Posted on 11/02/2010 5:11:48 AM PDT by expat_panama
Big business interests are hopeful that a Republican takeover of the House -- now looking more likely than not -- will thaw free-trade deals that have languished since President Obama took office. Those agreements are on a short list of priorities the White House has in common with GOP leaders. But a rising protectionist tide brought about by the sour economy is threatening to complicate the task. And business groups in Washington are already preparing for the possibility that a new Republican majority stocked with populists from Rust Belt districts and beyond will present a less receptive audience than they once anticipated. "We're going to have our work cut out for us," says Christopher Wenk, the senior director of international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
I don't know who these 'free traders' of yours are, but at the risk of repeating myself freedom loving businessmen like myself don't prefer either. Taxes are costs that reduce profits and they always must be reduced to the bare minimum. Face it, the only tax lovers here are protectionists.
We need to understand together that the business owner does in fact work, and usually twice the hours that lower scale employees do. Marx was hot on the idea that managers aren't important and witness how the masses fared in his "worker's paradise." The lesson is that the (so called) worker can not be helped by hurting the employer. Next we should remember that there are many options with the role of the state in the marketplace, and my view is that we already have too much taxation, regulation, and market distortion and we need less not more.
This is supposed to be a conservative forum and we should already be in agreement on these points. We should already agree that we want lower business income and import taxes along with fewer business regulations.
Those are my assumptions and there was nothing in my post to indicate otherwise. Your argument against Marxist disregard for managers misses the mark entirely concerning my position.
My argument was that taxes on domestic production are far more harmful (to Americans) than the equivalent in tariffs on imports. You disagree?
They're right here on this thread. I've just taken previous statements to their logical conclusion.
If: A) free republic free-traders aren't anarcho-capitalists
B) they accept that there must be some form of taxation
C) they desire taxation via tariff to be zero
then
D) they prefer internal taxation to external taxation must be true
Any tax regime is going have different relative winners and losers depending on the form. All we're arguing about is who those winners and losers should be.
That is those of the right wing free traders who are being honest in the debate. I have my suspicions though there are a lot more anarcho-capitalists on that side than are admitting it.
When Bush raised tariffs on imported steel, was that an internal tax or an external tax? Did it cause harmful economic distortions?
It was an external tax which is win-lose, instead of an internal tax which is just lose-lose.
American steel users had to pay more, but this negative distortion could have been offset by lower domestic taxes for these users. Steel workers were kept off welfare and the country did not lose a militarily strategic manufacturing capability.
Having said that, I think that a general tariff to offset domestic taxes is better than picking individual industries to protect. According to free enterprise ideals, there should be no taxes, external or internal. However if there must be taxes, tariffs are no more harmful than domestic taxes to ideals and are less harmful to real-world American interests.
It raised costs for internal American steel users. Sounds like an internal tax to me.
American steel users had to pay more
Sounds like you agree. Glad you saw the light.
but this negative distortion
See, it caused distortions as well.
but this negative distortion could have been offset by lower domestic taxes for these users.
Targeted tax cuts for steel consumers? Sounds a bit clunky.
Steel workers were kept off welfare
And workers in steel consuming manufacturing companies were put on welfare.
Having said that, I think that a general tariff to offset domestic taxes is better than picking individual industries to protect.
What rate would you prefer?
No more clunky than targeted tariffs. That is why across-the-board tariffs and tax cuts are better.
And workers in steel consuming manufacturing companies were put on welfare.
The "free-trade" policy is to price the domestic workforce of both steel producers and steel consumers out of the market. That is why it is a lose-lose proposition. The middle classes of nationalist economies are growing while our "free-trade" economy is hollowing out. How can the efficiency of sending "overpriced" jobs overseas compensate for the hollowed out domestic consumer market and tax base?
What rate would you prefer?
Low as possible but taxes should not favor subsidized importers over domestic producers as they do today. That opposes both free enterprise doctrine and practical self interest.
Free trade policy of low tariffs would help steel consumers. The "highest corporate tax rate in the world" policy is what prices our domestic workforce out of the market.
How is this tirade different from Keith Obermann and other leftists? You think that putting equality signs everywhere makes it look substantive? You must've failed to learn in school that equality signs require proofs. You not only fail to provide them but don't even attempt to do so.
It's king of sickening that people like you, who fancy themselves conservative, repeat the leftist propanda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.