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.
If you subsidize imports, you get more imports and more unemployment.
How are we subsidizing imports?
We’re not charging tariffs equal to the tax and regulatory burden on domestic employers.
American workers and their employers pay SS taxes. Imports don't.
RE: We’re not charging tariffs equal to the tax and regulatory burden on domestic employers.
So, NOT Taxing something is equivalent to subsidizing it?
RE: American workers and their employers pay SS taxes. Imports don’t.
So, the solution is to make the goods that American consumers buy more expensive and give government bureaucrats more money?
I thought we all wanted smaller government?
When American goods are subject to extra taxes in China simply because they're American products, whereas Chinese products are not subject to the same, reciprocal taxes here in the U.S. -- I'd say that's subsidizing Chinese products.
What would you call it?
This article reveals the problem. Conservatives discuss issues in elevated and intelligent theses and articles. Friedman, Sowell, Williams, Hayek, Smith.
Collectivists discuss issues simply. “Want a free phone? Here. Want some free food? Here you go. Want some free health care? Here. Republicans ain’t gonna give you free sh—, yo.”
Now who’s going to win that discussion?
We do. We all also want FAIR trade. Not FREE trade which skews in favor of other nations at the expense of American workers.
Is there a reason in your eyes why we cannot have both smaller government and fair trade? We can if we go back to the system our founding fathers intended -- which was funding the government via import and excise taxes rather than punitive income taxes.
Let’s first ask ourselves why goods are made in China and not here....
Let’s count the ways:
-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
So, the solution is to TAX the Chinese goods the equivalent of all the above costs so that we can level the playing field?
And how much will the things in Wal-Mart cost?
It’s time to understand that liberals simply do what they’re told and don’t care about hypocrisy, While Leftists do understand economics and are methodically destroying the country while hiding behind liberal ignorance - which isn’t really ignorance, but rather the hip hip hypocrisy of deliberately selected codependent moral cowardice.
The incompetent, inept, economically stupid jackwagon currently sitting in the White House. That's who.
RE: funding the government via import and excise taxes rather than punitive income taxes.
Well, I’ll go there provided we eliminate these government mandated cost on American business that forces companies to make things in China:
-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
If we can’t, all these talk is just academic.
Whatever you subsidize you get more of.
Whatever you tax you get less of...................
POSHITUS slipped up big time in his address today: he said we should be even more sympathetic to the 99ers because employers probably won’t hire people who have been out of work so long.
It immediately broke his rhythm when he said it, and he was shaky for the next five minutes.
His prose after the employer comment was like ‘did I just really say that?’
RE: Whatever you tax you get less of...................
So what happens to the goods most Americans buy in Wal-Mart when we tax the hell out of imports?
We can’t tax imports like we should due to WTC rules..............
I’m surprised he didn’t follow it up with, “....so to give potential employers more candidates, we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible....”.
Since the inception of establishing a “minimum wage” the very basic coin of the realm,the cent, has become valueless. Todays penny costs more to make than its assigned value. Even Canada stopped making them.
Yet this is not an argument for abolishing the coin itself. But to point out when a minimum wage is raised it affixes a given rate of inflation to the period of time it’s emplaced. All raising the minimum wage does actually is devalue the dollar because costs get adjusted in time to compensate to the increase.
A case in point is in the 1940’s a candy bar cost 5 cents when the hourly minimum wage was $.50 per hour. What does it cost today ? Likewise what were the costs of basic goods and services during that period of time as compared with todays basic wage feel good tinkering ?
Who gets hurt the worst when these adjustments are decreed by government? It’s those living on fixed incomes who’s income value is based on previous minimum wage levels but not adjusted to the previous current rates of inflation.
When these feel good socialists frauds under the democrat party banner propose these increases. That is never considered as they pound their breasts claiming they’re for the little guy. All they’re doing is un-necessarily raising the price on goods and services broadening the demand that those affected seek help from them.
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.