Paul Ryan obstructs tax reform with his big government border adjustment tax

[johnwk]

Instead of adopting a clean bill drastically cutting the corporate tax to encourage businesses to return to America’s shores, our Establishment, democrat-friendly, Paul Ryan wants to replace the U.S. corporate income tax with a new tax ___ a “border-adjusted” levy on U.S. companies’ domestic sales and imports ___ to offset cutting the corporate income tax.


This is the mindset of our Washington Establishment blood sucking RINOs. Instead of drastically cutting the corporate tax which is now the third highest among 188 Nations, and then cutting federal spending to make up the difference, especially cutting federal spending for functions not authorized by our Constitution starting with closing down the Federal Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, welfare programs which fund the able-bodied who are too lazy to work, etc., Paul Ryan, who should have been voted out of office for the RINO he is, wants to create a new tax so the iron fist of government will not lose its grip around the necks of the American People.


This weasel needs to be voted out of office this coming election, and then punished for conning “conservatives” that he would have their backs.

JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

[timosman]

This fucker thinks he was elected for his looks.:cool:

[Zippyjuan]

What is a "border adjustment tax"? https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/24/what-a-border-adjustment-tax-is-and-why-you-should.aspx


What is a border adjustment tax?

A border adjustment tax generally imposes a tax on imported goods while exempting exports from tax. Most countries other than the U.S. have what's known as a value-added tax or VAT, which has the same impact of imposing a tax on imported goods as the proposed border adjustment tax would have here.

In the context of Ryan's proposal, the idea behind the border adjustment provision is to try to put domestically manufactured goods and imported goods on an equal footing. Currently, if a U.S. company buys goods from a domestic supplier, then that supplier has to pay U.S. tax on its profits from the transaction. However, if the buyer purchases goods from a foreign supplier, then the foreign country is exempt from tax. The proposed border adjustment tax would impose the same border adjustment tax rate on imported goods that domestic companies would pay on their regular taxes on profits.

How would a border adjustment tax system differ from the current corporate tax structure?

The border adjustment tax is only one part of a broader proposal with respect to corporate tax. Under current law, U.S. corporations get taxed at a 35% rate on worldwide profits, regardless of where they're earned. However, corporations can defer the tax they earn from foreign sources if they leave those profits overseas.

Only when they repatriate their foreign profits do they then have to pay the tax, and they're entitled to a partial for full credit on any taxes they paid to foreign governments on that income.

The Ryan proposal creates a territorial or destination-based system of taxation, which is more consistent with what most countries around the world use. Under such a system, the U.S. would collect taxes based on where the produced items get used. In essence, profits derived within the U.S. would be subject to tax, regardless of whether a U.S. corporation or a foreign corporation earned those U.S.-based profits.

Combining destination-based taxation with border adjustments creates a much different tax system than the U.S. currently has. Under a destination-based system with border adjustments, the U.S. would no longer tax the income that companies earn overseas at all. Even if they immediately brought profits back into the U.S., corporations wouldn't have to consider that foreign income as part of their tax base for U.S. corporate tax purposes.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-21/a-border-tax-adjustment-will-cost-u-s-consumers


A Bad Way to Pay for Trump's Corporate-Tax Cuts

Republicans in Congress have come up with what they think is a great way to pay for President Trump's corporate-tax cuts: a so-called border tax adjustment, which would provide a rebate for exports while placing an added duty on the country's much larger volume of imports.

Actually, this gift to companies would come straight out of the pockets of American consumers.

Think of it as equivalent to replacing the current corporate tax with a retail sales tax. U.S. producers would gain leverage to pass the corporate tax on to U.S. consumers because competing imports also would have to pay the tax (which explains why the likes of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Koch Industries Inc. are fighting the proposal). Domestic producers don’t have that cover under the current system.

We’re talking about big money here. By one estimate, the border adjustment would generate a $1.2 trillion federal revenue gain over 10 years. That’s because as a nation we consume more than we produce, so the added import duty will far outweigh the export rebate. If that money goes to fund the corporate rate cut, the net effect will be a transfer of $1.2 trillion from U.S. consumers to U.S. producers.

Backers of the plan, championed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, are resorting to the old canard that protectionist tax practices abroad are forcing the change at home. Kevin Brady, the chief tax writer in the House of Representatives, argues that it would create a ‘fairer’ system by bringing U.S. treatment of trade flows into line with those in the euro area, where value-added taxes apply to imports but not exports.

Peter Navarro, the head of President Trump’s trade council, went further, saying that the U.S. system “is a grossly unfair subsidy to foreigners exporting to the U.S. and a backdoor tariff on American exports to the world that kills American jobs and drives American factories offshore.”

That’s wrong. Europeans use border adjustment not to seek an unfair trade advantage, but because they want their value-added tax to fall on European consumers rather than on producers. There is absolutely nothing unfair or protectionist about the European practice, which is why it is allowed under World Trade Organization rules. Only a protectionist like Navarro could, as he has done, call WTO rules ‘biased.’

In short, here’s how the Brady argument boils down: The U.S. should turn its corporate tax into a retail sales tax because the Europeans have a national consumption tax. That’s a thin reed indeed for subjecting American consumers to a $1.2 trillion hit.

[johnwk]

Madison sums up our founding father’s trade policy as follows during the creation of our Nation‘s first revenue raising Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)


“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”


The Act went on to tax specifically chosen imported articles and not one dime was raised by taxing American domestic manufacturers, the working man’s wage, or the returns on invested capital ___ all of which contributed enormously to America becoming the economic marvel of the world! It should also be noted the Act was signed by George Washington on July 4th, 1789, as if to give England a second notice of America’s independence while exercising her power to tax foreign imports in order to fill our national treasury.


In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specifically chosen articles imported, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:


"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof." SEE: An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=150)


This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I could no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seemed to be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and a traitorous sellout of America’s sovereignty to the highest international bidders by members of Congress and our presidents.


The bottom line is, taxing at our water’s edge as our Founding Fathers did helped to pave the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world. And the proof is, by the year1835 America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=005/llsl005.db&recNum=92) all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

[shakey1]

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”

When was this supposed to come about?... was a good thought tho.

[johnwk]

When was this supposed to come about?... was a good thought tho.

Huh?


JWK

[MallsRGood]

Instead of drastically cutting the corporate tax which is now the third highest among 188 Nations, and then cutting federal spending to make up the difference...

Well, see, there's the problem.

No one (least of all Trump) has any interest in cutting spending.

Trump's apparent plan (to the extent he has one) is to simultaneously cut corporate tax and increase spending.

...which is to say he is relying (again, to the extent he's even sentient) on the Fed to print the difference.

The whole tax debate is a mirage without talk about cutting spending.

[johnwk]

Well, see, there's the problem.


No one (least of all Trump) has any interest in cutting spending.

Trump's apparent plan (to the extent he has one) is to simultaneously cut corporate tax and increase spending.

...which is to say he is relying (again, to the extent he's even sentient) on the Fed to print the difference.

The whole tax debate is a mirage without talk about cutting spending.


I’ll bet that if our Constitution’s apportioned “direct tax” was used to extinguish an annual deficit when and if they occur as intended by our founders, federal spending would immediately be returned to only those functions enumerated in our Constitution. And that is why I support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment:



The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.us/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address