so if we already have too much state why you want more state?Originally Posted by FrancisMarion
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
You have been fair. I disagree with you on tariffs. I think that tariffs would be a benefit to this country. Please infer from the OP. I'm tired of typing.
Looking at it that way, then tariffs, by far and away, are the best choice.
But it's still state sponsored theft.
Huh?
If we could have no other taxes, and had to rely only on tariffs, then I would consider it an improvement, partly because tariffs would never at any level be able to raise anywhere close to the revenue that the federal government currently needs.
But if it's a question of adding tariffs in addition to revenue streams already in existence, and imagining that with new revenue from tariffs future politicians would cut our other taxes, then there's no advantage to be gained by those tariffs, and those future tax cuts would never come.
Actually it is our business, you live in a country, not on an island by yourself. To say American companies should have to compete with other countries who have artificially low labor costs is just absurd. It's like saying you are going to start a basketball league where only your team has to play by the rules and everyone else can foul, double dribble, etc all they want. You will get creamed, much like America is.
You might want to go read some Pat Buchanan, he predicted the utter disaster all this "Free Trade" was going to be, and he was right, but hey, let's listen to you and your lofty ideas that have no basis in reality. America was much more prosperous when people actually believed in trade deals that benefited the country as a whole instead of the global market and a few well connected elites.
America had tariffs and no income tax for quite some time, worked well for the most part.
Last edited by hankrichter12; 03-12-2016 at 09:47 PM.
You asked me to show you where you advocated expanding government, here you are.
Nope, govt always has had the power to impose tariffs so wouldn't be anything new. When America had tariffs there was no income tax and no IRS, go look at the days of borders and tariffs, you'll notice something - FAR smaller govt, but, of course, you keep on living in the world you create in your head rather than the one that exists, I guess if it makes you happy...
America has tariffs right now. And there is an income tax and IRS.
To advocate increasing any tariffs is to advocate expanding the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageThe theory of comparative advantage is an economic theory about the work gains from trade for individuals, firms, or nations that arise from differences in their factor endowments or technological progress.[1] In an economic model, an agent has a comparative advantage over another in producing a particular good if they can produce that good at a lower relative opportunity cost or autarky price, i.e. at a lower relative marginal cost prior to trade.[2] One does not compare the monetary costs of production or even the resource costs (labor needed per unit of output) of production. Instead, one must compare the opportunity costs of producing goods across countries.[3] The closely related law or principle of comparative advantage holds that under free trade, an agent will produce more of and consume less of a good for which they have a comparative advantage.[4]
David Ricardo developed the classical theory of comparative advantage in 1817 to explain why countries engage in international trade even when one country's workers are more efficient at producing every single good than workers in other countries. He demonstrated that if two countries capable of producing two commodities engage in the free market, then each country will increase its overall consumption by exporting the good for which it has a comparative advantage while importing the other good, provided that there exist differences in labor productivity between both countries.[5][6] Widely regarded as one of the most powerful[7] yet counter-intuitive[8] insights in economics, Ricardo's theory implies that comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage is responsible for much of international trade.
" ... if capital freely flowed towards those countries where it could be most profitably employed, there could be no difference in the rate of profit, and no other difference in the real or labor price of commodities, than the additional quantity of labor required to convey them to the various markets where they were to be sold."[31]
He explains why, from his point of view (anno 1817), this is a reasonable assumption: "Experience, however, shows, that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connexions, and entrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, checks the emigration of capital."[31]
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Not sure how well that will sell.
Is it at all possible for you to say anything that is not some grade school level straw man? Here educate yourself, or don't, I'm done dealing with you and your imaginary world.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...te-income-tax/
Last edited by hankrichter12; 03-12-2016 at 10:44 PM.
Yes, that's exactly where I am at as well.
“standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican governments and dangerous to the liberties of a free people”
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Let us include everything in Article 1 Section 8 , what would that take ? 2 percent tax , 2 percent tariff ?
Now , if you levied a tariff on me , I would defeat it , most likely . If I am a Chinaman selling chicken livers and chicken feet and you tax me , I will sell duck parts instead . If I import and sell cars and you tax me , I will import car parts , assemble them there, then sell . If you tax my car parts , I will make truck parts ......
Obviously spending must be cut .
Purchasing is voluntary? Can you live without buying anything? Yes you can buy less but it would effect all prices (unless certain items were exempted like say food but that would require an even higher tariff on everything else). It is a hidden national sales tax you cannot avoid. It hurts businesses on the other end as well- as we impose high tariffs, our trading partners also impose tariffs on our goods in response. That means our exports dry up along with imports and companies which produce goods for exports lose business and the economy loses more jobs.
If you want to encourage jobs and discourage taxes, tariffs are the worst way to go about it. First because the taxes are hidden so people are less opposed to them- they don't see the taxes and second because it destroys jobs and raises prices of everything. People see high prices and fewer jobs but don't know why.
You want people to see just how much money they pay in taxes if you want them to be opposed to them. Even a national sales tax would be better for those two reasons. It has less of an impact on jobs (doesn't hurt the export side though it does raise prices for consumers who have less to spend which means fewer jobs anyways) and they see how much they are actually paying.
The other impact is that it switches taxes from being regressive (where those at high incomes pay more of their incomes in taxes than those at lower incomes) to a progressive tax (where those at the lower end pay more in taxes). Lower incomes spend a higher percent of their incomes on goods and services so buying things means they are paying more in taxes. On top of that, those at the lower end currently pay little to no income taxes (45% of income tax filers owed zero net taxes last year) currently so their tax bills would go up while those at the other end would see their taxes drop considerably.
If high taxes are the issue, the real issue is not the taxes themselves but spending which requires all those taxes to fund them.
So you weren't really asking what's wrong with your proposal, but how well it will sell?
There is no possible way that tariffs at any level would be able to fully fund current federal spending. As the tariff rate got high enough, the revenue it brought in would get lower with each further increase, rather than higher, as the amount of demand for imports would drop off more steeply than the added revenue per unit.
As I said above, if tariffs were the only revenue source, this would be a selling point for using tariffs instead of anything else. But when it's tariffs plus other things, this advantage disappears, and they are all con with no pro.
The protectionist argument for them is nonsense.
I almost have to assume that some folks livelihood on this thread is dependent on selling imported cheap crap.
I see a market opening up for American industry with imports being subjected to tariffs. I'm not in agreement with the consumer paying the tariff indirectly. I'm in agreement with the consumer choosing domestic made products.
Every problem has a solution, and every solution a problem.
I was installing some hardwood floors in my house about 10 years ago. I went to a floor product retailer to buy some of those nice wooden vents that sit flush with the floor. A much more refined look than those metal grates.
Anyhow, they were made of red oak. I looked at the packaging and saw that they were made in Asia. I said to the retailer, "This is North American Red Oak". He said, "Yes". I said in an inquisitive tone, "This means that it is less expensive to fell the tree in Ohio, send the wood to Asia, have it made into this little vent, and send it back to sell here at your store." He said, "Yes".
Something doesn't equate people.
I could show you textile and furniture equipment all over the piedmont of NC that is sitting under a thick layer of dust. Perfectly good machinery, that with a little tune-up, could be in production mode quite quickly.
This equipment can be bought for next to nothing as we speak. I might invest.
Exactly. We would head towards zero imports and zero exports. (noting that we import a significant amount of food and energy besides things like oak floor grate coverings).
Figures for 2013. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/1.../#.VuXNRPkrKUkOur food exports last year totaled $133 billion, while we imported $110 billion worth of food, feed, and beverages. We are importing fish ($17 billion), fruit ($12 billion), and vegetables ($11 billion) for our dinner plates, while exporting soybeans ($26 billion), meat and poultry ($18 billion), and corn ($10 billion) to meet world demand.
About 20% of our energy needs are also imported.an estimated 15 percent of the U.S. food supply is imported, including 50 percent of fresh fruits, 20 percent of fresh vegetables and 80 percent of seafood.
Buy it and start it up.
Don't.
It's sitting dust covered for a reason.
I have not quite put my finger on what that reason is, but it is not found within standard economic arguments.
For instance, in a thread announcing the world's largest cruise ship ever built, launched last week in France:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us