The truth about taxes

[Steelplate]

Your lack of knowledge is simply embarrassing.

wow... great comeback... care to prove it?

Just read your own posts. That's proof enough.
Quit embarassing yourself. You need to go home.

Kind of like your 90% claim on regulations.... you have nothing. Figures.

 

[Immanuel]

Where I see a problem is that our employers are going to China in order to reap the rewards of extremely cheap labor and then selling to us at huge profits while 9% (and when you really think about it counting people that are no longer looking for employment closer to 20%) of us are not working. Tariffs would make it more costly for them to go to China for labor rather than employ Americans.

Immie

True, it would make it more costly to go to China.

It would also make it more costly to produce stuff. The total amount of "stuff" (GDP) would go down, and the 9% of people of us that are not working would become 15%.

Look, I understand the sentiment. But the fact is that even in the face of other nations using protectionist policies, no first world, consumer-driven economy benefits from protectionist policies. Certain sectors might benefit, but the nation as a whole suffers.

I disagree, unusual re me/you.

You're in a sort of chicken/egg paradigm. People are broke, eg unemployed/underemployed, therefore they can't afford higher prices. If they were employed, or gainfully employed in the case of the many working poor just scraping by, they could afford the higher prices.

Don't know if this statistic is any good anymore but at one time there were 5 applicants vying for each available job. Personally? I'd rather hedge that number and pay the higher price, than roll the dice as to whether I get the job at all.

5 applicants per job? Where have you gotten that statistic. I have been seeking employment for 18 months. When I get lucky and get a phone call from someone in regards to my resume the discussion usually turns to the economy and the unemployment problem. I am told every time that the person doing the interviews received 500 resumes for one job... I kid you not!

Immie

 

[Sactowndog]

Mercantilism is a loser. It impoverishes countries.
I care that if someone wants to set up a manufacturing operation, or any operation employing more than 50 people, he instantly becomes subject to so many regulations and taxes he must hire an army just to be in compliance.
There is your job source right there. Get rid of that crap and let people do business and won't be having this conversation.

Am I not going to say we don't have stupid regulations because then I would be an equal absolutist.

However I struggle to believe someone with your intelligence would say all we had to do was reduce regulation and jobs will return. I have been in the room when whole divisions were being moved overseas. It came down to three things:

1) China was paying to subsidize the engineers
2) Healthcare costs did not exist becasue of state health care
3) They wanted to have the product group in China because it was a big market.

Regulations beyond what I mentioned never came up. In fact for many honest businesses regulations aren't really a problem.

 

[Sactowndog]

Finally... sactown... had a great idea... if Companies invest their profits here... they avoid a 20% tax. If they choose to keep there money abroad, they are liable to the 20% tax... that gives them the choice.

So what happens when every nation puts up this system?

Very little unless you are an Asian Mercantilest nation like China, Singapore or Japan. Many of them like China already have it since you often have to make products in China to sell to state owned entities. Singapore could put it in place but what good would it do them. They export far more than they consume locally. So no company would have an issue meeting this requirement.

The african countries probably should do it as it would probably spur micro lending and increase small business in Africa.

The point is companies are stateless today. Having all states including the United States demand that they spend/invest equal to what they sell is not a bad thing as long as the state is not specifying where they invest spend.

 

[Sactowndog]

We would be essentially "buying" jobs through higher prices and inefficiency. We might as well have the gov't pay each company $500 for every worker they have and then raise taxes to cover the expense.

If other countries adopt the same system we will see an instant trade balance. That isn't good because it means foreign companies will not invest here. Higher capital costs will reduce investment overall.

I have to say I haven't seen as many bad economic ideas expressed here since the Ford and Carter administrations.

Now why don't think through the concept some before you spout off.

First place foreign companies selling here would be incented to invest to have production here for the goods they sell or to make another investment if they goods were going to be produced elsewhere.

The more likely result is an increase is capital available to start ups as companies would look to invest in adjacent startups rather than pay the 20% tax to repatriate the cash. Or interest rates would fall as they would put the money into TBills in the worst case.

If their was any negative incentive it would be to not enter the US market with your goods since you could not get the cash out easily. However, remember their is no corporate income tax in my model so the 20% tax would be no greater than income tax in many markets. Given the size of our market and the current choice even if it reduced options by 5% we would not be challenged in any regard.

 

[Steelplate]

Mercantilism is a loser. It impoverishes countries.
I care that if someone wants to set up a manufacturing operation, or any operation employing more than 50 people, he instantly becomes subject to so many regulations and taxes he must hire an army just to be in compliance.
There is your job source right there. Get rid of that crap and let people do business and won't be having this conversation.

Am I not going to say we don't have stupid regulations because then I would be an equal absolutist.

However I struggle to believe someone with your intelligence would say all we had to do was reduce regulation and jobs will return. I have been in the room when whole divisions were being moved overseas. It came down to three things:

1) China was paying to subsidize the engineers
2) Healthcare costs did not exist becasue of state health care
3) They wanted to have the product group in China because it was a big market.

Regulations beyond what I mentioned never came up. In fact for many honest businesses regulations aren't really a problem.

I'm not saying we don't have stupid regulations either... It's just that I keep hearing about these regulations and I never hear specifics... then I hear blanket statements from the Silly Rabbi that 90% of them should be eliminated.... So I want to know(from him) what they are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mercantilism is a loser. It impoverishes countries.
I care that if someone wants to set up a manufacturing operation, or any operation employing more than 50 people, he instantly becomes subject to so many regulations and taxes he must hire an army just to be in compliance.
There is your job source right there. Get rid of that crap and let people do business and won't be having this conversation.

Am I not going to say we don't have stupid regulations because then I would be an equal absolutist.

However I struggle to believe someone with your intelligence would say all we had to do was reduce regulation and jobs will return. I have been in the room when whole divisions were being moved overseas. It came down to three things:

1) China was paying to subsidize the engineers
2) Healthcare costs did not exist becasue of state health care
3) They wanted to have the product group in China because it was a big market.

Regulations beyond what I mentioned never came up. In fact for many honest businesses regulations aren't really a problem.

This may be a surprise but shockingly your experience is not the only thing going.
Look at all the regulations that add costs to businesses and tell me that isn't a factor in any decision to move off shore. There might be others, but these are something we can deal with.

and btw, the US is a net beneficiary of jobs off=shored as this is a destination for foreign companies building plants etc.

 

[The Rabbi]

We would be essentially "buying" jobs through higher prices and inefficiency. We might as well have the gov't pay each company $500 for every worker they have and then raise taxes to cover the expense.

If other countries adopt the same system we will see an instant trade balance. That isn't good because it means foreign companies will not invest here. Higher capital costs will reduce investment overall.

I have to say I haven't seen as many bad economic ideas expressed here since the Ford and Carter administrations.

Now why don't think through the concept some before you spout off.

First place foreign companies selling here would be incented to invest to have production here for the goods they sell or to make another investment if they goods were going to be produced elsewhere.

The more likely result is an increase is capital available to start ups as companies would look to invest in adjacent startups rather than pay the 20% tax to repatriate the cash. Or interest rates would fall as they would put the money into TBills in the worst case.

If their was any negative incentive it would be to not enter the US market with your goods since you could not get the cash out easily. However, remember their is no corporate income tax in my model so the 20% tax would be no greater than income tax in many markets. Given the size of our market and the current choice even if it reduced options by 5% we would not be challenged in any regard.

You haven't thought about this very hard.
Capital controls don't work. THis is simply a historically true statement. Any control on free movement of capital and labor is not only contrary to freedom but impoverishes people.

 

[Sactowndog]

This may be a surprise but shockingly your experience is not the only thing going.
Look at all the regulations that add costs to businesses and tell me that isn't a factor in any decision to move off shore. There might be others, but these are something we can deal with.

and btw, the US is a net beneficiary of jobs off=shored as this is a destination for foreign companies building plants etc.

I would love to see something other than your opinion. I can provide my first hand experience in a multinational company which is different than your opinions. You are correct it is a single data point but at least it is a data point.

 

[Sactowndog]

You haven't thought about this very hard.
Capital controls don't work. THis is simply a historically true statement. Any control on free movement of capital and labor is not only contrary to freedom but impoverishes people.

Generally capital controls have been a hard restriction. This proposal is not that. You are free to move cash out of the economy you just pay a tax. Also generally many of the controls have been monetary controls on the currency and that is not what is being proposed. Feel free to provide a link of a comparable program and the results. I would be happy to see it.

 

[8537]

We would be essentially "buying" jobs through higher prices and inefficiency. We might as well have the gov't pay each company $500 for every worker they have and then raise taxes to cover the expense.

If other countries adopt the same system we will see an instant trade balance. That isn't good because it means foreign companies will not invest here. Higher capital costs will reduce investment overall.

I have to say I haven't seen as many bad economic ideas expressed here since the Ford and Carter administrations.

Now why don't think through the concept some before you spout off.

First place foreign companies selling here would be incented to invest to have production here for the goods they sell or to make another investment if they goods were going to be produced elsewhere.

The more likely result is an increase is capital available to start ups as companies would look to invest in adjacent startups rather than pay the 20% tax to repatriate the cash. Or interest rates would fall as they would put the money into TBills in the worst case.

If their was any negative incentive it would be to not enter the US market with your goods since you could not get the cash out easily. However, remember their is no corporate income tax in my model so the 20% tax would be no greater than income tax in many markets. Given the size of our market and the current choice even if it reduced options by 5% we would not be challenged in any regard.

You haven't thought about this very hard.
Capital controls don't work. THis is simply a historically true statement. Any control on free movement of capital and labor is not only contrary to freedom but impoverishes people.

Capital controls can be very effective in nations that don't have large market share. Currency boards have been used with much success. Those controls provide a level of currency and investment stability for smaller economies and can prevent the currency runs that occurred in, for example, the Asian Tigers.

 

[keee keee]

Taxes are the government taking someone elses money to give to others who don't work for it

 

[8537]

Taxes are the government taking someone elses money to give to others who don't work for it

The Conservative meme sometimes runs into reality....

People in the military don't work for the tax money they receive?

 

[The Rabbi]

This may be a surprise but shockingly your experience is not the only thing going.
Look at all the regulations that add costs to businesses and tell me that isn't a factor in any decision to move off shore. There might be others, but these are something we can deal with.

and btw, the US is a net beneficiary of jobs off=shored as this is a destination for foreign companies building plants etc.

I would love to see something other than your opinion. I can provide my first hand experience in a multinational company which is different than your opinions. You are correct it is a single data point but at least it is a data point.

What would you like to see? The fact that the US imports more jobs than it exports? The fact that there is a lot of regulation in manufacturing? The fact that taxes and regulations play an enormous part in the decision to off-shore?
You offer one anecdote. That really isn't very meaningful.

 

[The Rabbi]

You haven't thought about this very hard.
Capital controls don't work. THis is simply a historically true statement. Any control on free movement of capital and labor is not only contrary to freedom but impoverishes people.

Generally capital controls have been a hard restriction. This proposal is not that. You are free to move cash out of the economy you just pay a tax. Also generally many of the controls have been monetary controls on the currency and that is not what is being proposed. Feel free to provide a link of a comparable program and the results. I would be happy to see it.

If you have to pay a confiscatory tax then you are not free to move money.
This would seem obvious.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now why don't think through the concept some before you spout off.

First place foreign companies selling here would be incented to invest to have production here for the goods they sell or to make another investment if they goods were going to be produced elsewhere.

The more likely result is an increase is capital available to start ups as companies would look to invest in adjacent startups rather than pay the 20% tax to repatriate the cash. Or interest rates would fall as they would put the money into TBills in the worst case.

If their was any negative incentive it would be to not enter the US market with your goods since you could not get the cash out easily. However, remember their is no corporate income tax in my model so the 20% tax would be no greater than income tax in many markets. Given the size of our market and the current choice even if it reduced options by 5% we would not be challenged in any regard.

You haven't thought about this very hard.
Capital controls don't work. THis is simply a historically true statement. Any control on free movement of capital and labor is not only contrary to freedom but impoverishes people.

Capital controls can be very effective in nations that don't have large market share. Currency boards have been used with much success. Those controls provide a level of currency and investment stability for smaller economies and can prevent the currency runs that occurred in, for example, the Asian Tigers.

We're not discussing currency boards, which are an entirely different animal.
Get with the program.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

By the way, how do we "pander" to big business today? I keep hearing that but no one mentions any specifics.

Here's an example. Did you know that McDonalds gets a tax "kickback" for every person they hire from US taxpayers? AND they finance franchisee leases through the SBA. That's right, the Small Business Administration - for a corporation making billions. How on earth is McDonalds a small business? Also, Micky D's has rigged it so that they get the money if that person they hire is there something like six months or less - not a year or more, which makes more sense from a "subsidy" standpoint... the goal is to get and KEEP people employed. Instead, they're making money churning workers in and out. This is a mega-corp with something like 140% turnover rate. They hire from the LOWEST rungs of society.

There's also this:
Too Much Government Makes Us Sick | Acton Institute

 

[signelect]

Every one should pay something and definitely we stop rewarding companies for sending job overseas. We should double that tax. Jeffery Immelt is a prime example. He got a reward for paying no taxes. Boycott GE

 

[8537]

You haven't thought about this very hard.
Capital controls don't work. THis is simply a historically true statement. Any control on free movement of capital and labor is not only contrary to freedom but impoverishes people.

Capital controls can be very effective in nations that don't have large market share. Currency boards have been used with much success. Those controls provide a level of currency and investment stability for smaller economies and can prevent the currency runs that occurred in, for example, the Asian Tigers.

We're not discussing currency boards, which are an entirely different animal.
Get with the program.

I'm quite certain I'm with the program. Currency boards are capital controls. That's the primary function of currency board. Why do you think they buy the dollars?

 

[The Rabbi]

Capital controls can be very effective in nations that don't have large market share. Currency boards have been used with much success. Those controls provide a level of currency and investment stability for smaller economies and can prevent the currency runs that occurred in, for example, the Asian Tigers.

We're not discussing currency boards, which are an entirely different animal.
Get with the program.

I'm quite certain I'm with the program. Currency boards are capital controls. That's the primary function of currency board. Why do you think they buy the dollars?

Bank ratios are capital controls too.