(06-09-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]Actually I would prefer an across the board tariff. The rate would be set low and continually raised until it reaches the point where revenues are maximized. That is, the product of tax rate x trade volume is to be maximized. My gut feeling is such a tax might raise 300-500 billion annually. Use it to shore up Medicare. Lots of European countries have value-added taxes (i.e. sales taxes on domestically-produced goods+services). Republicans love value-added/sales taxes (this was the centerpiece of the Cruz program). Why shouldn't the US just "go Cruz" on foreign-produced goods+services?
I 'd like to see some analysis on how regressive that tariff would be.
My gut tells me it would hit hard with those that shop at Wal-Mart and the hardest with those that shop the Dollar Store.
If that is the case, it would be also interesting to see how that draining away of purchasing power from low to middle incomes would further impact demand for domestic goods and services.
Might be akin to setting the house on fire to stop the termites.
(06-09-2016, 12:11 PM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]Actually I would prefer an across the board tariff. The rate would be set low and continually raised until it reaches the point where revenues are maximized. That is, the product of tax rate x trade volume is to be maximized. My gut feeling is such a tax might raise 300-500 billion annually. Use it to shore up Medicare. Lots of European countries have value-added taxes (i.e. sales taxes on domestically-produced goods+services). Republicans love value-added/sales taxes (this was the centerpiece of the Cruz program). Why shouldn't the US just "go Cruz" on foreign-produced goods+services?
I 'd like to see some analysis on how regressive that tariff would be.
My gut tells me it would hit hard with those that shop at Wal-Mart and the hardest with those that shop the Dollar Store.
If that is the case, it would be also interesting to see how that draining away of purchasing power from low to middle incomes would further impact demand for domestic goods and services.
Might be akin to setting the house on fire to stop the termites.
Dollar General, Family Dollar, and Wal*Mart (the latter often nicknamed Sino*Mart as one of the biggest conduits for Chinese manufactures) get low-end stuff as non-food items. Sure, it is heavily schlock, but it is what poor people get.
Of course poor people spend heavily on food (much of it US-grown or processed), rent (of course paid to landlords of American-made housing), and financial services, especially through predatory marketing and lending. If one is spending $10 a week for 52 weeks on a rental-purchase plan for a Blue-Ray disc player that retails for $150 (produced most likely in China for $30 in its last transaction to an America, then only $30 of the $520 that one pays to the shyster retailer goes to China.
Still, one is not likely to buy five bicycles or five copies of one movie title instead of one if one makes $80K a year than if one makes $16K a year. Tariffs generally are regressive.
I have a better idea on how to shore up Medicare and Medicaid -- raise taxes on alcohol content and cancerweed as 'abuser fees' Smokers at any level and heavy drinkers are medical nightmares. Also remove sweets and other junk food from eligibility for food stamps. (One might have to offer eligibility for detergents and deodorants so that would be a financial wash... but people would not be as tempted to gorge themselves on horrible food to get grotesquely obese). Also -- remove the cap on earned income for Social Security and Medicare taxation.
Hillary will have an advantage in surrogates. That may be at least a slight help. But consider who she's got on her side; the two most effective campaigners in recent history (who both have astronomically-high horoscope scores), Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, plus Elizabeth Warren, and probably Bernie Sanders-- also a very effective campaigner who could bring some of his supporters back into the fold. Who does Trump have on HIS side? His fellow-bully Chris Christie, fellow-lunatic Sarah Palin, and, and-- who else? Trump may be more charismatic (if also more offensive) than Hillary, but her surrogates might make up for the deficit.
(06-07-2016, 11:51 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016, 11:29 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Our household this November:
Clinton (me)
Some 3rd party (her)
You should get her to write the apology to your kids and grandkids for her enabling a President Trump, and a SCOTUS that will be at least as scary and longer lasting.
In 2000, I suggested this to the Naderites that gave us 'W,' 9/11, Iraq Invasion, Great Recession, Financial Meltdown, income inequity, etc.
-- all that will be chump change by the time the Talking Yam is done with us.
Playwrite, not to worry. X_4AD_84 and his wife live in Cali, which is about as anti-Trump as they come (although reportedly Trump plans to burn a lot of money buying ads). If Mrs. X_4AD_84's wife makes a difference in California, then Clinton won't have a chance anywhere else.
Now that the RNC and the DNC have happened, has anyone changed their minds? Who are you now voting for come November?
Is there a chance that I can reopen the poll?
Myself, I didn't have to vote again; I had already voted for HRC
You can always post a new thread with a new poll. You can reword everything a bit differently to distinguish between the polls.
I'll make a new poll. It was already on my mind but now I'll do it for sure. I'll add more options to the new poll as well.