government slows this down though doesn't stop it.

anti trust laws stop it dead actually. 1+1=2

 

[anotherlife]

But who guides the hands of congress? Corporations and foreign currencies do.

idiotic liberal conspiracy theory. Why so afraid to name your most outstanding example of this??

No. Government is elected upon corporate fundraisers and corporations get business turfs upon fundraising contributions.

and what is your best example of this idiotic liberal conspiracy theory ????

Every fundraiser, and every CEO ever interviewed. This is simply how the world works and has been working for the last 100 trillion years.