Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2014, 05:42:20 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Economics (Moderator: ag)
| | |-+  Tax Code That Encourages Manufacturing and Savings
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Author Topic: Tax Code That Encourages Manufacturing and Savings  (Read 4728 times)
Wonkish1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2214


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: January 21, 2012, 01:47:30 am »
Ignore

Capitalism is amazingly decentralized.

Not if you look at the banking sector...



JP Morgan Chase is reportedly holding more than $1 of every $10 on deposit in the US.

All these right wing statements sound nice until you actually look at real world data.  The real world is not a simple model from Econ 101.  In the real world power in certain areas of the private sector is concentrated in the hands of a few players who answer to a comparatively small number of share holders.  Further compounding the problem is most share holders are comatose.  I do not attend the meetings of the thousands of companies I own in my index funds and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess neither do most people.  On the other hand over one hundred million people turned out in 2008 and ultimately elected Obama.

I guess you don't understand much about even the concept of decentralization. First, once you actually are decentralized to the point where a company is in a one or only a handful of industries its already very decentralized. If we were talking about the federal government they are involved in thousands of industries. So on that mark alone its public sector 0, private sector 1,000,000.

Furthermore, even JP Morgan itself is very decentralized. There are several divisions within JP that act very autonomous from the overall company. JP Morgan I-Banking, JP Morgan C-Banking, JP Morgan Mortgage Division, JP Morgan Wealth Management, etc. and when you get down to JP Chase branches they are very autonomous entities as well where the bank manager has substantial authority. But this is just a minor point.

Lastly, lets just point out that if it wasn't for the Federal government...Paulson, E-Harmony(Geitner's nick name), etc. many of these banks would never be this big. And that goes for both the aftermath of the crash and the run up because they got preferential treatment through the NY Fed on their capital requirements.

When you are a customer of a company you have anywhere between 100 to 1,000,000 times the voting power you do when you cast a vote for President. Lets face it when you vote for President (while its a good civic thing to vote) your vote really doesn't matter. It has little impact. When you vote with your money for a company by being a customer your 'voting power' could be significant enough to be the difference of that small company surviving or dying. The distinction isn't even close.

If you honestly believe what you just wrote here then it is obvious to me that even if hell freezes over you are never going to even consider some of the premises I've put forward.  To be honest my purpose here is not to convince you.  It is to provide the counter argument.  Well, perhaps not.  I suppose the counter argument would be the private sector is bad and government should take over.  I don't believe that and I don't believe government is infallible.  We need government and we need the private sector.  And I don't believe that there has been any definitive published study that illustrates the government screws up more than the private sector or vice versa.  Any statements of that sort are pure conjecture.  A lot of times a smooth running government is a government we don't even notice.  We don't send thank you cards for nice roads.  We don't recommend the post office online because a birthday card makes it halfway across the country in 48hr for a few pennies.  We just see the Iraq war or hear about The Bridge to Nowhere or my favorite boogieman stories about voter ids and welfare queens.  No one is running ad campaigns about the river that is not on fire in your town thanks to the EPA preventing private sector pollution.  We as Americans have an infinite capacity to take things for granted.

I would love to see a model that took the good stuff and the bad stuff and told us once and for all if the government is worth it or if it sucks compared to the private sector.  Too complex of a thing to do I guess.  But to just assume the government sucks and go from there is pretty reckless.

Link I've always addressed each of your comments directly and fully to the best of my ability unlike many people that try to shoot off on a tangent every time they can't specifically address something.

To say that I don't take seriously the premises that other people(including you) put forward is patently absurd. Point me to a question I've dodged, or an answer I haven't been willing to explain in detail, or a comment I wasn't willing to address. You can fault me for sometimes being harsh to some posters, but one thing I don't think you could ever fault me for on here is not being thorough in considering and addressing the premises and points of others on here.

Link do you actually believe that the difference between success of the USA and the failure of the Soviet Union was chance? Because if you don't think their are inherent advantages built into one vs the other and that failure/success between one or the other is luck then you would have to answer that question in the affirmative.

And if you want to talk about taking things for granted the private sector provides products, services, etc. for about 20,000 things in your life before you even get into your car to work. And the number is so high because as something as simple as your toothbrush has about dozens of component industries and companies and thousands of workers that contribute to it. The fact that you could be blind to things that surround you all day is a much greater example of taking things for granted and in general being blind than any of the stuff you mentioned possibly could.

And I've got a perfect model for you Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Red China, etc. So to assume government is great and does no harm is in my mind much more reckless.

And by the way I can go to town on government waste that has been ongoing for decades and there is no way you could ever possibly come close to comparing against it. I've been avoiding it because of the book sized comment it would produce, but if you're going to make me go there I will.
Logged
Wonkish1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2214


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: January 21, 2012, 01:52:18 am »
Ignore

Link,

Can you at least admit that the federal government is generally less accountable and efficient than state/local governments? To take it a step further, and maybe this is a bridge too far for you, can you admit that centralized governments, given their ability to effectively raise more and more revenue via coercion, are able to consistently continue performing activities that the "consumers" (i.e., taxpayers) of the government would rather not pay for?

By the way, you quite frequently speak of the post office. There was once a time, not too long ago, when USPS insisted that only they should deliver expedited mail because they believed that only USPS could properly serve consumers. Well, guess what: UPS, FedEx and many other companies can do it more efficiently than USPS does today, never mind decades ago. It's better for the American consumer that private companies were able to enter that market, creating a competitive atmosphere that benefits consumers, as opposed to leaving the market as a government-protected/controlled monopoly (which inevitably leads to higher prices and usually lower quality service).

And by the way speaking of considering premises...Politico I wouldn't expect much out of Link on your questions. I've frequently asked if he would give me some of the most basic "give me's" out there where I guessed any self respecting guy would at least grant me that much. In each case Link just ditches the question altogether. Hell I just asked one only about a half dozen posts ago. So what was the outcome of him "considering that premise"? Crickets.
Logged
Wonkish1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2214


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: January 21, 2012, 01:58:46 am »
Ignore

Well two companies working in tandem caused global devastation through one simple decision, Moody's and S&P.  The only governmental semi-equivalent in recent history was Bush's war.  Well actually he made two decisions.  First the tax cuts and then the war.

Something is seriously wrong with you think that the only money the government has ever wasted was during the Iraq War. Why am I even talking to you if you are that out of it?

Mmmm... again I am giving an example.  I don't think Moody's and S&P are the only two companies to royally screw up.  They were two of the most egregious examples in my lifetime.  Likewise the Iraq War was not the only totally fiscally stupid thing the government has done.  In fact if you read the post you quoted I also mentioned the unpaid for Bush tax cuts.  They were two of the most amazing governmental screw ups in my lifetime.  As I said in my other post I do not have the time to list every single mistake in the private or public sector.  I can only give you examples of some of most egregious activity.

To me there seems ample evidence that the government and the private sector do some things very right and there is ample evidence that they both can screw things up on an epic scale.

You just completely contradicted yourself in 2 posts.

This:
Quote
The only governmental semi-equivalent in recent history was Bush's war.  Well actually he made two decisions.  First the tax cuts and then the war.

and this:

Quote
Likewise the Iraq War was not the only totally fiscally stupid thing the government has done... As I said in my other post I do not have the time to list every single mistake in the private or public sector.

Are 100% in contradiction. First you say that these were the *only* "semi-equivalents" and then say that you don't have the time to list all of the public sector mistakes. One presumes next to zero mistakes and the other presumes hundreds.

Furthermore, as I've said in the other post I could easily produce a list of ongoing government waste that has been going on for decades that would trump anything you could possibly produce on the private sector. I'm hoping that I don't have to hit two "character limits" on two separate posts to do it, but nonetheless I could quite easily produce a $hit load for you.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4888
View Profile
« Reply #78 on: January 21, 2012, 02:32:45 am »
Ignore

And if you want to talk about taking things for granted the private sector provides products, services, etc. for about 20,000 things in your life before you even get into your car to work. And the number is so high because as something as simple as your toothbrush has about dozens of component industries and companies and thousands of workers that contribute to it. The fact that you could be blind to things that surround you all day is a much greater example of taking things for granted and in general being blind than any of the stuff you mentioned possibly could.

Eloquently put, as always. A video to complement this powerful notion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
ChairmanSanchez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13162
United States


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2012, 01:34:58 pm »
Ignore

Here is my idea....please note, I have little to no economic knowledge.

1. Withdrawal the US from NAFTA, and other global Free Trade treaties which lead to outsourcing of jobs.
2. Place tariffs on imports from China and India.
3. Tax Deductions for business which use only American made equipment/products.
4. Institute a Flat Tax of about 15% on everyone’s income for the time being.
5. Cut spending on Defense; abolish HUD, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Agriculture Departments.
6. Lower corporate tax rate to 15%, abolish Death tax. Give tax credits to small businesses who hire returning Veterans. 
Logged

America's like that hot chick everyone wants, and illegal immigrants are all the nerds that she should say "no" to.
Link
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3464
View Profile
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2012, 03:18:48 pm »
Ignore

Here is my idea....please note, I have little to no economic knowledge.

1. Withdrawal the US from NAFTA, and other global Free Trade treaties which lead to outsourcing of jobs.
2. Place tariffs on imports from China and India.
3. Tax Deductions for business which use only American made equipment/products.
4. Institute a Flat Tax of about 15% on everyone’s income for the time being.
5. Cut spending on Defense; abolish HUD, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Agriculture Departments.
6. Lower corporate tax rate to 15%, abolish Death tax. Give tax credits to small businesses who hire returning Veterans. 


I'm glad you said this...

I have little to no economic knowledge.


Most people don't.  The problem is they don't even realise it.

The problem with "abolishing" HUD, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Agriculture Departments is most people don't know what these departments do.  FYI part of what the Interior Department does is protect the president.  I'm not sure the people running for president that say this kind of thing even realize that.  Some just hand wave and say other departments can do the work.  Well if that's the case the head count in other departments is going to go up.  I'm not sure in the end you are really going to save much money for all the disruption you are going to cause.  People say eliminate this department or that department but I have never seen a detailed plan as to how they are actually going to accomplish that.  If they can make it work I'll vote for them.  There is no need to have the government any bigger than it has to be.

The tariffs thing is just going to spark a destructive trade war.  What would the justification for a Republican to slap tariffs on China anyway?
Logged

Insane quote of the year-

"Every aspect of life in America is worse than when he [Obama] took over" -Marco Rubio
Wonkish1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2214


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2012, 04:01:56 pm »
Ignore

Here is my idea....please note, I have little to no economic knowledge.

1. Withdrawal the US from NAFTA, and other global Free Trade treaties which lead to outsourcing of jobs.
2. Place tariffs on imports from China and India.
3. Tax Deductions for business which use only American made equipment/products.
4. Institute a Flat Tax of about 15% on everyone’s income for the time being.
5. Cut spending on Defense; abolish HUD, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Agriculture Departments.
6. Lower corporate tax rate to 15%, abolish Death tax. Give tax credits to small businesses who hire returning Veterans. 


I'm glad you said this...

I have little to no economic knowledge.


Most people don't.  The problem is they don't even realise it.

The problem with "abolishing" HUD, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Agriculture Departments is most people don't know what these departments do.  FYI part of what the Interior Department does is protect the president.  I'm not sure the people running for president that say this kind of thing even realize that.  Some just hand wave and say other departments can do the work.  Well if that's the case the head count in other departments is going to go up.  I'm not sure in the end you are really going to save much money for all the disruption you are going to cause.  People say eliminate this department or that department but I have never seen a detailed plan as to how they are actually going to accomplish that.  If they can make it work I'll vote for them.  There is no need to have the government any bigger than it has to be.

The tariffs thing is just going to spark a destructive trade war.  What would the justification for a Republican to slap tariffs on China anyway?

Just two comments.

1) The eliminating of departments and the merging of the needed duties does have one nice benefit. It lowers the amount of cabinet positions that make a budgetary request to the President and congress. And it lowers the amount of congressional sub committees that make a budgetary request. That is usually a good thing because at least it would do more to reduce the amount of appropriation increases done because the 'HUD secretary is a good friend' or 'the chair of x sub committee helped me out on blah, blah before'. And instead more appropriation increases(or decreases for that matter) will be based on the merits of what the money is used for instead of trying to help out out so and so for whatever personal reason.

2) Actually the wind down and dissolution of departments has been quite easy in the past. Remember the Aeronautics board? That was just about as easy as it gets.
Logged
Link
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3464
View Profile
« Reply #82 on: January 22, 2012, 06:40:37 pm »
Ignore

No individual company produces losses like the Federal government does and its not even close.

That's an interesting statement.  No company produces surpluses like the US government... and it's not even close.  It's the government of the largest economy in the world and takes care of 300+ million people.  How big were you expecting its surplus/shortfalls to be?
Logged

Insane quote of the year-

"Every aspect of life in America is worse than when he [Obama] took over" -Marco Rubio
Link
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3464
View Profile
« Reply #83 on: January 22, 2012, 06:51:04 pm »
Ignore

Just two comments.

1) The eliminating of departments and the merging of the needed duties does have one nice benefit. It lowers the amount of cabinet positions that make a budgetary request to the President and congress. And it lowers the amount of congressional sub committees that make a budgetary request. That is usually a good thing because at least it would do more to reduce the amount of appropriation increases done because the 'HUD secretary is a good friend' or 'the chair of x sub committee helped me out on blah, blah before'. And instead more appropriation increases(or decreases for that matter) will be based on the merits of what the money is used for instead of trying to help out out so and so for whatever personal reason.

2) Actually the wind down and dissolution of departments has been quite easy in the past. Remember the Aeronautics board? That was just about as easy as it gets.

That may be so but as often as I've heard people very forcefully say we should eliminate this or that department I have not seen anyone put forth a concrete plan for how they are going to do it and how the functions of the agency in question will be carried out post closure.  I aslo have not seen a detailed analysis of the supposed cost savings and where exactly they are going to come from.  I have no doubt that there are some jobs within the federal government that can be eliminated.  The same could be said of every Fortune 500 company.  I just want to see a real plan.
Logged

Insane quote of the year-

"Every aspect of life in America is worse than when he [Obama] took over" -Marco Rubio
Wonkish1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2214


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: January 22, 2012, 07:02:21 pm »
Ignore

No individual company produces losses like the Federal government does and its not even close.

That's an interesting statement.  No company produces surpluses like the US government... and it's not even close.  It's the government of the largest economy in the world and takes care of 300+ million people.  How big were you expecting its surplus/shortfalls to be?

Its got customers by force what do you think that it can produce in surplus/deficit? And when I'm talking about wasted money I'm not referring to deficits, I'm referring to unnecessarily spent money that could have achieved similar or even better results doing or utilizing something else.

Keep in mind that government is practically the only entity in the United States that still uses paper for a decent chunk of its processes because they don't want to let go of all of the administrators that it takes to process, document, file, and retrieve paper docs vs. going paperless(electronic). That alone is at least a 10s of millions of dollars a year(likely more than 100 million a year) and that is absolutely tiny relative to other stupid crap it does.

Take a look at the procurement process they use. They pay a company for development of an item on annual "cost plus return basis" so that they are encouraged to keep the project going in near perpetuity so they can continue to collect from the federal government. If they simply moved to a payment for finished development and payment per item the incentive for the company would be to finish the project as soon as possible and to come in under budget. This one stupid move alone accounts for likely more than 100 billion a year in wasted federal appropriation. Name me one company on Earth that can afford to waste 100 billion a year and not go bankrupt almost immediately?
Logged
Wonkish1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2214


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: January 22, 2012, 07:19:22 pm »
Ignore

Just two comments.

1) The eliminating of departments and the merging of the needed duties does have one nice benefit. It lowers the amount of cabinet positions that make a budgetary request to the President and congress. And it lowers the amount of congressional sub committees that make a budgetary request. That is usually a good thing because at least it would do more to reduce the amount of appropriation increases done because the 'HUD secretary is a good friend' or 'the chair of x sub committee helped me out on blah, blah before'. And instead more appropriation increases(or decreases for that matter) will be based on the merits of what the money is used for instead of trying to help out out so and so for whatever personal reason.

2) Actually the wind down and dissolution of departments has been quite easy in the past. Remember the Aeronautics board? That was just about as easy as it gets.

That may be so but as often as I've heard people very forcefully say we should eliminate this or that department I have not seen anyone put forth a concrete plan for how they are going to do it and how the functions of the agency in question will be carried out post closure.  I aslo have not seen a detailed analysis of the supposed cost savings and where exactly they are going to come from.  I have no doubt that there are some jobs within the federal government that can be eliminated.  The same could be said of every Fortune 500 company.  I just want to see a real plan.

I will agree with you that most people who claim to want to close an agency are saying so *usually* because they don't know what the department does. I'll grant you that.

But I'll also say that when people who are knowledgeable or have researched enough to know the functions of a particular agency still recommends its closing its because they have concluded that at least the vast majority of its functions are completely unnecessary.

In terms of how the remaining functions get folded into other departments, I just have to giggle a little and say that there are literally thousands of plausible options for doing so and its a little weird to ask for a detailed plan of such(of which nobody including yourself would ever read if it was produced; I mean did you read the Homeland Security re-org when it was created? I sure as hell didn't I mean how unbelievably boring of a read would that be). Its like asking your boss at a fortune 500 company what are all of the *possible* departments and executives that janitorial would report to if you outsourced it all to local companies. He would probably ask you to get out of his office.

And generally speaking the savings is computed by first adding up all of the department functions that you believe are unnecessary and wont be transferred to another department plus any redundancy you can find in the transfer process. Since the latter will be in the plan you wont read then I would probably suggest you look at the budget docs of a particular agency and determine what percentage of functions aren't needed and calculate the amount of gov. employees + overhead that would be wiped out if you eliminated those functions completely.

That is a start. Unless of course you think that all of the functions of all of the agencies are necessary and should be handled by the government then I can't really help you. But then I've got to ask, Seriously? Like WTF!
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 07:21:35 pm by Wonkish1 »Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30571


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: January 22, 2012, 07:29:26 pm »
Ignore

We need to encourage hiring Americans and penalize companies like Apple that use slave labor in China just so that their product can be 10% cheaper.
Logged
ChairmanSanchez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13162
United States


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: January 22, 2012, 08:31:58 pm »
Ignore

Here is my idea....please note, I have little to no economic knowledge.

1. Withdrawal the US from NAFTA, and other global Free Trade treaties which lead to outsourcing of jobs.
2. Place tariffs on imports from China and India.
3. Tax Deductions for business which use only American made equipment/products.
4. Institute a Flat Tax of about 15% on everyone’s income for the time being.
5. Cut spending on Defense; abolish HUD, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Agriculture Departments.
6. Lower corporate tax rate to 15%, abolish Death tax. Give tax credits to small businesses who hire returning Veterans. 


I'm glad you said this...

I have little to no economic knowledge.


Most people don't.  The problem is they don't even realise it.

The problem with "abolishing" HUD, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Agriculture Departments is most people don't know what these departments do.  FYI part of what the Interior Department does is protect the president.  I'm not sure the people running for president that say this kind of thing even realize that.  Some just hand wave and say other departments can do the work.  Well if that's the case the head count in other departments is going to go up.  I'm not sure in the end you are really going to save much money for all the disruption you are going to cause.  People say eliminate this department or that department but I have never seen a detailed plan as to how they are actually going to accomplish that.  If they can make it work I'll vote for them.  There is no need to have the government any bigger than it has to be.

The tariffs thing is just going to spark a destructive trade war.  What would the justification for a Republican to slap tariffs on China anyway?
The duties of protecting the President would be moved to Defense, which would also face some cuts. But overall, I know downright abolishing these departments is unlikely. But cuts can be made. Just visiting the Agriculture departments cafeteria in DC last May made me seethe with anger over the bloatedness of the Federal government.
Logged

America's like that hot chick everyone wants, and illegal immigrants are all the nerds that she should say "no" to.
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: January 23, 2012, 04:58:53 am »
Ignore

We need to encourage hiring Americans and penalize companies like Apple that use slave labor in China just so that their product can be 10% cheaper.

Huzzah.  And by 'penalize' I would prefer the term 'nationalize'.  Seize their assets and throw them in a special new prison in the Bahamas - a sort of Guantanamo for the predacious class.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

AG Simfan
Simfan34
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8055


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: January 24, 2012, 04:18:38 pm »
Ignore

Some ideas:

Lowever the top corporate rate to 20% while cutting out loopholes.
Cut the top rate by 5% while phasing out most of the deductions and loopholes.
Tax capital gains for those earning more than $150,000 at the same rate as regular income.
Institute a 27.5% tax deduction for income sent to a savings account of up to $100,000 per year.
New tax credit for the opening and maintainance of manufacturing and innovative industries. Higher credits for heavy industry.
A tax credit for the employment of indviduals in those industries, with a higher credit for jobs in STEM-related fields.
75% tax credit for private infrastructural spending. Income invested in the to-be-created National Infrastructure Bank is not taxed.
110% tax deduction for the start-up costs of a manufacturer or researcher.
Impose a 10% VAT. People earning under $40,000 will be eligible for reimbursment of VAT up to the first 5% of their income, first 15% if under $25,000.

Much, much more is needed to stimulate spending and manufacturing, but this is what pertains to the tax code. I'm more than willing to elaborate.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 04:22:50 pm by Simfan34 »Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13287
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: January 27, 2012, 12:33:58 am »
Ignore

Some ideas:

Lowever the top corporate rate to 20% while cutting out loopholes.
Cut the top rate by 5% while phasing out most of the deductions and loopholes.
Tax capital gains for those earning more than $150,000 at the same rate as regular income.
Institute a 27.5% tax deduction for income sent to a savings account of up to $100,000 per year.
New tax credit for the opening and maintainance of manufacturing and innovative industries. Higher credits for heavy industry.
A tax credit for the employment of indviduals in those industries, with a higher credit for jobs in STEM-related fields.
75% tax credit for private infrastructural spending. Income invested in the to-be-created National Infrastructure Bank is not taxed.
110% tax deduction for the start-up costs of a manufacturer or researcher.
Impose a 10% VAT. People earning under $40,000 will be eligible for reimbursment of VAT up to the first 5% of their income, first 15% if under $25,000.

Much, much more is needed to stimulate spending and manufacturing, but this is what pertains to the tax code. I'm more than willing to elaborate.

Whenever you're ready, Simfan....   
Logged

AG Simfan
Simfan34
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8055


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: January 27, 2012, 12:41:06 am »
Ignore

Some ideas:

Lowever the top corporate rate to 20% while cutting out loopholes.
Cut the top rate by 5% while phasing out most of the deductions and loopholes.
Tax capital gains for those earning more than $150,000 at the same rate as regular income.
Institute a 27.5% tax deduction for income sent to a savings account of up to $100,000 per year.
New tax credit for the opening and maintainance of manufacturing and innovative industries. Higher credits for heavy industry.
A tax credit for the employment of indviduals in those industries, with a higher credit for jobs in STEM-related fields.
75% tax credit for private infrastructural spending. Income invested in the to-be-created National Infrastructure Bank is not taxed.
110% tax deduction for the start-up costs of a manufacturer or researcher.
Impose a 10% VAT. People earning under $40,000 will be eligible for reimbursment of VAT up to the first 5% of their income, first 15% if under $25,000.

Much, much more is needed to stimulate spending and manufacturing, but this is what pertains to the tax code. I'm more than willing to elaborate.

Whenever you're ready, Simfan....   

Over the weekend, sorry.... I am quite busy.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12976


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: January 27, 2012, 06:16:20 pm »
Ignore

Let's try again (and this time, without party-line spambot answers):

If you were to design a tax code for the United States that would encourage manufacturing and producing exports, as well as encouraging savings over credit-driven consumption, how would you do it?  

Are we talking about "encouraging manufacturing output" or "encouraging manufacturing employment"?

They are not perfectly correlated.
Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13287
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #93 on: January 27, 2012, 08:17:45 pm »
Ignore

Let's try again (and this time, without party-line spambot answers):

If you were to design a tax code for the United States that would encourage manufacturing and producing exports, as well as encouraging savings over credit-driven consumption, how would you do it?  

Are we talking about "encouraging manufacturing output" or "encouraging manufacturing employment"?

They are not perfectly correlated.

The latter -and preferably without protectionist measures like tariffs.  I am, however, open to President Obama's suggestion of removing tax credits for companies that outsource and rewarding those that relocate back to the United States.  
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12976


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #94 on: January 27, 2012, 10:09:01 pm »
Ignore

Let's try again (and this time, without party-line spambot answers):

If you were to design a tax code for the United States that would encourage manufacturing and producing exports, as well as encouraging savings over credit-driven consumption, how would you do it?  

Are we talking about "encouraging manufacturing output" or "encouraging manufacturing employment"?

They are not perfectly correlated.

The latter -and preferably without protectionist measures like tariffs.  I am, however, open to President Obama's suggestion of removing tax credits for companies that outsource and rewarding those that relocate back to the United States.  

Than the only way is to shift to labor intensive manufacturing and not capital intensive. The US has had no problem doubling output and shedding roughly 1/3rd of labor employed.
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: February 02, 2012, 02:08:51 am »
Ignore

0% income tax, cap gains = 0%, corporate = flat 10%, and Polk/Wilson tariffs.
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

Skyrim now, Skyrim tomorrow, Morrowind Forever!

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13287
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #96 on: February 17, 2012, 11:10:01 pm »
Ignore

Some ideas:

Lowever the top corporate rate to 20% while cutting out loopholes.
Cut the top rate by 5% while phasing out most of the deductions and loopholes.
Tax capital gains for those earning more than $150,000 at the same rate as regular income.
Institute a 27.5% tax deduction for income sent to a savings account of up to $100,000 per year.
New tax credit for the opening and maintainance of manufacturing and innovative industries. Higher credits for heavy industry.
A tax credit for the employment of indviduals in those industries, with a higher credit for jobs in STEM-related fields.
75% tax credit for private infrastructural spending. Income invested in the to-be-created National Infrastructure Bank is not taxed.
110% tax deduction for the start-up costs of a manufacturer or researcher.
Impose a 10% VAT. People earning under $40,000 will be eligible for reimbursment of VAT up to the first 5% of their income, first 15% if under $25,000.

Much, much more is needed to stimulate spending and manufacturing, but this is what pertains to the tax code. I'm more than willing to elaborate.

Whenever you're ready, Simfan....   

Over the weekend, sorry.... I am quite busy.

Are you still busy?  I am keen to see what you have in mind... 
Logged

AG Simfan
Simfan34
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8055


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: February 18, 2012, 11:55:02 pm »
Ignore

Some ideas:

Lowever the top corporate rate to 20% while cutting out loopholes.
Cut the top rate by 5% while phasing out most of the deductions and loopholes.
Tax capital gains for those earning more than $150,000 at the same rate as regular income.
Institute a 27.5% tax deduction for income sent to a savings account of up to $100,000 per year.
New tax credit for the opening and maintainance of manufacturing and innovative industries. Higher credits for heavy industry.
A tax credit for the employment of indviduals in those industries, with a higher credit for jobs in STEM-related fields.
75% tax credit for private infrastructural spending. Income invested in the to-be-created National Infrastructure Bank is not taxed.
110% tax deduction for the start-up costs of a manufacturer or researcher.
Impose a 10% VAT. People earning under $40,000 will be eligible for reimbursment of VAT up to the first 5% of their income, first 15% if under $25,000.

Much, much more is needed to stimulate spending and manufacturing, but this is what pertains to the tax code. I'm more than willing to elaborate.

Whenever you're ready, Simfan....   

Over the weekend, sorry.... I am quite busy.

Are you still busy?  I am keen to see what you have in mind... 

I'll have it tomorrow! Been busy, and reading up.
Logged

AG Simfan
Simfan34
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8055


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: April 27, 2012, 11:27:01 pm »
Ignore

The beginning:

I have never found the idea of a "service economy" even mildly palatable. Service economy? Who are we servicing- ourselves? With what money? People abroad? They can go to cheaper countries. The idea of a "service economy" is a fallacy- if we lose that cornerstone of any economy- manufacturing, particularly heavy industry- the need to provide services will eventually diminish and those in need of services (i.e., emerging economies) will provide them for ourselves.

Even if we accept the Luddite fallacy as a... fallacy, we still have to face those jobs lost to technology, which in the coming years will even beyond our comprehension of what a machine or computer could do: waitstaff, janitors, even mid-level management. With the ever quickening pace of technological innovation, it will be one of the great challenges of the 21st century to teach or re-train people with the skills necessary to compete in the job market at a rate to keep up with innovation. That is to say, have them learn the skills before they're rendered redundant by the latest widget or whatsit.

With an increasing proportion of the population holding redundant or soon-to-be-redundant jobs, more and more of whatever wealth that remains in the country will be concentrated in managerial positions, which will require ever higher amounts of education (already, I know some companies that seek applicants with a BS, MS, and MBA). Who's most likely to be educated? The children of the wealthy. These jobs that require advanced degrees are more so jobs that involve "thinking"- and so there does exist an window for education for jobs that will not be redundant- and predicting the "grunt jobs" of the future that will not be done by algorithms.

Many Americans believe that the rise of China, as well as other so-called “emerging economies” such as Russia, South Korea, India, and Brazil, will lead to challenges to American economic growth and continued prosperity, but many more point to unrealized fears of the United States being eclipsed in economic might and global preeminence by the Soviet Union and Japan. What the new challengers have in common is population strength- both India and China have populations over a billion, as compared to Japan and the Soviet Union, which both had populations near 150 million, and the United States, with 300 million people. Demographics are on the emerging economies’ side, and the United States will have to effectively compete in order to retain its position in the world, which is rapidly eroding.

Essential to this position is the economy, and essential to the economy is manufacturing. For decades now American manufacturing has weakened, and so the cornerstone of the economy has been eroded as. Many still fail to realize this. If the United States intends to compete in the 21st century, much remain the world’s most important economy, it will have to develop a clear, developed, and effective policy towards manufacturing. Attitudes must change. People must no longer regard manufacturing as an artifact of the past, something that the United States can do without. Without such changes, the decline and demise of American manufacturing will soon become the decline and demise of America.
Logged

Thanks for all the fish!
Avelaval
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1293


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: April 28, 2012, 12:19:29 am »
Ignore

Let's try again (and this time, without party-line spambot answers):

If you were to design a tax code for the United States that would encourage manufacturing and producing exports, as well as encouraging savings over credit-driven consumption, how would you do it?  

The quick-and-dirty, damn-the-consequences solution is this:
1) No taxes on companies that produce physical goods exclusively in the US,
2) High tariffs,
3) Cause deflation by burning (literally) a substantial amount of tax revenue.

That ought to encourage savings over consumption and manufacturing domestically versus overseas.  Please wait until I move out of the country to do these things.
Logged

Signatures suck.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines