|
The "If Things Went Your Way" Game
Lets say that the President of the United States came to you and asked for help. He wants you to find a way to lower the deficit without raising taxes on the american people. He also asks you to find a way to do this and create jobs at the same time. He gives you a link to a few websites, and a phone number that contain a archive of all laws, trade agreements, and treaties.
How would you fix the deficit and jobs? |
I'd draft a Constitution that specifically outlines the authority of our gov't, then establish a congress that is bond to uphold the document, and a court system to make sure the laws are upheld. I'd then give all other powers to the people and the states...
oh wait. |
Heres my idea, end all trade agreements and impose a tax on imports thus causing the cheap ---- we all buy to go up in price. that then opens up the market for american industry to come back and be able to compete with the foreign companies on a somewhat level playing field. thus pissing the top 1% off, and moving america back toward a country that actually makes stuff.
|
I would fire all of congress and put them all on an island to fight to the death. The winner get's too then come back and be the vice president or something. lol
|
Originally Posted by RedTurboMiata
(Post 9466)
Heres my idea, end all trade agreements and impose a tax on imports thus causing the cheap ---- we all buy to go up in price. that then opens up the market for american industry to come back and be able to compete with the foreign companies on a somewhat level playing field. thus pissing the top 1% off, and moving america back toward a country that actually makes stuff.
|
Originally Posted by MF-Brain
(Post 9472)
I thought you wanted to solve the problem...
|
and what happens when your business relies on foreign imports?
How about instead disband all labor unions? |
Originally Posted by MF-Brain
(Post 9474)
and what happens when your business relies on foreign imports?
How about instead disband all labor unions? |
Originally Posted by RedTurboMiata
(Post 9473)
piss off people yes, help eventually
Yeah, it will piss all the people off all the americans who are affected by the increased cost of the American products and all the industries that use it as a resource. Import Tarrifs only protects the workers in the industry that gets an unfair advantage with gov't protection from that outside competition. that means if you put a tarrif on foriegn steel, they don't have to compete with lower prices and their customers such as the the auto industry, bridge builders, steel drum manufacturing plants, etc. ANY industry that buys steel will be faced with increased prices. That means less supply and LESS JOBS in those industries. Only the steel industry will benefit. But there is a net loss of jobs if you add up the rest. So this idea does nothing to reduce the deficit or create jobs. |
Actually, Brainy, Germany does almost exactly what RedTurboMiata proposes, and they don't have any of the problems you claim they do.
In fact, they have one of the strongest economies in the world. |
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 9486)
Implement Fair Tax (flat sales tax on retail sale of new items) and eliminate current tax code and disband IRS. Problem solved.
Secondly, this form of taxation is extremely regressive. It's actually the singularly most regressive form of taxation I've seen legitimately proposed in the US government in it's history. To put it more simply, the less you make, the more you pay proportionally in taxes with the Fair Tax - this is in conjunction with numerous other hidden, federal or state taxes that are regressive in nature that our current income tax actually offset to turn into a somewhat neutral to slightly progressive system. The flat tax is not "flat" in any way, shape, or form. If you want a "flat tax" that has no regressive or progressive taxation leanings like it's proponents pitch, create a straight X% (I.e., 15%) income tax on any income taken by anyone. Regressive taxes are an extremely bad public policy decision, and should never be advocated seriously by...anyone. I personally advocate for capital gains tax applied to any and all incomes taken in. Simple, easy, and almost completely eliminates the need for the IRS. However, anyone who tells you that they have a plan for removing the IRS completely without completely removing taxes is lying to you. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 9485)
Actually, Brainy, Germany does almost exactly what RedTurboMiata proposes, and they don't have any of the problems you claim they do
|
Originally Posted by MF-Brain
(Post 9528)
they also don't have any natural resources.
Germany is the world's top producer of brown coal, among other things. Germany is actually fairly affluent when it comes to natural resources Brainy. Bad Brainy, bad! |
Maybe I meant like oil or ggas or something. Anywa it was nevver a valid argument.
|
Originally Posted by MF-Brain
(Post 9539)
Maybe I meant like oil or ggas or something. Anywa it was nevver a valid argument.
|
yes. of course it wasn't.
I better argument would be something like this: http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpre...pg?w=500&h=295 This is probably a better reason as to why their economy is so strong...the burden of government spending has increased faster in the United States. And as Mitchell's Golden Rule would state: Good fiscal policy exists when the private sector grows faster than the public sector, while fiscal ruin is inevitable if government spending grows faster than the productive part of the economy. And this might be another reason: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...onique-de-rugy "...their changes to labor-market laws ten years ago, and in particular to unemployment policies, could be at the core of the economic success mentioned above. One of the goals of that reform was to enable Germans to get “mini-jobs” without a large penalty and to make unemployment relatively uncomfortable so that people would look for jobs." and this is just a reason taxing importants is silly:"Germany spent more than 30 times as much collecting taxes on coffee beans ordered online from abroad than it received in the tax revenues, the accounting office said on Tuesday. Some 4,000 Germans who bought coffee over the Internet from other EU countries but failed to pay the coffee tax have been charged between a few cents to 10 euros ($14.81) in taxes and fees, said Dieter Engels, head of Germany’s Federal Accounting Office. Tax collectors ended up with just 25,000 euros, way below the 800,000 euros in the costs of staff charged with collecting the payments, Engels said." |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 9520)
Every time I hear this statement, I lol. I'm sorry, but the Fair Tax will not get rid of the IRS in any way, shape, or form. It will merely change the focus of the operations. This is a popular myth perpetuated by several Flat Tax lobbyists and advocates that are, frankly, willing to lie their asses off for personal gain.
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 9520)
Secondly, this form of taxation is extremely regressive. It's actually the singularly most regressive form of taxation I've seen legitimately proposed in the US government in it's history. To put it more simply, the less you make, the more you pay proportionally in taxes with the Fair Tax - this is in conjunction with numerous other hidden, federal or state taxes that are regressive in nature that our current income tax actually offset to turn into a somewhat neutral to slightly progressive system.
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 9520)
The flat tax is not "flat" in any way, shape, or form. If you want a "flat tax" that has no regressive or progressive taxation leanings like it's proponents pitch, create a straight X% (I.e., 15%) income tax on any income taken by anyone. Regressive taxes are an extremely bad public policy decision, and should never be advocated seriously by...anyone.
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 9520)
I personally advocate for capital gains tax applied to any and all incomes taken in. Simple, easy, and almost completely eliminates the need for the IRS. However, anyone who tells you that they have a plan for removing the IRS completely without completely removing taxes is lying to you.
How would this be regressive when the rich obviously buy more lavish items and more new items in every aspect of their lives than the poor? As you know, there is no tax on any used items such as automobiles. Knee jerk reactions like yours make discussing these items difficult because of the lack of understanding you possess regarding the things you are vilifying. You should at least try to understand it before jumping to criticism. It would certainly make your criticism more valid. If you don't know anything about it, maybe you should do some reading. You might actually find real things to hate. |
tax you like Canadians.
kill immigration of the illegal kind. increase fire arms licensing costs (lol) tax imports stop lending money to other countries who will never pay it back. kill all unions roll deep in my air force one wearing my air force ones... holla |
Originally Posted by MF-Rick
(Post 9648)
tax you like Canadians.
kill immigration of the illegal kind. increase fire arms licensing costs (lol) tax imports stop lending money to other countries who will never pay it back. kill all unions roll deep in my air force one wearing my air force ones... holla and in ohio there is no licensing cost unless its for conceal and carry permit. rifles and shotguns are not even registered with the state, so they basically have no clue whats out there :ohnoes: |
we dont lend money, we lend 1s and 0s.
but yes, we give out a ---- ton of cash. we should only give out cash to countries to people who vote against us in the UN...after we get it off our soil. |
Originally Posted by MF-Rick
(Post 9648)
tax you like Canadians.
kill immigration of the illegal kind. increase fire arms licensing costs (lol) tax imports stop lending money to other countries who will never pay it back. kill all unions roll deep in my air force one wearing my air force ones... holla Working in IT the last 5 years has taught me a few things. You go to work, do your job, and if you want a promotion you find another job. The American dream of finding a career at one company for the next 30 years of you're life is a joke. That does not happen any more. American's get entirely too cozy spending 10-15 years working for the same employer. Then when all of a sudden they find themselves out of a job they go batsh*t crazy cause they've forgotten how to market themselves and get out there and find a new job. That's how the economy tanks cause you get all these unemployed people who can't find other jobs and have to rely on my tax money. Really... IMHO if you want a job nowadays that you wanna be at the same spot for the next 30+ years of you're life you start you're own business and be you're own boss. |
Union people tend to be fucktarded. Not all, just many. Every union worker I have met to some degree has a story about how in the real world they would have lost their job but since they are in the union they have gotten off:
boozing at work stealing at work smoking weed at work not doing any work at work getting fired at work to be rehired at work. i mean, its laughable. One of my buddies used to be a Manager at CanadaPost dealing with union turds. He's told me stories of theft of mail, mailmen keeping all their route mail in their basements for years until caught and mailmen dumping mail in dumpsters. In the end, written up but never fired, even on the theft stuff. He always found it discouraging. My wife has been at her job 15 years. There was a time when she knew the owners, they said hello hey and hooray and all that jazz. They were bought out and now she would tell you she is nothing more than a number and no one cares. There is no keeping jobs forever anymore though she is the one person i know doing a great job at it. Really, i have no idea how to fix the USA, not sure how to fix Canada either. I dont vote so I cant complain. I have never felt my vote would mean anything. I always thought that if you wanted to change the government you would need to overthrow it with arms and military. THEN you can make change. But obs I am not going to be that guy to do something so drastic, instead, i pay my taxes and cry about how high they are. Immigration is killing Canada. 100 refugees a day through terminal 1 alone at pearson. Then we are part of that UN thing where we just take them in. We let criminals in etc. We can't fix that problem. Refugee or landed, they all get welfare if they want it. Canada is broken too. |
At least Canada cut/capped gov't spending for a while, and they benefited greatly from it.
Real American wages have remained stagnant for many years, but it is because we have had a lot of inflation, which gives the illusion of economic growth. If we actually had a growing economy, then the increased productivity of people would have contributed to rising wages. It has nothing to do with a lack of labor unions. We have replaced American labor with foreign labor. Workers aren't benefiting from economic growth in America because that growth doesn't exist. Labor unions are one of the reasons that American businesses can't stay competitive and therefore have to look overseas in order to find labor. If we were actually giving better tools to workers here, then they would be more productive. It's not that we are producing more with less; we are producing less with less. The extra productivity that American businesses are getting is from firing American workers and hiring foreign workers. The extra automated machines and components are being manufactured overseas. Another factor is the huge deficit that is a burden on American workers. That capital is taken out of the private sector, so Americans are forced to pay for it. Many of them are only able to do this is by taking on more and more debt. Rising wages isn't what we need to worry about, anyway. They rising wages are only from inflation. What is important is the purchasing power of those wages. For 100 years during the industrial revolution.,. wages stayed the same, but the prices of goods consistently dropped during that entire period. That is what happens with sound money and more productivity. Demand is always there. That is a basic law of economics. What is important is the supply of goods, which is a function of productivity. It makes sense that increased wages should accompany increased productivity. But what if that productivity is all an illusion. Public sector workers make twice as much as a private sector employee when you factor in benefits. Healthcare benefits and retirement benefits must be factored in, and private sector employees must pay for this. Our healthcare system is a disaster because of all the government involvement. Our system would be much better and cheaper if we didn't have all these regulations and taxes. We don't have a free market in healthcare here and we haven't for a long time. |
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 9642)
Lulzy post
Sorry bro, but the facts don't agree with you. We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair. |
Originally Posted by Mazduh
(Post 9684)
Working in IT the last 5 years has taught me a few things. You go to work, do your job, and if you want a promotion you find another job. The American dream of finding a career at one company for the next 30 years of you're life is a joke. That does not happen any more.
I agree that the dream of a 9-5 office job at one place until retirement is dead, but if your willing to put in hard work, the dream is alive and pays really well. The American dream term was coined when we were a nation of industry, so it's not surprising that it doesn't translate into desk work. It's very difficult to maintain high wages for an extended period if you don't produce tangible product. These industries are hiring like crazy, but we can't find enough people to fill positions because everyone wants to work a desk job. If you mention Power Plant, Railroad, or Oil Field, they run like hell.:confused: |
It's okay, we can go to china for our machinist needs and inferior metal once they all die out here.
|
Compromise, find balance, quit nation building and focus on using the folks in this country to fix this country.
And make damned sure what you set out to do is done, with oversight and consequence that will amount to more than just a lateral shift. Oh yeah, get that book of fairy tales out of the reach of the fools who think they're doing something by legislating morality in the name of god, I think it would be a fair assumption that if there actually is one some lighting bolts would be raining down in some fairly obvious places so lets cut the bullshit and start working on real issues instead of just standing around stroking collective dick while the barn burns... |
The state of the union address was awfully inspiring last night... Hopefully the Obominator will stand behind it and maybe get some things done if he's back in office.
|
fixing bad policy with bad policy is what we dont need.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by RedTurboMiata
(Post 9652)
I dont see why we insist on lending money to countries who cant afford to pay it back.
and in ohio there is no licensing cost unless its for conceal and carry permit. rifles and shotguns are not even registered with the state, so they basically have no clue whats out there :ohnoes: I would be :ohnoes: if the government had that information. It is none of their business. And I fear the government coming in and taking control of my life, property, and liberties far more than any single man with a .38 special.
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 9705)
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspi...e_fairtax.html
Sorry bro, but the facts don't agree with you. How much do you really know about the Fairtax? Even factoring in the prebate, it's an enormously regressive tax. Only extreme right wing think tanks argue otherwise. I read THE book. Yes, the whole effing thing. Maybe you should, too. https://www.miataforumz.com/attachme...ine=1327527502 And from the very article that you linked: It is easy to look at charts like the one above and dismiss the FairTax as simply another way to help the rich get richer. But there is an economic argument for a less progressive tax system, though that argument is extremely technical. Kotlikoff has asserted that the FairTax will lower the marginal tax rate for all earners. (The marginal rate is the tax rate paid on the last dollar earned.) Because marginal rates are lower, each extra dollar of income will result in greater purchasing power. The decrease in marginal rates is progressive – that is, marginal rate reductions are greater for the working- and middle-classes than for the wealthy. Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent. Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden. Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden. And since the factcheck.org folks used "the bipartisan President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform" as their primary anti-Fair Tax source for data, I'd say there is quite a bit to worry about regarding their assessment. When they are hand-picked by Obama to look into the Fair Tax, you think you will get the truth? When they are all influence peddling members of congress paid heavily by lobbyists to enact favorable tax codes and "loopholes" do you think they would be likely to derail the gravy train? |
Economist William G. Gale at the Brookings Institution writes: "Under the AFT proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution, while households in the top 1% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000." Gale continues, "If households are classified by consumption level, a somewhat different pattern emerges. Households in the bottom two-thirds of the distribution would pay less than currently, households in the top third would pay more."[24] While Gale's analysis differed from the FairTax legislation,[22] he is referring to absolute tax money—ranked by income, households at the lower end of the distribution will tend to pay more in absolute taxes, while households at the higher end will tend to pay less in absolute taxes. Ranked by spending or consumption, households that currently spend less on consumption would pay less total taxes, while households that currently spend more would pay more. For example, a family of four (a couple with two children) earning about $25,000 and spending this on taxable goods and services, would consume 100% of their income. A higher income family of four making about $100,000, spending $75,000, and saving $25,000, would consume only 75% of their income on taxable goods and services. When presented with an estimated effective tax rate, the low-income family above would pay a tax rate of 0% on the 100% of consumption and the higher income family would pay a tax rate of 15% on the 75% of consumption (with the other 25% taxed at a later point in time). A person spending at the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 0%, whereas someone spending at four times the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 17.2%.[25] These conclusions are contradictory according to Gale. The FairTax proposal is regressive on income (using a cross-section time frame) and progressive on sales.[22] Even in the absolute best case, the "FairTax" can only be a completely neutral tax, minus the so-called "prebate" (Which has not even existed in some FairTax proposals, and in even the proposals that include it has been so small as to only effectively nullify the first ~8k you make. This is why those making 12k and less pay slightly less taxes than they do now, but everyone above that up to the top 90% pay nearly as much to flat out more) But, the more of a % of your income you need to spend just to live, the more regressive the tax is for you. That's simple math, and the reality of the world we live in. The FairTax is completely designed to shift more of the tax burden on the middle class. That's all there is to it. You can run around and scream "But it's not like that, I PROMISE!" But, you know what? Not a single economist or other similar authoritative source that is not affiliated with the FairTax agrees with you. I mean, for gods sakes man, you are claiming books written by the FairTax's primary supporters is a ------- unbiased source while bitching about a goddamn bipartisan committee that is unaffiliated with it! |
|
2 Attachment(s)
Eat the government.
Anarchy is not a dirty word. https://www.miataforumz.com/attachme...ine=1327545699 If we're gonna dream brothers and sisters, dream of the end as we know it, for what we have created and continue to feed will surely devour us all... Laissez faire comrades. https://www.miataforumz.com/attachme...ine=1327545578 And now back to your regularly scheduled political discussion. |
^^ You, I like.
|
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 10038)
If you understand that basic economic principle (It's an utter impossibility for a sales tax not to be regressive by definition), then the argument becomes entirely about the prebate. The prebate goes neutral somewhere between 12k-15k in income. Those making between the above and 20k-25k pay a tiny bit less due to various other taxes *supposedly* being repealed with the "fair" tax. Those making between the above and 200k pay more to significantly more. (It could represent a tax increase by as much as 10% for me personally or possibly even slightly more, as an example.) Those making 200k+ get a huge tax break. This is using every single prebate I've found on every single proposal for Fair Tax. Are you referring to some kind of proposal that no one has published? I can't find it. I just went through your Wikipedia article, and it sums up everything I've said. All the sources that aren't direct supporters of the Fair Tax agree with me. You do understand that just because you want to believe in something doesn't make it true, right? The Fair Tax supporters use laughable logic when it's a very simple concept. You only have to find the intersection of the tax cost - prebate (Simple graphing, yo) compared to current taxes, then find the next intersection of tax cost vs. current incomes (Another simple job of graphing.) The entire argument of the Fair Tax comes down to "But the rich people will SPEND MORE if we tax them less! And as a result, everyone will get more!" It's just more trickle down drek. But if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. |
Originally Posted by Small White Car
(Post 10045)
Anarchy is not a dirty word.
I see your Anarchy and raise you Napoleon, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Afganistan post 1979, and Ethiopa post 1977. |
I give. You win. I was tired of this discussion well before my last post.
He asked what I would do and there you have it. You can tax only the rich people until they all leave, and also give free money and Twinkies out to the poor who choose not to work if you become czar. I won't even try to stop you. You have your utopia and I have mine. Mine will never happen. Maybe yours will. |
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 10125)
I give. You win. I was tired of this discussion well before my last post.
He asked what I would do and there you have it. You can tax only the rich people until they all leave, and also give free money and Twinkies out to the poor who choose not to work if you become czar. I won't even try to stop you. You have your utopia and I have mine. Mine will never happen. Maybe yours will. |
I find it incredibly offensive that I saved for 4 years to go into debt by selling my house and not forclosing, lost my tax deduction, and now obama wants to allow people underwater to refiance for freez.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands