'Red Scares' -- OR CHOICE
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Red Scares -OR- Ironically this Social Justice is Poetic Justice.
Next: Germany considers tax on the obese.
From: bugo on 28 Jul 2010 21:29 "Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message news:gcj1565d8c6ed1ifuahbdbq5gbqtirm75f(a)4ax.com... > Yeah, the income tax has made it unprofitable to build factories or > other businesses here. Sooo... they get built overseas, by both > American and foreign corporations. So tax the hell out of them to the point to where it doesn't pay to ship jobs overseas. Problem solved.
From: Dave Head on 28 Jul 2010 22:34 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:29:08 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >news:gcj1565d8c6ed1ifuahbdbq5gbqtirm75f(a)4ax.com... >> Yeah, the income tax has made it unprofitable to build factories or >> other businesses here. Sooo... they get built overseas, by both >> American and foreign corporations. > >So tax the hell out of them to the point to where it doesn't pay to ship >jobs overseas. Problem solved. Tilt.
From: Michael Coburn on 29 Jul 2010 01:23 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:40:44 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On 28 Jul 2010 22:41:30 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:37:10 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:10:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >>>>news:hetv465n54e7ilv4f7mgh3f2ouvncp5j86(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On 27 Jul 2010 16:55:27 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>We are not here to coddle the rich. >>>>> >>>>> Yes we are!!!! They are Americans, and should be the object of >>>>> government benevolence in allowing them to do as well as they are >>>>> able. >>>> >>>>No, the poor should receive government benevolence because they need >>>>it the most. The rich don't need welfare, and neither do >>>>corporations. >>> >>> Never said anything about welfare for the rich. I just mean that they >>> should not be harmed with high taxes. The freakin' gov't keeps >>> talking about another stimulus, while not realizing that if they left >>> the greater amount of money they tax away from the rich with the rich, >>> the rich would use it to build another factory, to... make more money. >>> >>> Of course the factory would employ perhaps 1000's of people, and >>> reduce the number of people living in poverty. >> >>Your proposition is called "supply side economics" or "trickle down >>economics". We have been doing it ever since the Reagan revolution. > > No one with an income tax has really tried supply side economics. You must have spent the last 30 years on a different planet. >>And >>this coddling of the rich in the hope that they will "invest" in America >>has failed on all counts. > > Yeah, the income tax has made it unprofitable to build factories or > other businesses here. Sooo... they get built overseas, by both > American and foreign corporations. You are assigning a significance to corporate taxation that does not exist to the degree you seem to believe. You are also missing the fact that foreign owners of US based (meaning most income from American consumers and perhaps employing American workers) are not taxed at a personal level by the US government. Only the corporate entity is taxed. The foreign stockholders are not taxed. >>The "investments" were "investments" in places where government >>regulation was very lax, and where their were people willing to work for >>almost nothing. There _WAS_ a minor rise in real economic performance >>AFTER the Democratic tax increases on the rich in 1993. But for the >>rest of the last 30 years ALL gdp gains have been purchased by running >>up the debt. The increase in debt was BECAUSE of supply side economics >>and the insane idea that these people would choose to invest in the USA >>as opposed to elsewhere. But at the present time there is very slack >>demand and plenty of production. Even if supply side economics was a >>viable path, it would not serve the current situation. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Michael Coburn on 29 Jul 2010 01:49 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:37:37 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On 28 Jul 2010 17:35:33 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>A flat rate consumption tax is a regressive tax. > > The Fair Tax is not a flat rate consumption tax. Oh but it actually IS with the exception of rebates to folks below the poverty level. >> And we should not have >>_ANY_ fear of other nations taxing our goods. > > Kinda like not having fear of a bear in your tent... Why not look at the trade numbers instead of your religious preferences? Although my proposed tax and rebate system does not subsidize exports, it certainly could do so and the nation in aggregate would come out _WAY_ ahead. And it because we have an horrendous trade deficit. >>We are a HUGE net >>importer. > > We need to change that, big time. And the way you do it is with rebated (in the form of stimulus) import duties. >>Thus, so long as we do not get ridiculous with the tax level > > Too late... Another idiotic false claim. >>and so ling as the proceeds are used progressively (bottom side >>stimulus) then the result will be much more domestic production and >>jobs. > > A zero tax manufacturing environment results in bottom side stimulus. And a very broken government that will pile up debt until the currency finally collapses. Why the hell don't you look at the current realities and probably solutions instead of hawking snake oil? >>>> or a somewhat complicated asset tax system. The asset tax >>>>is a direct tax and is forbidden by the Constitution. >>> >>> Good idea! The FFs were really smart. >> >>Yet a tax on income is an excise tax on income. > > Its a tax on prosperity. If you want less of something, tax it, y'know? > Well, its no coincindence that we have much less prosperity. No!!! REJECT!! An income tax, and most especially a highly progressive income tax is not a tax on prosperity. A progressive income tax is a tax on economic rent. >>>>That leaves only >>>>income taxes, excise taxes, and tariffs. >>> >>> Income taxes were prohibited by the FFs, too, who were really smart >>> about this sort of stuff. The 16th Amendment was probably the 2nd >>> biggest mistake this country has ever made, right behind slavery. >> >>That prohibition is a myth. Income tax was, until the late 1800's, >>considered to be an excise tax. > > And in the 1890's, the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. Thus, we have the 16th amendment. >>>>An excise tax on consumption is the WORST means by which to collect >>>>taxes. >>> >>> Just wrong. >> >>Nice proclamation with no substance. > > So's the assertion. There are probably worse way to collect a tax. But not very many. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Dave Head on 29 Jul 2010 04:13
On 29 Jul 2010 05:49:31 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:37:37 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > >> On 28 Jul 2010 17:35:33 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>A flat rate consumption tax is a regressive tax. >> >> The Fair Tax is not a flat rate consumption tax. > >Oh but it actually IS with the exception of rebates to folks below the >poverty level. Wrong. It "prebates" to absolutely every citizen. >>> And we should not have >>>_ANY_ fear of other nations taxing our goods. >> >> Kinda like not having fear of a bear in your tent... > >Why not look at the trade numbers instead of your religious preferences? >Although my proposed tax and rebate system does not subsidize exports, it >certainly could do so and the nation in aggregate would come out _WAY_ >ahead. And it because we have an horrendous trade deficit. Your tariff system would trigger a world-wide trade war with the US under the WTO rules, and we'd have to leave the WTO. The resulting lack of trade would risk another great depression. Doing it via the Fair Tax would effect a tariff that would not be in violation of WTO rules AND it would subsidize the exports as described previously. |