Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma
(08-31-2017, 11:01 AM)David Horn Wrote: The WHO lists it [the NHS] as far preferable to our disastrous system, and among the world's best.

The WHO scale considers a system where everyone dies at 50 to be superior to one where you have a 50% chance of dying at 50 and a 50% chance of living to 70.  I'll take the system that gives me a chance of living longer, thanks.

But hey, now that you bring it up, I guess the Liverpool Pathway made sense from the WHO standpoint:  deny food and water to people past a certain age, and it reduces inegality.
Reply
(09-01-2017, 02:12 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As far as the president I don't think he's too concerned about the form that the replacement takes so long as everyone is covered and it actually works.  That leaves us with two viable models really, single payer or Bismarck.

I'd like to see him propose either.
Reply
(09-03-2017, 01:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-01-2017, 02:12 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As far as the president I don't think he's too concerned about the form that the replacement takes so long as everyone is covered and it actually works.  That leaves us with two viable models really, single payer or Bismarck.

I'd like to see him propose either.

I don't expect him to make a proposal this year.  He's too busy cleaning house, and quite honestly, the ACA is small potatoes in comparison to the far bigger problems of Teh Wall and North Korea.

But on the Wall, the Dimocrats will be hard pressed to not vote for it.  The bill is attached to the Defense spending bill and not voting for those is political suicide.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(09-04-2017, 02:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 01:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-01-2017, 02:12 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As far as the president I don't think he's too concerned about the form that the replacement takes so long as everyone is covered and it actually works.  That leaves us with two viable models really, single payer or Bismarck.

I'd like to see him propose either.

I don't expect him to make a proposal this year.  He's too busy cleaning house, and quite honestly, the ACA is small potatoes in comparison to the far bigger problems of Teh Wall and North Korea.

But on the Wall, the Dimocrats will be hard pressed to not vote for it.  The bill is attached to the Defense spending bill and not voting for those is political suicide.

Regarding medical, what came from the Republican party was more expensive programs that covered less people.  It's hardly surprising that it failed.  Your proposals make more sense.  I don't know if he will go for it, though.  Neither faction of the Republicans would be thrilled by it.  I am reminded of Obama spending all his political capitol to get something very shaky through, then setting a record for having the longest lame duck period ever.  Another attempt at health care from a make sense point of view would be interesting, though.

I care less about the wall.  A cheap labor prohibition may have the same problem as the alcohol, drug and gun prohibitions.  Prohibitions are hard.  We'll see.

North Korea is a problem.  They keep doubling down, and have no reason not to.  I am reminded of two babies sharing a too small crib.  Each can only try to make a bigger fuss than the other.  It would be nice if one country or the other featured a grown up.

You neglected tax reform.  That has been promised from time to time.  That's another where I'd like to see what is proposed.
Reply
(09-04-2017, 07:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Regarding medical, what came from the Republican party was more expensive programs that covered less people.  It's hardly surprising that it failed.  Your proposals make more sense.  I don't know if he will go for it, though.  Neither faction of the Republicans would be thrilled by it.  I am reminded of Obama spending all his political capitol to get something very shaky through, then setting a record for having the longest lame duck period ever.  Another attempt at health care from a make sense point of view would be interesting, though.

Both of the so-called GOP plans were essentially Obamacare Lite. They were going nowhere fast and if you were paying attention the President didn't spend any political capital on them. When it comes to health care Congress has to do its job before the President has something he can get behind. The legislative branch is still vested with all the legislative power, or at least it is in theory--there seems to be an awful lot o legislating from the bench going on lately.

Quote:I care less about the wall.  A cheap labor prohibition may have the same problem as the alcohol, drug and gun prohibitions.  Prohibitions are hard.  We'll see.

Not really. Most other countries seem to be able to control their borders. The EU not withstanding, but the EU has been a clusterfuck since day one.

Quote:North Korea is a problem.  They keep doubling down, and have no reason not to.  I am reminded of two babies sharing a too small crib.  Each can only try to make a bigger fuss than the other.  It would be nice if one country or the other featured a grown up.

Strange, I don't hear the ROK regularly threatening its neighbors with nuclear anhiliation. And while reunification is part of their state's ideological end goals at current it wouldn't be economically wise for them to push the issue.

That being said yes the DPRK is a threat, and honestly if they do have an H-bomb like Kim says they do they need to be taken out PDQ we just need to get the PRC on board. Good thing we have a Chief Diplomat who wrote a whole book about deal making.

Quote:You neglected tax reform.  That has been promised from time to time.  That's another where I'd like to see what is proposed.

Well for me I would like to repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think that's going to happen. For a compromise I would accept a flat tax, no exemptions, no loopholes, no credits, no other bullshit. It isn't perfect but it would put the IRS out of a job essentially.

As with Health Care Congress has to do its job so the President can do his. Over all I would say that the corporate income rate needs to be lowered drastically say closer to 10-15% and loopholes need to be closed.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(09-01-2017, 09:53 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(08-31-2017, 11:01 AM)David Horn Wrote: The WHO lists it [the NHS] as far preferable to our disastrous system, and among the world's best.

The WHO scale considers a system where everyone dies at 50 to be superior to one where you have a 50% chance of dying at 50 and a 50% chance of living to 70.  I'll take the system that gives me a chance of living longer, thanks.

But hey, now that you bring it up, I guess the Liverpool Pathway made sense from the WHO standpoint:  deny food and water to people past a certain age, and it reduces inegality.

On overall health, the UK is ranked 24 -- not great, but the US is ranked 72.  Of course, we're #1 on per capita expenditures.  And the Liverpool Protocol was an attempt at standardized care for the terminally ill in their final hours.  It's been eliminated from the system as too rigid.  Of course, the do-nothing approach is wonderful, letting the family of brain-dead people force continued care with no chance of recovery, virtually forever.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(09-04-2017, 09:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well for me I would like to repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think that's going to happen.  For a compromise I would accept a flat tax, no exemptions, no loopholes, no credits, no other bullshit.  It isn't perfect but it would put the IRS out of a job essentially.

As with Health Care Congress has to do its job so the President can do his.  Over all I would say that the corporate income rate needs to be lowered drastically say closer to 10-15% and loopholes need to be closed.

OK, but how much are you willing to pay? The Federal budget is roughly 20% of GDP. A flat tax is simple, until you have to pay. Cutting the corporate rate makes your part about 25% of everything you earn. Most people pay far less. If you are OK with that, then fine.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(09-05-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-04-2017, 09:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well for me I would like to repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think that's going to happen.  For a compromise I would accept a flat tax, no exemptions, no loopholes, no credits, no other bullshit.  It isn't perfect but it would put the IRS out of a job essentially.

As with Health Care Congress has to do its job so the President can do his.  Over all I would say that the corporate income rate needs to be lowered drastically say closer to 10-15% and loopholes need to be closed.

OK, but how much are you willing to pay?  The Federal budget is roughly 20% of GDP.  A flat tax is simple, until you have to pay.  Cutting the corporate rate makes your part about 25% of everything you earn.  Most people pay far less.  If you are OK with that, then fine.

I doubt you have the maths to say that with any accuracy.  But let us suppose that we set the flat tax at 25% w/o exemptions, loopholes, credits and so on, my tax would be $8750/year.  That is higher than what I paid last year, but a lower corporate rate to be able to compete with the other industrialized countries is worth it.

That said, just from shutting down the IRS the US could save several billion dollars.  I think you'll find that I'm hard pressed on finding federal programs that I don't want cut.  The simple fact is that the federal government does too much, and what it does do it does poorly.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(09-04-2017, 07:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-04-2017, 02:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 01:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-01-2017, 02:12 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As far as the president I don't think he's too concerned about the form that the replacement takes so long as everyone is covered and it actually works.  That leaves us with two viable models really, single payer or Bismarck.

I'd like to see him propose either.

I don't expect him to make a proposal this year.  He's too busy cleaning house, and quite honestly, the ACA is small potatoes in comparison to the far bigger problems of Teh Wall and North Korea.

But on the Wall, the Dimocrats will be hard pressed to not vote for it.  The bill is attached to the Defense spending bill and not voting for those is political suicide.

Regarding medical, what came from the Republican party was more expensive programs that covered less people.  It's hardly surprising that it failed.  Your proposals make more sense.  I don't know if he will go for it, though.  Neither faction of the Republicans would be thrilled by it.  I am reminded of Obama spending all his political capitol to get something very shaky through, then setting a record for having the longest lame duck period ever.  Another attempt at health care from a make sense point of view would be interesting, though.

I care less about the wall.  A cheap labor prohibition may have the same problem as the alcohol, drug and gun prohibitions.  Prohibitions are hard.  We'll see.

North Korea is a problem.  They keep doubling down, and have no reason not to.  I am reminded of two babies sharing a too small crib.  Each can only try to make a bigger fuss than the other.  It would be nice if one country or the other featured a grown up.

You neglected tax reform.  That has been promised from time to time.  That's another where I'd like to see what is proposed.
On prohibitions, please do not forget about the prostitution prohibition, which has also proven unworkable. I don't believe street walking should be legalized, but properly run legal brothels and escort services make sense for that very reason. Shouldn't we have learned that lesson from the days of liquor prohibition?
Reply
(09-05-2017, 12:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-04-2017, 09:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well for me I would like to repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think that's going to happen.  For a compromise I would accept a flat tax, no exemptions, no loopholes, no credits, no other bullshit.  It isn't perfect but it would put the IRS out of a job essentially.

As with Health Care Congress has to do its job so the President can do his.  Over all I would say that the corporate income rate needs to be lowered drastically say closer to 10-15% and loopholes need to be closed.

OK, but how much are you willing to pay?  The Federal budget is roughly 20% of GDP.  A flat tax is simple, until you have to pay.  Cutting the corporate rate makes your part about 25% of everything you earn.  Most people pay far less.  If you are OK with that, then fine.

I doubt you have the maths to say that with any accuracy.  But let us suppose that we set the flat tax at 25% w/o exemptions, loopholes, credits and so on, my tax would be $8750/year.  That is higher than what I paid last year, but a lower corporate rate to be able to compete with the other industrialized countries is worth it.

That said, just from shutting down the IRS the US could save several billion dollars.  I think you'll find that I'm hard pressed on finding federal programs that I don't want cut.  The simple fact is that the federal government does too much, and what it does do it does poorly.

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.
Reply
(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.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(09-05-2017, 12:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-04-2017, 09:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well for me I would like to repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think that's going to happen.  For a compromise I would accept a flat tax, no exemptions, no loopholes, no credits, no other bullshit.  It isn't perfect but it would put the IRS out of a job essentially.

As with Health Care Congress has to do its job so the President can do his.  Over all I would say that the corporate income rate needs to be lowered drastically say closer to 10-15% and loopholes need to be closed.

OK, but how much are you willing to pay?  The Federal budget is roughly 20% of GDP.  A flat tax is simple, until you have to pay.  Cutting the corporate rate makes your part about 25% of everything you earn.  Most people pay far less.  If you are OK with that, then fine.

I doubt you have the maths to say that with any accuracy.  But let us suppose that we set the flat tax at 25% w/o exemptions, loopholes, credits and so on, my tax would be $8750/year.  That is higher than what I paid last year, but a lower corporate rate to be able to compete with the other industrialized countries is worth it.

That said, just from shutting down the IRS the US could save several billion dollars.  I think you'll find that I'm hard pressed on finding federal programs that I don't want cut.  The simple fact is that the federal government does too much, and what it does do it does poorly.

If you only made $35,000, then your tax must have been a lot less than $8,750.  First, you get a personal exemption of $4,050 and the standard deduction for a single filer of $6,300 (any other choices would be more), leaving a taxable income of $24,650.  You pay 10% of the first $9,275 and 15% on the rest, for a total of $3,233 (the IRS rounds down the nearest whole dollar), or 9.24%.  QED
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(09-05-2017, 04:35 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 12:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-04-2017, 09:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well for me I would like to repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think that's going to happen.  For a compromise I would accept a flat tax, no exemptions, no loopholes, no credits, no other bullshit.  It isn't perfect but it would put the IRS out of a job essentially.

As with Health Care Congress has to do its job so the President can do his.  Over all I would say that the corporate income rate needs to be lowered drastically say closer to 10-15% and loopholes need to be closed.

OK, but how much are you willing to pay?  The Federal budget is roughly 20% of GDP.  A flat tax is simple, until you have to pay.  Cutting the corporate rate makes your part about 25% of everything you earn.  Most people pay far less.  If you are OK with that, then fine.

I doubt you have the maths to say that with any accuracy.  But let us suppose that we set the flat tax at 25% w/o exemptions, loopholes, credits and so on, my tax would be $8750/year.  That is higher than what I paid last year, but a lower corporate rate to be able to compete with the other industrialized countries is worth it.

That said, just from shutting down the IRS the US could save several billion dollars.  I think you'll find that I'm hard pressed on finding federal programs that I don't want cut.  The simple fact is that the federal government does too much, and what it does do it does poorly.

If you only made $35,000, then your tax must have been a lot less than $8,750.  First, you get a personal exemption of $4,050 and the standard deduction for a single filer of $6,300 (any other choices would be more), leaving a taxable income of $24,650.  You pay 10% of the first $9,275 and 15% on the rest, for a total of $3,233 (the IRS rounds down the nearest whole dollar), or 9.24%.  QED

You might want to investigate how payroll taxes work, that fund a large fraction of that federal budget that you talk about.
Reply
(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.
Reply
(09-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: 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 manageable size)...

Yeah, cut spending, but on what exactly?  You can't avoid debt payment, though they are historically low at the moment.  The GOP wants more for defense, so that's out.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have very loud constituencies, that vote.  The rest is trivial.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(09-05-2017, 06:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 04:35 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 12:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-04-2017, 09:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well for me I would like to repeal the 16th amendment, but I don't think that's going to happen.  For a compromise I would accept a flat tax, no exemptions, no loopholes, no credits, no other bullshit.  It isn't perfect but it would put the IRS out of a job essentially.

As with Health Care Congress has to do its job so the President can do his.  Over all I would say that the corporate income rate needs to be lowered drastically say closer to 10-15% and loopholes need to be closed.

OK, but how much are you willing to pay?  The Federal budget is roughly 20% of GDP.  A flat tax is simple, until you have to pay.  Cutting the corporate rate makes your part about 25% of everything you earn.  Most people pay far less.  If you are OK with that, then fine.

I doubt you have the maths to say that with any accuracy.  But let us suppose that we set the flat tax at 25% w/o exemptions, loopholes, credits and so on, my tax would be $8750/year.  That is higher than what I paid last year, but a lower corporate rate to be able to compete with the other industrialized countries is worth it.

That said, just from shutting down the IRS the US could save several billion dollars.  I think you'll find that I'm hard pressed on finding federal programs that I don't want cut.  The simple fact is that the federal government does too much, and what it does do it does poorly.

If you only made $35,000, then your tax must have been a lot less than $8,750.  First, you get a personal exemption of $4,050 and the standard deduction for a single filer of $6,300 (any other choices would be more), leaving a taxable income of $24,650.  You pay 10% of the first $9,275 and 15% on the rest, for a total of $3,233 (the IRS rounds down the nearest whole dollar), or 9.24%.  QED

You might want to investigate how payroll taxes work, that fund a large fraction of that federal budget that you talk about.

If he's at 9.24%, and you add another 15.3% for FICA, and that assumes he is self employed, it's still less than 25%.  If he's not self employed, then the figure is 9.1%.  BTW, the 25% flat tax figure may also be low.  I calculated the FairTax at 39%, but that included payouts to taxpayers that the flat tax would not include.  It would, however, impoverish the poorest, almost certainly crash the economy and create chaos.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(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.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
A flat tax is one of those trickle-down, tax-the-middle-class schemes that Republicans are so fond of. And it solves absolutely nothing.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(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.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(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.

The math on the subject contradicts you.  Land taxes do not increase rents; they only cut the income to the land owners.  This is because, with little exception, land is not something that is produced, and thus is not something whose production can be depressed through taxes.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The stench of moral decay, especially in politics, is creeping across America msel 9 837 11-10-2019, 10:27 AM
Last Post: David Horn
  World wonders if Trump is eroding US 'moral authority' nebraska 0 528 01-13-2018, 07:43 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Handicapped parking cheats will face stiffer penalties in Mass. nebraska 0 385 12-30-2017, 08:15 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war taramarie 25 9,162 10-17-2016, 11:21 PM
Last Post: Ragnarök_62

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)