Salnax said:
I'm curious. Which times were these? |
1816, and from Lincoln to Coolidge, the Party of Protection, the US become the industrial power of the world and contributed 42% of manufactured goods.
MDMAlliance said:
|
1. If you end the wars and bring a good number of troops home, you'd cut a significant amount of money off of DoD spending. We're spending anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion annually overseas. Throw in a few other cuts here and there, and saving $100-150 billion USD would be pretty easy.
2. When I talk about a flat tax, I am talking about a flat tax with a pre-built deduction, which would be a percentage above the poverty level. Anything below that is 100% exempt. Therefore, if the deduction was $30,000 and you made $50,000, only $20,000 would be taxed. If you made $100,000, you would be taxed on the $70,000. The FairTax comes with a built-in prebate system, in which the government would pay each family a fixed amount of money each month to offset the tax. That would ensure that it is not regressive.
3. No. I'm talking about transitioning away from the 9.6% to 11.3% of highly regressive taxes that are under the "payroll" heading. Every American is taxed up to $107,000 USD annually, which is put into Social Security. The huge issue with that is that Social Security is not solvent, meaning that you will not get that 9.6% to 11.3% back, unless there are huge, negative changes made to Social Security (such as raising the retirement age).
Furthermore, another issue is with how Social Security invests its money. Instead of investing in American businesses, it invests in American government. That is, buys T-bills and other government debt. That provides an atrocious return on investment, which is about 2.32% annually. That is barely above inflation. Therefore, if the system was changed to a defined benefit plan, which invested the payroll taxes into bonds, stocks, and other securities (which would be selected by the government, or whatever entity was preferred - many countries do this, as well as state governments), a much higher interest rate would be achieved, which would result in a solvent pension system. You could then easily lower taxes (since less money was needed to meet OASDI guidelines), or pay out more money.
4. How so? Our Federal Reserve just stated they are printing $40 billion dollars each month to buy mortgages and securities. The result is very inflationary.
5. There are government regulations over almost everything you partake in. Your job has many government regulations. The cars you drive have many regulations. The healthcare you buy has many regulations. One way or another, government regulations restrict lots of things you do. You may not realize it, but it absolutely does.
For example, I looked over car regulations yesterday - what it takes to get a vehicle on the road. Do you know how many tens of millions of dollars must be spent on compliance costs? The result is the monopolization of the auto industry. New competitors cannot afford the government mandates, so they fold up. It stifles technology. Therefore, my suggestion is to allow businesses to compete in a very free-market experiment. If they can't build a better car, give better health care, or build a cheaper, safer house, then keep the regulations. But if they can innovate, then let them.
6. Health care costs have shot up since ACA went into effect. It does nothing to contain costs. Nothing. As I said, a huge amount of costs in regards to health care are due to government regulations - about 50-60% of every dollar spent on health care in America goes to government mandates and requirements for care. Get rid of many of them, and you'd see costs drop by the aforementioned 50-60%. Do you know why universal health care is cheaper outside of the US? Because its easier to get paid than it is through our Medicare system. Fix that by deregulation and more competition, and it gets much cheaper.
7. Look at the history of tariffs and trade wars. The thing about tariffs is that it is a two-way street. If America hits China with tariffs on, say, toys, they will hit us with a tariff on food. We would suffer under such a scenario. Look at when American industry began to go overseas - it all started in the 1970s. The same time the EPA was founded, and began to create regulation after regulation. Even Steve Jobs begged Obama before he died to make regulations easier, so he could bring the jobs back from China.
The rebuttal is that "We don't want to destroy our environment! We need the protections!". That is true, but what would you rather have? Reasonable regulations, American jobs, and a better environment because we're dealing with the consequences, or no jobs, a Chinese wasteland, and keeping what we have today?
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
mrstickball said:
2. Why are we losing jobs? You really don't bother asking, nor answering that question. You simply yell "Tariffs! Tariffs!" in some insane belief that they will fix our problem. I know people that run manfuacturing in the US. A few, actually, from different disciplines. The problem isn't tariffs. A lot of times, its government regulations. As it stands, tax and environmental regulations add about $15,000 onto every manufacturing job created. That is a huge amount of money, which drives jobs overseas. Reasonable regulations and reforms could drive that cost down, bringing jobs back. Thus the regulatory holiday. Certainly, China is playing an unfair game with currency manipulation, but (again) the response shouldn't be tariffs. It should be a reasonable monetary policy for the US, which would restore the strength of the dollar. |
I showed you the chart showing Smoot Hawley contributed to 1% (more likely less) to our GDP loss.And loads of countries had tariffs then. We added tariffs many times throughout history and that never happened. In fact it has only helped us. Free trade on the other hand has put is in a trade deficit, and lost us millions of jobs that will likely never come back. Yay?
I have answered why we are losing jobs - we are losing jobs because we are exporting our TRUE economy (industry) and now we are a "service economy." Right. Then a lot of the jobs we do have in the U.S. are being taken by illegal immigrants. For example, 15% of construction workers are illegal immigrants. Thousands of construction workers are losing their jobs, when if we deported the 15% that are taking them that would not be a problem.
And yes, we have internal problems as well - my proposals are just the start. But it's not just manufacturing jobs we are losing - heck, even our "service economy" is going down the tubes. Look at the call centers in India. Our tech companies aren't even American anymore! Then those service jobs are being taken over by cheap illegals.
| mrstickball said:
2. When I talk about a flat tax, I am talking about a flat tax with a pre-built deduction, which would be a percentage above the poverty level. Anything below that is 100% exempt. Therefore, if the deduction was $30,000 and you made $50,000, only $20,000 would be taxed. If you made $100,000, you would be taxed on the $70,000. The FairTax comes with a built-in prebate system, in which the government would pay each family a fixed amount of money each month to offset the tax. That would ensure that it is not regressive.
3. No. I'm talking about transitioning away from the 9.6% to 11.3% of highly regressive taxes that are under the "payroll" heading. Every American is taxed up to $107,000 USD annually, which is put into Social Security. The huge issue with that is that Social Security is not solvent, meaning that you will not get that 9.6% to 11.3% back, unless there are huge, negative changes made to Social Security (such as raising the retirement age). Furthermore, another issue is with how Social Security invests its money. Instead of investing in American businesses, it invests in American government. That is, buys T-bills and other government debt. That provides an atrocious return on investment, which is about 2.32% annually. That is barely above inflation. Therefore, if the system was changed to a defined benefit plan, which invested the payroll taxes into bonds, stocks, and other securities (which would be selected by the government, or whatever entity was preferred - many countries do this, as well as state governments), a much higher interest rate would be achieved, which would result in a solvent pension system. You could then easily lower taxes (since less money was needed to meet OASDI guidelines), or pay out more money.
4. How so? Our Federal Reserve just stated they are printing $40 billion dollars each month to buy mortgages and securities. The result is very inflationary.
5. There are government regulations over almost everything you partake in. Your job has many government regulations. The cars you drive have many regulations. The healthcare you buy has many regulations. One way or another, government regulations restrict lots of things you do. You may not realize it, but it absolutely does. For example, I looked over car regulations yesterday - what it takes to get a vehicle on the road. Do you know how many tens of millions of dollars must be spent on compliance costs? The result is the monopolization of the auto industry. New competitors cannot afford the government mandates, so they fold up. It stifles technology. Therefore, my suggestion is to allow businesses to compete in a very free-market experiment. If they can't build a better car, give better health care, or build a cheaper, safer house, then keep the regulations. But if they can innovate, then let them.
6. Health care costs have shot up since ACA went into effect. It does nothing to contain costs. Nothing. As I said, a huge amount of costs in regards to health care are due to government regulations - about 50-60% of every dollar spent on health care in America goes to government mandates and requirements for care. Get rid of many of them, and you'd see costs drop by the aforementioned 50-60%. Do you know why universal health care is cheaper outside of the US? Because its easier to get paid than it is through our Medicare system. Fix that by deregulation and more competition, and it gets much cheaper.
7. Look at the history of tariffs and trade wars. The thing about tariffs is that it is a two-way street. If America hits China with tariffs on, say, toys, they will hit us with a tariff on food. We would suffer under such a scenario. Look at when American industry began to go overseas - it all started in the 1970s. The same time the EPA was founded, and began to create regulation after regulation. Even Steve Jobs begged Obama before he died to make regulations easier, so he could bring the jobs back from China. The rebuttal is that "We don't want to destroy our environment! We need the protections!". That is true, but what would you rather have? Reasonable regulations, American jobs, and a better environment because we're dealing with the consequences, or no jobs, a Chinese wasteland, and keeping what we have today? |
Lol like Steve Jobs cares about that stuff. He would have never brought the jobs back here (he said so himself) - he enjoyed the cheap Foxconn labor too much. But the problem is not just Foxconn is cheaper, but are more skilled as well. Though I will agree we need to do something about the EPA.
McDonaldsGuy said:
I showed you the chart showing Smoot Hawley contributed to 1% (more likely less) to our GDP loss.And loads of countries had tariffs then. We added tariffs many times throughout history and that never happened. In fact it has only helped us. Free trade on the other hand has put is in a trade deficit, and lost us millions of jobs that will likely never come back. Yay?
And yes, we have internal problems as well - my proposals are just the start. But it's not just manufacturing jobs we are losing - heck, even our "service economy" is going down the tubes. Look at the call centers in India. Our tech companies aren't even American anymore! |
Why do you think that so many manual labor jobs are by illegals? Our country has a culture that hates to do hard labor. Mike Rowe's outlook is (IMO) generally right about it.
You can't always take a nationalistic "Its everyone elses' fault!" when it comes to employment. There is always a reason jobs go overseas. Many times, its because its much easier to work with other nations than it is America - less regulations, less red tape, and they are willing to do whatever is needed to get your business. If you change that, then jobs come back.
*edit* The energy sector in the US is a fantastic example of it. The government has continually restricted the growth of the energy sector, which has driven a lot of money overseas. Comparatively, states that are pushing for more drilling/fracking/ect are growing at great rates. You mentioned how bad Ohio is - we're actually below the national average on unemployment, because a lot of energy jobs have been coming to the state in the past few years. Look at North Dakota - they have no unemployment because of the Bakken formation.
Look at nations that have taken our jobs, or created their own - they've all done it through sane regulations that aren't overbearing, and a proper tax atmosphere. Better yet, why not look at countries with very protectionist policies and high tariffs? They are not the beacons of growth that you believe they are.
Here's a list for you, by the way:
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables
Its pretty damning when it comes to tariffs. Each country that approaches 0% import tariffs are doing very well economically (Hong Konh, Macau, Singapire, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Canada, ect). Comparatively, no nation that has a 10% tariff rate has seen notable growth in the past decade.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
MDMAlliance said:
|
mrstickball said:
Why do you think that so many manual labor jobs are by illegals? Our country has a culture that hates to do hard labor. Mike Rowe's outlook is (IMO) generally right about it. You can't always take a nationalistic "Its everyone elses' fault!" when it comes to employment. There is always a reason jobs go overseas. Many times, its because its much easier to work with other nations than it is America - less regulations, less red tape, and they are willing to do whatever is needed to get your business. If you change that, then jobs come back. *edit* The energy sector in the US is a fantastic example of it. The government has continually restricted the growth of the energy sector, which has driven a lot of money overseas. Comparatively, states that are pushing for more drilling/fracking/ect are growing at great rates. You mentioned how bad Ohio is - we're actually below the national average on unemployment, because a lot of energy jobs have been coming to the state in the past few years. Look at North Dakota - they have no unemployment because of the Bakken formation. Look at nations that have taken our jobs, or created their own - they've all done it through sane regulations that aren't overbearing, and a proper tax atmosphere. Better yet, why not look at countries with very protectionist policies and high tariffs? They are not the beacons of growth that you believe they are. Here's a list for you, by the way: http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables Its pretty damning when it comes to tariffs. Each country that approaches 0% import tariffs are doing very well economically (Hong Konh, Macau, Singapire, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Canada, ect). Comparatively, no nation that has a 10% tariff rate has seen notable growth in the past decade. |
"Why do you think that so many manual labor jobs are by illegals? Our country has a culture that hates to do hard labor."
True. Before illegals came America had no construction, no electricity, no plumbing, no roads, etc. etc. Thank god for the illegals.
And to answer your question - they are cheaper. End of story.
"There is always a reason jobs go overseas. Many times, its because its much easier to work with other nations than it is America - less regulations, less red tape, and they are willing to do whatever is needed to get your business. If you change that, then jobs come back."
And it's cheaper, and in the case of China, becoming more skilled.
Call centers don't have EPA regulations (well, not the same as a factory does) but they are still being shipped out cause companies are cheap.
"Its pretty damning when it comes to tariffs. Each country that approaches 0% import tariffs are doing very well economically (Hong Konh, Macau, Singapire, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Canada, ect). Comparatively, no nation that has a 10% tariff rate has seen notable growth in the past decade."
Different situations compared to America. I will say it once again - the U.S. has a trade deficit. The U.S. is being destroyed by "free trade!" Plus, when you talk about the economy, you have to ask "Who's economy?" You have the corporate American economy, and the people's American economy. You seem to be for the corporate American economy (low wages, no regulations, foreigners deserve the jobs, etc. etc.). Shipping all the high paying jobs to India and China where people work for 10 cents an hour is great for the corporate economy and CEOs who want $10 million bonuses, but not so great for the people's economy.
With tariffs, we will recover the millions of jobs that have been sent to India, China, Haiti, Burma,e tc. etc. There'd be a lot more work here to do, which means a higher demand for workers.
There was no real foreign competition for long time, and people could afford to buy a house, own cars, schools (like college) were cheap, people could hold on to the same job for decades instead of months, and get a fully funded retirement rather than hoping they get lucky in the casino (aka the stock market), and had a sense of stability. Now it is a giant race to the bottom of the barrel. To make matters worse with technology the standards of living should improve but now it is becoming harder and harder.
With $2.5 trillion in a trade deficit, $16 trillion national debt, a stagnant stock market for 15 years, a housing market still unaffordable to many, an 8% unemployment rate (probably more closer to 15%), clearly this free trade stuff isn't working out as well as you hoped, right?
| mrstickball said:
Easier said than done. I know about what you're saying, and it's not something we can just say "let's stop wars!" to. 2. When I talk about a flat tax, I am talking about a flat tax with a pre-built deduction, which would be a percentage above the poverty level. Anything below that is 100% exempt. Therefore, if the deduction was $30,000 and you made $50,000, only $20,000 would be taxed. If you made $100,000, you would be taxed on the $70,000. The FairTax comes with a built-in prebate system, in which the government would pay each family a fixed amount of money each month to offset the tax. That would ensure that it is not regressive. I see what you're saying. However, your explanation needs some work. It's still kind of unclear. Also, that kind of flat tax would mean income tax is cut? Unless this flat tax is high.
3. No. I'm talking about transitioning away from the 9.6% to 11.3% of highly regressive taxes that are under the "payroll" heading. Every American is taxed up to $107,000 USD annually, which is put into Social Security. The huge issue with that is that Social Security is not solvent, meaning that you will not get that 9.6% to 11.3% back, unless there are huge, negative changes made to Social Security (such as raising the retirement age). Furthermore, another issue is with how Social Security invests its money. Instead of investing in American businesses, it invests in American government. That is, buys T-bills and other government debt. That provides an atrocious return on investment, which is about 2.32% annually. That is barely above inflation. Therefore, if the system was changed to a defined benefit plan, which invested the payroll taxes into bonds, stocks, and other securities (which would be selected by the government, or whatever entity was preferred - many countries do this, as well as state governments), a much higher interest rate would be achieved, which would result in a solvent pension system. You could then easily lower taxes (since less money was needed to meet OASDI guidelines), or pay out more money. Honestly, I don't know too much about Social Security. What I do know is that a lot of money is spent on it, and I think we're kind of stuck on it. Not much I can say. 4. How so? Our Federal Reserve just stated they are printing $40 billion dollars each month to buy mortgages and securities. The result is very inflationary. The statement on its own was fallicious. They don't just print money to print money as the original statement was saying. Printing money does create inflation, yes. However, I don't think this is our prime suspect. I would consider this one of the smaller issues (which is still an issue) that we're facing. 5. There are government regulations over almost everything you partake in. Your job has many government regulations. The cars you drive have many regulations. The healthcare you buy has many regulations. One way or another, government regulations restrict lots of things you do. You may not realize it, but it absolutely does. The government does have a large role in what we do, there are a lot of regulations, but a lot of what you just said aren't directed towards us but the suppliers itself. There are a lot of other things that the government doesn't regulate. Regulation is also a good thing on very many levels as it is also a way to protect us from others and from ourselves. I'm in agreement with most government regulations. For example, I looked over car regulations yesterday - what it takes to get a vehicle on the road. Do you know how many tens of millions of dollars must be spent on compliance costs? The result is the monopolization of the auto industry. New competitors cannot afford the government mandates, so they fold up. It stifles technology. Therefore, my suggestion is to allow businesses to compete in a very free-market experiment. If they can't build a better car, give better health care, or build a cheaper, safer house, then keep the regulations. But if they can innovate, then let them. So you want a laissez faire economy? It's not really a monopoly unless there's actually just one. Who are "they" in the last two sentences? Without regulations, the industry would control us moreso than anyone else. The industry really does have more power than the government, whether you want to believe it or not. They have a lot of power over us as consumers of a mainly capitalist (market) society. 6. Health care costs have shot up since ACA went into effect. It does nothing to contain costs. Nothing. As I said, a huge amount of costs in regards to health care are due to government regulations - about 50-60% of every dollar spent on health care in America goes to government mandates and requirements for care. Get rid of many of them, and you'd see costs drop by the aforementioned 50-60%. Do you know why universal health care is cheaper outside of the US? Because its easier to get paid than it is through our Medicare system. Fix that by deregulation and more competition, and it gets much cheaper. Actually, there's really just an initial cost with this. It will cost us for a while, but a reform has to cost something to get it started. The numbers show that after some time, we'll actually be gaining more money than we spend with the PPACA. If you get rid of government mandates and requirements, you get some really sketchy things going on with insurance. Companies usually like to do what's best for them, not for the customer. The PPACA also is a gradual thing. We're not seeing the full impact of the PPACA right now. You seem to think competition is what makes things get cheaper. No, what insurance companies are doing now are over-charging the customers as it is. Competition isn't always the answer. Plus, competition will still exist under PPACA. 7. Look at the history of tariffs and trade wars. The thing about tariffs is that it is a two-way street. If America hits China with tariffs on, say, toys, they will hit us with a tariff on food. We would suffer under such a scenario. Look at when American industry began to go overseas - it all started in the 1970s. The same time the EPA was founded, and began to create regulation after regulation. Even Steve Jobs begged Obama before he died to make regulations easier, so he could bring the jobs back from China. The rebuttal is that "We don't want to destroy our environment! We need the protections!". That is true, but what would you rather have? Reasonable regulations, American jobs, and a better environment because we're dealing with the consequences, or no jobs, a Chinese wasteland, and keeping what we have today? This one I didn't give an argument for. I simply wanted you to explain yourself because you seemed to just be shooting in the dark. We can look at history to determine what might be the best course of action. However, there are many other factors we have to account for. Yes, it could be likely that putting tariffs on these things with China may create more issues. I am not arguing against that. Also, Steve Jobs as an example isn't really a good way to help your case. There are risks for lessening regulations, and just because people say regulations are killing jobs in America doesn't mean that's what will happen. Regulations prevent poorer work conditions. Regulations also prevent the sweat shops from forming within the USA. The USA used to run on lower regulations, but a lot of horrible things happened as a result. |
|
MDMAlliance said:
|
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
