The truth about taxes

[Steelplate]

I don't think that assessment is right. We import far more than we export, especially into countries such as China. If we charged them 25% on their US imports, all we would do is drive up the costs of most goods we buy. China, on the other hand, imports little final-sales product from us and therefore the tax would have a smaller effect on them.

Or, bring those jobs back to America and put people to work. Tariffs go up, prices go up, people stop buying, Outsourcing jobs become unattractive, Jobs come back to US.

If we "Bring those jobs back to America" the cost of production would skyrocket, leading to fewer people being employed.

Would California solve its economic problems if it was allowed to put tariffs on imports form Oregon?

What a bunch of speculative bullshit. Try again.

 

[Immanuel]

IMO any politician is terrified to propose tax increases, no matter how drastically and obviously necessary they are. In today's climate they'd be run out of town with torches and pitchforks.

Sorry I am not catching your drift. Do you mean tax increases on the rich or tax increases on everyone else? In some ways I agree that they are terrified of announcing increases on the rich. I am not so certain that holds true for the rest of us.

Unfortunately, the same remains true for proposing spending cuts. The general areas where spending cuts have even been discussed are entitlements and defense. Now you are not going to believe this but I, as a conservative, agree that there should be cuts in the defense budget. I simply don't understand why the Republican morons in Congress won't even discuss such cuts. It's not like there are any real threats of a military invasion against us. I haven't looked this up but if I remember correctly we already spend a considerable amount more than the rest of the world combined. There is room to cut in the defense.

I also believe that entitlements should be looked at and cut. I think we give away way too much money to individuals, corporations, unions, and foreign governments. In times when our economy is healthy, I don't have so much of a problem with the giveaways but we are not healthy today and we should not be giving wealth away. We are a rich enough nation that we should not be allowing our poor to go hungry and without shelter. We should not be giving $4 billion to the oil industry etc. etc. etc.

Note: in both of those paragraphs the word "cut" does not mean elimination. I think many of our programs need to be modified and improved. But cutting does not mean eliminating in its entirety.

And this may be another shocker to you all. As a conservative, I do not oppose tax increases either on the rich or on the rest of us. I see no reason why people who have money should not pay a higher percentage of their wealth to help out this country. What I can't stand is the progressive attitude of vilifying the rich! Honestly, there is little that pisses me off about the progressive movement more than that. I don't blame the rich for my problems and I sure as hell don't blame them for the success or luck that has put them into their situation. I made my choices and I am where I am today because of those choices. It has nothing to do with the fact that Bill Gates succeeded in life.

That being said, I think our current tax code is a piece of shit. I think the Fair Tax would be a hundred times better than what we have now if for no other reason than it would simplify all of our lives. If the fair tax doesn't satisfy the rest of the country and they can show me that it would truly as they say be detrimental to the poor (which I completely disagree with) and the Fair Tax proposal could not be modified to satisfy everyone then I think a flat tax system would be ten times better than what we have today.

Our current tax code does one thing... it encourage the unscrupulous to cheat! Come to think of it, that is why I think so many defend it.

I think two things need to be done to save our economy. 1) we need to become fiscally responsible meaning increase revenue and decrease spending to a point where we can actually reduce the debt (meaning a surplus for the time being) and that will require some damned tough decisions and compromises on both sides of the political spectrum and 2) we need to make America corporate friendly again.

Those two things sound contradictory. How can you make America corporate friendly and increase taxes on them at the same time? I don't believe taxes are the major reason employers are fleeing this country in droves. They are leaving because of the political climate and an environment that is hellbent on strangling them with more and more regulations. Face it. The Obama administration has given an appearance of being anti-business. Whether they are or not, it is the way they come off with their favoritism towards their buddies in the unions.

If we want to save this country we... the unemployed (and I am one of those) need jobs. Politics (and I am not only blaming Democrats) needs to start working on ways to bring those jobs back.

Note: reducing regulations does not mean eliminating them in their entirety. We can all live with reasonableness. What we have today is not reasonable.

This post ended up being a hell of a lot longer than I intended!

Immie

Good post, and I agree with most of it.

When it comes to business, this is where I become a bit more authoritarian. If you are headquartered here, make your money here, and your officers and most sharholders live here, I have no problem with the government saying "You will hire here." Either direct regulation, or tariffs to make it more profitable to hire domestically. Either solution would get UE down and reduce the tax burden on everyone.

Taxes need to be increased. We have an infrastructure built on higher tax rates than we currently have, and you can't pull the rug out from under that infrastructure. I don't mean just roads and whatnot, I mean the entire way we do business. Everyone screams for spending cuts (usually very non-specific) and most conservatives purport that tax increases will damage the economy, completely ignorant of the fact that any spending cuts will also damage the economy. Even cutting what's classified as "Waste" will still damage the economy. The difference is, tax increases *MAY* cause economic slowdown; With spending cuts, it's an immediate mathematical certainty.

Money doesn't die when you send it to the government... It's temporarily furloughed and immediately re-introduced into the private sector... This is what I think some conservatives have a problem grasping.

As far as what we all call 'Entitlements,' I can't say I'm on board for cuts. They are not the problem, and the recipients not only paid in, but all the while paid higher tax rates than we see now. We can find a solution that doesn't Shanghai those individuals. Medicaid the obvious exception, but unless we resolve to deny HC services to current recipients, cuts will not help anyone. We will subsidize their unpaid HC bills through our premiums just like we do with current uninsured individuals.

Conservatives, particularly modern GOP'ers, seem to be stuck in a paradigm that no matter what, if taxes are lower their lives will be better. I disagree. I think there's a middle ground we're not pursuing.

Where I disagree with you is in your statement that entitlements are not the problem. All spending is the problem and entitlements are a problem. We won't solve this problem by only raising taxes. We have to become responsible with our spending as well.

We do not need all the entitlement programs. We don't need an endowment for the arts. We don't need bridges to no where. We don't need to give the oil companies $4 billion every year when they make hundreds of billions of dollars a quarter. And we don't need to send billions of dollars to foreign countries when we won't even feed our own children.

Every time someone even mentions spending cuts, they only want to talk about what they want to see being cut, but don't you dare talk about cutting their sacred cows! I'm sorry, but we have to look at all of it and we have to do whatever it takes to make the US a competitive nation again.

Immie

 

[Sactowndog]

Who do you think pays the import tarriffs Steelplate?

Technically the consumer, but if you make the tariffs so high on a Hershey's bar, that people switch to a Mars Bar and quit buying Hershey's altogether eventually Hershey's is going to have to think twice about going to Mexico.

Immie

In the long run perhaps. In the short term it creates tarriff wars.

Not only that but we might be better off making Hershey's in Mexico. We don't care if they make Hershey's in Mexico what we do care about is that we make something in the US.

If Hershey has the choice of paying a 20% tax or reinvesting the money in the US in some other venture they will be incented to reinvest. We don't care what it is for we just want the investment.

If they can't find anything that is preferrable to the 20% tax then they will pay the tax which we can hopefully use to drive fundamental research that would create alternative investment ideas.

 

[Steelplate]

Here's an idea.... put reasonable tariffs on imports. Right now we tax imported products at 2.5%. Other countries charge us 25%. That's ten times the rate we charge them. Even the threat of equalizing those trade barriers would put those other countries in a position where they had to actually be a Free Trade Partner, rather than a rigged trade partner.

Which would make foreign markets more accessible to US goods and open up the jobs market here in the US.

How about we make things easier on SMALL business instead of pandering to Big Business. Conglomerates have gotten so diversified that they can undercut any competition by simply taking a temporary loss in one area and having the rest of their empire support them until their competition is too weak and folds up, or weakens them enough to buy them out. Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave to see all the hard work he put into busting up Monopolies and Trusts go down the drain.

I don't think Tariffs on products is the right idea. We want people who create good products to sell them here. We just want them to invest the capital from their sale back into the US economy rather than exporting the capital somewhere else.

So let them sell the product. If they reinvest the proceeds in the US via wages, capital purchases or investments then all is good. If they export the money out of the country then they would pay a 20% tax.

This model applies to US and non-US companies and doesn't put us in the position of picking winners and losers among products.

I'd be very Ok with that... good thinking.

 

[Immanuel]

In defense of a progressive tax:

1) The progressive income tax isn't why the tax code is complicated. One could devise a very simple progressive formula that would increase the tax rate as income went up and still be easily calculated. The tax code is complicated mostly because of credits and loopholes.
2) A flat tax couldn't possibly generate the same amount of income as our current tax without drastically inflating poverty. If you implement anti-poverty programs such as shelters and food stamps you're effectively instituting a progressive tax through givebacks. Such an increase in poverty would destroy the economy and hurt even the people who paid less in taxes. Only the very rich would come out better.
3) A flat tax isn't fair. It's not fair to make demands of people without considering their ability to meet those demands. The real unfairness in society is that so many people are born into poverty through no fault of their own-- not that the government taxes them less than others.

1) I agree
2) I disagree. A flat tax can be set at any rate necessary and generate as much income as we get now or even more and those rates would be much more easy to come up with.
3) I disagree but to compromise would offer the idea of a tiered tax... meaning flat rate on the first X number of dollars of income, and then another rate on the next tier etc. without any of the myriad of exemptions and loopholes that Congress have established in order to wield power over the rest of us.
The big problem with a flat tax is that you will have people working for cash who will not declare income and thus they will cheat the system. Granted that happens now, does that mean we should not attempt to stop it?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Did you actually read what I said?

Some (I am not one) might say the minimum wage laws are part of the problem.

Why am I not flipping burgers? I can't stand long enough to sing a long hymm in church without doubling over in pain because of my back. How am I going to stand all day at a cook station and flip burgers?

I don't think getting rid of the minimum wage is necessarily the answer. I am not opposed to the minimum wage. I don't think we should let corporations get away with paying their employees $1.50/hour to flip burgers.

However, we ARE talking about making America competitive with foreign countries when it comes to employment. That means that we must look at where we are not competitive and find solutions to those things.

I don't have solutions yet and even if I did, I am sure many of you would not like those solutions. I'm not running for President.

The way I see it is that if we want to turn this economy around we have to become competitive again no matter what that takes.

Immie

Here's an idea.... put reasonable tariffs on imports. Right now we tax imported products at 2.5%. Other countries charge us 25%. That's ten times the rate we charge them. Even the threat of equalizing those trade barriers would put those other countries in a position where they had to actually be a Free Trade Partner, rather than a rigged trade partner.

I don't think that assessment is right. We import far more than we export, especially into countries such as China. If we charged them 25% on their US imports, all we would do is drive up the costs of most goods we buy. China, on the other hand, imports little final-sales product from us and therefore the tax would have a smaller effect on them.

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

 

[saveliberty]

I don't think Tariffs on products is the right idea. We want people who create good products to sell them here. We just want them to invest the capital from their sale back into the US economy rather than exporting the capital somewhere else.

So let them sell the product. If they reinvest the proceeds in the US via wages, capital purchases or investments then all is good. If they export the money out of the country then they would pay a 20% tax.

This model applies to US and non-US companies and doesn't put us in the position of picking winners and losers among products.

I think your going to have to tax the goods as they come in. Money is too easy to move with little or no detection. You can always create a tax credit for those that keep the proceeds in the US. Of course, this just further complicates tax code.

 

[Sactowndog]

Or, bring those jobs back to America and put people to work. Tariffs go up, prices go up, people stop buying, Outsourcing jobs become unattractive, Jobs come back to US.

Again product based tariffs are not answer because it is a tax on product for which you will never catch up. It also doesn't recognize the fact that some products are better produced in one region than another.

That is why you need to tax cash flow. If one company is selling alot to China then they should put jobs and production there. We don't want to stop that. What we want to stop is the selling in the US and the shifting of production overseas. That is deadly and not sustainable long term.

However, most business heads don't think long term so we have to put in place carrots and sticks to encourage US jobs. That means reduce Corporate income taxes and pay for it taxing off-shored cash flow at 20% and capital gains at the income tax rate.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think that assessment is right. We import far more than we export, especially into countries such as China. If we charged them 25% on their US imports, all we would do is drive up the costs of most goods we buy. China, on the other hand, imports little final-sales product from us and therefore the tax would have a smaller effect on them.

Or, bring those jobs back to America and put people to work. Tariffs go up, prices go up, people stop buying, Outsourcing jobs become unattractive, Jobs come back to US.

If we "Bring those jobs back to America" the cost of production would skyrocket, leading to fewer people being employed.

Would California solve its economic problems if it was allowed to put tariffs on imports form Oregon?

Higher prices or no jobs is that what you are saying?

That sounds fatalistic to me. Basically we are screwed no matter what we do.

Personally, I will take my chances with the free market if it means bringing those companies back to the US and bringing down unemployment.

Immie

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh... I know who pays them... It might also cure the problem that Conservatives have with poor people buying frivolous crap. It would also force American Companies to rethink the BOON they've enjoyed by kneecapping our citizens for slave labor... that Slave Labor might not be so attractive to them and they will bring good paying jobs back home.

But you know what? Just the threat of doing this will (I predict) a more balanced trade relationship with other countries. That's all I really want. Actual FREE TRADE instead of rigged trade with countries, such as China.. who also have a rigged monetary system that screws us even more.

Consumers pay the tariff period. Why do you want to increase costs on working families, Steelplateinskalp?

Conservatives don't have a problemw ith poor people buying frivolous crap with their own money. Note the expression, with their own money. I dont know who told you different.
Tariffs would knee cap existing businesses by shutting off foreign markets for them, closing down a major source of revenue.
If Chinese citizens are paying high import taxes then how does that screw us? They are screwing their citizens. You ought to be in favor of that.

Your ideas are poorly thought out and based on emotion and poor information. You sound like a fool.

Listen here silly Rabbi...(I mean if we are going to do the butcher the Nickname thing).

Bullshit... All I hear from Conservatives is a mantra of personal responsibility... "If the poor can't make ends meet, maybe they shouldn't buy iPads and instead make their damned house payments and go to the grocery store to feed their kids".

Bullshit.... Tarrifs HERE have nothing to do with Foreign Tarrifs which are already 10X the amount we charge them. They will either lower theirs to a reasonable level, or we will raise ours until an agreeable deal can be made.

China isn't screwing their citizens... they simply aren't buying our products that aren't produced there and forcing OUR Companies to build plants in THEIR Country in order to gain their business. Furthermore.... they require our companies to SHARE OUR intellectual property with them, so that in time... they can make cheap versions of the same product... notice the rash of Counterfeit iPads coming into the country? Probably not.

To think that we have Free Trade with these countries is borderline insanity... Just because Companies get Dirt Cheap labor doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing in the long run and it certainly isn't good for the country.

Please post any comment by a conservative complaining that poor people can't spend their own money any way they want. I won't hold my breath.
What do you care what someone else is charging? What difference does it make? We will benefit with lower tariff rates. We will lose money if we raise tariffs. Period. There is no debate on this, the facts are well established.
On your view we should become E.Germany, forcing our citizens to buy domestic inferior products for more money. I reject that view. Because I care about our children.

 

[The Rabbi]

Or, bring those jobs back to America and put people to work. Tariffs go up, prices go up, people stop buying, Outsourcing jobs become unattractive, Jobs come back to US.

If we "Bring those jobs back to America" the cost of production would skyrocket, leading to fewer people being employed.

Would California solve its economic problems if it was allowed to put tariffs on imports form Oregon?

Higher prices or no jobs is that what you are saying?

That sounds fatalistic to me. Basically we are screwed no matter what we do.

Personally, I will take my chances with the free market if it means bringing those companies back to the US and bringing down unemployment.

Immie

Mark it down: 8537 finally says something that isn't stupid.
There is a third way: make this country friendly towards manufacturing jobs. As it is, there are huge regulatory and tax barriers to producing stuff here. About 90% of those regs have done nothing to keep anyone safe or healthy.

 

[8537]

Or, bring those jobs back to America and put people to work. Tariffs go up, prices go up, people stop buying, Outsourcing jobs become unattractive, Jobs come back to US.

If we "Bring those jobs back to America" the cost of production would skyrocket, leading to fewer people being employed.

Would California solve its economic problems if it was allowed to put tariffs on imports form Oregon?

What a bunch of speculative bullshit. Try again.

So, what part of my post is "speculative bullshit"? The model's not that complicated.

 

[8537]

Here's an idea.... put reasonable tariffs on imports. Right now we tax imported products at 2.5%. Other countries charge us 25%. That's ten times the rate we charge them. Even the threat of equalizing those trade barriers would put those other countries in a position where they had to actually be a Free Trade Partner, rather than a rigged trade partner.

I don't think that assessment is right. We import far more than we export, especially into countries such as China. If we charged them 25% on their US imports, all we would do is drive up the costs of most goods we buy. China, on the other hand, imports little final-sales product from us and therefore the tax would have a smaller effect on them.

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.

 

[Steelplate]

If we "Bring those jobs back to America" the cost of production would skyrocket, leading to fewer people being employed.

Would California solve its economic problems if it was allowed to put tariffs on imports form Oregon?

Higher prices or no jobs is that what you are saying?

That sounds fatalistic to me. Basically we are screwed no matter what we do.

Personally, I will take my chances with the free market if it means bringing those companies back to the US and bringing down unemployment.

Immie

Mark it down: 8537 finally says something that isn't stupid.
There is a third way: make this country friendly towards manufacturing jobs. As it is, there are huge regulatory and tax barriers to producing stuff here. About 90% of those regs have done nothing to keep anyone safe or healthy.

Give me a list of those regulations... Once again... I keep hearing about them...but I've yet to hear what they are.

 

[Steelplate]

I don't think that assessment is right. We import far more than we export, especially into countries such as China. If we charged them 25% on their US imports, all we would do is drive up the costs of most goods we buy. China, on the other hand, imports little final-sales product from us and therefore the tax would have a smaller effect on them.

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.

It doesn't do much good to have a consumer driven economy when unemployment and underemployment are such huge problems. Supply side has failed. Half of the population is making $30K or less per family, and in this high cost of living country, it simply isn't enough to keep demand up. Face it... Corporations and Bankers have sold this country away for record profits and it's all starting to crumble.

 

[8537]

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.

It doesn't do much good to have a consumer driven economy when unemployment and underemployment are such huge problems.

Well, true - but you can't get a consumer economy without having very high incomes and a very successful economy to begin with - we currently produce over 15t of "Stuff" every year. A consumer-based economy is a sign of a very, very successful nation. As bad as our economy is, current consumption expenditures are still at their highest level in history.

Supply side has failed. Half of the population is making $30K or less per family, and in this high cost of living country, it simply isn't enough to keep demand up. Face it... Corporations and Bankers have sold this country away for record profits and it's all starting to crumble.

^I'm not disagreeing with that

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The first thing that needs to be done is do away with loopholes that are contrary to US growth and stability.
For example tax breaks for companies to offshore jobs.

....Then, start exposing Republicans' bullshit.....

TAX MYTHS!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Times admits taxing the rich is not enough and calls for higher taxes for everyone.

A week later and we are still amazed at how the Republicans in Congress pulled it off. They held the economy hostage, won some cheap political points, and all of us will spend the next decade paying the ransom as government programs — $900 billion over 10 years in the first round — are slashed and the recovery is put at risk. The only glimmer of hope is that the battle is not completely over — if President Obama is finally willing to fight.
Under the terms of the ill-conceived debt agreement, Congress has to propose another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction measures by December. Just to ensure that rationality does not have a chance, Republican leaders said they would not put anyone on the deficit-cutting “super-committee” who might entertain the idea of raising taxes.
A week later and we are even more amazed by the failure of Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership to stand up to this intransigence. If they do not start pushing back, with the same ferocity, the results will be disastrous.



LET THE BUSH CUTS EXPIRE
MAKE REAL REFORMS
TARGET TAX BREAKS AND LOWER RATES
OTHER TAXES

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/the-truth-about-taxes.html

You have no idea in what your taking about
1) the Liberals have run congress sense 2007, except for the house. You think that people are that stupid
2) Raising how much money we pay in income tax means there is less money to create jobs

How am I stupid? I am simply pointing out the turht, there is no way to sustain the current level of spending without raising taxes across the board.

 

[dblack]

How am I stupid? I am simply pointing out the turht, there is no way to sustain the current level of spending without raising taxes across the board.

I think conservatives and libertarians need to understand that high taxes are perhaps the very best incentive for limited government. Personally, I think we should raise taxes - on everyone, across the board - and keep raising them until we're actually paying for all the government we're getting. THEN we'll see how much big government people really want. As it is, we have no idea what voters priorities really are because we're deferring all the costs.

 

[Sactowndog]

I think your going to have to tax the goods as they come in. Money is too easy to move with little or no detection. You can always create a tax credit for those that keep the proceeds in the US. Of course, this just further complicates tax code.

In todays banking system cash flows are pretty closely tracked.