ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Eric the Green]

(09-06-2017, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 01:52 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: While we all would enjoy not having to owe the IRS every year, how is that going to save a lot of money when the whole purpose of it is, supposedly, to obtain funds with which to run the government? Some have suggested replacing it with a personal consumption tax, which in effect would be like a national sales tax.

Let us just suppose that we could abolish the IRS.  There are three possible taxation methods to raise funds for the government (after of course it is shrunk down to a more managable size).

1.  Tariffs on imported goods.  Which is a fundimentally good idea.  I would strongly recommend that tariffs be very high on manufactured goods, your chinese Ishits for example or Japanese cars, and low on raw materials like oil, ore and etc.  This would would provide incentive to onshore production.
2.  Individual income flat tax.  I'd prefer to not have one at all.  Direct taxation was prohibited until 1913 for a reason, that reason is the US is not a single unified republic, rather it is a federation of sovereign states.  If direct taxation on income is necessary let the states do it.  
3.  National sales tax.  I'm not too fussed by that.

Also property taxes of various types.  Georgist land taxes, in particular, do not depress economic activity the way other taxes do.

That's more than wrong.  Taxation is taxation ... period.  Property taxes don't fall strictly on those most able to pay, since much of the land being taxed is and will be rented by others of lesser means or added to the cost of goods produced on that land, since there aren't many large estates that have no economic product of some kind.  Expect a major rise in the cost of food, for example.  Those less able to pay defer other spending to pay those taxes.  Tax spending, on the other hand, improves the economy. 

And a word on tariffs: we raise ours and others raise theirs in response.  All that does is force us to produce goods and services we are less equipped to produce, lowering productivity and shrinking the economy.  Sorry, there is no free lunch.

Right. I'd like to see someone competent renegotiate our trade deals, though. A trade war would not be good, but on the other hand, our free trade policies were a big reason for our industrial decline. We just allowed companies to ship their jobs and factories overseas for cheap labor. Trump's trade policies would just create trade wars and would not reform the pro-corporate advantages these trade deals have, but which do not require fair treatment for workers abroad or environmental protections; and just allow corporations to dictate our commerce. I'm glad TPP failed. I think a productive, competent negotiation might avoid a trade war and help more jobs return to America. As long as there is such an unequal playing field, some "locks" and tarriff adjustments are needed. Not tarriff walls, but some degree of protection. Wages do not need to be strictly equalized by tarriffs, since the cost of shipping and things like that also affect prices here in the USA. Industries could very easily return to building factories and employing workers here in the USA.

On the other hand, we could hope that if trade deals are not renegotiated, the countries abroad will create a middle class and their wages and worker protections will rise and evolve over time. But how much time? And automation is replacing workers at such rates now, that factory jobs are becoming irrelevant, both here and in rising nations like China. But the USA should never give up its ability as a state to regulate commerce in the name of global trade. We should not cede that authority to global corporations.