'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: Dave Head on 25 Jul 2010 23:21 On 26 Jul 2010 02:31:38 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>>The segregation of wage taxes to support Social Security was done >>>specifically to thwart the Republican lying pigs. Social Security takes >>>_NOTHING_ from capital and owes _NOTHING_ to capital. And that has kept >>>the system safe from the lying pigs since its inception. The problem we >>>are having with Social Security is the result of off shoring all the >>>jobs. >> >> Yep, and that is happening because of the income taxes. > >That may be somewhat true, It is. >yet we must have the tax revenues or devalue the currency. But we don't have to tax _income_ to do it. We can tax other things. But taxing income kills our economy. >Rebated import tariffs are the correct solution to the off shoring of jobs. I think the solution is to make a zero income tax manufacturing environment. >> That's the way industry works. Make it cheap to do business here and >> jobs will come back from overseas. Then we can afford more, and people >> will need to use public assistance less. > >Things are being made "cheap" because slave labor is being used to make >the "things". We have no desire to import the concept of slave labor. Right. No slave labor. While they use 100 guys to do something for $0.30 an hour, we use one guy running a big machine to do the same thing, and pay him $30 an hour. That's the way to prosperity for the American people. We automate better than anyone, and there's not cultural bias to keep us from doing so. I read from a post by an Indian fellow about the way things work in his country. Know how they build roads? They don't use the big machinery that we do, they got 1000's of guys out there with hand tools. That's because their unions would raise holy H if they tried to use the machines and "put all those workers out of work." And you have to look how competitive we already are even with the income tax. Look at our cars. We are actually competitive. I mean, our cars aren't wildly overpriced. We, the USA, build good cars and they're priced about like the foreign cars sold here. Now, imagine removing the income tax from the companies making the cars here. Watch the American car prices plummet. I was reading a lilttle about the Fair Tax in Wikipedia last week, and they have a study that expects that things built in this country would decrease in price by 11.55%. That'd take a $25,000 Jeep Liberty, built in Toledo, Ohio, down to $22,112.50. That's a whopping price decrease. The beauty of the thing is that a foreign SUV, that is comparable to the Jeep and also selling for about $25,000, will still be $25,000 before they both get taxed by the Fair Tax. Who's gonna buy the foreign SUV that is about $3K more expensive? Nobody. That's how we supercharge the US economy. That Jeep plant in Toledo will be adding shifts and working weekends if we kill the income tax. >> So there's nothing we can do to put people to work and restore >> prosperity, eh? > >Yes! There is! We must tax imports and restore the progressive income >tax system in this country. What's taxing imports going to do for our exports? Our prices are still too high, and that is so because the income taxes make them that way.
From: bugo on 28 Jul 2010 00:53 "Michael Coburn" <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:i2n31v2d5g(a)news4.newsguy.com... > This is happening because the foreigners are paying the income taxes to > their governments and not to our government. Import tariffs are the > proper address to that problem and progressive income taxes are the > proper address to all of the internal problems. The _ONLY_ way we can > tax foreigners who are exploiting our resources and our markets is with > import tariffs or a somewhat complicated asset tax system. The asset tax > is a direct tax and is forbidden by the Constitution. That leaves only > income taxes, excise taxes, and tariffs. An excise tax on consumption is > the WORST means by which to collect taxes. Agreed 100%.
From: Dave Head on 28 Jul 2010 05:37 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. >And we are especially not here to >make foreigners rich or to provide jobs and income for foreigners. That's better. Promote the American people rather than non-American people. >> And that corporation will be located in Korea, Ireland, India, China, >> etc. where they have low labor costs. We cannot have low labor costs >> due to high costs of living. But we could have a zero income tax >> manufacturing environment that would make our corporations competitive. >> But... you don't care whether an American sits home on welfare, or has >> to take a crappy $8/hr burger flipping job or not. > >LIE!! I am supporting import tariffs and progressive income taxation in >lieu of passing _ALL_ taxation onto the middle class with a consumption >tax. The import tariffs of 1930 are credited by some economists for deepening the great depression. >> And all those people taking crappy burger-flipping jobs DON'T PAY INCOME >> TAX. They're below the threshold of where income tax starts being >> charged. So, it hurts the USA too. > >BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got a logical argument in there somewhere, or just wanna be a clown? >People with income below the mean should pay no income tax at all. So, you want to run the country on only 50% of the people paying taxes, maybe? How about 20% of the people paying taxes? And if you use that to make the rich people poor, who are you going to get to give you a job? Has a poor person ever offered you a job? >That >is quite proper. And that DOES NOT hurt the common people of the USA. Yes, it does, by hurting America. If you make it so that there is no advantage to making more money, because the taxes are set up to take everything you make over a certain figure, there's no reason to produce at a high level in order to make that extra money. >>>hose who use these assets >>>productively will be the winners and those who do not will see the value >>>of the assets fall. >> >> US companies fail, foreign companies take over. That's what's been >> happening, alright. > >This is happening because the foreigners are paying the income taxes to >their governments and not to our government. Its happening both because their income taxes are lower and their cost of living is lower, enabling lower wages. We can't do anything about the cost of living, but we certainly could untax our corporations. We could then use the corporations to make more money for everybody. >Import tariffs are the >proper address to that problem and progressive income taxes are the >proper address to all of the internal problems. It was tried in 1930. It has been credited by some economists with deepening the great depression. > The _ONLY_ way we can >tax foreigners who are exploiting our resources and our markets is with >import tariffs Not true. We can tax their products at retail, and by untaxing American corporations, allow the prices of our products to fall by 11.55% on average, according to Wikipedia's entry of the Fair Tax. That would be a de-facto import tariff, without being an import tariff that would trigger a tariff retaliation. > 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. >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. >An excise tax on consumption is the WORST means by which to collect taxes. Just wrong.
From: Michael Coburn on 28 Jul 2010 13:35 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:37:27 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > 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. They obviously do not need any _help_ from the government. But the point of highly progressive income tax is that it taxes economic rent as opposed to production or consumption. Individuals with extreme ordinary incomes do not _earn_ those incomes by virtue of their contributions to the society. There are a few exceptions such as celebrities, but for the most part, incomes in excess of few million bucks can be taxed very heavily and the effect on the real economy will be to reduce the tax burden of the vast majority of producers and consumers, thus increasing economic activity. >>And we are especially not here to >>make foreigners rich or to provide jobs and income for foreigners. > > That's better. Promote the American people rather than non-American > people. > >>> And that corporation will be located in Korea, Ireland, India, China, >>> etc. where they have low labor costs. We cannot have low labor costs >>> due to high costs of living. But we could have a zero income tax >>> manufacturing environment that would make our corporations >>> competitive. But... you don't care whether an American sits home on >>> welfare, or has to take a crappy $8/hr burger flipping job or not. >> >>LIE!! I am supporting import tariffs and progressive income taxation in >>lieu of passing _ALL_ taxation onto the middle class with a consumption >>tax. > > The import tariffs of 1930 are credited by some economists for deepening > the great depression. (sigh) In a world of tariffs, the common people of the nations with a trade deficit will win (assuming a progressive use of the tax proceeds) and the nations with a trade surplus lose (if they do not respond by taxing their own rich people). But the COMMON PEOPLE in all nations that are developed nations _CAN_ fair much, much better. This observation also holds true for the 3rd world, but it is more difficult. It is a matter of taxing economic rent and using the proceeds in a progressive manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80% 93Hawley_Tariff_Act#Economic_effects ------------------------------ For monetarist authors who consider the Great Depression an effect of the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, the Smoot-Hawley's effect on the entire U.S. economy was small compared to monetary policy. By 1937, the effective tariff rate was reduced to 15.6% when the reaction of 1937–1938 occurred, demonstrating no statistical correlation between this economic downturn and tariff levels. Senator Robert L. Owen testified at the hearings on HR 7230, the bill to make the Federal Reserve banks a national property, that "In 1937, when the Federal Reserve Board called upon the banks to raise their reserves to twice what they had been before, there was a contraction of credit of two billion dollars.[16] ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> And all those people taking crappy burger-flipping jobs DON'T PAY >>> INCOME TAX. They're below the threshold of where income tax starts >>> being charged. So, it hurts the USA too. >> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Got a logical argument in there somewhere, or just wanna be a clown? > >>People with income below the mean should pay no income tax at all. > > So, you want to run the country on only 50% of the people paying taxes, > maybe? How about 20% of the people paying taxes? And if you use that > to make the rich people poor, who are you going to get to give you a > job? Has a poor person ever offered you a job? I have no real desire to "hurt the rich" who are not stealing middle class production by virtue of economic rent. But as it turns out, the taxation of extreme incomes at high rates is a recovery of the value simply taken from production by idle ownership (that is economic rent). A lower tax rate for capital gains than for ordinary income encourages INVESTMENT, but this is like cake icing. >>That >>is quite proper. And that DOES NOT hurt the common people of the USA. > > Yes, it does, by hurting America. If you make it so that there is no > advantage to making more money, because the taxes are set up to take > everything you make over a certain figure, there's no reason to produce > at a high level in order to make that extra money. The people with extreme ordinary income do not "produce" a damned thing. Not only do they not "produce at a high level", they don't "produce" at all. A tax levied on such income does not adversely effect production and consumption in the real economy. This nation did very well indeed when the top rate was over 90%. >>>>hose who use these assets >>>>productively will be the winners and those who do not will see the >>>>value of the assets fall. >>> >>> US companies fail, foreign companies take over. That's what's been >>> happening, alright. >> >>This is happening because the foreigners are paying the income taxes to >>their governments and not to our government. > > Its happening both because their income taxes are lower and their cost > of living is lower, enabling lower wages. We can't do anything about > the cost of living, but we certainly could untax our corporations. We > could then use the corporations to make more money for everybody. It doesn't happen that way. The stockholders make all the money and the people are poor. And the result is a two tiered economy of owners and serfs with a microscopic middle class so small it doesn't count. >>Import tariffs are the >>proper address to that problem and progressive income taxes are the >>proper address to all of the internal problems. > > It was tried in 1930. It has been credited by some economists with > deepening the great depression. (sigh) You just keep repeating the mantra..... There are economists that are recommending austerity in the current situation of unemployment. Not many, mind you. But the rightarded can ALWAYS find SOME economist that will tell them what they want to hear. The majority opinion is that Smoot-Hawley had little lasting effect though it did appear to initially cause some job creation. The reason the effects were not long lived is because the other nations also raised tariffs and the USA was at the time a net exporter. Tariffs are not so good for exporting nations but can be very good for importing nation IF THE TAX PROCEEDS ARE PROGRESSIVELY EMPLOYED. >> The _ONLY_ way we can >>tax foreigners who are exploiting our resources and our markets is with >>import tariffs > > Not true. We can tax their products at retail, and by untaxing American > corporations, allow the prices of our products to fall by 11.55% on > average, according to Wikipedia's entry of the Fair Tax. That would be a > de-facto import tariff, without being an import tariff that would > trigger a tariff retaliation. A flat rate consumption tax is a regressive tax. And we should not have _ANY_ fear of other nations taxing our goods. We are a HUGE net importer. Thus, so long as we do not get ridiculous with the tax level and so ling as the proceeds are used progressively (bottom side stimulus) then the result will be much more domestic production and jobs. >> 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. >>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. >>An excise tax on consumption is the WORST means by which to collect >>taxes. > > Just wrong. Nice proclamation with no substance. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: bugo on 28 Jul 2010 17:10
"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. |