Buy American

[mystreba]

I said that, mystreba, because that is the drum the Tea party (and the right wing as a whole) has been beating nonstop - and although it IS a part of it, it is not the end-all and be-all of it.

Unions are a big part of the problem, as is state laws (and Federal, soon) requiring employers to provide health insurance. In NY this also includes the expensive 'mental health' portion of health insurance. The exodus of jobs from NY started a long time ago, back when times were supposed to be good. Our laws, unions, AND the tax code are all part of the problem. I think we need to take a good, hard look at EVERYTHING, not JUST the tax code.

But, the fine line here is how should it be fixed? To get the jobs back here, the companies that go elsewhere I think, should have to pay tarriffs to re-import the products into the US, as if they were NOT a US company. That's what tarrifs are for - to level the playing field. But, the field is so tilted, we need to find a way to make it so goods made in this country aren't so expensive. Otherwise, like I stated, nobody will be able to buy ANYTHING.

ok - I think I misunderstood you.

At any rate, I could agree with your last point, as part of the solution to the problem of US corps moving operations offshore. But it contradicts the other concern about making affordable products - such tarrifs would drive prices up.

I really have no fundamental problem with US companies choosing to set up operations globally. The problem, as I see it, is that we have actually provided incentives for them to do that. Instead, we should provide incentives for them to keep their operations (and all the related jobs) here.

In terms of unions, that's a whole other conversation - start a new thread? :biggrin: I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't necessarily agree either. It's a complicated topic.

In terms of health care, I know this was covered in another thread, but I look at it this way. We, as a country, must answer a fundamental moral question - should all citizens have access to health care? Every other developed nation has considered this question, and answered in the affirmative. If we also answer with a "Yes", then we need to decide how we'll do that. Hint - it's being done to varying degress of success in all other developed nations, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. And yes, unless we want a 100% government solution (Beveridge model - UK, VA), employers will have to do their part by raising wages or by paying in.

 

[twall]

Well, I may be getting too political here, so mods feel free to delete. But I've got two words that'll fix a good protion of the problems our country faces today.

Fair Tax

Yes, it could be seen as rhetoric, but I wont MYSELF make the mistake of calling you names (sorry, mystreba :ashamed.

The fair tax, from what I understand, is simmilar to the GST in Canada, kinda. It'd be a tax on all goods. That way, EVERYONE pays taxes, and the more you're able to spend, the more tax you pay.

It works good on paper, but unless it REPLACES WHOLLY the income tax, it'll just be another tax.

 

[Jetblast]

twall, the cost of American manufactured goods hasn't gone up in ages. Adjusted for inflation, they've gone down over the last 20-30 years. Way down. Great for consumers, but it's made for a tough manufacturing environment.

You may think 50K + benefits is more than a moderately skilled worker deserves, but is that the real deal? You have to look hard at what's actually being paid vs what makes the news. With many union jobs, the pay is not so great on the short end, but gets better in the long run with the idea that over an entire career you'll do OK. Unfortunately, what makes the news is almost always a skewed version leaning heavily toward the high-seniority end of the scale.

As far as insurance and retirement goes, as the American work force goes, so go the unions. Decades ago unions fought for and won livable work environments, insurance, and retirement benefits that private industry had to match in order to obtain and keep good workers. Now we're on the downside of a multiple decade long economic bubble where non-union jobs have degraded faster than union jobs, so unions have become a target. No need really, time will take care of it. Unions negotiate based upon what's going on around them, and if everything is crap they can only negotiate for crap.

 

[Oddball]

The fair tax, from what I understand, is simmilar to the GST in Canada, kinda. It'd be a tax on all goods. That way, EVERYONE pays taxes, and the more you're able to spend, the more tax you pay.

It works good on paper, but unless it REPLACES WHOLLY the income tax, it'll just be another tax.

You are mostly correct, but its only a tax on NEW goods sold at the retail level. No tax on used goods. Also, it is designed to replace the federal income, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Payroll taxes, I may have missed a few, on all businesses and individuals. The 16th Amendment (the one starting federal income taxes and the IRS) would have to be repealed before the Fair Tax could begin, and that's even called for by the Fair Tax. You'd bring home your ENTIRE paycheck, except whatever your state takes in taxes, unless your state adopts some form of the FT also. You'd only be taxed on what you spend, not what you earn. Corporations that have left the country because of high taxes would be eager to return and foriegn companies would be clamouring to come here and set up shop where they wouldn't have to pay taxes. You'd basically have to hide to keep from getting a job. There would be an econmic boom like this country has never seen.

 

[Jetblast]

Well, I may be getting too political here, so mods feel free to delete. But I've got two words that'll fix a good protion of the problems our country faces today.

Fair Tax

I don't like it. If you're alive and functioning in society, you've entered into a social contract and have some obligations. Some more than others. Everyone who produces is part of the environment, an environment in which some thrive exponentially, but an environment we all helped to create and maintain.

If you weren't born in the right place, didn't have the right parents, and didn't get the right education, you're not going to do as well financially as those who did. Short end of the stick for most Americans. Donald Trump Jr.? Long end of the stick.

It takes a certain amount of annual income to get the basic necessities, and what we all consider a "normal" lifestyle. A vast number of Americans struggle for that and still fall short. On the other hand, a great number of Americans earn annual income so far beyond that, they need a financial team to keep track of it. Are they that good? They might tell you they are, but chances are they're just moderately talented people who got very, very lucky.

If you work hard, but were not blessed with great earning potential for whatever reason, giving 20% of your income to the common good is a hardship. If you make millions, 20% of your income means buying a Gulfstream G4 instead of a G5.

A progressive tax system is the "fair" tax, as far as I'm concerned. Those with Gulfstreams will do everything they can to convince us otherwise, and they've been quite successful at that by oversimplifying the issue.

 

[twall]

The idea that everyone who spends pays tax (thereby lowering the individual tax burden on everyone), is a good one. However, I think there'd be plenty of ways people would get around it.......as with anything...and it may very well be a mess.

I could see the 'used goods' part of it being a loophole already.

 

[twall]

@jetblast:

I'm not sure I agree totally with your thoughts.

If the rich person has the good fortune of making, say, $250, 000/yr - they are able to (and do) spend far more than someone like myself, making $27k/yr. If they buy the gulfstream? They will be paying far more tax than someone who buys a 3 year old used car. Or a Mercedes, or whatever. Therefore, they WILL be paying more in a dollar amount, than the poorer person. More in, more out.

Besides, it would be the poorer people who use more of the public services that their taxes would be helping to pay for (which they don't do now).

I just can't agree with social equality through taxation.

 

[Jetblast]

@jetblast:

I'm not sure I agree totally with your thoughts.

If the rich person has the good fortune of making, say, $250, 000/yr - they are able to (and do) spend far more than someone like myself, making $27k/yr. If they buy the gulfstream? They will be paying far more tax than someone who buys a 3 year old used car. Or a Mercedes, or whatever. Therefore, they WILL be paying more in a dollar amount, than the poorer person. More in, more out.

Besides, it would be the poorer people who use more of the public services that their taxes would be helping to pay for (which they don't do now).

I just can't agree with social equality through taxation.

The overlords have trained you well, citizen. :biggrin:

 

[twall]

The overlords have trained you well, citizen. :biggrin:

 

[mystreba]

@jetblast:

I'm not sure I agree totally with your thoughts.

If the rich person has the good fortune of making, say, $250, 000/yr - they are able to (and do) spend far more than someone like myself, making $27k/yr. If they buy the gulfstream? They will be paying far more tax than someone who buys a 3 year old used car. Or a Mercedes, or whatever. Therefore, they WILL be paying more in a dollar amount, than the poorer person. More in, more out.

Besides, it would be the poorer people who use more of the public services that their taxes would be helping to pay for (which they don't do now).

I just can't agree with social equality through taxation.

That's a good point. But consider this. What percentage of income do people spend? This is entirely anecdotal, but...

poor: 100%
middle class: approaching 100%
upper class: (no idea where to get the data, but my guess is somewhere south of 70% - any arguments to the contrary are welcome)
rich: ditto, south of 50%


So if you are a fan of the progressive tax approach (everyone pays a proportional share), the appeal of "fair tax" beings to wane.