Posted on 01/07/2014 12:50:23 PM PST by SeekAndFind
It seems to be a truth only very selectively acknowledged that, when you tax something, you’ll end up with less of it (the corollary being that, if you subsidize something, you’ll get more of it). Progressives seem perfectly capable of recognizing this truth in the context of sin taxes and green-energy subsidies, yet when it comes to things like the extension of unemployment benefits that is making its way through the Senate at the moment, they seem to think that such policies are immune from the most basic of economics. That’s the point that Charles Krauthammer made last night, pointing out that the White House and the Democrats are touting the full-blown awesomeness of their ongoing economic “recovery” and the accompanying job creation out of one side of their mouths while grandstanding about the need for further unemployment benefits out of the other — but the reality is that today’s unemployment rate of around seven percent actually looks a lot more like eleven percent if you use the same labor force participation rate of just a few years ago, and the Democrats keep approaching the systemic problem with the same old-and-tired non-solutions that are practically good for little else than browbeating Republicans. Via RCP:
The core issue is creating an entitlement. This has never been considered an entitlement. And you go down this road, Sperling says now is not the time. Four and a half years into a recovery, at least as defined by the administration itself, is not the time? If not now, then when? I mean, what we’re going to end up with is an European level of unemployment, chronic unemployment subsidized. And the fact is, if you subsidize apples, you get more apples; if you subsidize unemployment, you get more of it. And that’s what the economics study shows. It’s not that people are lazy. It shows that if you have unemployment insurance, then you can make choices which would allow you to turn down a job that perhaps isn’t exactly what you want. The vast majority of the unemployed want a job, and the problem is the state of the economy.
First, your list is way too short.
Second, your post assumes that should the United States of America, who happens to be China's biggest customer, implement the same import/excise taxes on Chinese goods that the Chinese impose on American goods, that the Chinese wouldn't back down and drop/eliminate their taxes on American made goods going into China.
My bet is they would, and that would make your argument moot. That's hypothetical of course. Frankly, I think the United States should have reciprocal trade agreements -- meaning any country who wants to sell in the US gets receives the same treatment for their products coming INTO our country as our products get going into theirs.
That would change our trade deficit in a big hurry and put a lot of American's back to work.
Yes, they should be taxed equally. If you tax domestic producers more than you tax foreign producers, you are effectively subsidizing foreign producers.
It's a subsidy because foreign producers aren't paying their fair share of supporting the government which protects the American market and enforces the rules of the American market.
Yes, they should be taxed equally. If you tax domestic producers more than you tax foreign producers, you are effectively subsidizing foreign producers.
It's a subsidy because foreign producers aren't paying their fair share of supporting the government which protects the American market and enforces the rules of the American market.
American made products step in and fill the void. You already knew that.
Post of the day. Wish I could’ve said it that succinctly!
I think you mean WTO. We need to get out of the WTO.
I think you mean WTO. We need to get out of the WTO.
The SS solution is to tax foreigdners the same as Americans. This has nothing to do with the size of Government, it’s SS to Americans.
RE: American made products step in and fill the void. You already knew that.
Sure, as long as you don’t mind paying more for your products and immunize some shoddy American competitors from the competition and give no incentive to better their own goods while keeping all of the stifling regulations in place.
And also, as long as you don’t mind Retaliatory measures from the countries we tax imports on.
RE: If you tax domestic producers more than you tax foreign producers, you are effectively subsidizing foreign producers.
So, why not tax domestic producers LESS so that they in effect are level with foreign producers?
For instance, our corporate taxes are 35%, the HIGHEST in the developed world. Canada’s is just 15%. Why not DROP our corporate taxes to 15% instead?
Yes, WTO, but maybe the World Trade Center as well............:^0
Again, reciprocal trade agreements: the deal you give us, is the deal we give you. How could/would another country retaliate against the U.S. for giving them the same deal we gave them? Seems kind of nonsensical to me.
Sure, as long as you don’t mind paying more for your products and immunize some shoddy American competitors from the competition and give no incentive to better their own goods while keeping all of the stifling regulations in place.
What stifling regulations? If anything my method would eliminate many of those regulations and free American manufacturers to produce product through fair competition. That's exactly why our Founding Fathers said, and funded our government initially with import and excise taxes.
What you seem to be forgetting is that in a fair market, the consumer decides. If American companies produced shoddy products going forward as you believe they will, then the American Consumer will decide and drive the market in another direction. Gee, we haven't seen THAT before have we? Oh, YES WE HAVE! Remember the SHODDY American cars of the 70's and 80's? Why don't we have those SHODDY cars anymore? COMPETITION. Toyota and Honda for example entered our marketplace, built better products, listened to consumers and gained market share.
The fact is, I think you and I have benefitted much from that competition. How so? Frankly, it's really hard to buy a really crappy new car these days isn't it? I remember the days where one was lucky that their car lasted as long as their automobile loan (48 months) and were lucky to get a few hundered bucks on their trade-ins. We have a vastly different scenario today with the average car on the road being between 10-11 years old, having over 100,000 miles on it and still running well. In fact American cars have gotten so good they're re-gaining market share from the foreign imports.
The bottom line is this: I'd *happily* support American made products in a fair market where American made products compete on the same level playing field as the products that are imported here on a daily basis. I suspect most Americans independent of their political ideology feel the same way.
I believe in the American worker. Apparently you do not.
RE: What stifling regulations?
I just listed some of them above.
-The minimun wage
-Unions
-Sick Leave
-Paid Holidays
-Family Leave
-ADA
-OSHA
-EPA
-Permit process
-EEOC
-Affirmative Action
-Employer based Daycare
-Employer paid Heathcare
-Employer paid defined retirement plan
-Employee Law Suits
How would imposing taxes on foreign goods suddenly make all of the above disappear?
The proper response to Chinese success is not an attempt to artificially restrict their competitiveness but to stop putting balls and chain on the ankles of businesses here. The US isn’t such an enormous share of the markets anymore than we are immune to market upheavals around the world and a necessity for their sellers.
Dittos! That was my exact thought as well.
I think we’re successfully out of the WTC, not that it was our choice. If only they had hit the WTO instead.
We should NOT seek to be the most deregulated economy or we'll end up like China with polution or Somalia. But to be highly regulated and then let foreign competition compete with little or no tariffs is not wise.
However, you could eliminate all U.S. Regulation and taxes and you still can't compete against communist China's labor rates. The wage differential trumps the cost of regulation big time.
We shouldn't try to compete against them. We should limit their access to our market. And take advantage of their low priced labor only when we are at full employment and only with regard to low value industries and jobs.
Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan
That’s an oxymoron. We impose stupid wasteful regulations on our businesses so we should raise tariffs.
The answer is not to make everything we buy more expensive, it’s to repeal all the stupid wasteful regulations.
And I'll repeat. It's the wage differential, not the regulations. You can eliminate all of the regulations and we still can't compete with Chinese labor rates.
We shouldn't let foreign countries dictate what our wages are or what our regulations should be. It's our market and we don't need them.
Our founding fathers warned us against entanglements with foreign countries. When imports are equivalent to 16% of our GNP, that's an entanglement.
Our founding fathers thought tariffs on imported goods was an "external" taxation that maximized the freedom of U.S. citizens by avoiding direct taxation of our citizens.
We should raise the Import tariffs and drop the individual income tax by a corresponding amount. A 10% import tariff would allow a $1500 per worker tax decrease in individual income taxes.
Not only would we have industry returning to America due to the tariff, but we would have more Americans keeping more of their money to spend as they please.
Uh uh. We’ll all just pay more for everything.
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.