A good "revenue enhancement" idea

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Through essentially fraudulent accounting, the American film industry has essentially made itself free from corporate (and individual) income taxes.

The film industry is hardly the only industry to do this.  That's one reason why I favor changing corporate income taxfrom a tax on net income to gross income.  It's a lot harder to pull off the accounting gimmicks.

By imposing what is essentially an excise tax (we have those on gasoline), we will getting revenue for the government which would not be achieved unde the income taxes.

Excise taxes are effectively a industry specific gross income tax.  Rather than targeting specific industries, taxes should be as broad as possible so as to spread their burden as evenly as possible and to cause the least disruption to the economy.

P.S. - FDR enforced anti-trust laws, including on the film industry (this was before WW 2).

While it happened after FDR, the anti-trust laws in a very real sense ended the golden age of Hollywood.  By forcing theatre chains to divest themselves of their studios, they altered the economics of film-making so that studios could no longer be in the business of nurturing talent.  Same thing happened when the TV networks were forced to largely divest their in-house production arms.

[CARLHAYDEN]

was I the only one to think CARL was going to propose a deportation tax on illegals?

I didn't.  I can't see CARL ever admitting that immigrants could ever be an economic benefit under any circumstances whatsoever.

Well, you 'sight' is bad once again.

Legal immigrants have generally been of great benefit, both economic and otherwise to the country.

I have in fact been on record on the Atlas Forum as recommending a slight increase in the number of legal immigrats to be admited to this country.

Illegal aliens, particularly illegal entrants, are a completely different story.

They (the illegals) are generally a very great aggregate loss for this country, both economically and otherwise.

I realize that you have difficult 'seeing' the difference between people who abide by our laws and those that don't.

You really need to get some intellectual glasses.

[courts]

CARL, I think you should switch back and vote for Matt Damon with me if you really want to give Hollywood exactly what they want. Or better yet Sean Penn for Mayor, that way the next time LA is inevitably burned to the ground by the disadvantaged we won't have to worry about anyone bothering to rebuild.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The very fact that so many people come here illegally is proof that our immigration system is broken.  Simply stepping up border enforcement will not solve the problem. Nor will a slight increase in legal immigration.  Any small increase in legal immigration will be filled mainly by skilled persons, but for the most part illegal immigration serves to meet an economic need for inexpensive semi-skilled physical labor that is not met by the legal workforce.  We can either revamp our immigration system to meet that need, or we can continue to have illegal immigrants.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The very fact that so many people come here illegally is proof that our immigration system is broken.  Simply stepping up border enforcement will not solve the problem. Nor will a slight increase in legal immigration.  Any small increase in legal immigration will be filled mainly by skilled persons, but for the most part illegal immigration serves to meet an economic need for inexpensive semi-skilled physical labor that is not met by the legal workforce.  We can either revamp our immigration system to meet that need, or we can continue to have illegal immigrants.

So, are you now changing your story?

I thoroughly reject your advocacy of amnesty.

I do stongly support more legal immigration of skilled persons.

Enforcement, when actually tried, worked in the past (Eisenhower proved this).  We simply need to make real efforts to enforce existing laws.

Employers need to follow the 1986 law.

Border security desperately needs to be improved (yes, I know YOU are opposed to this, but the American people support it).

I do not expect perfection, but there is massive room for improvement if only real efforts will be made (neither Bush II nor Obama are making real efforts).

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARL, I think you should switch back and vote for Matt Damon with me if you really want to give Hollywood exactly what they want. Or better yet Sean Penn for Mayor, that way the next time LA is inevitably burned to the ground by the disadvantaged we won't have to worry about anyone bothering to rebuild.

Impossible to "switch back" to something (someone) I never supported in the first place.

But, it seems to me that Illinois is (eloquently) making the case against socialism.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I thoroughly reject your advocacy of amnesty.

Who said anything about amnesty?  What is is needed is a significant increase in the level of legal immigration, both permanent and guest worker (for the seasonal physical labor that it is unrealistic to expect permanent residents in a society as well off as our own to provide) so that we can satisfy our economy's demand for semi-skilled physical labor without having a permanent group of people who can never fully integrate into our society.

As far as amnesty is concerned, the most I would advocate is not penalizing adults for previous illegal immigration if they apply for legal immigration, and for giving those who came here as young minors illegally because their parents brought them the means to become legal.  But even that level of amnesty is not a necessary part of immigration reform.

Wholesale amnesty for illegals that would give them a head start on becoming legal is not something that should be considered.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I thoroughly reject your advocacy of amnesty.

Who said anything about amnesty?  What is is needed is a significant increase in the level of legal immigration, both permanent and guest worker (for the seasonal physical labor that it is unrealistic to expect permanent residents in a society as well off as our own to provide) so that we can satisfy our economy's demand for semi-skilled physical labor without having a permanent group of people who can never fully integrate into our society.

As far as amnesty is concerned, the most I would advocate is not penalizing adults for previous illegal immigration if they apply for legal immigration, and for giving those who came here as young minors illegally because their parents brought them the means to become legal.  But even that level of amnesty is not a necessary part of immigration reform.

Wholesale amnesty for illegals that would give them a head start on becoming legal is not something that should be considered.

Well, I am happy to say that we are in fundamental disagreement.

We do NOT need more 'guest workers' as there is already high unemployment in this country (particularly for those with limited job skills) as experience has shown us.  When a business is compelled to terminate a significant number of illegals, they are inundated with job applications from Americans seeking unemployment.

What is happening is that some employers prefer to hire illegals as they can intimidate them to ignore environment and safety laws, which they would have problems getting American workers to flout.

[Landslide Lyndon]

People that are debating Carl deserve a medal. It's such a dirty job that not even the Mexicans won't accept it, but I guess somebody has to do it

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We do NOT need more 'guest workers' as there is already high unemployment in this country (particularly for those with limited job skills) as experience has shown us.  When a business is compelled to terminate a significant number of illegals, they are inundated with job applications from Americans seeking unemployment.

Yup, from Americans seeking unemployment checks, not from Americans seeking employment, as a number of the jobs are sufficiently physically demanding that getting American employees is difficult or even impossible, as the farmers of Georgia have found out to their distress.  Also many of those jobs are seasonal labor, not permanent jobs. They also offer little to no opportunity for advancement.  For seasonal physical labor, a guest worker program makes sense.

What is happening is that some employers prefer to hire illegals as they can intimidate them to ignore environment and safety laws, which they would have problems getting American workers to flout.

Here is one area we do agree on.  Solving the illegal immigration problem will require strict enforcement of employment laws.  Where we seem to differ is that you seem to think we need to focus on the employees, while I think we need to focus on the employers.  Unless we return to the days when we ignored civil rights, no employee-focused approach will work well enough to do much.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the way, while it is possible you simply missed this, your non-response does leave the impression that you are ducking the issue.

Its also interesting to note that he makes an unfounded allegation of some supposed opposition on my part to closing industry-specific tax loopholes.  Cite please?

I was under the impression that you supported the Nyquist position that the debt-ceiling package contain only spending cuts and no increase in tax revenues via the closing of tax loopholes.  If you do support for eliminating tax loopholes then name some tax loopholes you support eliminating.  That would be much easier than trudging through your posts for something I'm doubtful I would find in your posting history.  All you need to do to prove me wrong is list any tax loopholes you've supported eliminating.

Or are you going to chicken out as you've done with spending cuts when you've said you support eliminating the deficit with spending cuts while at the same time refusing to specify which spending cuts you would make to get us even a tenth of the way to that goal.

[CARLHAYDEN]

By the way, while it is possible you simply missed this, your non-response does leave the impression that you are ducking the issue.

Its also interesting to note that he makes an unfounded allegation of some supposed opposition on my part to closing industry-specific tax loopholes.  Cite please?

I was under the impression that you supported the Nyquist position that the debt-ceiling package contain only spending cuts and no increase in tax revenues via the closing of tax loopholes.  If you do support for eliminating tax loopholes then name some tax loopholes you support eliminating.  That would be much easier than trudging through your posts for something I'm doubtful I would find in your posting history.  All you need to do to prove me wrong is list any tax loopholes you've supported eliminating.

Or are you going to chicken out as you've done with spending cuts when you've said you support eliminating the deficit with spending cuts while at the same time refusing to specify which spending cuts you would make to get us even a tenth of the way to that goal.

You are always misrepresenting what I post.

Example, I supported the effort in the Senate to eliminate the tax preferenes for ethanol.

Example, I have consistently opposed Porkulus, and the provision in it which gave overgenerous depreciation tax credits for non-commercial aircraft.

Example, I am opposed to the special loopholes created for GE to allow them to essentially escape taxation.

Finally, I have listed a number of ways to deal with spending, including specific cuts as well as freezes.  You have consistently opposed the cuts I proposed and supported more taxes and higher taxes.

[King]

People that are debating Carl deserve a medal. It's such a dirty job that not even the Mexicans won't accept it, but I guess somebody has to do it

This is why Dave has anointed Ernest to be the forum's Sisyphus.  It keeps the rest of us sane.

[Brittain33]

First, the tax which Prof. Reynolds (and I) suggest be reimplemented was in existance under FDR and Truman.

So were food rationing, price controls, and extraordinarily high top marginal tax rates.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You have consistently ... supported more taxes and higher taxes.

Yada, yada, yada.

I presume by "more taxes" you mean "new additional taxes" and by "higher taxes" you mean "higher tax rates", for unless you don't intend both to mean increased tax revenue, it appears you need to visit the Department of Redundancy Department to renew your redundant license of redundancy.

The only new taxes I would support would be a carbon tax, with offsetting cuts in other taxes, as a superior way to deal with energy independence/greenhouse gases than the bureaucratic nightmare that cap and trade will be and replacement of the current corporate income tax system with one that taxes gross income instead of net income.  So while I do favor some new taxes, I favor them as replacements for the ones we already have.

If we keep our current tax structure as it is, I don't favor passing any law that would increase tax rates, just closing tax loopholes.  If you want to call the ending of "temporary tax cut" passed by the GOP in 2001 a tax hike, go ahead.  All starve the beast has done these past ten years is raise the deficit and debt. If it caused either party to show spending restraint, I don't see it.  Unless we cut spending, we must raise revenues.  Tax and spend is bad; but borrow and spend is worse.  Any serious spending cut must affect one or more of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Defense.  There isn't enough spending in the rest of government to solve the deficit gap.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People that are debating Carl deserve a medal. It's such a dirty job that not even the Mexicans won't accept it, but I guess somebody has to do it

This is why Dave has anointed Ernest to be the forum's Sisyphus.  It keeps the rest of us sane.

"You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."

[CARLHAYDEN]

You have consistently ... supported more taxes and higher taxes.

Yada, yada, yada.

I presume by "more taxes" you mean "new additional taxes" and by "higher taxes" you mean "higher tax rates", for unless you don't intend both to mean increased tax revenue, it appears you need to visit the Department of Redundancy Department to renew your redundant license of redundancy.

The only new taxes I would support would be a carbon tax, with offsetting cuts in other taxes, as a superior way to deal with energy independence/greenhouse gases than the bureaucratic nightmare that cap and trade will be and replacement of the current corporate income tax system with one that taxes gross income instead of net income.  So while I do favor some new taxes, I favor them as replacements for the ones we already have.

If we keep our current tax structure as it is, I don't favor passing any law that would increase tax rates, just closing tax loopholes.  If you want to call the ending of "temporary tax cut" passed by the GOP in 2001 a tax hike, go ahead.  All starve the beast has done these past ten years is raise the deficit and debt. If it caused either party to show spending restraint, I don't see it.  Unless we cut spending, we must raise revenues.  Tax and spend is bad; but borrow and spend is worse.  Any serious spending cut must affect one or more of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Defense.  There isn't enough spending in the rest of government to solve the deficit gap.

"Yada, yada, yada" - typical Ernest.

Lets look at the the details.

First, you now claim to only support a "carbon tax" as part of the more taxes.  I note that you have not stated how high the new (more) taxes would be.

Second, you note that you support increasing income tax rates from their current level, which to any logical mind means "higher taxes."

Third, you really need to deal with reality. Your "greenhouse gases" fixation is laughable.  Of course your solution is "more taxes" rather than encouraging nuclear power.  So, your supposed concern is absurd, and your solution of more taxes is your answer to just about everything.

Finally, if you were to look at facts, the problem is that expenditures have increased dramatically over the past few years.  In 2000 (when the nation was relatively prosperous), federal government expenditures accounted for approximately 18% of the GDP, whereas today they account for approximately 25% of the GDP.  So, what we need is to cut spending, not have more and higher taxes, as you advocate.

To provide detail, here are the “outlays” from some selected years as percentage of GDP (table 1.2):

Year             Outlays  
        
2000              18.2 %        
2001              18.2
2009              25.0
2010              23.8

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

P.S. The highest percentage of GDP collected by the federal government as revenues (going back to 1930) was 20.9%  (during World War 2).  So, will the more taxes and higher taxes Ernest proposes set a new record?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, you now claim to only support a "carbon tax" as part of the more taxes.  I note that you have not stated how high the new (more) taxes would be.

If you want a look at a more concrete carbon tax proposal, take a look at the one I proposed and got passed back in 2007 when I was active in Atlasia.

It called for gradually phasing in a carbon tax that at the end of a 10 year period would be $50 per ton of emitted CO₂, or in more consumer graspable terms that would be roughly $0.45 per gallon of gasoline, $0.05 per kWh of coal-fired electricity, or $0.025 per kWh of natural gas-fired electricity.

Your "greenhouse gases" fixation is laughable.  Of course your solution is "more taxes" rather than encouraging nuclear power.  So, your supposed concern is absurd, and your solution of more taxes is your answer to just about everything.

Oh, how do you propose encouraging nuclear power?  The simple fact is that nuclear power is not at present economically competitive with fossil fuel power.  The only two ways of bridging the cost difference by government action are to either subsidize nuclear power or to make fossil fuel electricity more costly.  I can't believe that you favor subsidies, and of the two methods to raise fossil fuel costs, a carbon tax is far simpler to implement than the ludicrous cap and trade scheme with its bureaucracy and questionable carbon offsets.

Finally, if you were to look at facts, the problem is that expenditures have increased dramatically over the past few years.  In 2000 (when the nation was relatively prosperous), federal government expenditures accounted for approximately 18% of the GDP, whereas today they account for approximately 25% of the GDP.  So, what we need is to cut spending, not have more and higher taxes, as you advocate.

Then cut the spending.  Despite your claims, I'm not opposed to spending cuts.  Indeed, I've proposed larger cuts here than you have because I've been willing to propose specific cuts in the big four segments of the budget. Even if the rest of the budget were zeroed out, we'd still have a deficit.  But if sufficient cuts cannot be made, then increasing tax revenue to close the deficit gap must be done, preferably by beginning with the elimination of tax loopholes and simplifying the tax code.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, you now claim to only support a "carbon tax" as part of the more taxes.  I note that you have not stated how high the new (more) taxes would be.

If you want a look at a more concrete carbon tax proposal, take a look at the one I proposed and got passed back in 2007 when I was active in Atlasia.

It called for gradually phasing in a carbon tax that at the end of a 10 year period would be $50 per ton of emitted CO₂, or in more consumer graspable terms that would be roughly $0.45 per gallon of gasoline, $0.05 per kWh of coal-fired electricity, or $0.025 per kWh of natural gas-fired electricity.

Your "greenhouse gases" fixation is laughable.  Of course your solution is "more taxes" rather than encouraging nuclear power.  So, your supposed concern is absurd, and your solution of more taxes is your answer to just about everything.

Oh, how do you propose encouraging nuclear power?  The simple fact is that nuclear power is not at present economically competitive with fossil fuel power.  The only two ways of bridging the cost difference by government action are to either subsidize nuclear power or to make fossil fuel electricity more costly.  I can't believe that you favor subsidies, and of the two methods to raise fossil fuel costs, a carbon tax is far simpler to implement than the ludicrous cap and trade scheme with its bureaucracy and questionable carbon offsets.

Finally, if you were to look at facts, the problem is that expenditures have increased dramatically over the past few years.  In 2000 (when the nation was relatively prosperous), federal government expenditures accounted for approximately 18% of the GDP, whereas today they account for approximately 25% of the GDP.  So, what we need is to cut spending, not have more and higher taxes, as you advocate.

Then cut the spending.  Despite your claims, I'm not opposed to spending cuts.  Indeed, I've proposed larger cuts here than you have because I've been willing to propose specific cuts in the big four segments of the budget. Even if the rest of the budget were zeroed out, we'd still have a deficit.  But if sufficient cuts cannot be made, then increasing tax revenue to close the deficit gap must be done, preferably by beginning with the elimination of tax loopholes and simplifying the tax code.

First, its not surprising you want more taxes and higher taxes.  That has been your consistent rant.  More taxes and higher taxes is your mantra!

Second, most of the problems in the 'cost' of nuclear power are those of harrasment.  Its like the cost of medical care, which is substantially increased by the cost of frivolous litigation.

Third, I noticed that while you pretend (now) to not really, totally being opposed to all budget cuts (you say), you are enthusiastic about increasing tax revenue. 

So, should the federal government increase tax revenue (from the more taxes and higher taxes you advocate) to a level higher (as a percentage of GDP) than at ANY time in the past 80 years?!?

[Gustaf]

I won't commen on Carl's intellectually dishonest arguments (apart from noting that certain posters manage to make him look reasonable in this thread...).

However, Ernest, while I see your rationale for taxing gross income wouldn't it be very discouraging to start-up businesses who often run at a loss for several years before picking up?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I won't commen on Carl's intellectually dishonest arguments (apart from noting that certain posters manage to make him look reasonable in this thread...).

However, Ernest, while I see your rationale for taxing gross income wouldn't it be very discouraging to start-up businesses who often run at a loss for several years before picking up?

Gustaf,

While I realize you find any argument which opposes growth of the government to be "intellectually dishonest," I have cited facts and logic.

Since Ernest won't answer my question, will you?

Specifically, are you urging that the federal government extract more in revenues from the American people as measured by percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than has occured at any time in the past eighty years?

Oh, and was the economy of the United States worse off a decade ago when the federal expenditures were less than 20% of the GDP than they are today?

[Gustaf]

I won't commen on Carl's intellectually dishonest arguments (apart from noting that certain posters manage to make him look reasonable in this thread...).

However, Ernest, while I see your rationale for taxing gross income wouldn't it be very discouraging to start-up businesses who often run at a loss for several years before picking up?

Gustaf,

While I realize you find any argument which opposes growth of the government to be "intellectually dishonest," I have cited facts and logic.

Since Ernest won't answer my question, will you?

Specifically, are you urging that the federal government extract more in revenues from the American people as measured by percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than has occured at any time in the past eighty years?

Oh, and was the economy of the United States worse off a decade ago when the federal expenditures were less than 20% of the GDP than they are today?

See, this is exactly what I mean when I say that you're intellectually dishonest. The answers is yes (for me, at least) and no, obviously.

But both questions are loaded and dishonest, as I'm sure you're aware.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I won't commen on Carl's intellectually dishonest arguments (apart from noting that certain posters manage to make him look reasonable in this thread...).

However, Ernest, while I see your rationale for taxing gross income wouldn't it be very discouraging to start-up businesses who often run at a loss for several years before picking up?

Gustaf,

While I realize you find any argument which opposes growth of the government to be "intellectually dishonest," I have cited facts and logic.

Since Ernest won't answer my question, will you?

Specifically, are you urging that the federal government extract more in revenues from the American people as measured by percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than has occurred at any time in the past eighty years?

Oh, and was the economy of the United States worse off a decade ago when the federal expenditures were less than 20% of the GDP than they are today?

See, this is exactly what I mean when I say that you're intellectually dishonest. The answers is yes (for me, at least) and no, obviously.

But both questions are loaded and dishonest, as I'm sure you're aware.

So, let me make sure we have this correct.

You are agreeing that you want federal revenues to take up a larger portion of the economy than has been the case at any time in the past eighty years.

You also agree that the American economy was better off when the federal government was spending less than 20% of the GDP.

So, as follow up questions:

1.  Just how much higher do you want to increase federal revenues/taxes (last time I asked you this, you got rather evasive)?

2.  Has it ever occurred to you that there is a negative relationship between the level of federal expenditures (other than wartime),, and the overall health of the economy?

[Gustaf]

I won't commen on Carl's intellectually dishonest arguments (apart from noting that certain posters manage to make him look reasonable in this thread...).

However, Ernest, while I see your rationale for taxing gross income wouldn't it be very discouraging to start-up businesses who often run at a loss for several years before picking up?

Gustaf,

While I realize you find any argument which opposes growth of the government to be "intellectually dishonest," I have cited facts and logic.

Since Ernest won't answer my question, will you?

Specifically, are you urging that the federal government extract more in revenues from the American people as measured by percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than has occurred at any time in the past eighty years?

Oh, and was the economy of the United States worse off a decade ago when the federal expenditures were less than 20% of the GDP than they are today?

See, this is exactly what I mean when I say that you're intellectually dishonest. The answers is yes (for me, at least) and no, obviously.

But both questions are loaded and dishonest, as I'm sure you're aware.

So, let me make sure we have this correct.

You are agreeing that you want federal revenues to take up a larger portion of the economy than has been the case at any time in the past eighty years.

You also agree that the American economy was better off when the federal government was spending less than 20% of the GDP.

So, as follow up questions:

1.  Just how much higher do you want to increase federal revenues/taxes (last time I asked you this, you got rather evasive)?

2.  Has it ever occurred to you that there is a negative relationship between the level of federal expenditures (other than wartime),, and the overall health of the economy?

I don't have a precise answer to that - I think few people have. Within the context of eliminating the deficit I don't think overall spending should be significantly above 30% of GDP (how that is shared between the federal government and local levels is another issue).

Of course is has occurred to me - I study economics. It is not however the only issue that matters to the economy and the economy in itself is not the only thing that matters to society. For instance, most countries have higher levels of government spending now compared to say 200 years ago and yet most countries are better off now than they were then. There you go, with an equally dishonest question back to you.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustav,

If we allow for:

State spending in 2011 of $ 1,303,000,000,000.00 and Local spending in 2011 of $1,577,300,000,000.00 (numbers NOT POOMA)

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a

and we assume a 2011 GDP of approximately $15,319,155,000.000.00 (the government estimates $15,079,000,000.00, but I believe reducing government will increase the GDP), then since 30% of $15,319,155,000,000.00 is approximately $ 4,595,747,000,000 and if we subtract state and local spending from that number we would have federal expenditures totaling  approximately $ 1,715,447.00, which would be 11% of the GDP. (Please feel free to recalculate using government estimate of GDP if you prefer.)

Now, I’m a reasonable person and am willing to have federal expenditures reduced to approximately 18.2% of the GDP, which would be approximately $2,288,086,000,000.00., which is a whole lot less than the approximately $3,800,000,000,000.00 which Obama wants to spend.

Oh, and that total government spending would amount to approximately 34% of the GDP!  Significantly above the 30% level you suggested.

Next, you are quite correct that “the economy in itself is not the only thing that matters to society.”  That is a point I made some time ago, which you cavalierly rejected.  Robert Frost penned a rather eloquent poem about the dangers of big government.

Now, as you correctly pointed out, mere superficial expenditures over a long period of time have little relevance if inflation (and I would add, per capita) allowances are not included.  One of the problems with much of social science is that good data (such as GDP) does NOT go back “say 200 years.”

I did notice you did NOT answer my question.  So, do you really think the larger the percentage of the economy consumed by the government, the more prosperous the economy? 

Also, we cannot look merely at government expenditures, but must also include the impact of government regulation of the economy.

I do, however, want to thank you for your long term perspective (yeah, I know, Keynes said that in the long term we’re all dead), as it gives me a chance to quote to you a part of a seminal American political document (it’s a little over 200 years old):

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

The bottom line is that the federal government went crazy over the past decade, increasing its percentage of the GDP by more than 6%!