[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
- 6 month tax moratoriums on all American owned and operated corporations. Companies who outsource or produce over seas get no tax breaks.
- 12 month tax moratorium on all american small businesses (<100 people).
- payroll tax credits for all new hires.
- 12 month tax moratorium on all new housing purchases.
- consumer tax breaks and tax exemptions on all american made items worth over $500 dollars.
These are some ideas to get things moving. It’s a way to get more money into the economy using pure free market sources and encouraging American business.
[/quote]
NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]
Who’s being punished?[/quote]
Every American company that produces overseas.
All Americans when other nations retaliate.
Are you in any shape for a trade war?[/quote]
I proposed no penalties, so I don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]
Yes you did; you proposed to penalize the companies who run operations abroad. Whether or not you penalize one group of companies or assist another the end result is the same.
As Orion said - it amounts to a subsidy. Companies that do not receive it are now at a disadvantage to those who do.
[/quote]
No I did not, I proposed no penalties, I just give no advantages to companies funneling money outside the U.S. How is flooding China or India with money going to help us? It’s not. So why reward people for fucking us. It’s like giving the guy in prison an extra pack of smokes for raping you. It makes no sense.
Besides, if I make it more economically viable to manufacture and do business inside the U.S. then it won’t be so attractive to do it else where. The point is to bring it home. I really don’t give a shit if other countries like it, I am interested in fixing one.
Don’t worry, it’s not like we’re going t suddenly fix the trade deficit or anything like that, but it would be nice to bring some balance.
I see no economic advantage to sending our money, business and manufacturing overseas. So I really don’t give a shit if anybody likes it.
If it were really up to me, I would pay off our debts to China and stop doing business with them all together. They’ve been fucking us from day 1. If I could I would, they can ride bikes again for all I give a shit.
[/quote]
Ok - Lets go through a fictional scenario - I make the “REGULAR” sales tax rate 20% and then give everyone who buys a car that meets some sort of environmental criteria a tax break to the tune of 10%. You can look at it however you want but you are putting the sales of un-environmentally friendly cars at a disadvantage; the sales of them will drop. You could also achieve THE EXACT SAME END RESULT by taxing the un-environmentally friendly cars higher. This is why we say that one is analogous to the other. It is the same thing…
Let me ask you - If you want to end trade with China why stop there? Why not isolate off your particular state and require it to be self sustaining? Or for the matter why not your town or maybe even your own home? I’m sure your family would have plenty of employment producing their own toothbrushes, shoes, sporting goods, cars, televisions etc… You would have so much work that you would surely be rich in no time!!
[/quote]
One does not equal the other as you are penalizing, I am incenting. You are just requiring some people to pay more, where I am proposing others to pay less. Paying less is more economically viable in a slowed economy. While negative reinforcement will yield the same push toward a certain product type, it will not make it easier for consumer to obtain. My goal is to make things more achievable in a recessed economy and keep the dough in house.
Now, I want to end trade with China because they are dicks who have dealt with us unfairly, constantly artificially devalue their own currency so that they constantly have an advantage over us. Fuck the Chinese. I am not for being isolationist, I hate China because they are assholes and I don’t want to do business with them, because they are assholes. People who deal with us fairly I have no issue with.[/quote]
Ok - now the word game - Lets say that I now say that the “regular” tax rate is the previously reduced 10% and all cars that don’t meet the criteria are now penalized to the tune of the 10%. So as before there are two tax rates - 10% and 20%, applying to the two class of cars. Now instead of “incentivizing” to the tune of 10% I switch the norm and “penalize” to the tune of 10%…all that is needed is for you to redefine what the norm is. Do you not see this? The point is that it’s just all how you define it - It is the same thing.
I guess the only way to say if it’s an “incentive” or “penalty” is to look at it in relation to the previous norm… Still though, I believe that this is what Orion meant by “word game” , and I hope you can see this… An incentive to domestic producers IS a penalty to overseas producers as you have now made them less competitive.
[/quote]
But I am not trying to re-adjust the norm I am trying to make it cheaper than it is currently for domestic business and to support the purchase of domestic products via incentives. The idea isn’t merely to encourage a certain purchasing behavior, but it is to encourage spending by making things cheaper and to encourage a behaviour that will keep more money circulating domestically.
Yes, you can encourage purchasing behaviors by reward or punishment, the idea is to ramp up the domestic economy. It’s not doing jack shit for the domestic economy if I encourage the spending of monies over seas.